web analytics
April 23, 2014 / 23 Nisan, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘RCA’

‘Pretty Worth It In The End’: An Interview With Dominican-American Convert Aliza Hausman

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

Have you read the blog Jewminicana? If you have, you are already familiar with Aliza Hausman, a recently converted Dominican-American blogger. She blogs about her childhood, upbringing, conversion, and a wide range of other topics. She and her husband, a semichah student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, also speak about life as a religious interracial couple.

Hausman’s conversion process began five years ago. She first became interested in Judaism when she was in junior high school. A Holocaust survivor spoke to the students in her school, and the idea of survivorhood resonated with her. The Jewish Press interviewed her about her decision to convert and about her blog (www.alizahausman.net), which has allowed her to help other people of color who are looking to convert to Judaism.

The Jewish Press: What was it about the survivor’s story that piqued your interest in Judaism?

Hausman: I think by the time I was 13 years old I was pretty sure I was not going to make it to my 18th birthday. Either my mother was going to kill me or I was going to kill myself. I came to school with bruises every other day that I had to hide. And this woman came in and told us that she had survived the unimaginable – unimaginable to most of my friends.

How did you relate to her?

To me it was like this is one person who I think would understand what I’ve been going through my whole life, which is basically being tortured every day by my mother. I thought, “You know, if she can survive, I can survive.” My initial thought was Jews can survive anything, and if I became Jewish, I’d probably survive too. It gave me hope.

What do you see as the main message of Judaism?

When I was Catholic, it seemed that we were focused on striving toward heaven. Everything on earth was sinful and dirty and bad. In Judaism I’m trying to bring heaven to earth. Trying to bring spirituality and godliness to everything I do.

Why did you start blogging?

I started the conversion process; I was 25 years old. Every Shabbat meal, someone would ask me, “Why are you in the conversion process?” One of my friends, Drew Kaplan, was a rabbinical student at the time and a blogger, and he said it’d be easier if I just wrote a blog. After Shabbos I could send people to the blog, and it would explain everything . A mission of my blog is to make people more sensitive. The first thing you say is “Hi and welcome,” not “Are you Jewish?”

Do you ever worry that being so frank in a public sphere could harm your husband’s odds of getting a pulpit?

I worry about that every day. You know, it’s been interesting. My mother-in-law’s friends read my blog. My husband applied for an internship and the rabbi read the blog. I guess I’m kind of lucky they liked the blog. It’s not always the case. I get hate mail. Everything from “You’re not being Orthodox” to “You’re not being Dominican.”

What do you gain from the experience?

I keep doing it because you get these letters from all over the world, and people are like, “Thank you for sharing that little bit of yourself with me,” because people can relate – from child abuse, converts, multiple identities; that’s why I keep doing it.

What topics do you cover during your speaking engagements?

The more I come into contact with other converts of color, [I find] a lot of them have had racist experiences. Jews have been blatantly racist to them or they’ve gone to a synagogue event and people have assumed that they’re the help or the janitor. My husband and I use sources, but [also] just telling people how difficult it is, coming in from a different religion, different planet, or how converts cope. We tell one story where a convert’s mother called her to her deathbed and asked that she convert back to Christianity. I don’t think people really understand that – how hard some converts have it.

In what ways do you see your Judaism benefiting from Dominican culture?

Food! I have chulent every Shabbos, but I also have rice and beans every Shabbos, a staple of Dominican culture, and plantains. I go out of my way to meet Jewish Latinos and find people that speak Spanish, because speaking and understanding Spanish is very important to me. I’ve been told by Jews who converted, “That was important, but shouldn’t be anymore. Hebrew is.” As if a person can’t speak more than two languages! Music. We played a lot of Hebrew music at my wedding, and I asked for salsa or merengue. A kosher caterer made Dominican food for our wedding.

Do you help converts find rabbis to work with?

It’s something I got into in the last couple of months. In the last year the RCA has reformatted how they do conversions. It’s interesting, and one of the hardest things is finding a rabbi. I talk to Rabbi Zilberman at the RCA and get as much info as I can, and go to him and ask him where this person from here with this situation can find someone to sponsor them and help them.

A lot of rabbis are turning people away and no longer want to be involved with conversion. I think I have way more contacts than they do, so I try to help them find rabbis, find people in different communities that they can connect to; other converts. I actually do that a lot.

How do you advise someone who is in the process of converting but struggling with aspects of halacha or the rabbi’s expectations of her?

I’ve been asked by converts how you reconcile women’s issues and feminism with Orthodoxy, how you reconcile homosexuality with Judaism. I’m very clear. I do believe there are things that can’t be reconciled. I don’t believe that you’re not going to struggle with things. The other day a convert asked, “How did you feel about giving up Jesus?” Very easy; I never took it up. I tell people to take it slow.

I got one convert who was like, “I want to convert; I’m not quite sure which movement.” I told him to look at what each stands for and the ideology. He decides first he wants to be Conservative. He has a fianc? – not Jewish, doesn’t want to convert. The Conservative rabbi says, “You have to promise to raise the kids Jewish.” Convert comes back and says, “How can I, if they won’t be because my wife’s not Jewish?” Next time he decided he was going to be Orthodox. How will that work, exactly?

What message do you give to people who are converting?

I don’t think I have a message. It’s very different dealing with someone who is a baal teshuvah and starting to learn, and this need to bring them in. But a convert is just running toward Judaism like a speeding train. I try to explain that it’s going to be hard, not always pretty, there will be issues usually with family and friends. But I think it’s pretty worth it in the end.

Rabbi Avi Weiss Backs Off ‘Rabba’ Title ‘For Sake Of Peace’

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

Just a few weeks after declaring Sara Hurwitz a “rabba” in order to “make clear” her status as “a full member of our rabbinic staff,” Rabbi Avi Weiss promised the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) that neither he nor his Yeshivat Maharat will confer that title on any other woman.

Rabbi Weiss – spiritual leader of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, founder of both Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and Yeshivat Maharat, and a weekly Jewish Press columnist – ascribed his concession to “the tension caused to our greater community and my commitment to the principle of gadol ha’shalom.”

Rabbi Weiss granted Hurwitz the title of maharat – an acronym of the Hebrew words manhiga hilchatit ruchanit toranit (halachic, spiritual and Torah leader) – last March after she studied and was tested in the same areas of halacha that men traditionally master before receiving semicha.

The new title, however, sounded awkward, and so in late January, Rabbi Weiss dropped maharat and together with Rabbi Dr. Daniel Sperber of Bar-Ilan University formally ordained Hurwitz as a rabba.

To many in the Orthodox community, Rabbi Weiss had gone too far. The Agudath Israel Council of Torah Sages declared the move “a radical and dangerous departure from Jewish tradition and the mesoras haTorah, and must be condemned in the strongest terms. Any congregation with a woman in a rabbinical position of any sort cannot be considered Orthodox.”

Both Rabbi Weiss and the RCA denied a Jewish Week report that the RCA was considering expelling Rabbi Weiss from its ranks. “There is no basis to those rumors,” RCA President Rabbi Moshe Kletenik told The Jewish Press. But Rabbi Weiss backed down on the rabba title nonetheless. In a letter to

Rabbi Kletenik, Rabbi Weiss wrote, “The change in title from ‘Maharat’ to ‘Rabba’ has precipitated a level of controversy in the Orthodox community that was neither expected nor intended.”

In a speech to his community this past Shabbos, Rabbi Weiss said he only agreed to drop the title rabba “for the sake of peace,” arguing that qualified women can and should perform many rabbinical duties. He cited Yeshiva University Chancellor Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, who told the Jerusalem Post last year that his opposition to women rabbis was “social, not religious.”

In a recent interview in YU’s student newspaper, The Commentator, Rabbi Lamm referred to this comment, saying, “I was criticized, of course. People asked, ‘You mean that al pi din they’re allowed to become rabbis?’ My response: ‘I don’t know. Are you sure they’re not allowed to?’

Rabbi Lamm went on to say, however, “It is too early to tell where this is all headed and I think they are moving much too quickly. Do I think having women rabbis is a good thing? I do not know. I am, however, concerned that, before long, we will find ourselves overly feminized, and I would not want to see that happen.”

The RCA’s Rabbi Kletenik, however, was unequivocal.

“To ordain a woman as a rabbi,” he told The Jewish Press, “is a breach of our mesorah and not acceptable in an Orthodox synagogue.”

Rabbi Kletenik didn’t endorse or condemn the title maharat, but said semantics are irrelevant. “Regardless of the title, if a woman is acting in the role of a rabbi, that’s something which is not acceptable.”

The importance of higher Jewish education for women is not in dispute, he said. “Certainly we encourage Torah scholarship for women, and there are appropriate roles for women to play in terms of leadership within the Jewish community. But being a rabbi is not one of them.”

The RCA will discuss possible leadership roles for women at its annual convention in April, he said.

Rabbi Weiss’s compromise with the RCA comes 12 years after he and Rabbi Adam Mintz, former rabbi of Manhattan’s Lincoln Square Synagogue, hired women interns for their congregations. Both rabbis declared at the time that the hirings should not be interpreted as a stepping-stone toward the appointment of women rabbis.

“The call for women to be rabbis is unhelpful. It has halachic problems,” Rabbi Weiss told The Jerusalem Post at the time.

But a decade later, Rabbi Weiss apparently had a change of heart. When he conferred the title of maharat upon Hurwitz last year, he published the halachic rulings of three contemporary rabbis permitting some form of rabbinic ordination for women.

In a 2009 halachic responsum addressed to Rabbi Weiss, noted religious Zionist leader Rabbi Yoel Bin Nun argued “that an Isha Hakhama can teach and instruct, according to all of the opinions, and a community can accept upon themselves an Isha Hakhama as their teacher (Morah) in Torah, in all of the regular roles of a community and synagogue rabbi, and there is no aspect of suspicion or prohibition, even according to the strict positions in Halakha on this issue.”

‘You Can’t Allow The Nation To Be Divided’ – An Interview With Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar

Wednesday, August 5th, 2009

The Jewish Press spoke last week with Rabbi Shlomo Amar, Israel’s Sephardi chief rabbi since 2003, on the contentious issue of conversion to Judaism.

Jewish Press: Your attempt to impose conversion regulations in the U.S. that would be acceptable to Israel’s Chief Rabbinate garnered a lot of attention and created not a little controversy. Are there any new developments in that area?

Rabbi Amar: I should make it clear that I was referring only to new conversions. I did not touch or alter any actions of my predecessors – or any rabbi or rabbinate abroad recognized by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate before I came into office. My concern was with new rabbis or rabbinates that started issuing conversion certificates after I became chief rabbi. I feel that before they can have any involvement in the matter of conversion, they need to be checked and tested in order to determine whether they are indeed qualified to carry out conversions.

At least initially, the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) seemed to take rather strong issue with your position.

In the beginning, the RCA voiced concern with my stance and there was a furor in some of the Jewish papers that made it seem as if I didn’t want to recognize the RCA’s conversions. The RCA sent a delegation to Israel and I clarified to them what my reservations were. They understood and agreed with me. It took a year until we formulated a modus operandi and then I came to New York to meet with RCA leaders.

How did your intervention affect the way conversions are handled?

Until then, the procedure was that any rabbi could engage in conversions. I asked that they set up a system of regional batei din with three recognized rabbis and that if new rabbis were to be added they first must be tested. I suggested that any new rabbi come to us in Israel for testing, but they objected to that. So we decided the test would be carried out by two of their rabbis, Rabbis Hershel Schachter and Mordechai Willig, and I would send a third rabbi or judge from the Chief Rabbinate in Israel to join them and he would bring any questions from Israel.

How is the arrangement working out?

They set up several batei din and sent me names of new rabbis they want to add. While I rely on Rabbis Schachter and Willig, I will not automatically accept a new name without checking up on him first. So far, though, no tests have been carried out as I’ve been inundated with work that has prevented me from putting more time into the project.

So while it’s common knowledge that the Chief Rabbinate does not recognize Conservative or Reform conversions, the fact is you don’t recognize Orthodox conversions carte blanche either.

Yes, that’s right. There are a lot of new rabbis who call themselves Orthodox but whom we have not yet verified in terms of their qualifications to perform conversions. We can’t stop them from doing anything, but we can refuse to recognize their conversions. So if someone comes along with a conversion certificate not issued by any of the batei din approved by us, we won’t automatically accept it.

Now, there are cases where we’ve disqualified Orthodox rabbis whom we had recognized in the past. We did so after having received complaints about those rabbis, but not until we verified the matter thoroughly. When someone comes to us accusing a rabbi of not performing as per halacha, we ask the complainant to describe in writing what fault he found and to sign his name. I then send the letter to the rabbi in question in order for him to respond.

What is your reaction to the recent decision by the Court of Appeal in London that ongoing personal acts of faith, rather than birth or conversion, defines a Jew?

Unfortunately, we can refer to the courts in Israel that are gravitating in the same direction. Not too long ago the courts here ruled that non-Orthodox groups in Israel should be funded and be able to continue their non-halachic activities.

As long as the Who is a Jew law is not amended, the courts will allow Reform, Conservative and every other non-halachic group to make inroads and destroy the character of the state. If, God forbid, they will begin to validate Reform and Conservative marriages and conversions in Israel, the nation will be divided.

This gives me no rest, as it is forbidden to tear this nation in half. Having various political parties who disagree on ideology is not threatening – that can occur in the best of families – but once you stop marrying each other, that’s a real split and it is forbidden that this should occur.

What is your message to American Jewry, to American rabbis?

I think my proposal to set up recognized batei din was a good start, but another vital step that must be taken is that there must be uniform registration in every country. I explained this to the RCA leaders when I met with them. For instance, all rabbinates should print up identical forms and when a couple registers to marry they will get a copy of the form, the rabbi will get one and a third one will be filed away in a central database where one will be able to see which rabbi performed the marriage. Likewise, when a person converts anywhere in the U.S., every rabbi will be able to know who performed the conversion since it will be filed away in this central database. The same with regard to divorces.

But won’t that create arguments among rabbis and rabbinates over who should control this database?

I suggest that each rabbinate or rabbinic organization set up its own database – the RCA would have its database, the Agudas Harabonim would have its database, etc. – and they can all cooperate and coordinate. I agree it might cause friction, but first start organizing it and then worry about the arguments later. Certainly we can come to some kind of meeting of minds.

I’m sure there were many arguments and disagreements when they formed the Chief Rabbinate in Israel many years ago but today, thank God, even though there are many private batei din in all parts of the country, there is an orderly arrangement and everything is registered with the central body – the Chief Rabbinate.

Jewish Community Acts To Tackle Economic Crisis

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009

            America has been hit by what is likely the worst financial crisis since The Great Depression. Many Jewish communities have been hit hard, with a staggering number of families struggling with joblessness. Jewish organizations that package donated kosher food report a dramatic increase in the number of families in dire need of assistance. Estimates in some places find that about 1 out of every 25 families is receiving aid.

 

Providing minimum food requirements and making mortgage payments has become an overwhelming and impossible challenge. Many of these households were accustomed to helping others. Now the depressing reality is that they, themselves, are crying out for communal support. And the forecast for the near future is not encouraging.

 

Those who are still only minimally affected but anticipating even worse times wonder how they can possibly help those whose fortunes have fallen on such hardships. It is true that as individuals, we cannot support those who need our help. However, together, we can ease their burden considerably.

 

This Shabbos, Parshas Beshalach/Parshas HaMan, rabbis have joined in a nationwide effort to make an emergency parnassah appeal. As Rabbi Zishe Novoseller, executive director of EPI, said earlier this week, “We are all in this together. The OU, National Council of Young Israel, COJO, the RCA, Agudath Israel and many other major Jewish organizations have united to participate with the emergency aid initiative to help the Jewish community. Working together is our only hope to alleviate the depressing problems facing our people.”

 

A recent gathering of nearly 100 Flatbush rabbonim discussed how best to help the suffering mispallelim, with Rav Matisyahu Solomon, of Beth Medrash Govoha of Lakewood, urging for the Parshas Beshalach/Parshas HaMan appeal.

 

The appeal this Shabbos is just the first step of many to ease the pain of those who are out of work, with the funds shuls raise to be directed solely toward the mispallelim of your shul and community who have lost their jobs during the past year.

 

Communities are encouraged to follow the lead of those in Boro Park, Flatbush, and Monsey who have established a matching funds program that gives two dollars to each family for every dollar that is donated, and collectively, we must network with our contacts in order to assist a fellow Yid in finding a new job.

 

For more information visit www.ny@ny.pcsjobs.org.

Intense Debate Follows Orthodox Rabbi’s Presence At D.C. Service

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

A prominent Manhattan rabbi is defending his decision to participate in last week’s National Prayer Service.

Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in New York City was one of three Jewish clergymen to participate in the service Jan. 21 at the National Cathedral on the morning after Barack Obama’s inauguration.

As the service was taking place, in response to a call from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the executive director of the Rabbinical Council of America, Rabbi Basil Herring, said Lookstein was breaking the organization’s rules by participating in the service.

Herring said Lookstein’s participation was problematic both because the service was held in the sanctuary of a church, which Orthodox Jews are prohibited from entering, and because it was an interfaith prayer service, which the RCA discourages for fear that such participation could allow missionaries to legitimize their argument that Jews can indeed embrace Jesus.

“To go into a cathedral, in this case an Episcopalian cathedral in the main sanctuary, is certainly by most accounts not appropriate,” Herring said. “If one wants to visit the Sistine Chapel to view the art of Michelangelo it is problematic. There is no political perspective here that says you should not do it because it is politically sensitive. Of course it is a purely religious question.”

In an interview with JTA just hours after the service concluded and in a mass e-mail to his colleagues later in the week, Lookstein defended his decision.

“After consultation with people who are absolutely committed to [Jewish law], I had originally decided to do it because I felt it was a civic duty to honor the new president of the United States. That is why I originally agreed to do it,” Lookstein said.

“But the people who spoke to me about it indicated it was an important contribution to the Orthodox community because it is only right for the Orthodox community to be supporting the president in a visible way when he is being supported by representatives of the Conservative and Reform movements.”

The controversy has triggered a robust debate among Modern Orthodox rabbis, both regarding the substantive question at hand – whether Lookstein’s decision to participate was permitted under Jewish law – and the process question of whether the RCA overstepped its bounds or mishandled the situation by criticizing Lookstein publicly.

The founders of an alternative Orthodox rabbinic group, the International Rabbinic Fellowship, have come to Lookstein’s defense.

In a statement, Rabbis Avi Weiss and Marc Angel defended Lookstein’s right to decide for himself whether to participate and took aim at what they framed as the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of Orthodox rabbinic bodies, including the RCA.

The RCA’s Herring, in addition to commenting on the situation, sent JTA a statement drafted by the organization.

“The long-standing policy of the Rabbinical Council of America, in accordance with Jewish law, is that participation in a prayer service held in the sanctuary of a church is prohibited,” the RCA statement said. “Any member of the RCA who attends such a service does so in contravention of this policy and should not be perceived as representing the organization in any capacity.”

Even some RCA members who agreed with the RCA’s view that Lookstein had made a mistake believed the organization should have remained silent or limited its comments to the public statement.

This week, the RCA’s president, Rabbi Shlomo Hochberg, denied his organization had ever taken a public stance on the matter.

“We did not issue any press release,” Hochberg said. “We gave you our policy statement about a longstanding RCA policy. There is no comment about Rabbi Lookstein. He acted independently and not on our behalf. It wasn’t going to be sent to anyone. If no one called, it would not have gone out. It was not going to be sent out to anyone.”

Lookstein joined six representatives of various religious communities, including Rabbi Jerome Epstein, the executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, in reciting portions of a nondenominational responsive prayer. Most of the overall service was nondenominational, but there were a few distinctly Christian references.

The other four religious representatives to read part of the prayer were Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America; the Rev. Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners; Uma Mysorekar, president of the Hindu Temple Society of North America; the Rev. Suzan Johnson-Cook, senior pastor of the Bronx Christian Fellowship in New York City; the Rev. Carol Wade of the Washington National Cathedral; and Kirbyjon Caldwell, senior pastor of the Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston.

Earlier in the program Rabbi David Saperstein, the Reform movement’s top representative in Washington, recited Psalm 121.

According to another source, the Obama team was looking specifically for the participation of an Orthodox rabbi.

One person in attendance said that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the one-time candidate for vice president and an Orthodox Jew, told Obama that it was incredibly important and a very positive thing that the Orthodox community was represented.

The RCA’s Herring was adamant that the group was not taking a political stance, noting that the organization sent a letter to President Obama congratulating him and expressing confidence that “with the help of God, you will build on the respect and good will that you have earned to lead a united country in a successful confrontation with the daunting challenges that we face both within and without.”

Lookstein said he had two conversations with Herring about his participation. In the first, Herring tried to dissuade Lookstein from participating. In the second, he did not.

“Had I pulled out it would have been something of an insult from the Orthodox community, which was at least the way I felt,” Lookstein said.

He also said he heavily weighed the halachic implications of his move, and though he would not ordinarily participate in an interfaith prayer service, especially one in a church, in this case he felt “there were other concerns.”

“If I reached a decision to do it, since I am very careful about shmirat mitzvot, you should conclude that I felt halachically this was the right thing to do,” Lookstein said.

Lookstein met Obama after the reading and recited to the new president the blessing Jews say when they come into the presence of a king – only after Obama gave him permission.

“I thanked him for his support of Israel and I urged him to remember the unforgettable statement he made in Sderot, where he said, ‘If anybody would shoot rockets into my house while my daughters were sleeping, I would do anything in my power to make sure they wouldn’t do it again,’ ” Lookstein said. “He responded with a clear assent.”

In Lookstein’s e-mail to his colleagues, he concluded, “Maybe this will save a life or two in the future and maybe it will not; but I felt this was not an assignment I could – or should – turn down.”

(JTA)

Intense Debate Follows Orthodox Rabbi’s Presence At D.C. Service

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009


A prominent Manhattan rabbi is defending his decision to participate in last week’s National Prayer Service.


Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in New York City was one of three Jewish clergymen to participate in the service Jan. 21 at the National Cathedral on the morning after Barack Obama’s inauguration.


As the service was taking place, in response to a call from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the executive director of the Rabbinical Council of America, Rabbi Basil Herring, said Lookstein was breaking the organization’s rules by participating in the service.


Herring said Lookstein’s participation was problematic both because the service was held in the sanctuary of a church, which Orthodox Jews are prohibited from entering, and because it was an interfaith prayer service, which the RCA discourages for fear that such participation could allow missionaries to legitimize their argument that Jews can indeed embrace Jesus.


“To go into a cathedral, in this case an Episcopalian cathedral in the main sanctuary, is certainly by most accounts not appropriate,” Herring said. “If one wants to visit the Sistine Chapel to view the art of Michelangelo it is problematic. There is no political perspective here that says you should not do it because it is politically sensitive. Of course it is a purely religious question.”


In an interview with JTA just hours after the service concluded and in a mass e-mail to his colleagues later in the week, Lookstein defended his decision.


“After consultation with people who are absolutely committed to [Jewish law], I had originally decided to do it because I felt it was a civic duty to honor the new president of the United States. That is why I originally agreed to do it,” Lookstein said.


“But the people who spoke to me about it indicated it was an important contribution to the Orthodox community because it is only right for the Orthodox community to be supporting the president in a visible way when he is being supported by representatives of the Conservative and Reform movements.”


The controversy has triggered a robust debate among Modern Orthodox rabbis, both regarding the substantive question at hand – whether Lookstein’s decision to participate was permitted under Jewish law – and the process question of whether the RCA overstepped its bounds or mishandled the situation by criticizing Lookstein publicly.


The founders of an alternative Orthodox rabbinic group, the International Rabbinic Fellowship, have come to Lookstein’s defense.


In a statement, Rabbis Avi Weiss and Marc Angel defended Lookstein’s right to decide for himself whether to participate and took aim at what they framed as the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of Orthodox rabbinic bodies, including the RCA.


The RCA’s Herring, in addition to commenting on the situation, sent JTA a statement drafted by the organization.


“The long-standing policy of the Rabbinical Council of America, in accordance with Jewish law, is that participation in a prayer service held in the sanctuary of a church is prohibited,” the RCA statement said. “Any member of the RCA who attends such a service does so in contravention of this policy and should not be perceived as representing the organization in any capacity.”


Even some RCA members who agreed with the RCA’s view that Lookstein had made a mistake believed the organization should have remained silent or limited its comments to the public statement.


This week, the RCA’s president, Rabbi Shlomo Hochberg, denied his organization had ever taken a public stance on the matter.


“We did not issue any press release,” Hochberg said. “We gave you our policy statement about a longstanding RCA policy. There is no comment about Rabbi Lookstein. He acted independently and not on our behalf. It wasn’t going to be sent to anyone. If no one called, it would not have gone out. It was not going to be sent out to anyone.”


Lookstein joined six representatives of various religious communities, including Rabbi Jerome Epstein, the executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, in reciting portions of a nondenominational responsive prayer. Most of the overall service was nondenominational, but there were a few distinctly Christian references.


The other four religious representatives to read part of the prayer were Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America; the Rev. Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners; Uma Mysorekar, president of the Hindu Temple Society of North America; the Rev. Suzan Johnson-Cook, senior pastor of the Bronx Christian Fellowship in New York City; the Rev. Carol Wade of the Washington National Cathedral; and Kirbyjon Caldwell, senior pastor of the Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston.


Earlier in the program Rabbi David Saperstein, the Reform movement’s top representative in Washington, recited Psalm 121.


According to another source, the Obama team was looking specifically for the participation of an Orthodox rabbi.


One person in attendance said that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the one-time candidate for vice president and an Orthodox Jew, told Obama that it was incredibly important and a very positive thing that the Orthodox community was represented.


The RCA’s Herring was adamant that the group was not taking a political stance, noting that the organization sent a letter to President Obama congratulating him and expressing confidence that “with the help of God, you will build on the respect and good will that you have earned to lead a united country in a successful confrontation with the daunting challenges that we face both within and without.”


Lookstein said he had two conversations with Herring about his participation. In the first, Herring tried to dissuade Lookstein from participating. In the second, he did not.


“Had I pulled out it would have been something of an insult from the Orthodox community, which was at least the way I felt,” Lookstein said.


He also said he heavily weighed the halachic implications of his move, and though he would not ordinarily participate in an interfaith prayer service, especially one in a church, in this case he felt “there were other concerns.”


“If I reached a decision to do it, since I am very careful about shmirat mitzvot, you should conclude that I felt halachically this was the right thing to do,” Lookstein said.


Lookstein met Obama after the reading and recited to the new president the blessing Jews say when they come into the presence of a king – only after Obama gave him permission.


“I thanked him for his support of Israel and I urged him to remember the unforgettable statement he made in Sderot, where he said, ‘If anybody would shoot rockets into my house while my daughters were sleeping, I would do anything in my power to make sure they wouldn’t do it again,’ ” Lookstein said. “He responded with a clear assent.”


In Lookstein’s e-mail to his colleagues, he concluded, “Maybe this will save a life or two in the future and maybe it will not; but I felt this was not an assignment I could – or should – turn down.”


(JTA)

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.

Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, June 21st, 2006

Unbalanced Media

 

   Thank you to Nathan Lewin for the work he is doing to support and defend AgriProcessors (“Hatchet Job on Kosher Meat Company,” front-page essay, June 9). It is unfortunate that Jewish media are all too willing to jump on the bandwagon of kosher-bashing. The sentiments of the Forward have been echoed in other Jewish media outlets, such as the Jewish Journal here in Los Angeles.
 
   It’s reasonable enough to be skeptical of claims made by those with a vested interest, but why are Jewish journalists giving a greater benefit of the doubt to PETA than to the companies that provide kosher meat and the rabbis who supervise them? The negative repercussions of such criticism in both the Jewish and non-Jewish world are self-evident.
 
   As Mr. Lewin deftly summarized, these “journalists” are guided not by Jewish law and ethics but by of the standards of Whole Foods and PETA. The laws of kashrut are not some feel-good tenets that we can mold and shape to suit our moral sensitivities, or politicize in the name of this or that cause. PETA insists that “meat is murder” and has compared factory-farming chickens to the mass murder of Jews in the Shoah. Any shechita is going to be deemed “unkosher” in PETA’s eyes.
 

   The Forward’s reporting on AgriProcessors represents neither the first nor the last criticism of a Jew by a fellow Jew. It is, however, yet another example of a troubling trend in Jewish media – a trend of increasingly wanton disregard for Torah values and ethics.

   If Jewish media outlets cannot resist the burning desire to attack, I would hope they would at least invest more energy in presenting a balanced view.
 

   Matthew Lefferman

   Los Angeles, CA
 
 

  

Rashomon, Anyone?

 

   I am an avid reader of Jewish newspapers and have a particular interest in how various publications report on the same event. One of my more amusing experiences occurred just last week as I tried to follow the latest developments in the ongoing controversy over the Israeli Chief Rabbinate’s tightening of standards on conversions.
 
      In the Jerusalem Post I read that the Rabbinical Council of America and the Chief Rabbinate had entered into an agreement to settle a controversy over the validity of RCA conversion practices. According to the Post’s account of the agreement, an account you carried in The Jewish Press, the RCA accepted monitoring by the Chief Rabbinate of who among the RCA’s member rabbis would be acceptable to the Chief Rabbinate when it comes to performing conversions. The Post actually said the RCA “caved” on this key issue.
 
      In Haaretz and The Jewish Press I read a statement from an official of the Chief Rabbinate who said that the chief rabbis would be looking into past RCA-approved conversions in order to ascertain their validity.
 
      Yet The New York Jewish Week carried a story, headlined “U.S. Rabbis Stand Up to Chief Rabbinate,” which presented to its readers, in everything from the article’s title, subtitle, and a slew of comments from RCA officials, the picture of a “commitment from the [Chief] Rabbinate to automatically recognize all past, current and future conversions approved by the RCA and the Beit Din of America (BDA).”
 
      Does the RCA have editorial input into what appears in The Jewish Week? Or is everybody else wrong and The Jewish Week right?
 

   Baruch Aurbach

   Ramat Gan, Israel
 
 

  

Rosenthal Nay

 

      I was intrigued by Rabbi Pinchas Rosenthal’s response to his critics (Letters, June 16) in which he said he was gratified by the reaction to his op-ed column (“Shortchanging Our Children By Teaching Midrashim Literally,” June 2) “since my intention has been to stimulate thought and discussion.”
 
      I was left wondering exactly whom it is he wishes to dialogue with. Surely the great Torah scholars of our day who should make these decisions have already thought this issue through. The fact that they obviously don’t agree with Rabbi Rosenthal is reason enough for me to ignore his brand of chinuch.
 

   Zalman Bloom

   New York, NY
 
 

 

Rosenthal Aye

 

   The negative comments you published last week in response to Rabbi Rosenthal’s op-ed failed to address the cogent points the rabbi made in his plea that schools stop teaching midrashim literally. One can argue about the meaning of a particular word in one specific instance or another, but it’s clear from the vast body of rabbinic literature, including the work of Rambam and other Sephardic sages often overlooked by European-oriented rabbis, that midrashim as a whole were never meant to be automatically accepted as literal truth but rather as morality tales, homilies, etc.
 

   Rabbi Mordechai Halper

   Jerusalem

 

 

  

Umbrage At One Woman’s Parade Boycott

 

Poor Attitude

 

      It’s too bad Sara Lehmann (“Why I Boycotted the Israel Day Parade,” op-ed, June 9) didn’t come to her senses in time for her to attend the Israel Day Parade.
 
      Ms. Lehmann is not alone in her feelings. Many of us are upset and feeling rather desperate about the situation today in Israel with a government that seems bent on committing national suicide. However, most of us (hopefully) realize that the existence of the State of Israel is a miracle and a gift given to us by Hashem and that it is incumbent on us to show pride in its existence. Numbers count, and the world takes note of who cares about Israel. In fact, if we Orthodox Jews would come out in far greater numbers, we might even have more of a say in Israeli politics, at least to whatever extent that’s possible from here.
 
      I couldn’t help but contrast Ms. Lehmann’s attitude with the showing at the Puerto Rican Day Parade a week after the Israel Day Parade. Spectators and marchers numbered above a million, according to all reports. If we cared enough, we could have surpassed that number at our parade.
 

   Amy Wall

   New York, NY
 

 

Salute The State, Not A Government

 

      Orthodox American Jews who abandon their Zionism because of the policies of the Israeli government are essentially handing the fate of the Holy Land to secularists without a fight. Last year, many orange-clad Jews marched proudly in the Salute to Israel Parade, showing the world where they stood with regard to Israel. Sadly, this year some of them chose to stay home.
 
      It must be easy telling Ehud Olmert how to conduct public policy from the comfort of Brooklyn. After all, Olmert could never expel Jews from the settlements of Flatbush, Midwood, and Crown Heights!
 
      When Rabbi Kahane was thrown out of the Knesset, did he abandon Zionism? When the residents of Gush Katif were expelled from their homes, did they abandon Israel? It took Menachem Begin nearly 30 years of being a minority politician before he finally was elected prime minister, but he never abandoned the Hatikva or the Israeli flag.
 
      Rather than abandon Zionism, the Orthodox community needs to endure this test of faith and continue to work in partnership with Hashem and our fellow Jews in rebuilding our historic homeland.
 

   Sergey Kadinsky

   Forest Hills, NY
 

  

Only Way To Make A Difference

 

      I made aliyah 25 years ago and I strongly disagree with Ms. Lehmann’s sentiments. Yes, thousands of Jews were forced to leave Gaza last year. But if there had been a million Jews there – even a quarter of a million – there would have been no disengagement. Simply put, if we don’t use it, we lose it. There is no way that Israel could have kept investing the military and financial resources needed to secure the safety of a few thousand Jews living in a sea of more than one million Arabs.
 
      Instead of sitting in Brooklyn and criticizing Israel and ranting to your children, Ms. Lehmann, pack your bags as thousands of us have done and move to Israel. The quality of life and kedusha here are far superior to what you have in Brooklyn. And you do make a difference. Every Jew who comes to live here makes a difference.
 

   Leslie Brand

   (Via E-Mail)

  

  

  

  

Education Article ‘A Wake-Up Call’

      Yasher koach, kol hakavod, bravo, hooray and heidad! Finally, someone has honestly and passionately put into writing some major issues affecting Jewish education today (L. Weisinger, “Education With Strings,” op-ed, May 26).

      Accountability and oversight are crucial concerns. Although most yeshivas are governed by a board, I am constantly amazed by what is allowed to take place in terms of finances, governance, and general management. Many board members run successful businesses, but somehow all their acumen departs once they enter the yeshiva. They would never allow in their own business what they tolerate in their schools. A serious cheshbon hanefesh is needed before it is too late to make needed corrections.

      One issue crying out for attention is teacher qualifications, training and continuing education. Every article and research study (as well as common sense) indicates that properly trained and certified teachers are more effective in the classroom, and that students learn more from them. Why do we require teachers of secular studies to be licensed? Is math more important than Torah? What message do we send when untrained teachers spend so much time with our children? We no longer live in a shtetl, but we accept the shtetl mentality that the so-so melamed is OK and that teenage seminary graduates are competent teachers. How much trauma has been caused by this philosophy over the decades? Teaching is a skill that requires training and supervision.

      Not every talmid chochom knows how to teach. Not every musmach has studied the Navi he is teaching. Not every Israeli is trained to teach Hebrew as a second language. If the person who cuts our hair is licensed, if the person who sells us insurance is licensed, if our plumber is licensed, how can we blithely allow an untrained individual to spend so many precious hours daily with our most valued treasures – our children? Granted, there are talented teachers who know instinctively in their kishkes how to teach. Would we, however, allow an unlicensed attorney to represent us or an unlicensed doctor to treat us?

      Jewish education is the only field of endeavor (except ditch digging) where a person can have a career without any certification from any authority that he/she is competent to teach. “Education With Strings” is a wake-up call.

      In-service training and continuing education means more than a one-shot seminar once or twice a year. In any case, a 6-hour seminar once a year provides little that a teacher can use.

      Jewish pedagogy programs are alive and well all over the world. The insulation and isolation from these modernish concepts is no longer acceptable. Sure, we have a fine track record of producing frum and educated graduates. But how many have we lost along the way? How many have been turned off by inadequate teachers? How many left the fold because it’s more important to protect an ineffective teacher than to serve the needs of a child?

      Hamatzil nefesh achas b’Yisroel. How can we not act now to bring Jewish education into the 21st century? Ms. Weisinger’s remarks are right on target. It’s time to do something about it.

Dr. Wallace Greene

President

National Board of License For Teachers and

Principals in Jewish Schools in North America

 

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/letters-to-the-editor/letters-to-the-editor-142/2006/06/21/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: