Only a few short weeks following the election of Israel’s new chief rabbis the matter of giyur and state giyur is in the news. According to a Maariv report, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi David Lau prior to the election told Rabbi Yosef Efrati Shlita that he will consult with Rabbi Avraham Sherman in all matters of giyur. Rabbi Lau reportedly committed to consulting with Rav Sherman, who in the past disqualified Jews who underwent state giyur, which was overseen by Rabbi Chaim Druckman Shlita. Needless to say the report of Rabbi Lau’s position has the dati leumi community angered.
In 2008 a beis din headed by Rav Sherman ruled to disqualify converts certified by the state dating back to 1999. There have been numerous cases in which state certified giyorim tried getting married with Rabbi Sherman but he did not recognize them as Jews despite being an employee of the state’s Rabbinate system.
Rav Sherman is a dayan on the Chief Rabbinate Supreme Court and he was the subject of a probe in which State Ombudswoman Tova Strasburg-Cohen called for his dismissal. She was probing his ruling on converts after Rabbi Druckman filed a complaint against his ruling.
Maariv reports that it contacted Rav Sherman and he confirmed that Rav Lau did indeed commit to following his piskei halacha regarding conversions, stating Rav Lau met with Rav Efrati and the understanding was reached.
Today, with the Ministry of Religious Services controlled by the dati leumi Bayit Yehudi party, there is must anger and concern over the new situation in which giyorim certified by Rabbi Druckman, a senior dati leumi posek, may not be recognized by Chief Rabbi Lau in line with piskei halacha from Rav Sherman. This will undoubtedly lead to High Court intervention because from a legal and non-halachic perspective, the situation is absurd. The Chief Rabbinate of the state will not recognize its very own conversions.
Asked to comment on the story, officials in Rav Lau’s office told Maariv the chief rabbis has yet to make a decision on the matter, adding in principle, the rav feels that the solution to many Israelis originating in the FSU is to probe their past towards establishing or disqualifying their claims of being Jewish.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
For self appointed judges in the secular high court to intervene in Giyur Kahalachah is really laughable. Halachic rulings is b’H one place where they can’t stick their nose and don’t have a say. They will not be able to convince an orthodox Rabbi to be megayer someone if it’s against halachah, just like they can’t force a Rabbi to give a kosher certification on something he considers not kosher.
The Israeli Supreme Court was correct al pi halachah in rejecting Rav Sherman’s ruling which was without precedent. It is a kiddush HaShem that the Court ruling was written by the religious Judge Elyakim Rubinstein, who as reported right here on YWN objected (correctly) to retroactive rulings:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=125632
The talmud has horrible things to say regarding dayanim who don’t hear all parties in a case before them; Rav Sherman did not heed that talmudic statement.
Baruch Hashem. This is wonderful news. HaRav Avraham Sherman shlit”a, currently a rov of a daati leumi shul for many years and himself a religious zionist who previously served as an IDF Rabbi and prior to that a resident scholar at Yeshiva University, is a top notch Rov and Dayan.
It is indeed pleasant news to read that Chief Rabbi HaRav Dovid Lau shlit”a will consult with HaRav Avraham Sherman shlit”a on matters relating to geirus — an area of expertise of HaRav Avraham Sherman shlit”a.
Consult does not mean to blindly follow. I have met Rav Lau several time when I lived in Modiin and he is a very intelligent person, more than capable of reaching his own conclusions.
Harav Sherman’s ruling proposed to void, retroactively and in one bold stroke, the Jewishness of thousands of people whom he had never met. Taken to its logical end, his ruling would nullify marriages in which these people served as witnesses and prevent their daughters from marrying, among other things. May none of us ever be subjected to such treatment.
Natfush: A Beis Din ruled L’Halacha in a Psak Din that those so-called “conversions” were never valid from the get-go, they were never Jewish, and those so-called “conversions” are as valid as any Reform/Conservative “conversion”. You don’t need much of anyone to tell you that Reform/Conservative “conversion” or any so-called “conversion” where the so-called convert has zero intention of keeping Shabbos, Kashrus, etc. — and in fact never kept it for even a single day even after the fake conversion — that it is null and void and was always without effect.
“A Beis Din ruled L’Halacha”
That was Rav Sherman’s beit din, which violated halachah in doing so. Thus the “Psak Din” was never valid from the get-go, was never a Jewish “Psak Din”, and that this “ruing” is as valid as any Reform/Conservative “Psak Din”.
‘You don’t need much of anyone to tell you that Reform/Conservative “conversion” or any so-called “conversion” where the so-called convert has zero intention of keeping Shabbos, Kashrus, etc. — and in fact never kept it for even a single day even after the fake conversion — that it is null and void and was always without effect.’
You don’t need much of anyone to tell you that Reform/Conservative “Psak Din” or any so-called “Psak Din” where the so-called beit din had not kept the halachah that testimony regarding each individual case must be examined with both parties present and able to explain their case is null and void and was always without effect.
#7 mr. hall: Who is an am haaretz to speak against a Beis Din that issued a Psak Halacha. You DO NOT need testimony on each individual Reform/Conservative so-called “conversion” is invalid. The fake conversions of the Russians that Druckman did who never intended nor ever did keep a single Shabbos, has the same staus as any other Reform conversion.
#8 The Big One – Can you say that each and every one of the Geirim from Rav Drukman, Shlita’s Beis Din did not have a Kabalas Ol Mitzvos? If you can’t say that, then you can’t say that another Beis Din has the right to be Mevatel the Geirusin wholesale.
All that is aside from the fact that Rav Drukman is a Talmid Chacham, and if Rav Sherman disagrees with him, the issue should be analyzed as a matter of Halacha by those expert in Hilchos Geirus – not by name-calling comentators on YWN.
an Israeli Yid
#9 HaRav Avrohom Sherman shlit”a’s Beis Din has already investigated that matter which you ask and answered it in a detailed Psak Din — which, FYI, is available online as it under Israeli Court docket number 5489-64-1. Druckman has basically signed off on conversions stating he was a dayan at such-and-such time when it turns out the guy was travelling in Europe! IOW, not only was the conversion false but he lied and falsified court documents.
And the matter WAS nalyzed as a matter of Halacha by those expert in Hilchos Geirus – the Beis Din Rav Sherman convened on the matter.