A recent attack on Israel’s Chief Rabbinate invoked Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l.
The attacker was Professor Benjamin Ish-Shalom, the director of Israel’s Institute for Jewish Studies, an agency charged with offering a course of Jewish study to non-Jewish immigrants interested in conversion. What provoked him was the set of standards employed by the Rabbinate for conversions.
In a flattering Jerusalem Post interview – the reporter took pains not only to cite the professor’s scholarship, soft-spoken nature and religious piety but to describe for readers the “centuries-old Talmuds and well-worn works on Jewish philosophy and history” that line his office – Professor Ish-Shalom blasted what he calls the “humiliating” conversion process in Israel, dismissed religious court judges as insufficiently humble and declared that the Rabbinate is rendering Jewish religious law “irrelevant to the modern Jewish people and to the modern state of Israel.”
Professor Ish-Shalom further described a judge who invalidated a years-old conversion as embodying (in the Post’s paraphrase) “blindness and even halachic ignorance”; accused Israel’s religious court judges of fostering desecration of G-d’s name; and dismissed Israel’s Chief Rabbis of just being “loyal to their haredi masters.”
The purportedly soft-spoken professor’s harsh words emerged from his concern over the estimated 300,000 non-Jews who arrived in Israel during the 1990s amid the massive immigration of Jews from the former Soviet Union.
Professor Ish-Shalom considers it imperative to convince as many of those non-Jews as possible to undergo a conversion process. He hopes to attract 100,000 of the younger immigrants.
The trenchant question, of course, is whether persuading non-Jews who have no intention of becoming Jewishly observant – like many, if not most, of those targeted by the professor’s conversion plan – to undergo a conversion process in fact results in new Jews. Conversion, after all, is no simple matter of self-identification but a distinct religio-legal process; it is governed, no less than any area of religious law, by requirements, some of them essential and incontrovertible.
One is “kabbolas hamitzvos,” or “acceptance of the commandments,” the central element in a Jewish conversion. To the question of whether a seeming lack of such mitzvah-acceptance might render a conversion void, Professor Ish-Shalom responds by citing Rav Moshe.
In a teshuva, the venerated posek deals with the case of a woman who converted through an Orthodox court but then married a non-observant Jew and fell into non-observance. Asked if the woman’s conversion should be considered invalid, Rav Moshe responded no.
The point of Rav Moshe’s reasoning upon which Professor Ish-Shalom seizes is that a convert need not know all that is entailed in accepting the mitzvos; he or she need only accept the Torah’s commandments in a general sense. So even if the woman in question had not realized precisely what Jewish observance entails, her undefined acceptance sufficed to render her, at least post facto, a Jew.
What the professor chooses to not dwell upon, however, is the clear implication that where in fact there was no genuine kabbolas hamitzvos (and that would include the rejection, at the time of conversion, of any individual mitzvah) there is no conversion, even post facto. Thus, were a non-Jew to be convinced to undergo a conversion ceremony but is fully aware (as are most people living in Israel) that driving on Shabbos or eating shellfish is forbidden by halacha and has no intention of observing those strictures, his or her mouthing of a mitigated “kabbalos hamitzvos” does not result in a conversion.
Were such “conversions” to be performed en masse, it would result in a large group of people who might be considered Jewish by Professor Ish-Shalom, his interviewer and others but who would be regarded as non-Jews by most other observant Jews. What is more (and perhaps worse), suspicion would be cast on the Jewishness of all converts in Israel.
As it happens, there is indeed a teshuva of Rav Moshe’s that speaks directly to the professor’s plans. It is in the first section of Igros Moshe. In number 157 he writes:
“… it is obvious and clear that [a non-Jew who did not accept the mitzvos] is not a convert at all, even after the fact [of his conversion ceremony]… because kabbolas hamitzvos for a convert is essential [“me’akev”]. And even if he pronounces that he is accepting the mitzvos, if it is clear to us [“anan sa’hadi”] that he is not in truth accepting them, it is nothing.”
And Rav Moshe, poignantly, concludes:
“I altogether do not understand the reasoning of rabbis who err in this. Even according to [their mistaken notion], what gain are they bringing to the Jewish People by accepting such ‘converts’? It is certainly not pleasing to G-d or to the Jewish people that such ‘converts’ should become mixed into Yisroel. As to the halacha, it is clear that they are not converts at all.”
© 2007 AM ECHAD RESOURCES
[Rabbi Shafran is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America.]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
17 Responses
Rav Shafran next time you are in Israel, it may pay to meet Binyamin Ish Shalom, there is alot more to him than a JP article.
He may be a basically good person who is shomer mitzvos and a Torah scholar, but his views vis-a-vis conversion are out of line with the Torah.
Mr. Fox,
The Chofetz Chaim says no. He – yes, that “touchy, feely, supposedly love-everyone Chofetz Chaim” — the same one who publiclly and vehemently attacked the Mizrachi leaders of Vilna, and who took up arms againt those who would undermine Torah Yiddishkeit — writes that those who take public stands againt Halachah should be vociferously denounced.
It’s time to stop people stopped covering Sinas Hadas with the patina of Ahavas Yisroel.
Why would Rabbi Shafarn call ish-shalom after he publicly disparaged the rabbonim of israel.as embodying (in the Post’s paraphrase) “blindness and even halachic ignorance”; accused Israel’s religious court judges of fostering desecration of G-d’s name; and dismissed Israel’s Chief Rabbis of just being “loyal to their haredi masters.”
Why are you so quick to attack the agudah for not consultiing with someone who puts down all of these rabbonim in a newspaper article and then call the perpetrator “a Torah scholar or a basically good person”
Moshe Fox
why do you not have a problem with ish-shalom after he put down the israeli rabbinate and then made disparaging remarks about the charadi world in general and you call him a good person, but avi shafran who is just trying to defend authentic yiddishkeit you put down.
SUPER UNREAL The post before re: NYTimes focused on lack of reliability of media, now the JPOST became torah mesinai. Many of the Shafran’s statements are taken out of context, read the original JP article in international paper (only if interested)
sammy, Attacking Gedolei Hatorah affiliated with Agudah is priority #1 for Fox. No surprise here. Look throughout his comment history. Reb Moshe would be shocked to see someone like that claim affiliation with him.
I do hope that somehow the Agudah will make efforts to reach out to Ish Shalom. He is a very serious person. this is not someone who is anti-Torah. He may be wrong, but I must say things look different in Israel. there are litereally thousands of russians who are very open to being Jewish. they are interested. of course their heads are filled with tons of anti-Torah ideas from the media etc. But despite that….they are actually interested. Imagine if they met wonderful teachers who explained the Torah in a correct fashion….many would likely go for a real conversion.
The fear Ish Shalom has is real, it goes something like this: “Gevalt!! what are we going to do with all these goyim???? they all speak Hebrew, they are completely part of the country….what do we do??”
Please just understand where he is coming from. Again..he may be wrong, but he is deeply concerned about our people’s future in E”Y. I would like to think this is exactly what the Agudah would want to do: to meet him, influence him or at least temper him.
Hatzlacha.
Shmuel99
You are saying good.
Ish Shalom is a mensh, rodef shalom and ish emes, expressing his anquish with a sitation that is desperate. Rav Uziel z”tl had some halachik innovations in his days. There is a dire need to concern ourselves with our people’s future in E”Y, it will be our future too.
This is the result of the zionists decision to allow non-Jewish immigration from the former Soviet Union.
The rules regarding conversion cannot be modified for them. If they don’t seek to accept every one of the 613 mitzvos, they wil always remain a shaigetz.
“There is a dire need to concern ourselves with our people’s future in E”Y, it will be our future too.”
That is why it is critical that a watering down of Geirus procedures and criteria be prevented.
This crisis, brought upon E”Y and Klal Yisrael by unscrupulous politicians who encouraged, aided and facilitated these immigration numbers has potential to precipitate a pseudo-conversion tragedy of mammoth proportions.
Every responsible Torah observant Jew should be concerned with this.
Hey Jos
No one can do all 613 mitzvohs even if they try.
sayit,
The must accept each and every one of the 613 mitzvos to become a true convert. If even one mitzvah is partially unacceptable to them, the so-called conversion is a farce.
Fox,
I am a friend of Brisk, Satmar, Agudah, Reb Moshe as well as all other Torah based organizations. I know you don’t like that. I tremble to think what Reb Moshe would think if he G-d forbid saw your comments today.
MF, you are a known quantity here for your positions against Daas Torah.
I think he writes in quantity and has quality.
Better off without his incendiary mongering.
Lower the quantity, raise the quality.
Don’t associate the two. They are as different as night (fox) and day (Rav.)