Attorney General Menachem Mazuz on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that he is of the opinion that the rulings of the Ashdod Rabbanut and the Rabbinical Supreme Court should be overturned and the conversion of a woman performed by Rav Druckman’s beis din should be accepted.
The woman filed the appeal with the Supreme Court in the hope of overturning the decision, since it results in her children’s inability to marry within the Rabbanut framework.
Dayanim are outraged over what they are calling the “attorney general’s blatant interference” in a matter pertaining to the religious judicial system. The rabbinical courts ruled there were many problems with the giyur of the woman, leading to their decision.
Mazuz maintains that the proceedings were not handled properly and there is no basis to render a ruling that impacts the woman’s children. He added since the children are not permitted to appeal the ruling, and they were given kosher certificates of conversion, there is no reason to accept the rabbinical court’s decision. He added that he questions the jurisdiction of the rabbinical courts, since the conversion was performed by an authorized beis din of the State of Israel.
(Yechiel Spira – YWN Israel)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
6 Responses
Converts should be received with joy as they adhere to the ONLY HOLY AND TRUE religion Hashem instituted through our father of Faith.
Even RUTH would have difficulty with these rabbinics.
What a Chutzpa!
and then they talk about separating religion from state, ‘kfiya datit’ etc….
Goldie
If Rabbi Druckman would have been the Rabbi who was megayer Ruth, yes, she would have had a problem and rightly so.
Goldie
I think you need to go back to school and learn the basics of Judaism
Goldie – If we look in Pirkei Avos (1,6) it states, “…and judge everybody on the side of merit.” Both the Bartenura and Rambam explain that this does not apply to everybody, only to upright individuals. The Rambam even hold that you are required to give the benefit of the doubt to a Tzaddik EVEN if it’s a BIG stretch in doing so. Furthermore, he holds that you are required to judge a Rasha UNFAVORABLE even if it looks like he’s doing a big mitzva.
Being so, I think it is safe to say that the Rabbanit is AT LEAST under the category of “Upright individuals”, while Mazuz most likely falls under the status of a Rasha.
Therefore, it is our responsibility to view this case in the following light:
1. The Dayanim (Tzaddikim)have thoroughly investigated this case and find that this geuris is SERIOUSLY problematic. Therefore, they deemed it necessary to declare this woman non-Jewish. (I would add that if she REAL desires to be a Torah Yid I don’t believe anyone would stop her from converting again through a Beis Din that ALL poskim except)
2. Mazuz (Rasha) is most likely concerned for two things: 1) Increasing his status and power and 2) undermined real Torah authority by making it look as if Rabbonim are not “maTumim B’Din” (Avos 1,1) like the quote/unquote “Secular Court”. Both of these reasons are wicked and unforgivable.
3. As far as Rav Druckman, it would seem that if Rav Eliashiv has express concerns in the past about Rav Druckman’s conversions then it must be that there is a real concern. It can be that Rav Druckman holds a view (from Torah sources) that are not excepted by Rov Poskeim and if so we have a rule, “Holchim Achir HaRov”. If this is correct then Rav Druckman is no worse the Rav Yehoshua, ztl who Rav Gamliel publicly chastised for rendering a psak that wasn’t according to the Rov. (Sorry, forgot which Mesachta this Agadita is in)
In conclusion, we have to start training ourselves to think according to the guidelines that Hashem, through his Torah, has taught us to think instead of reaching our own conclusions based on faulty human error.(Lo Machshevosi Machshivosechem).
May we all be Blessed with a year of Brachos and Torahdika Dan LiKav Zechus!
-Softwords 🙂
1. If you have a government that pays for, and in effect hires, dayanim, you will always have this problem. If one favors halacha as the basis of Israeli law, one must resign yourself to have non-religious Jews, and even goyim, issuing and enforcing halachic rules. The only way to avoid that would be to exclude apikoresim and goyim from the Israeli polity, and it is too late to that.
2. There does seem to be an issue of how the Beis Din can rule on the rights of someone without at least summoning them to court (or rather, is such a ruling binding on the person not involved in the proceedings, or maybe is just an advisory opinion how they will probably rule in the future if the person is before the court).
3. If there is a chance the children would be mamzerim (a common reason to question the conversion or marriage of someone who is not frum), the courts ruling would be easy to understand, as well as its unwillingess to give details.
rabbiofberlin – first of all, thank you for your comments. You bring out many valid points.
1. Being that I realized that I mistaken Mazuz with another political figure, I retract my statement of calling him a Rasha. Although, I do feel he’s way out of line sticking his nose into Torah law.
2. I admit I have not seen the teshuvos. You say you can find it on line. Did you search in Hebrew or English?
3. Yes, it would help to have clarification why and how all his geirus should be deemed invalid. Perhaps they feel that his foundations that he based his decisions to convert people was unfounded and therefore rendering them all pasul. In the teshuvas that you saw did you see an explanation from them?
4. As far as Rav Drukman being there, although it may have been derech eretz to summons him, the reality is that the psak affects him only indirectly. No penalty was directly enacted upon him to my knowledge. If so, there may not be a halachic requirement to summons him.
5. As far as Rav Elyashiv, shlita, although it may still be true that he opposes Rav Druckman on this issue, you are correct that there doesn’t seem to be any solid proof of his opinion on this matter. I stand correct. Thank you. 🙂