More than 50% of former Soviet Union conversion candidates drop out, according to Israel Democracy Institute report.
Over half of the conversion candidates from the former Soviet Union drop out before finishing the process, according to a report on the efficacy of the state conversion system.
The report, which the Israel Democracy Institute released Monday, illustrates what the authors have described as a “depressing” picture of conversion policy over the last two decades.
According to research by the IDI’s Dr. Netanel Fisher, some 80,000 people have converted to Judaism through the state conversion system since it was established in 1995. Of those, some 45,000 converts were from the Ethiopian sector – specifically the Falash Mura, who were required to undergo conversion upon entering Israel.
One of the particularly contentious conversion issues in the country relates to non-Jewish Israelis from the former Soviet Union, who number about 330,000 today.
Approximately 24,000 converts through the state system were from the FSU immigrant community – just 7 percent of the non-Jewish immigrants from that region.
Since 2000, that sector has had an average conversion rate of 1,800 people a year.
However, the IDI’s research also showed that the number of non-Jewish FSU immigrants embarking on the state conversion process was higher than the number of those successfully converting.
While those 24,000 completed the process, another 25,000 were accepted into and started the conversion course but eventually left.
Fisher attributed this high dropout rate to a lack of institutional support for conversion candidates throughout the process, along with various financial costs and logistical details such as long traveling distances to conversion classes for some candidates.
Some of the leading figures in the mainstream national-religious community seek to increase the conversion rates among non-Jewish FSU immigrants to prevent future interfaith marriages between them (or their children) and Jewish Israelis. To achieve that goal, these leaders have proposed liberalizing and decentralizing the state conversion system, within an Orthodox framework.
At the same time, more hardline national- religious leaders, along with the haredi rabbinic leadership, strongly oppose such measures. The haredi political parties have insisted, as part of their conditions for entering the coalition, that a recent measure the last Knesset approved to decentralize the conversion courts be repealed.
While about 25% of FSU immigrants express interest in converting, only 7% actually do so. According to Fisher, these statistics demonstrate the possibility of greatly increasing the number of those converting.
“Advancing the conversion of immigrants from the former Soviet Union has failed so far, because the national effort and the public discourse has focused on the politicization of the issue, while the path to success is really from the bottom upward,” he said. “That means… harnessing civil society into supporting converts, encouraging educational bodies to help open conversion classes, recruiting [conversion] candidates and elevating the issue on the list of priorities of communal leaders, who are not doing enough to change the situation.”
His findings indicated that although the national-religious sector views the issue as urgent, only 50 percent of that community is in favor of adopting a lenient approach within Jewish law toward converts from the former Soviet Union.
At the same time, he found, the vast majority of secular Israelis see the issue as important, want their children to find a Jewish partner, and support a lenient path to conversion for such people.
Fisher’s research also showed, however, that intermarriage between Jews and non-Jewish FSU immigrants currently accounts for 7%-8% of Israeli marriages every year. He said that the “guarantee of continued demographic existence of the Jewish people” could be in doubt if this trend is not addressed.
“The challenge of conversion in Israel is a challenge of historic proportions, and the way forward [entails] a variety of difficulties,” said Fisher. “The combination of a vision that can be implemented, appropriate leadership, allocation of resources, and recruiting civil society to the process could bring about a change that would guarantee the cohesion of Jewish society in Israel and the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”
yamit82 Said:
I dont understand your arguments, you appear to say that patrilineal descent is more reliable and you assume that the gentile wives converted. You also appear to suggest that matrilineal descent was made halachic due to knowing who mother but not the father before DNA
Part 2 of Jewish DNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioYAjdDALqk
Jews are a Race?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRtc0XaA5k0
yamit82 Said:
Why does it pay any of them
Be happy Yamit. My comment is in moderation. You should know why I am upset with you. It’s redundant. Good-bye!
As one who is a convert there is merit on all sides. Secular Jews will not carry on the torch for the Jewish people. Gentiles who convert because of marriage or wanting to be fashionable are not doing themselves or the Jewish people justice. I do hold the Rabbis accountable for that.
A convert needs to understand and embrace Torah. The 613 commandments can take a lifetime to achieve. Hashem is very tender and patient with that – man is not.
The Haredi do not do the Jewish people justice. I was turned away twice by the orthodox. I thought I already was a Jew. They said I was not. I was insulted and devastated. I did not know why. I thought they were wrong. I didn’t know there had to be a conversion process. They just told me I wasn’t a Jew but didn’t tell me why.
When I started the process the Rabbi said I had to start attending services. Services? I said ‘No thanks I just want to be a people. I am done with religion.’ I still didn’t get that I had to convert. So I started attending services with my conversion class. We all pretty much had clenched teeth and only 2 out of a class of about 10 took it seriously and realized it was to our benefit.
It’s my journey at my pace.
who decided this:
yamit82 Said:
and who decided this:
yamit82 Said:
@ bondmanp:
BTW, thanks for an interesting discussion
yamit82 Said:
so when do you expect the religious sector to show up for YS and the MOunt? they went (950K) to the funeral.
yamit82 Said:
which rabbi’s and how are they certified, can any one calling himself a rabbi claim this position, including Mr. Peepers. wasnt there a specific methodology of certification of that authority? did that remain after the Temple?
@ yamit82:
probably writing to me 😛
@ bernard ross:
If you don’t support Jewish substance as a defining condition for being considered a Jews then you have no viable argument as to for what purpose an Israel in the first place. It doesn’t have to be and most of the world would be happy if it didn’t… Because you can’t measure up to your concept of ideal circumstances you seem to look for every reason unders the sun to justify any solution that would include you without you needing to conform to the traditional understanding for so many centuries. History has shown in every instance than when Jews alter and seek to change that tradition not only has it been beneficial for the Jewish people but the converse in the extreme. Changes have come to Judaism but the onus is always on the reformers to stand the test of time.
Why let maternal descent determine Jewishness? Among Jews, paternal lineage defines nationality. The Torah pays no attention to a mother’s nationality.[1] The rabbinical teaching that one can be certain of Jewish child’s mother but not its father not only insults the morals of Jewish mothers but is also illogical because it ignores the unknown variable. DNA testing obviates the rabbinical argument, which is also impractical: Jewish males often converted their gentile wives, and children were raised as Jews, though children of mixed marriages with Jewish mothers rarely turned to Judaism. If, however, gentiles converted to Judaism are Jews, why care at all about parentage? Genetics does matter, though it is not predominant after the influx of Egyptians, Assyrians, Edomites, Khazars, and others. The small Jewish nation needs a continuous influx of genes, and intermarriages are indispensable. Israeli guidelines must be honest and sensible, perhaps combining genetic relevance with acceptance of the Torah’s basic tenets.
Studies of mtDNA in various Jewish communities show that the women are largely of local origin, related to neighboring groups but not to Middle Eastern genetic patterns, as are the Jewish paternal Y-chromosomes. That confirms the empirical observation that Jewish men frequently marry converted gentile females. The issue of lineage is important to a small Jewish nation which needs to breed with aliens to avoid degeneration from the Jews’ marrying genetically too close.
bondmanp Said:
actually I was not thinking of “practical observances” but the concept that men or rabbi’s change halachic rules. I only know specifics and generality’s give no answers. When and who decided NOT to follow the “conversions” process as demonstrated with Ruth and instead to substitute a Beit din. Same with patrealinity. When rabbis and men changed it was it because G_D changed His mind or did they change their mind?
bondmanp Said:
Obviously she converts or they dont get married. but I am not talking about preventing any sector from fulfilling their interpretations of Judaism. I am talking about NOT preventing any of them from practicing their judaism and NOT preventing them from any rights under the state. Its not about changing orthodox jewry but allowing other Jews their rights too.
bondmanp Said:
I doubt that you depend on the state to determine who is an orthodox Jews 🙂
bondmanp Said:
the gov already has a different definition of who is a Jew for aliya. It can do the same with other state aspects like marriage. each sect that wants a separation can have their own certificates, cemtaries, etc. also civil marriage would possible make a difference.
Thank you Yamit for your contribution to this discussion. You present a lot to think about.
@ bondmanp:
Good answer
Quickie conversion too much for fake Jews
Nativ is the most simple giyur program. Run by the IDF rabbinate, it offers conversion to Judaism in less than half a year which is below even Reformist “Allah Akbar” standards. Not that the idea is entirely bad: presumably, the people who serve in the IDF come really close to joining the Jewish nation.
Nativ published some shocking figures. In its seven years of operation, about 7,000 soldiers entered the program but only 3,100 passed the most simple conversion imaginable. Indeed, after the government dropped nationality and religion from all the official documents, Israeli Slavs have little reason to become Jewish.
Government officials routinely slam the Orthodox Rabbinate for its “inability” to convert the hundreds of thousands of Slavs the government allowed into Israel.
Rabbinate in double bind over Ethiopians
Shrugging at Falash Mura African Christian immigrants, rabbis demanded that all of them undergo conversion to Judaism. Well and good, but that means their children must attend religious schools as a proof of their parents’ intention to convert.
Religious schools, of course, refuse to admit fake converts.
The Education Ministry has promised to revoke government funding of schools that seek to protect Jewish pupils from black migrants.
I submit this and the previous comments as examples of some of the problems….. Nothing is simple and clear cut.
Trash rabbis want trash Jews
The American Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist movements have condemned Israeli conversion reform. Unnecessarily liberal as the new law is, it is still insufficiently liberal for these atheist ‘rabbis.’
They want Israel to recognize Reform conversions, which are about as substantial as declarations of ‘Allah Akbar!’ and conservative conversions which teach Jewish tradition more than Jewish religion.
The American ‘rabbis’ want the simplest conversion to gloss over the mind-boggling intermarriage rate. Indeed, why not intermarry if, as those blind guides claim, our religion is merely about ethics? Christian spouses are perfectly ethical.
The debate over conversion procedures is nonsensical: in the atheist state of Israel, Slavs feel themselves perfectly comfortable and won’t convert to Judaism even under the most simplified procedures.
Everyone is a rabbi for the state
Everyone is a rabbi for the state!! In a watershed change, the state has agreed to pay the salaries of Reform and Conservative rabbis.
Just as Maimonides warned us, secularism protects religion because when religion is merged with the state, the later invariably determines the former. And so in Israel the state has decided that the Reform movement is Judaism rather than left-wing atheism.
State involvement in religious affairs means that the atheist High Court will ultimately decide which religious sects are indeed Jewish. And so there is no reason that “Jews for Jesus,” “Gay Jews,” or any other sect should be denied official recognition, conversion power, and funding.
@ dove:
Actually in this thread none of my comments reaches the level of crossing any line. One may agree or disagree with my content and opinions but no lines as i understand them have been crossed either in content or language. So stuff it. I don’t know why you have been so angry with me recently but if you don’t tell me I won’t know.
Two in a row in moderation this is getting interesting.
@ bernard ross:
Religious Jews kept the hope of return alive. They kept the tradition of the land as best they could for over 15 centuries and many never gave up of caved into the pressures by the gentiles to convert and assimilate when they could have. Millions were martyred rather than give up when it would have saved them…. Herzl wanted all the Jews to convert to Catholicism in a grand ceremony in the Vatican. Herzl would have accepted Kenya (Not Uganda). It was the mostly religious Zionist under R Reiness who insisted on the Land of Israel and Herzl caved in to their pressure. Most of those idealistic Zionists in the first and second aliyah’s returned to Russia and Poland. You draw conclusions from partial and selective historical data and broad brush them not so simple. There was not a time in the past 2000 years that some Jews did not attempt to return to the land if it were possible. Israel today is a modern country economically pretty well off and jews can come safely be be here in hours after departure. The government subsidizes their trip housing and most needs for three years yet few Jews come unless they are pushed to come. Think how it was before the beginning of the 20th century with the ottomans controlling the country or the Arabs or the Byzantines and Persians defenseless and in a wasteland in all things….. No food no means of employment and disease rampant….. I believe just as G-d caused others to punihs the wayward Jews he also used secular Jews to do what needed to be done at a certain point in time and once they accomplished their tasks others come to the fore and do their thing. nothing happens in a historical vacuum when it comes to the Jews. There are no coincidences in Jewish history.
Suck it up Yamit. You are always whining. Whining. Whining. Whining. You make good on our enemies calling us a bunch of whiners. You know full well that you are not the only one that crosses the line and gets moderated for it. Big deal. Suck it up. Oh wait! Are you looking for someone to validate you again? Pathetic.
Three comments without moderation and one in moderation What Now? 😛
bernard ross Said:
In Judaism they do, at least they have been given the authority by G-d to speak and decide on his behalf… Nobody has to follow their opinions but if you disagree you should give a reasoned argument based on Torah stating why you disagree and what you might change or substitute but it has to be based on Jewish sources to be credible.
The Rabbis sit in the seat of Moses… There just isn’t anyone else qualified not you and not me… You are of course free to disagree and ignore them.
Yeah well Hitler took care of them at least most of em… I see it as a divine punishment, just as G-d in our past used Assyria as a sword and a club to deal with Jews so far off the track as to be considered irredeemable as to performing G-d’s purpose. Even if most decided to come to Israel and escape Hitler they wouldn’t have fought and built the country so they had to go.
@ bernard ross:
Has the practical observance of Judaism changed since the destruction of the Temple? Of course; there was no choice. Do we know, for certain, why the Temples were destroyed? We have traditional beliefs, but, again, we cannot know for sure the will of God.
And yes, I believe that Ruth observed all of the commandments that pertained to her as a daughter of Israel.
There are many non-Orthodox synagogues in Israel, by the way.
The dinner thing was an example. But what if my Orthodox son meets a young lady, also Orthodox, who is the product of a conversion which is unacceptable to my family? Must we just suck it up, in the name of tolerance, inclusion and unity? What about the rights of my family to know that if the state identifies a citizen as being Jewish, that they are Jewish according to everyone, not just one of many offshoots of Judaism?
In some ways, I agree with you, Mr. Ross. I would prefer that Israel had a constitution and Bill of Rights along the lines of the American versions. With those, the Israeli government could get out of the religion business altogether. But I would not want the government to sanction as equal every new trend in religion that came along. But there are areas in which it is hard to exclude the government entirely, like education. But would I prefer the State get out of the private sector? Absolutely. And that could mean buses running on the Sabbath, pork for sale in restaurants, etc. Okay, so I will grant you that perhaps market forces should determine the religious standards of the public. But for that to happen, it’s not a matter of the government endorsing non-Orthodox belief systems, but for the government to endorse no religious belief system. But then, you have the issue of identity. How then would the state support its own identity as a Jewish state? The best ideas for a state in which liberty is preserved alongside Jewish identity can, once again, be found at JewishIsrael.org. I’d love to hear your reactions to that web site.
@ bondmanp:
This is the classic Jewish argument said well.
Jew v. Jew. The Women of the Wall are listening to this conversation. And they’re just waiting to turn Judaism on it’s head at our holiest site – then expand from there.
Ted Belman Said:
Even if you had 90% secular you offer an irrelevant argument.
If you reject torah why be Jewish in the first place there is no reason and benefit for anyone to be Jewish. Judaism has no claim to be the only path to the next world and we claim all the righteous among the gentiles has a place in the next world. It’s the Torah that defines who and what is a Jew but it does not give explicit details how a non Jew is to be converted and the process has changed from time to time based a lot on the general circumstances of practicing Judaism amongst Jews. Here the rabbis are in super protection mode based on many factors but massive assimilation and intermarriage are viewed as a threat so they tighten ship accordingly. In Judaism while every Jew born of a Jewish mother is considered Jewish by the Rabbinic authorities it was not always so, but are all of those Jews really Jews? From a tribal ethnic POV yes, from a covenant position no they are not. Only those Jews who observe mitzvot are Jews under the covenant. A rabbi knowing that any gentile he converts in lying and has no intention to be observant would be committing a great sin and they take that responsibility seriously at least most do because besides the issue of sin it could affect the Jewish people in the future negatively. These Slavs should never have been brought to Israel n the first place. Most or many came with forged documents. Many are still christian, many are antisemitic. Judaism is open only to those who are most serious and want it for legitimate reasons. Not for the perks the state gives out to Jewish immigrants. The State can recognize them as citizens just like the Druze and Arabs are citizens but they are not Jews and there is no reason to bend every traditional norm just to make it easy for them. They can always leave and return to the FSR. Half my neighbors are Russians and have no intention to convert they are content to get their perks from the government and the neighborhood is lit up every christmas with decorations, and christmas trees. m In Dimona there are at least 6-7 non Kosher delis servicing this population. Many don’t integrate especially the elderly among them they don’t speak Hebrew read Russian papers and watch Russian TV…..I think the big problem will be North American Jewry in the future because in another 10-20 years there will be almost no non intermarried couple or family. We can never accept them without destroying ourselves as Jews and it will be a slippery slope if we begin to dilute and compromise with those we already have.
It matters only if there is some assurance that their children become Jewish in more than name… Few children behave or think on such issues differently than their parents. If Israel is to be a real Jewish country it must exhibit something that is identifiably Jewish…What might that be with the children of such a deceitful process. Why have conversion in the first place? You would probably accept anybody who wanted to join. The only times in our history that worked was when there was no pressure of assimilation and the Jews were strong as to their identity and beliefs and then we accepted only small numbers we could assimilate into our culture…
bondmanp Said:
you wrote a number of posts showing your faith and belief, but in all of that there was not a single bit of knowledge or fact stated that you derived from those your revered sages. when I brought up ruth and patrialinity you could say nothing. I find this odd as these 2 form the basis for the rejection of millions of Jews and yet you had no knowledge of the positions of these thousands of years of sagacity that you proclaim.
to me what is important is substance, I could not be led by those who can send 950k to a rabbi’s funeral yet NEVER send a pittance to protest for YS and the Mount. I am a simple man, without the ability for the “jewish scholarship” to which you refer which leads to the behavior I just described. but, if that is the example of “Jewish scholarship” of the 950K then I cannot get behind it.
bondmanp Said:
Surprisingly, that is what I feel about israel. Infact, my biggest surprise was to find that the religous sector seems to care the least.
You wrote a lot of general things but it strikes me that if the “religious sector” sent as many of their members for YS and the MOunt as they did to the rabbi’s funeral(950k) neither of these would be an issue. I blame the religious sector for the abandonment of eretz yisroel and the Mount. they appear only interested in their perks and avoiding the draft and have no problem with giving the mOunt and YS to the muslims. therefore, after all this conversation i conclude that it does not matter which religous sector because we never see those 950k doing anything for eretz yisroel and the Mount. And their excuses are lame because no one has to ascend the Mount to stop the muslim pollution. In my view they cannot ascend to leadership of the Jewish people if they behave in this manner. They are certainly not a light.
@ bernard ross:
I, too believe in the fallibility of man. But I also believe in the infallibility of God, and His ability to imbue men of His choosing with wisdom. Yes, God does not need human intermediaries, but is He therefore prohibited from using them if He so chooses? Few Jews accept what their rabbis say without question, and of course, many great sages differ with other great sages. But it is the struggle to seek the truth as it has been handed down to us that occupies the great Torah scholars. Most of us struggle to keep bread on the table. Lacking in the level of Torah knowledge that our sages had, should I then presume that I know better than they? Is it even possible for you to concede that you might not know all there is to know about God and Torah, and that others might know more than you? If not, then I guess I can’t make you understand how harmful that kind of hubris is to both the Jewish Nation and to humanity in general. But it was hubris that permitted some of the greatest expressions of evil to triumph many times in human history. Again, I am not suggesting all who accept our inherited traditions are saints with pure intentions, but enough of them are so that those with less wholesome agendas are usually exposed for what they are before they do too much damage.
I don’t consider any part of Torah (both the written and the oral) to be “interpretations of men”. They are all from Sinai. Accepting that on faith is what it means to accept the yoke of Torah, in my opinion.
Not always, but often, Western thinkers use philosophy and theology to legitimize their own actions and values. As an example, it became inconvenient for suburban Jews to refrain from riding in cars on the Sabbath. Those who accepted the Torah as perfect and unalterable may have ended up driving on the Sabbath, but acknowledged that they were violating Halacha. But many others chose to jump through intellectual hoops in an effort to legitimize driving in a car on the Sabbath as being within the bounds of Halacha. See the difference? And yes, the whole point of Torah Temima (Perfection of Torah) is precisely that the Halacha is “eternally applicable without question”. Either you accept this on faith, or you have a grievance with parts of the Torah. But having a grievance means you reject parts of it. That is your choice, but that doesn’t mean your belief system is actually Judaism.
Your use of phrases such as “a bunch of rabbis way back when” indicate to me that you do indeed reject those aspects of our tradition with which you disagree. The worn charge of “hairsplitting” levelled at Jewish scholarship indicates that you are comfortable rejecting thousands of years of tradition and exegesis in favor of your own ideas of what you believe God intends. Again, that’s your right, but it does not qualify as normative Jewish belief. I choose respect for my ancestors over self-fulfillment, I choose the inherited traditions of my forefathers over hubris. What many modern secular humanists find so hard to accept is that God might not be all love, with no rules, no justice and no boundaries. It is a distorted, non-Jewish view of religion that has little to do with normative Judaism.
All of this is music to the ears of USA “progressive” Jews. They’ve succeeded in confusing and weakening the USA Jewish community – where only the Orthodox are thriving – and now they’ve set their eyes on you!
@ bondmanp:
I mostly agree.
bondmanp Said:
No, the most logical standards are those that apply to the many streams of Judaism, unless Israel is only the home of practicing orthodox Jews. there is no reason why varying streams cannot be acceptable in the application of state law. Orthodox interpretations should not be imposed on the rest of the Jews. I never felt good in a reformed synagogue, it always felt like a church, but I feel they should not be denied state based on Jewish law.
bondmanp Said:
there is no necessity to eat together, only the necessity to support the common state. However the inablity to eat together should deny no one of rights under the state, marriage, burial etc. There is enough room in Israel for different streams and no reason why one should rule.
bondmanp Said:
would create???? There already exists a balkanization of Jews, I would not be surprised if much of the self hating assimilating Jews arises from their rejection as Jews.
bondmanp Said:
Are the sages and prophets equal to G_D? Who said theyu were smart or that their smartness had anything to do with being chosen as prophets or sages?
Basically you are saying that you follow the ‘sages” on blind faith and your own understanding and acceptance of their interpretations assumes that they infallibly agree with G_D’s intended will? So then why the diaspora punishment?
bondmanp Said:
this would not be good enough for me…. and I do not wish to argue halachic issues, but I would expect that someone who follows something that so specifically divides the Jewish people would know more of the why. I am satisfied to know that the Book of Ruth is clear and that there is no need for further consultation as I am not confused on the issue.
bondmanp Said:
Is being a Jew a covenant between men or between Jews and G_D? Did G_D’s requirements of Jewish practice change from Ruth’s time to ours? Did she practice the 613?
bondmanp Said:
But you implied that the traditions you follow were innovated 2000 years ago, were those innovations forbidden? Why do you not follow traditions prior to 2000 years ago?
bondmanp Said:
No, I question that which came before when I see those who espouse it doing insane things like dancing with Jew killers…. how is that possible….. didnt they read the same Torah? What does that tell us?
we do not owe to traditions but to the word and will of G_D.
In my view it is important to separate the words of men from those of G_D as they cannot possibly be equal. I do not worship men,nor do I worship my own words and ideas. Anything of those realms will disappear.
Thanks for the chat. 🙂
@ bernard ross:
I don’t think “any strain” would have worked. Where are the Nazarenes, the Sadducees, or the any of the dozens of off-shoots of rabbinic Judaism that flourished prior to the destruction of the Second Temple? Looking at the big picture, the only forms of Judaism that have survived the diaspora were the ones that chose tradition over innovation. Yes, most of the early aliyas were by secular Jews, whose main connection with Judaism and the Jewish People was common persecution. But freed from that persecution, what would have been their fate? For that, we have America, where the population of Jews is declining, and intermarriage is at 58%. And that excludes the type of conversions that the Orthodox reject. And what of American Jewish support for Israel? It is clear that large numbers of Jews in America care little for Judaism, Israel or the Jewish People. Today’s non-observant Jewish American is unlikely to belong to a synagogue, unlikely to send their children for any sort of religious instruction, unlikely to contribute to Israel or Jewish causes, and unlikely to vote for candidates based on their support of Israel. So, sure, they will call themselves Jewish, but do they really represent the future of the Jewish People?
I wish you would generalize less, Mr. Ross. Yes, some in the Orthodox establishment have been very antagonistic to Jews from unusual places, places outside the normal Ashkenazic and Sephardic diaspora. But certainly not all of them, and many among the Orthodox rabbinate have struggled to support the legitimacy of the traditions of Jews from exotic locales.
The radical left and the anti-Zionist Ultra-Orthodox examples you cite are, to me, fringe groups of little import. The bigger factors here are the large numbers of secular Jews who are ant-religious, and those Hareidi Jews (not all of them, though) who reject the possibility that modern Zionism has the potential to fulfill God’s promise to His people. To expect the attitudes of these groups to turn around in a few decades is, I think, unrealistic. But we are seeing some progress on both fronts, as secular Jews embrace aspects of Judaism their parents lampooned, and Hareidi Jews embrace aspects of the Jewish State that their parents rejected. Savlanut (patience), Mr. Ross.
“Authority of the Torah” implies a theocracy. Nobody can objectively call Israel a theocracy, and surprisingly few in the nationalist camp even want such a state. For an example of what a typical Religious Zionist envisions for the role of Judaism in the State, see JewishIsrael.org. But the Jewish state cannot have the same approach to religion as the United States. Like it or not, Israel is a Jewish State, and must adopt Jewish standards that identify and characterize its culture. Nobody is suggesting that people should be thrown in prison if they violate the Sabbath. However, for the Jewish State to say that the Sabbath means whatever anyone wants it to mean, only suggests it has no meaning at all. So we return to the Reform Synagogue dinner. You are free to observe or not to observe, but the State is correct in adopting the normative definition of what Sabbath observance actually is. It is less vanity than it is our inherited tradition.
The Sanhedrin would follow Tanach, including the Talmud, Mr. Ross. And the laws for conversion are included within. They are not my dictates. And that is the point. Any Sanhedrin that would reject any part of Tanach (including the Talmud) would not be legitimate. Any Sanhedrin that had obvious greivances with the Torah would lack authority. Indeed, if that were so, if any Jew could determine for himself what God’s will was, and what parts of Halacha were legitimate and what parts could be ignored, we would need dozens of Sanhedrins to apply all the many sets of standards. I am willing to accept the standards of those who came before me, of those who were closer in time to the revelation at Sinai. Are you? Or should everyone come up with his own idea of what Judaism ought to be, and demand that everyone else accept it as legitimate? In the end, Judaism will not mean everything, but instead it will mean nothing at all. And we’re back to secular humanism.
bondmanp Said:
I agree, we do not agree.
bondmanp Said:
Having been given the experience on this earth where I was put by G_D I am witness to the fallibility of men and have a need to see where the word of G_D leaves off and the substitution of men step in. I do not believe that G_D needs human intermediaries to his people. If rabbis were to be unquestionably believed, then and now, G_D would not have shown me peeping mikvah rabbis, True Torah’s cavorting with jew killers, and black hatters rejecting the gift of eretz yisroel and the blooming barren land.
bondmanp Said:
do you give equal footing of the commandments of G_D with the interpretations of men?
bondmanp Said:
Why do you assume that altering the “inherited wisdom of your forefathers” is synonymous with a motivation to legitimize choices and actions. Do you assume your forefathers were infallible and always right in their interpretations and that they eternally are applicable without question?
bondmanp Said:
neither do I … I merely questin their accuracy, infallibility and correctness.
As this was about conversion and who is a Jew, which are perhaps the most divisive issues in Judaism today, I would like to be convinced that the rabbinic approach indeed preserves the word of G_D wrt Ruth and patrialinity as opposed to simply being a conclusion of a bunch of rabbis way back when. So far the arguments I have heard are purely based on hair splitting arguments which render vague comments into human certainty. As this is an important issue it seems that such issues should be based directly on the words of G_D and not the interpretations of men. My understanding is that ruth’s conversion was acceptable to G_D and that the existence of the Book, and the descendancy of David makes that clear. Therefore, what is the rabbinic basis for the rabbis departure from the Book we still accept and the descendant who is revered as a Jewish King and righteous man.
@ bernard ross:
The issue of Judaism’s role in the State of Israel and which rabbinic traditions the state should endorse is a huge separate issue beyond the conversion issue of this post. But I will revisit my Reform Synagogue unity dinner example. While it may not please everyone, the most logical standards for the State Rabbinate to endorse are normative Orthodox standards. Certainly no secular, Reform, Liberal or Conservative Jew would suggest that Orthodox standards of observance are invalid, even if they themselves have different standards. For the Orthodox, however, the non-kosher food at the unity dinner is indeed a problem. So in the name of unity, you would have the state endorse a potentially unlimited variety of various religious standards. All of which would be acceptable to the secular, fewer to the Reform, even fewer to the Conservative, and very few to the Orthodox. Your attempt at unity would in fact create a balkanization of Jews, classified by their own tiny division of religious standards. If you find that preferable to a system in which the standards are acceptable to all, even if they limit the ability to innovate new religious standards for subgroups, well, fine, you can work to promote that agenda. I doubt though, that the utopia you envision will be the fruit of your labors. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, the religious status quo Israel has is the worst system possible, except for the all the others.
I don’t know about God’s will, and I doubt you do either, outside of what I learn in the source – Tanach. I have no great love of the diaspora ghetto brand of rabbinic Judaism. I believe our true brand of Judaism looks more like that of the Temple era. However, I am unwilling to place my own understanding above that of rabbinic authorities much more learned than I. As for the specifics of conversion in the context of the Book of Ruth, without much knowledge on the topic, I am certain volumes have been produced by Torah scholars, all of whom have more knowledge in their pinky fingers than I have in my entire body. I would not presume to argue halachic issues with them. If you wish to do so, I would seek out your local Chabad Rabbi, who is much better equipped than I to discuss this point of Jewish law and scripture. But I will say this: Ruth’s embrace of Judaism, while not supervised by any rabbinic authority, was a complete embrace of Judaism as it was practiced at the time. Ruth did not convert to smooth over the difficulties of intermarriage, and she certainly did not convert with the intent to ignore Torah law and define her own version of what it meant to be Jewish. Perhaps if modern converts were more like Ruth, this controversy would be moot.
Once again, the reason Torah Jews quote their teachers rather than sources is humility. It is considered hubris to ignore the teachings of the sages that came before you and claim that your own understanding of Tanach is equal to or superior to theirs. It requires a certain mindset, not unlike the mindset of those who received the Torah at Sinai, who preferred to hear it from Moses, rather than God Himself. So the tradition of humility in the face of our sages is as old as Judaism itself. Only with the liberalizing movements in the last few centuries did Jews seek to replace the inherited wisdom of our sages with their own. Hubris of this sort manifests itself, in its evolved form, as secular humanism. After all, if we are smarter than our sages, why are we not smarter than the prophets? If we are smarter than the prophets, why are we not smarter than God? Again, the difference between you and me is that you devise your own theology, Halacha and concept of God, as is your right to do. I choose to have faith that the traditions handed down to me are authentic, and therefore that innovation equals abrogation. And both are expressly forbidden in the Torah. You can choose your own path, but you may not redefine my path. And that is, unavoidably, what those who seek to legitimize non-normative forms of Judaism at the State level in Israel are doing. Remember, it is not only for this generation that Judaism exists; it is for the generations to come. We owe it to them to preserve the traditions we have received in as pure a form as possible. Otherwise, what will their choices be?
bondmanp Said:
Perhaps, but any strain may have worked. the main stream of ashkenazi orthodoxy had the most power and unity and on coming to Israel the power and ability to decide who were the heretics. there are apparently many smaller streams who survived that have now been deemed to be unauthentic by the rabbinics. But who came to those conclusions? We know for sure WHO did not come to those conclusions. Perhaps the rabbinics served their purpose in the same way that the Shoah served its purpose. Serving a purpose does not confer authenticity or exclusivity, it merely reflects G_D’s power.
bondmanp Said:
I agree, its called Stockholm Syndrome which appears to afflict those seculars on the left and the self proclaimed “True Torah” believers in the religious sector who dance with jew killers.
bondmanp Said:
and neither should it be dimiinished…. but that is not synonymous with a beleif in the “authority of the Torah” according to the interpretations of a particular set of influential men. G_D obviously transcends their vanity.
bondmanp Said:
Does that include Ruth’s “superficial” conversion? Are you sure that you and your associates are correctly applying His will when imposing your authority? Why would you assume that a reconstituted Sanhedrin would follow your dictates as opposed to saying you are all wrong? Reason is only part of the path to knowledge.
bondmanp Said:
the confusion and discordance arises from an unnecessary assignment of authority to men in issues relating to G_D.
bondmanp Said:
and yet throughout history there has been disagreement among Jews on the interpretations. the interpretations we follow now appear to be those of the rabbis of the diaspora punishment. Somehow, I see nothing of the academic Torah studiers in King David. He appears to me to be foreign to the black hatters, as if the black hatters came from Mars, or from a dysfunctional Stockholm Syndrome visited upon the Jews to which they wish to hang on.bondmanp Said:
I agree, but those claiming that are usually citing the words of men rather than the words of G_D. Can you show me the clear and unquestionable words of G_D that led to the patriarchal taboo and the abandonment of the Ruth conversion? (I dont beleive our G_D is vague with fools like us)
bondmanp Said:
LOL, an understatement, look at the Satmars and the NK to see what some TT jews do, even dance with Jew killers. I do not dismiss ALL rabbininc Judaism, I bring into question the blind acceptance of the conclusion of ancient rabbis with out questioning those conclusions and more importantly the enshrinement of mens conclusions into a set of apparently godly commandments. One cannot revere G_D and at the same time substitute mens interpretations for His words. Its as obvious as worshipping Jesus.
bondmanp Said:
Actually, that is not what is at issue. the first issue is whether Israel should allow one stream of Judaism to have a stranglehold on the lives of the rest of the Jews and whetehr “normative” Judaism is the only stream of Judaism that should be acceptable in israel. I do not think that the rabbinic “establishment” should be forced into compromising their standards but that their standards should no be forced on the rest of israel or Judaism.bondmanp Said:
You see, right here, on the most basic of issues I find your argument very unconvincing and yet that appears to be a pillar of rabbininc Judaism taken without questioning. Why is rabbininic Judaism considered to be all we have and why would rabbinic Judaism change that which went before and which was closer to the revelation at the Mount? Think, “many standards of Jewish Law were different”,…. but did G_D’s will change…. or did the will of men change? The book of Ruth appears straight forward with a teaching that appears clear and sensible, and which is later demonstrated to be fruitful in the blessing of David. Therefore her method of “conversion” was validated through time. In my view Rabbinic Judaism and rabbi’s, as we experience them, are not convincing enough to lead the Jewish people. Too many worship the 18th century Polish fashions and the superficiality of words. We can always see the foolishness of mens words when we see where it leads us.
bondmanp Said:
I think they should do what they want and accept what they want but I do not see a reason why they control Israelis lives. If G_D found Ruth’s embrace of Judaism as acceptable then who are the rabbi’s to deem otherwise?
bondmanp Said:
Judaim is not a worship of the diaspora, of 18th century Polish fashions, or a worshipping of mens interpretations of Tanakh instead of a graceful acceptance of the blessing of israel. the Judaism you describe appears to me to be an academic Judaism born of the diaspora punishment, reflecting the vanities of men, elevating intellectualism and the worship of mens intellectuallism,…….
this Judaism reminds me of how I and man Jews feel when hearinf christians worship Jesus instead of G_D. To Jews it is physically stinging because it clearly violates the first commandment. The rabbinic Jews seem to always refer to other men before they cite Tanakh and appear to have rendered mens words into stone as if their words and interpretations were timeless as G_Ds words. Surely, an all knowing G_D know his children are idiots and with children one cannot be vague in instruction; surely that which is not written in stone cannot have the same weight as what was given in stone; surely an allknowing G_D knows before hand that which is tranmitted orally will change over time and surely that same G_D knows how it will change naturally in the world he created; surely that which G_D transmitted orally was intended to change over time and by rendering those words, and mens interpretations of those words, into a substitute stone idol of worship. The worship of the words of rabbi’s , however brilliant those words may be, is a form of idolatry, IMO, and I am not convinced of the common sense of many of those conclusions(e..g ruth, descendancy through the mother, etc). I do not believe in a G_D that cannot directly reach his people, or needs the inter-mediation and interpretation of men, or who plays a game of intentionally fooling his people with vague mysterious peanut shell games or guess which door the lion is behind. I do not believe He renders himself distant from us that only through vain academics can we hear Him. The “number of angels on the head of a pin” type of discussions are the vanities of men to which I believe our G_D does not subscribe.
If you cannot convince me on such an important matter as Ruth
then what about less important matters? The same is true about descendancy through the mother which appears to come from a vague quotation but I see no specific admonition or cammandment that the children of jewish fathers are not Jews, only that there is a tendency in some or many cases. If this were ins stone then G_D would have said it clearly. Instead we are told we should rely on the judgement of the fallible, by the fallible. Being “normative” means coming to a consensus, which is no claim to truth as the world consensus is that the Jews are killing babies, run the world, apply apartheid, etc etc. Sometimes it looks like the rabbi’s just wanted to run the show and take G_D’s place.
By the way, I had a great Rabbi, but that was when I was a child and adult discussions had not yet arrived.
@ bernard ross:
The main difference between you and me, Mr. Ross, is that I willingly submit to what I accept as the superiority of the rabbinic authorities that have come before me, whether they lived 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago, or 2 years ago. I accept that all of Torah is from Sinai, inclusive of the Talmud and the commentaries thereon. I do not cherry-pick which parts of Torah I will accept, and which I will reject. I am not a perfect Jew, far from it. But I do not attempt to alter the inherited wisdom of my forefathers to legitimize my actions and choices. I have no grievance with the Torah or with the rabbinic authorities that are charged with preserving and teaching it.
@ Ted Belman:
Defining “Jewish” down, Ted.
@ bernard ross:
I think you missed my point. My point was that, absent rabbinic Judaism and its followers, there would have been no people to flee Europe, North Africa or the Near East when Jewish settlement in Eretz Israel became possible. Without the traditions maintained in the diaspora, the Jewish people would likely have mostly disintegrated and assimilated completely into the nations of the diaspora.
I actually do agree with you somewhat, in that certain subgroups of rabbinic Judaism resist what could be Eretz Israel’s full potential because, consciously or subconsciously, the re-establishment of the Priestly order, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the re-establishment of the Religious Court threatens the status quo. But the same can be said of the secularists who have a different status quo that would also be threatened by the return of these institutions. I see it this way: 2000 years of tradition will take more than 66 years of sovereignty to bring the changes that I believe ought to come. I am willing to patient. Patient with my brothers in their black hats, and patient with my secular brothers. I do love them all, even if I disagree with their beliefs or lifestyle. But my belief in the authority of the Torah is not diminished or altered by their choices, nor by popular humanist trends and influence. You should know that if the San Hedrin were reconstituted tomorrow, it would be unlikely to promote superficial conversions for the sake of unity as you might wish.
@ bernard ross:
@Bernard Ross: I don’t claim that rabbis are infallible or that they speak for God. But what is at issue here is whether the rabbinic establishment ought to be forced into compromising its standards based on the interests of people who are not concerned with the issues that affect normative Judaism. As for your reference to the Book of Ruth, yes, in the pre-Rabbinical era, many standards of Jewish law were different, including conversion. But since the destruction of the Second Temple (and even somewhat prior to that), rabbinic Judaism is all we as a people have, from a religious perspective. If some spiritual leader outside of the rabbinic establishment wishes to grant quickie conversions, and call those converts “Jews”, nothing is stopping him or her. But it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect those within the normative rabbinic establishment to accept those conversions. And that’s why we’re back to simply increasing confusion and discord amongst Jews. Judaism is not a feel-good hippy version of humanism in which everything is unicorns and rainbows. Any religious faith that allows unrestricted change risks becoming irrelevant, meaningless, and ultimately, nonexistent.
Are there problems and deficiencies within the Orthodox establishment in Israel and the diaspora? Of course there are. But demanding that adherents to Torah Judaism compromise their standards and traditions in the name of “unity” is a canard. It is like the Reform synagogue that invites an Orthodox congregation to a dinner to celebrate unity. The Orthodox congregation refuses when it learns the dinner will not be in accordance with Jewish dietary laws. The leaders of the Reform synagogue then point a finger at the Orthodox congregation, claiming that their attempt at promoting unity was rejected by the Orthodox. Personal feelings about the moral and religious absolutes of the Torah are simply irrelevant. The Torah is the Torah, Rabbinic Judaism is Rabbinic Judaism. If it is not for you, fine. But try to understand how improper it seems to those who choose to observe Torah when those outside of the Torah world demand that changes be made to accommodate those who reject rabbinic standards and practices.
I personally do not claim to know of a surety who is right or wrong. I believe strongly that the Religious-Zionist camp has it right. But it would be hubris to claim that everyone else is wrong. All I can do is support those whom I agree with. But I do not and ought not demand that those with whom I disagree change their beliefs to accommodate me. There are core differences that cannot be swept under the rug for the sake of unity. For those whom Torah is truly seen as the word of God, there is more at stake here than unity alone, or personal feelings. I regret that your own experience was negative. I would be lying if I said that I have never had issues with Torah-observant Jews. But I do not dismiss all of rabbinic Judaism because I do not approve of the actions of some of its followers.
@ Ted Belman:
Perhaps the solution lies in Noahidism…. Perhaps it should be given official status in Israel for births marriage etc. In that way the rejected and secular Jews could become Noahides to maintain their place in heaven. I bet they would be the majority. In fact, perhaps it should be a global movement,it would provide support to israel and the Jews in return for a place in heaven. actually, it would probably become the worlds most popular religion where you get the benefits without having to do all the work. It might catch on like wildfire. 🙂
bondmanp Said:
what obtained before those 2000 years, and does good theological reasoning take precedence over G_D? Those 2000 years were spent in the punishment of the diaspora, did it have anything to do with the presumption of men’s theological reasoning?
bondmanp Said:
those who “kept the Torah” did not return the Jews to their homeland, it was the pogroms and the shoah that returned the Jews, even Herzl was a secular. My understanding is that those who supposedly “keep the Torah” tried to keep the Jews in the diaspora and many Jews died on their advice. Apparently they are doing the same right now again in europe instead of exhorting the Jews to leave based on prior experience. Perhaps those who tout themselves as “keeping the Torah” are not really keeping the Torah but maintaining their own social status. The black hat religious sector appear married to the punishment of the diaspora and see no blessing in the return of the Jews, spit on IDF women who protect their sorry asses….. it is difficult to accept their interpretations of Torah and their authority.
In my view rabbi’s are men and are fallible both then and now. They are not gods and do not speak for G_D. As for who is a Jew and conversion we have the Book of Ruth and she was not converted by a Beit din. As for descendancy through the mother that also came from interpretations of rabbis: we do not say David Ben Ruth. I think that much of the conflict among Jews comes from these separations which were created by men. Although I tend to agree somewhat with Ted but not just as a solution for Israeli unity. The Jews are a family, a tribe, and in a tribe members come and go according to their embrace of the tribe and their acceptance by the tribe, birth marriage, etc. to keep sending away family members not only seems counter productive but also mean spirited. Much of religion is appearances: I see little support of Israel from the religious sector as I originally expected to find before I knew better. I find the religious sector very disappointing but realize that this demonstrates that the same happened before. Therefore, if I dont respect them now, why would I listen to what they said then. I prefer deeds to words. If their studies and words lead them to a place of abandonment of Israel then I know they are wrong.
@ Ted Belman:
I have to disagree, Ted. For at least 2000 years, the standards have been in place for conversion, and with good, theological reason. This may not be important to you, but consider how the Torah community views this: If a gentile observes just the Seven Noachide commandments, that gentile is seen as one who merits Olam Haba (what gentiles would call Heaven). For a Jew, the other 606 commandments are also required simply to receive the very same reward. A gentile, who might be deserving of Olam Haba, by converting, obligates himself to all 613 commandments. If he fails to observe the additional 606 commandments, he may well forfeit his place in Heaven. And who’s fault would that be? It would be the fault of the rabbinic authority that converted someone unwilling to accept the entire Torah. So, the convert has been denied a place in Olam Haba that he would have merited had he not converted. To people of faith, this is serious stuff. Now, if a convert commits to full Torah observance, and in the opinion of the converting rabbi is serious about it, and then subsequently, he lapses in his observance, and forfeits his place in Heaven, that would not be the fault of the converting rabbi. But if the rabbi is not confident that the convert will even attempt to fully observe Torah, who is he to deprive the potential convert of his place in Heaven? You may not be concerned with such issues, but it is not really fair to ask a rabbi who is understandably concerned with these issues to set aside his religious convictions and authorize the conversion.
And why should the non-Torah community care what the Torah community thinks? Because the Torah community is the back-bone of the Jewish people, and is the subset ultimately responsible for the survival of the Jewish People.
Furthermore, children of “drive-by” conversions would most likely never be considered Jews by birth (assuming it was the mother who got the quickie conversion) by a large majority of normative Jewish rabbinic authorities. That would only serve to increase confusion, discord and division amongst the Jewish People you are trying to “save”. Diluting Jewish law is not what has preserved the Jews in the post-Temple era, Ted. It is precisely because a core group of faithful Jews have kept the Torah that we survived in the diaspora so that we could return to our homeland. Adjusting Jewish law for convenience will ultimately end up with a people who do not understand why they are even a people, much less why Eretz Israel has any connection or relevance to them.
The majority of Jews in Israel are secular. Why is it so important that gentiles accepted as converts commit to following the 613 mitzvot. Its enough for me if they accept the label Jew and Israel as their home. What matters is that their children consider themselves as jews. That’s a better solution than having all these gentiles in Israel see themselves as separate from the Jewish people.
Any religion is about standards, and Judaism is no exception. The Rabbinic standards for conversion must be maintained if conversion is to have any meaning or authenticity. As for the “existence of the Jewish people” being “‘in doubt'”, Eretz Israel has always had sizeable groups of non-Jews living in it, without the threatened end to the existence of the Jewish people. I would say, rather, that the dilution of religious standards would be more likely to bring about the end of the existence of the Jews as a distinct people than the upholding of those standards. One need only look at the diaspora for examples. The “who is a Jew” question is a serious one, and the Rabbanut should focus on public information campaigns informing Israelis of how to determine who is actually Jewish, who is not, and the ramifications of intermarriage. Emphasis must be placed on the different implications for children of mixed marriages depending on which spouse is Jewish. Non-Jewish Israeli school children should be encouraged, via tax incentives, to attend schools that serve their own actual faith communities.