by Rabbi Alan J Yuter
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are that of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Union for Traditional Judaism, unless otherwise indicated.
Why the Chief Rabbanut’s Conversion Policy is Unorthodox in, and of, the Extreme
Most Israelis regard the Israeli Chief Rabbinate to be excessively strict, user unfriendly, and unduly pedantic regarding its use, or abuse of power, purview, and review. In point of fact, the Chief Rabbinate iron hand rule reflects the particular Orthodoxy of Israel’s non-Zionist Haredi great sages. For this sub-stream within Orthodoxy, the Torah of Sinai is not found in the holy books, but in the life style lived on its sacred streets. Law is embodied by the community norms; the Law of the canon cannot, and therefore may not, be read, understood, and applied by anyone except the Great Haredi rabbis.
Ironically, the current Israeli Chief Rabbinate is despised by the Haredi elite, but it is controlled by the Haredi elite. In other words, the Haredi elite, controlling the Chief rabbis, uses this government institution to win jobs and salaries, patronage loyalty, and the right to rule over Israeli Jewry and the power to rule over world Jewry. By usurping the power to determine what, or who, is Orthodox, with private, incomplete partisan lists, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, guided by the non-Zionist Haredi elite, has usurped the power to accept or reject marriages, divorces, and conversions of Orthodox as well as non-Orthodox rabbis in Diaspora.
This rabbinate is not committed to Jewish law. Three examples will suffice. First, in defensive, or wars that are mitsva, or mandated, everyone is conscripted, the groom from his room and his bride from his side. [Paraphrase of bSota 44b] When challenged, because Haredi religion believes that neither its men or women may serve in the Israel Defense Force, we say “what to say to the Hazon Ish, who disagrees with you,” Deuteronomy 1:17, comes to mind, “do not fear any man,” lo tagguru mippenei Ish,” for the judgment belongs to God.” This mandate includes the Hazon Ish. And wise King Solomon said, “there no wisdom, understanding, or counsel that carries equal weight to God[’s will] [Proverbs 21:30]. When great rabbis issue rulings based on an ideological Narrative, which is not subject to review, and not the norms that emerge from the plain sense reading of the Written and Oral Torah library, their greatness will be subject to review by the Jewish people. In our prayers we say twenty-one times in a normal, usual week, “You [=God] have graced humankind with knowledge, and You teach mortals to reason.” We have minds, we use those minds. And when there is spiritual famine and religious discontent, we are required to judge our judges by that Judge Who judges alone. I concede that I could be wrong in my reading of Tradition; but don’t say that I am reading it wrong if your reading is not more cogent.
Second, on the conversion issue, the Chief Rabbinate is absent without leave, asleep at the wheel, and derelict in in its Torah mandated duty.
Maimonides considered the problem of intermarriage to be very serious [Peer ha-Dor 132]. He permitted a quickie conversion of a Moslem woman who was living with a Jewish man. This precedent, cited by as different rabbinic voices as the Haredi, Ashkenazi decisor, Rabbi Chaim Oizer Grodzinsky, and Pisqei Uzziel. Discretion is by law granted to the local Rabbi, the mara de-atra. Baring the ruling of a Great Sanhedrin, no rabbi or synod of rabbis has the right, power, or jurisdiction to take this authority away from a rabbi not within their jurisdiction. The judge is only able to rule according what he sees with his eyes.
In contrast, Rabbi Isaac Schmelkes rules, against the Talmud, that the subsequent non-observance of a convert renders that convert a non Jew. Jewish law explicitly rejects this opinion, not because it is too strict or extreme, but because it is presumptuously wrong. The Talmud requires the conversion candidate to be taught some, but not all, of the commandments.
What is demanded is accepting the Torah as a legal system, not for total, complete, and inerrant compliance. Therefore, a relapsed convert remains a Jew, even able to contract a marriage with another Jew. A convert does not know, and with education provided at conversion unable to know, what is expected of her or him. And there is no one who does not err, including R. Schmelkes, here. [Ecclesiastes 7:2] Put bluntly, R. Schmelkes reforms Jewish law in order to preserve Orthodox culture.
Rabbi Schmelkes has a right to set conversion standards for his particular community. Unless he is able to muster Oral Torah evidence, he has no right to invent new laws binding on all Israel.
Why is Maimonides standard appropriate today? First, Maimonides is correct because his view, and the very diction of his code, is based strictly, and only upon, the letter of Jewish law.
Second, Maimonides takes into account special circumstances, when the intermarrying, Jewish spouse is indifferent to Jewish law, the larger Jewish community must embrace rather than repel them.
According to Jewish law, a conversion supervised by three uninformed lay Orthodox laymen is after the fact kosher. Therefore, a conversion supervised by any three Halakhically observant men renders the candidate Jewish. Similarly, a conversion completed by Orthodox rabbis serving in Traditional synagogues or non-Orthodox educated rabbis who have chosen to live their own lives according to Orthodox standards, must by Law be accepted. Why?
At the moment of conversion, the new Jew’s Judaism is fragile. By not embracing the convert, one tempts that Jew to reject the Judaism that rejects her or him. Halakhically consistent Orthodox rabbis are concerned with what God requires and not what hierarchies accept, expect, and require. By refusing to accept conversions [a] because the officiating rabbis are not on a list, [b] which is secret, and [c] the criteria for acceptability are unstated, and [d] rabbis are rejected because they were not known or vetted, the current Israeli Chief Rabbinate no longer carries the Halakhic bona fides to speak to the Jewish people.
Third, the Chief Rabbinate’s treatment of the Women of the [Western] Wall is appalling. I recall pictures of the Wall without any partition at all. Jewry lived with that reality because it had to do so. By erecting the partition [mechitsa] at the Chief Rabbinate client of the Haredi elite changed the sacred status quo, where the Haredi argues that political agreements and religious facts on the ground may not be changed. If Orthodox Jews [like me] want a partition, they should be accommodated. And liberal Jews, with whom I happen to disagree vigorously, last I checked, still part of the Jewish people and have the right to observe Judaism as they wish. From an Orthodox perspective, they have the right to be wrong. The corollary is I expect liberal Jews to respect Orthodox protocols. By denying non-Orthodox Israelis access to the religious services they desire, the Chief Rabbinate denies Israel’s democratic identity.
When I was told upon aliya that the “custom” of the Land of Israel is to not don tefillin on the intermediate festival day. I was also told that great rabbis have accepted this [lack of] practice. I responded that the old Ashkenazi custom requires tefillin on the intermediate festival day, the reason we are allowed to write tefillin on the intermediate festival day is because we are required to wear them, and the Zoharic restriction was not vetted by any Bet Din ha-Gadol. If I obey the Chief Rabbinate’s undefended, apodictic ruling, I violate my understanding of what the Torah requires of me. And I had no role in selecting these rabbis, who in no way represent me or my modern Orthodox world view.
Haredi Jews deserve the same courtesy as everyone else; they should have their place in the public square. But they have the right to persuade other Jews, and not have the power to coerce them. If a Haredi Jew—or Jewess—wishes to avoid national service, they should do so as an expression of conscientious objection. By refusing to serve, they must forfeit the “goodies” of Israeli citizenship. They must not be coerced to serve; there must be consequences for failure to the failure to serve. According to Jewish law, deferment from military service for full time Torah learning applies in political wars, which require the Sanhedrin’s and the Urim ve-Tummim oracle, access to which is in our day not accessible. Defensive wars do not provide for deferments. The draft is universal because the Halakhah of the Oral Torah says so.
The reason Israel is religiously conflicted is because the Chief Rabbinate is not beholden to the people it rules, and the Haredi elite needs to rule and tax the Israeli populace so that its community might be supported.
I have nothing against the thick culture envisioned by the Chief Rabbinate. But it does not oblige me, either. Orthodox Jews are bound by Torah law, not institutional franchises. Torah has seventy faces; the Chief Rabbinate is an echo of one of those faces. Let’s explore the other 69; the exploration, investigation, and deliberation will be exhilarating.
Enjoying UTJ Viewpoints?
UTJ relies on your support to promote an open-minded approach to Torah rooted in classical sources and informed by modern scholarship. Please consider making a generous donation to support our efforts.
Educated and first ordained at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Rabbi Alan J. Yuter earned additional ordinations from Yeshiva University, supervised by Rav Moshe D. Tendler, and the Israeli Chief Rav Mordecai Eliahu. He further received Yadin Yadin from Rav David Weiss Halivni and earned a PhD in modern Hebrew Literature from New York University.
A founding member of the UTJ, Rabbi Yuter served as a faculty member at the UTJ’s rabbinical school and has held multiple pulpits, including extended stints in Springfield, NJ, and Baltimore, MD.
Rabbi Yuter is a prolific writer on ritual and philosophical issues, underpinnings of halakha, Biblical criticism, and much more. His essays can be found on UTJ’s Viewpoints . He is also a frequent contributor for The Institute of Jewish Ideas and Ideals.
In addition to his activities with the UTJ, Rabbi Yuter teaches at Torat Reva in Jerusalem and is associated with the Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding, affiliated with Ohr Torah Stone in Efrat.
Rabbi Yuter and his wife Linda reside in Israel.