web analytics
April 16, 2014 / 16 Nisan, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘GPS’

The Truth About RCA Geirus

Wednesday, March 12th, 2008

         There is a sign hanging in my office that should be standard in the office of every rabbi, communal leader, worker for Klal Yisrael or activist of any sort. It reads: “For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism.” And so goes the overheated, misleading, and at times blatantly false reaction by several of my distinguished RCA colleagues to the RCA’s recent promulgation of the Geirus Policies and Standards (GPS).
 
         Let us sort through the myths and the facts.
 
         Myth: The Jewish Week headlined its report “RCA Seen as Caving in on Conversions”  (to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel). That headline is a contemptible untruth. Having served from its inception on the GPS Committee that formulated the standards, I can state that the reality is the Rabbanut never once suggested an approach to conversion in America, a change in any of our standards, or the adoption of any of their standards.
 
         Myth: The GPS calls for the re-evaluation of all conversions done in the past by RCA rabbis. This is an especially despicable falsehood, as it serves only to make generations of converts in the Jewish community anxious about their status and acceptance in the community at large. The reality is that not one past geirus is being reviewed by the RCA or its Beth Din of America, and such was never contemplated. To even suggest otherwise is to blatantly violate the Torah’s numerous admonitions against tormenting the ger.
 
         Myth: The RCA is shifting “to the right” (whatever that means) and has now adopted a series of harsh and restrictive regulations that will hinder the ability of non-Jews to convert. The reality is that these standards are not new, but an expression of the majority opinion in halacha as interpreted through the ages and historically applied by the overwhelming majority of RCA rabbis involved in geirus.
 
         The proximate cause of the promulgation of the GPS was the sense – here and in Israel – that some rabbis, both inside and outside the RCA, were not adhering to any reasonable benchmark by which geirus has traditionally been executed. This situation had to be rectified in order to protect the integrity of geirus in America and to facilitate a convert’s acceptance in Israel should he or she choose to make aliyah.
 
         Myth: The Chief Rabbinate will sit in judgment of each American geirus – past, present and future. Well, there is a kernel of truth in every bushel of lies. But this point is nothing new. Certainly the Rabbanut has no standing (or interest) to review the geirus that occurs outside Israel until and unless there is some Israel nexus, such as when the convert makes aliyah. But this has always been the case.
 
         As a pulpit rabbi, I have provided dozens of affidavits to the Rabbanut attesting to the Jewishness of my members who were born Jews or who converted according to halacha andwho wished to make aliyah or marry in Israel. And this is justly the province and domain of the Chief Rabbinate, and its legal authority under Israeli law. In this instance, the GPS makes the process easier, as participating regional batei din in the network of the RCA, under the auspices of the Beth Din of America, are pre-certified to have their conversions accepted by the Rabbanut.
 
         A convert who (sadly) never contemplates aliyah or does not marry in the State of Israel will never have any contact with the Rabbanut on these matters.
 
         Myth: The Chief Rabbinate will not recognize any conversion performed outside the GPS framework. This is also completely false. Any rabbi – RCA or otherwise – can continue to perform conversions on his own and apply to the Rabbanut for acceptance. The considerations the Rabbanut will use are its alone, and completely within its purview. I suspect that some conversions will be accepted, and others rejected – as it has always been.
 
         Beyond the myths, there is a bigger picture that needs to be considered. One of the most joyous moments in the rabbinate, for me, has been presiding over the conversion process. In a single instant, a non-Jew accepts upon himself not only the laws and customs that regulate Jewish life but also the history and destiny of our covenantal people. A conversion properly conducted and performed is fraught with solemnity, consequence and elation. The process should require intense study, a steadily increasing commitment to halachic practice, and climaxing in a complete acceptance of the mitzvos while standing in the mikveh.
 
         Nevertheless, it has long been an open secret in the United States (filtered over time to rabbinic authorities in Israel) that there were some American rabbis – again, both members and non-members of the RCA – who officiated at conversions that lacked these prerequisites. Apparently there were rabbis who took substantial sums of money for conversions, turning this sublime process into a lucrative business. There were rabbis who were forced to convert non-Jews under duress, as in the (hypothetical) shul president stating: “Convert my future daughter-in-law or find another job.”
 
         There were rabbis who were lax in applying the appropriate halachic standards and not insisting, expecting or even contemplating that there would be kabbalas hamitzvos in any realistic way – conversions without a genuine commitment to observance of Shabbos, kashrus, taharas hamishpacha and other staples of Jewish life.
 
         They asked questions with a wink and received the appropriate answers by the candidates, as if they were reading from a script. (And in almost every such case the conversions were performed for the purpose of marriage. Why else would a rabbi even think of converting a non-Jew who does not wish to observe Jewish law, except for some pressing ulterior concern that itself undermines the very fabric of geirus?)
 
         There were rabbis who were negligent even in the technical performance of the act of geirus, including a failure to observe the immersion in the mikveh. There were rabbis who converted non-Jewish women knowing they would marry kohanim in violation of Torah law. There were some who availed themselves of every leniency and loophole, ensuring that pro forma conversions would take place that would satisfy the needs of the member in question but not necessarily the letter or spirit of the law.
 
         (Lest the reader think there was pervasive chaos, the “rabbis” referred to in the examples above were usually the very same small number of people.)
 
         The GPS Committee performed a vital public service in formulating and disseminating these standards. The formation of regional batei din across the United States – and the ban on the sponsoring or teaching rabbi from serving as a dayan for someone he himself taught or guided – ensure that the individual rabbi is shielded from undue pressure to perform a conversion that is unsatisfactory and lacking in halachic substance.
 
         These dozen batei din, and the more than forty rabbanim who serve on them, have the full backing of the Chief Rabbinate, ensuring that converts who are potential olim receive a royal welcome home. And, I suspect, the existence of these batei din will sharply reduce the number of non-Jews who convert solely for marriage or some other inducement. Further, the GPS deals sensitively with gerim who are contemplating marriage but wish to convert sincerely, with intermarried couples that want to re-enter the community of committed Jews, and with infertile couples who wish to adopt a non-Jewish child and confer merit upon him under the wings of the Divine Presence.
 
         With all due respect, I must strongly object to my colleagues’ demagoguery, which serves only to alarm true and sincere converts as well as promote these esteemed rabbis’ own private, political agenda. The GPS Committee – comprised of a geographic and hashkaficcross-section of the RCA – labored over 18 months to produce an appropriate formula that universalizes standards for geirus but that nonetheless allows for the flexibility needed in evaluating something as subjective as another person’s commitment and sincerity. It has, perhaps, the support of 97% of the RCA membership. It is fair, honorable, sensitive, just and moral.
 
         Its opponents, rather than talk in flowery generalities, must answer the following:
 
         Do you require from prospective converts a genuine commitment to observance of Shabbos, kashrus, and other fundamental areas of Jewish law? If not, please state so openly.
 
         Do you perform conversions in which there is willful blindness to reality in order to accommodate those whose commitment is lacking, and have you ever officiated at a conversion in which you were doubtful of the candidate’s sincere commitment to Torah and mitzvos? If so, please state so openly.
 
         Do you feel you are performing a public service in adding to the ranks of the Jewish people those who do not share our value system, our lifestyle or our destiny – thereby transforming good and decent non-Jews into sinning Jews? If so, please state precisely the nature of that public service, explain the reasoning behind that disservice to non-Jews as well as the justification that underlies the unbridled attack on the sincere efforts of your colleagues.
 

         Certainly, for every action there is an equal and opposite criticism – if only the criticism would be reasonable, measured, truthful and justified.

 
         With the GPS system in place, a stumbling block has been removed from the process of conversion and the process itself simplified; the honor of righteous converts has been redeemed; the privilege of joining the Jewish people given its proper credence; and, most important, the Torah has been magnified and glorified.
 

         Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey, treasurer of the Rabbinical Council of America, a member of the Geirus Policies and Standards Committee, and the rosh beit din of the Beit Din L’Giyur in Bergen County where, he reports, GPS guidelines are already in place and functioning superbly.

The Miracle Of Marriage

Wednesday, May 30th, 2007

       With the Sefiras HaOmer period behind us, the wedding season is in full swing. Invitations to engagement parties, aufrufs and chasunahs will soon be stuffing many a mailbox.

 

         This leads me to a speech I heard years ago in Pittsburgh, during which the speaker repeated a comment he had heard from his rav years earlier when he was a bochur. The rav pointed out that based on statistics (at that time), 50 percent of all marriages ended in divorce. That was not surprising to him, he stated. What was surprising to him was that half of all marriages didnot succumb to divorce;they actually succeeded! When you factor in human nature, with its tendency to be selfish, stubborn and easily bored, one’s logical expectation was that long-term unions would be rather rare.

 

         Think about it. What does marriage entail? You have two relative strangers (in fact, they likely were unaware of each other’s existence months earlier) who suddenly must surrender their habit of living their daily lives “my way” in favor of “our way.”

 

         Both members of the twosome were raised in a unique environment, and thus experienced the same life situations in a unique way. After years (from infancy through adulthood) of being exposed on a daily basis to their particular family’s “culture,” and being influenced by its way of assessing and reacting to what they see, hear, feel, etc., a newlywed is expected to accommodate his/her spouse’s perspective of how their lives should be lived.

 

         It can be as simple a matter as one growing up on spicy food, with lots of garlic, paprika and pepper, while the other was raised on blander food. Or something a bit more complicated as one wanting to have lots of company every Friday night, and the other desiring a more quite, relaxing evening. It goes without saying that when a couple does not see eye to eye on major issues (i.e., only one partner wants a materialistic lifestyle, or only one is set on living in a particular geographical area), they are in an at-risk marriage.

 

         And that is the greatest challenge to a lasting union – the mutual willingness/ability to set aside individual views and find a common path that is acceptable to both.

 

         Even those couples that have been raised with identical values and hashkafahs,and basically agree on major issues (i.e., both want to make aliyah or both want a learning-based lifestyle) will find themselves at odds over how some things should be done.

 

         On the road of life, to use a rather common metaphor, I feel that husbands and wives are in parallel cars that are side by side on a four-lane highway, committed to heading in the same direction. However there are times when one will insist that one must turn left or right in order to get to where they should be going. The only way their journey will work is if they take turns yielding to the other’s “navigation,” whereby each must compromise and follow the other’s direction.

 

         Yet one cannot always be yielding to what the other wants, nor expect the other to do the same. In a healthy matrimonial journey both must respect the other’s point of view, if not necessarily agree or even understand it. Remember, each human being has a unique way of assessing things that may or may not be on the same page as his/her partner’s.

 

         It is very common for a police officer, for example, to interview several witnesses to an accident and get conflicting accounts of what happened. All saw the same thing, yet their perceptions of the very same scenario vary, influenced by their unique life experiences. What counts is that each validates the other’s feelings and opinion on how to go about that particular stretch of road, and work out something both can live with.

 

         It’s OK for either to make “lane changes” since they are still headed in the same direction. Say one likes to watch baseball games while the other enjoys hiking; each should have the freedom to pursue what they enjoy. It’s healthy from time to time to be a “me” and not an “us.” A bit of space between the cars is a good thing – or there is risk of collision.

 

         The goal is to head in the same direction. If both cannot agree on the road, there is a danger that their paths will diverge – that they will lose sight of each other and ultimately drift apart – for good.

 

        Understanding that no two people are going to think alike 100 percent of the time, mutual respect, and the willingness to compromise, combine to be the GPS on the long road of life.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/sections/magazine/the-miracle-of-marriage/2007/05/30/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: