Tzfas Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu Shlita joins the growing list of dati leumi rabbonim commenting on the announced establishment of the new Giyur K’halacha independent beis din for giyur, a beis din that is not a part of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel system.
The rav calls the establishment of this new system by prominent talmidei chachamim “a significant danger”, one that may lead to the destruction of the entire Chief Rabbinate of Israel in all areas, not just in the areas of giyur.
Speaking with Kol Chai Radio, Rav Eliyahu stated that while the rabbonim involved in the establishment of the beis din may be correct in their reasoning, this does not permit their decision and subsequent actions. He agrees that the current system demands improvement and even to relax some restrictions, but he fears the response of these rabbonim will do more harm than good. He cites that this beis din may actually convert children whose parents are not accepting Ohl Mitzvos, and this he says will not result in a “true giyur”.
“The Chief Rabbinate of Israel says that it cannot convert a person whose parents are not adhering to Torah and mitzvos. You educate a child for a few months but his parents educate him for years. You will place him in an untenable situation. One does not require sifrei poskim for these, just plain sense”.
Rabbi Eliyahu adds that not only will the Chief Rabbinate not recognize these converts, his colleagues in the dati leumi community will also not view them as Jews. He warns “this is prohibited as we learn לא תונו את הגר”.
The rabbis then addressed recent efforts to launch independent kashrus certification that seeks to circumvent the Chief Rabbinate. “The trend is clear. This is a war of kedusha against those opposing kedusha. At times, people are used through kedusha like Rabbi Rabinovitch and Rabbi Medan to fight against kedusha” Rabbi Eliyahu concluded.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
12 Responses
The power for a beis din to convert a child is based on “zchus hu lo”.
When I was learning in the Yeshiva of Staten Island, the head of the local Jewish community center came to speak to the Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Moshe Feinstein Zatzal. The visitor said that he was married to a gentile, but he wanted his son to be converted properly. The Rosh Yeshiva refused on the grounds that if he were not keeping the mitzvos then it would not be a zchus for him to be Jewish, on the contrary, he would just have onshim for his many aveiros.
I find it interesting how so many DL commentators to this website jumped on the bandwagon in support of this “new Beis Din” despite little to no investigation while top DL Rabbanim are coming out against it in full force.
Just goes to show you the need to think (or investigate) before you make decisions in life.
1. There have always been “independent” Beitei Din functioning in Eretz Yisrael. The Zionists tried to abolish them in 1948 and failed. In America, all Beitei Din are independent of the government. What determines the halachic validity, and legitimacy, of a Beis Din is the quality of its work. If the converts of a zionist non-state Beit Din act like frum Jews, they will be accepted by everyone as being halachically converted.
2. The “war” between those for and against kedusha began centuries ago (no later than the late 18th century with the self-proclaimed “maskilim”, really two millenia ago with the “misyavanim”).
#2 Softwords – Many (most?) of those who, in your words, “jumped on the bandwagon” were defending the Kavod of those who were personally attacking the Rabbonim involved in the set-up of the Beis Din – and not necessarily the actual set-up of the Beis Din itself. I specifically noted this difference in my response to the original article.
You may note as well that Rav Eliahu is careful in his remarks to not personally attack the Rabbonim involved – in fact, he specifically calls Rav Rabinovitch and Rav Meidan “Kedusha”, though he believes they are incorrect and being “used” improperly in this particular case. Disagreeing strongly is fine, so long as one is not Mevaze Talmidei Chachamim – and Rav Eliahu demonstrates thsi here.
Some comentators here can learn a lesson from him, no?
an Israeli Yid
An edit to my previous post – the first sentence should read “defending the Kavod of the Rabbonim involved in setting up the Beis Din”. I should read before I post, I suppose…
an Israeli Yid
idachgissa: I cannot confirm your story but the actual psak cannot be right. Nowhere in rishonim does it say anything of the kind. Just being Jewish is the “zechus” regardless of his or her behavior. And, in acharonim, you find only one way that one cannot convert an underage gentile-if he actually refuses (Look in Bach an Shach). This implies, by the way, that he he must be “bar daas” and,clearly with little infants, this will not happen. There is no question that such a geirus is valid.
As long as the Rabbanut is legally in control of conversions, they can keep reform and conservative out of the conversion business. Because it’s up to the Rabbanut to decide which batei din they accept or reject. If, however, the law will allow non-governmental(read: non Rabbanut) batei din to perfomr giyur, the reform and conservative will also clamor to their “batei din” and their conversions recognized. Incidentally, Rav Nissim Karelitz’s beis din is also “not recognized” by the government. There are stories of his converts facing all sorts of difficulties being “recognized” as Yidden. They usually end up requiring a confirmation letter of sorts from the Rabbanut declaring that this person who converted in Reb Nissim Karelitz’s beis din is recognized as a Yid.
#4:
You may note as well that Rav Eliahu is careful in his remarks to not personally attack the Rabbonim involved – in fact, he specifically calls Rav Rabinovitch and Rav Meidan “Kedusha”
Rabbis Rabinovitch and Meidan, yes. Rabbis Riskin and Stav, no. Coincidence?
#8 – Rav Eliahu did not resort to calling them names, did he?
Note that he also specifically states that “while the rabbonim involved in the establishment of the beis din may be correct in their reasoning, this does not permit their decision and subsequent actions” – i.e., they may be Halachicly correct, but he believes that in the bigger picture, this does more harm than good. That’s much different from calling Rabbanim “reform” or other names, wouldn’t you say?
an Israeli Yid
“The BIGGER PICTURE” – focus on those three words. In today’s era it has become a lost ideal (the bigger picture) every segment & sector is self- absorbed. There is a forest out there not only individual trees.
Rav Eliyahu has brought the Tzfat community together as one & as s legacy from his chasuva father.
rabbiofberlin –
This is not the place to go into a detailed discussion of the halacha, but see Dibros Moshe, Shabbos, siman 64, heara 11, that he says tzorich iyun lemaaseh even though it’s mistaver that it’s a zchus.
Rav Eliyahu himself participated in an irregular beit din to convert the victim of Tropper’s abuse. The conversion was kosher, and he should be praised for bypassing official channels.