RSS Feed
London - Chief Rabbi Calls On Jews to Defend Their Schools from English Law |
|
| |
Text Size
|
file photo
Writing in today’s JC, he said: “We must join together” to contest last week’s Court of Appeal ruling that, under race relations law, Jewish schools cannot award places on the basis of whether the child’s mother is Jewish.
The judgment, which will force many Jewish schools to rewrite entry policies, was also condemned by the head of the Reform movement, Rabbi Dr Tony Bayfield, as an “outrage” and a “disaster”.
The case was brought by the father of a boy who was rejected in 2007 by Britain’s largest Jewish school, the Orthodox-run JFS, because his mother was a non-Orthodox convert and not Jewish according to the Chief Rabbi’s Office.
Sir Jonathan said this week: “We extend Jewish education to Jews, that is, those born of a Jewish mother or those who have converted according to the standards of the religious authority to which the school belongs…
“Now, an English court has declared this rule racist and… is, in effect, declaring Judaism racist.”
The Board has called a meeting of Jewish school leaders next Wednesday to assess the wider effect of the ruling. The court has yet to determine when it will take effect or whether JFS must now accept the boy.
But Jon Benjamin, the Board’s chief executive, said that he “did not expect there to be an impact” on school places this September.
Synagogue membership and entry to Jewish old age homes will not, he said, be affected by the court’s decision.
Simon Hochhauser, president of the United Synagogue, the foundation body of JFS, said: “It is important to exhaust every legal avenue to ensure the judgment is overturned.” The US has already run up a £150,000 legal bill.
He added: “This is not a parochial issue. The principles that underlie this case… concern the whole community and rise above inter-denominational differences. We’d like the wider community to work alongside the US.”
Rabbi Bayfield said that although the Reform movement deplored the entry policies of JFS, which discriminated against non-Orthodox converts, it would support the United Synagogue “100 per cent” as the court’s ruling was “a major interference in our rights as Jews”.
So far, only the Liberal movement has welcomed the court’s
intervention. The Assembly of Masorti Synagogues — to which the boy and his father belong — avoided direct comment on the judgment. Masorti’s senior rabbi, Jonathan Wittenberg, said: “We deplore the injustice and deeply appreciate the pain and anguish which led to the initial case and the subsequent appeal.
“We believe that the whole community shares the responsibility of making Jewish education available to those families who seek it for their children.” If the court decision stands, it means that Jewish schools will have to determine entry through practice or belief — such as attending synagogue — rather than parental lineage.
The new Jewish Community Secondary School (JCoSS) will probably have to scrap its intention to give priority to children “not considered halachically Jewish” as this too could be seen as an ethnic, rather than religious, test.
But religious leaders warned that any rule changes could make it more difficult for less religious children to gain places.
Dr Hochhauser said: “We will need to design religious practice tests, bearing in mind that any particular rule will have a major effect on the character of the school. If the bar is set high, we would end up excluding many children whom we would like to educate.”
One consequence of last week’s ruling is that the children of non-Orthodox converts denied places at schools this year could now sue for damages.
More of today's headlines
“Jerusalem - The former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Israel Meir Lau, decided to speak out against the Aida Hachareidis's demonstrations over Shabbos in Jerusalem. He instead...”
Jerusalem - Rabbi Lau: A Frum Jew To Call An Isreali Policeman Nazi Disgraceful
New York - Jewish Group Calls for London's F1 Chief to Resign
Total27
Read Comments (27) — Post Yours »
1
Jul 05, 2009 at 10:18 AM ga Says:
Does this apply even to private schools, or are they getting a taste of what it's always been like here in the US?
2
Jul 05, 2009 at 09:57 AM Anonymous Says:
I went to JFS and the Chief Rabbi is deeply, deeply wrong.
The most important point is that this case has nothing to do with "who is a Jew." that's a misdirection. Remember, these cases came about because the Chief Rabbi heads a Bet Din that doesn't recognize the orthodox conversions of Charedi Bet Dins in Israel and America and it is almost impossible to obtain a conversion from the LBD for any reason.
The London Bet Din is extreme and out of control and hurts the community it is supposed to protect. In this instance, it is absolutely correct for a court to redress real harm done to a child because the LBD operates the way that it does. While, of course, the case raises important issues of religious freedom, this decision is about correcting illegal behavior that is egregious enough that it falls well outside the legitimate flexibility religions should have to operate even if some people find their practices objectionable.
The Chief Rabbi needs to get his own house in order before lecturing the world on what is just or unjust. The United Synagogue should stop wasting resources it doesn't have on fighting the judgement, admit the children in question and fix the monster that is the London Bet Din.
3
Jul 05, 2009 at 10:36 AM Anonymous Says:
“ Does this apply even to private schools, or are they getting a taste of what it's always been like here in the US? ”
It may well apply to private schools - the court found illegal discrimination under law -- that has nothing to do with whether the institution is privately or publically funded.
It will probably have less impact on them though since, de facto, they already have some kind of religious practice/observance test for admission in place that the court said is a permissible alternative.
The problem for the great Jewish state schools is that their only test is Jewish status as recognized by the London Beth Din. One of the plaintiffs in the predecessor case to this was the child of an orthodox converted mother who's family live a deeply observant modern orthodox lifestyle who's conversion, years later, was rejected by the London Bet Din. Meanwhile, that place likely went to a child who could well eat ham sandwiches on Yom Kippur, but is halachically Jewish according to the LBD, so admissible to the school.
4
Jul 05, 2009 at 11:43 AM Anonymous Says:
A problem seems to be is modern orthodoxy halachically acceptable? What is it that modern orthodox rabbis teach that the LBD finds unacceptable? How do modern orthodox rabbis accept converts that other rabbis find unacceptable? Modern orthodox and other rabbis need to discuss this since it affects the Jewish people.
5
Jul 05, 2009 at 12:09 PM Milhouse Says:
“ It may well apply to private schools - the court found illegal discrimination under law -- that has nothing to do with whether the institution is privately or publically funded.
It will probably have less impact on them though since, de facto, they already have some kind of religious practice/observance test for admission in place that the court said is a permissible alternative.
The problem for the great Jewish state schools is that their only test is Jewish status as recognized by the London Beth Din. One of the plaintiffs in the predecessor case to this was the child of an orthodox converted mother who's family live a deeply observant modern orthodox lifestyle who's conversion, years later, was rejected by the London Bet Din. Meanwhile, that place likely went to a child who could well eat ham sandwiches on Yom Kippur, but is halachically Jewish according to the LBD, so admissible to the school.
”
What a pack of lies. She did not have an orthodox conversion, so it makes not the slightest difference how observant she may have been.
6
Jul 05, 2009 at 12:07 PM Milhouse Says:
“ Does this apply even to private schools, or are they getting a taste of what it's always been like here in the US? ”
Of course it does. Ethnic discrimination is against the law, regardless of how private a school is. But religious schools are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. And now a court has presumed to overrule the halacha about who is a Jew. That is outrageous and intolerable, and it must not be complied with.
7
Jul 05, 2009 at 12:15 PM Milhouse Says:
“ I went to JFS and the Chief Rabbi is deeply, deeply wrong.
The most important point is that this case has nothing to do with "who is a Jew." that's a misdirection. Remember, these cases came about because the Chief Rabbi heads a Bet Din that doesn't recognize the orthodox conversions of Charedi Bet Dins in Israel and America and it is almost impossible to obtain a conversion from the LBD for any reason.
The London Bet Din is extreme and out of control and hurts the community it is supposed to protect. In this instance, it is absolutely correct for a court to redress real harm done to a child because the LBD operates the way that it does. While, of course, the case raises important issues of religious freedom, this decision is about correcting illegal behavior that is egregious enough that it falls well outside the legitimate flexibility religions should have to operate even if some people find their practices objectionable.
The Chief Rabbi needs to get his own house in order before lecturing the world on what is just or unjust. The United Synagogue should stop wasting resources it doesn't have on fighting the judgement, admit the children in question and fix the monster that is the London Bet Din.
”
What are you talking about? The court ruled that a law in the Torah is illegal. The Torah says that Judaism passes automatically through the mother, that the child of a Jewish mother needs no conversion while the child of a non-Jewish mother does; that has been the law in Judaism for 3319 years; and now a UK court has ordered Jews to disregard it. That is simply intolerable. The court has declared its authority higher than that of God Himself, and it must be resisted. This seems very similar to a case that the Tashbetz ruled was yehoreg ve'al ya'avor.
8
Jul 05, 2009 at 12:19 PM Anonymous Says:
“ What a pack of lies. She did not have an orthodox conversion, so it makes not the slightest difference how observant she may have been. ”
What are you talking about?? The predecessor case in question is the Lightman case -- she had an orthodox Israeli conversion per the Jewish Chronicle:
"The woman in question, Helen Sagal, had converted to Judaism in 1990 under Israel’s Sephardi Beth Din and married her Israeli husband, Raoul, in an Orthodox synagogue in Tel Aviv. They wanted their son, Guy, to have a Jewish education."
9
Jul 05, 2009 at 12:56 PM Three-Toed Tree Toad Says:
Works for me. Discrimination on the basis of race or religion is abhorrent among decent people. If the Tallit-ban wants to put itself outside the realm of decent people and practice racism it can expect this sort of treatment
10
Jul 05, 2009 at 01:19 PM Milhouse Says:
“ What are you talking about?? The predecessor case in question is the Lightman case -- she had an orthodox Israeli conversion per the Jewish Chronicle:
"The woman in question, Helen Sagal, had converted to Judaism in 1990 under Israel’s Sephardi Beth Din and married her Israeli husband, Raoul, in an Orthodox synagogue in Tel Aviv. They wanted their son, Guy, to have a Jewish education." ”
What is "Israel’s Sephardi Beth Din"? I've never heard of such an entity; have you?
So let's see: the Chief Rabbi, who is not known as any sort of fanatic, says she didn't have a kosher conversion. She tells the JC that she did. And of course you believe her. Why?
11
Jul 05, 2009 at 12:35 PM Anonymous Says:
“ What are you talking about? The court ruled that a law in the Torah is illegal. The Torah says that Judaism passes automatically through the mother, that the child of a Jewish mother needs no conversion while the child of a non-Jewish mother does; that has been the law in Judaism for 3319 years; and now a UK court has ordered Jews to disregard it. That is simply intolerable. The court has declared its authority higher than that of God Himself, and it must be resisted. This seems very similar to a case that the Tashbetz ruled was yehoreg ve'al ya'avor. ”
The court did nothing of the kind. It ruled that the practical application of the arbitrary rules of the London Bet Din in terms of the schools it oversees are discriminatory under British law. In this instance, the result caused actual harm to a student and it ordered a remedy to allow the school to achieve substantially the same result it was seeking legally.
This has nothing to do with the right of Bet Dins to establish Jewish identity for the community, but the very specific and non-Torah issue of the selection criteria that can be used by modern day schools, especially (but not exclusively) by those getting state funding.
Regardless, thank G-d, no one, least of all the Chief Rabbi and the United Synagogue, are contemplating "resisting" An appeal will likely be filed, it may or may not be heard and, ultimately, whichever side prevails, the losing side will comply with the final decision. That's how disputes are resolved in a great democracy like Britain -- a system in galut where Jews have succeeded and prospered beyond anyone's wildest imaginations because of the tolerance and fair-mindedness of a diverse society.
12
Jul 05, 2009 at 01:40 PM Milhouse Says:
“ Works for me. Discrimination on the basis of race or religion is abhorrent among decent people. If the Tallit-ban wants to put itself outside the realm of decent people and practice racism it can expect this sort of treatment ”
1. Where in the Torah does it say anything against "discrimination on the basis of race or religion"?
2. Even the UK court recognises that a Jewish school is entitled to restrict admission to Jewish children.
3. The Torah says that there is a difference between the children of a Jewish woman and of a non-Jewish one. If you do not accept that then you have no business commenting on this site.
4. Questions for you: do you think it is wrong for a Jew to marry a non-Jew? Do you think that regarding such a marriage as abhorrent is "racist"? Do you think that those who reject such marriages are "fanatics", and that "normal" Jews regard them as just as good as any other marriage? Do you accept that it is wrong for a Cohen to marry anyone who was not born Jewish, even if she converts, that if he does marry such a woman he must divorce her, and that every moment he is married to her he is committing a sin? Or do you regard that law as "fanatical" and "abhorrent"?
13
Jul 05, 2009 at 01:45 PM Milhouse Says:
“ A problem seems to be is modern orthodoxy halachically acceptable? What is it that modern orthodox rabbis teach that the LBD finds unacceptable? How do modern orthodox rabbis accept converts that other rabbis find unacceptable? Modern orthodox and other rabbis need to discuss this since it affects the Jewish people. ”
This has nothing to do with modern orthodoxy. The United Synagogue is about as modern as orthodoxy gets. No modern orthodox rabbi allows a cohen to marry a giyores, any more than he'd allow someone to eat bacon.
14
Jul 05, 2009 at 01:50 PM Milhouse Says:
“ The court did nothing of the kind. It ruled that the practical application of the arbitrary rules of the London Bet Din in terms of the schools it oversees are discriminatory under British law. In this instance, the result caused actual harm to a student and it ordered a remedy to allow the school to achieve substantially the same result it was seeking legally.
This has nothing to do with the right of Bet Dins to establish Jewish identity for the community, but the very specific and non-Torah issue of the selection criteria that can be used by modern day schools, especially (but not exclusively) by those getting state funding.
Regardless, thank G-d, no one, least of all the Chief Rabbi and the United Synagogue, are contemplating "resisting" An appeal will likely be filed, it may or may not be heard and, ultimately, whichever side prevails, the losing side will comply with the final decision. That's how disputes are resolved in a great democracy like Britain -- a system in galut where Jews have succeeded and prospered beyond anyone's wildest imaginations because of the tolerance and fair-mindedness of a diverse society. ”
The court acknowledged that if the child were not Jewish then JFS would be entitled to exclude him. It ordered JFS to admit him because it ruled that he is Jewish. That is unacceptable. It must be resisted, and I have every hope that it will be resisted. If this ruling is complied with that will be a massive chilul hashem, for which those responsible cannot be forgiven. Loyalty to the Torah is more important than any other value, including "tolerance" and "democracy". Someone who puts man's law above God's is rebelling against God Himself.
15
Jul 05, 2009 at 03:25 PM MIESQ Says:
The Court could base its ruling on an inadequate definition of what qualifies one as Jewish. Rationally in the US such statutes have carved out "safe harbor" for institutions governed by a religious creed. I.E. if a woman applied to BMG or Ner Israel to study for the rabbinate her exclusion would be non-actionable
16
Jul 05, 2009 at 03:01 PM Anonymous Says:
“ The court acknowledged that if the child were not Jewish then JFS would be entitled to exclude him. It ordered JFS to admit him because it ruled that he is Jewish. That is unacceptable. It must be resisted, and I have every hope that it will be resisted. If this ruling is complied with that will be a massive chilul hashem, for which those responsible cannot be forgiven. Loyalty to the Torah is more important than any other value, including "tolerance" and "democracy". Someone who puts man's law above God's is rebelling against God Himself.
”
There is a concept in jewish law that we must submit to the laws of the country we live in except for certain fundamental values like avodah zorah. Here we have a case where a jewish father wants to send his children to yeshiva to learn torah and a narrow minded self-hating jew like yourself suggests that we should "resist" because you don't like how the children's mother was converted...for shame.
17
Jul 05, 2009 at 02:51 PM Anonymous Says:
“ What is "Israel’s Sephardi Beth Din"? I've never heard of such an entity; have you?
So let's see: the Chief Rabbi, who is not known as any sort of fanatic, says she didn't have a kosher conversion. She tells the JC that she did. And of course you believe her. Why? ”
The bes din in question was established under the supervision of the chief sephardic rabbi of EY and is the affiliated with the sephardic bes din in NYC run by Rav Asher Hatchuel, Shlita. You obviously have no idea of how the batei dinin in EY are structured and the legitimacy of Sephardic geyrim as much as a ger who converted through a litvashe Bes din.
18
Jul 05, 2009 at 02:07 PM Milhouse Says:
“ What are you talking about?? The predecessor case in question is the Lightman case -- she had an orthodox Israeli conversion per the Jewish Chronicle:
"The woman in question, Helen Sagal, had converted to Judaism in 1990 under Israel’s Sephardi Beth Din and married her Israeli husband, Raoul, in an Orthodox synagogue in Tel Aviv. They wanted their son, Guy, to have a Jewish education." ”
Chief Rabbi’s statement
08/07/2005
In April 2005 an appeal was made to me by Mrs Helen Sagal, to reconsider the ruling of the London Beth Din in relation to her Jewish status and by implication that of her son Guy, for whom she had applied for a place at JFS. Together with other members of the London Beth Din I met Mrs Sagal. We were able to discuss with her the circumstances surrounding the conversion process which took place in Israel in 1990, doubts about the validity of which had been raised. In the light of that conversation we sought further information from Israel. That process has inevitably taken time. It was, however, necessary for us to be able to come to a fully informed judgment. The facts that have emerged are these:
1. Mrs Sagal was unable to provide us with evidence that, whether at the time of her conversion or subsequently, she maintained even the most basic observance of Jewish law, essential to the validity of a conversion.
2. In addition, there were serious procedural irregularities in the original conversion in Israel. In reply to our letter setting out the facts of the case, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate wrote to us confirming the right of the London Beth Din to examine her case afresh. This we have done, and on the evidence available to us, we are unable to ratify her conversion. This means that we cannot recognise her Jewish status.
This has been a difficult and painful case for all concerned. The London Beth Din and I have spent many weeks trying to find grounds on which to confirm her Jewish status. We have worked together on this case, exploring every avenue and possibility, but we have not succeeded in finding any basis on which to reach an alternative conclusion. There is a way forward, which will require commitment from the Sagal family. If they are willing to undertake the journey toward Jewish practice, we will enrol Mrs Sagal and her children in a conversion process with the aim of establishing their Jewish status beyond doubt. The door is open and we will give them every help.
====
In addition, the JC (the same JC on which you rely for the fact of her conversion) revealed that there was no record or file of this conversion ever taking place, and that the rabbi who supposedly conducted it could not remember it.
19
Jul 05, 2009 at 04:02 PM Anonymous Says:
“ The bes din in question was established under the supervision of the chief sephardic rabbi of EY and is the affiliated with the sephardic bes din in NYC run by Rav Asher Hatchuel, Shlita. You obviously have no idea of how the batei dinin in EY are structured and the legitimacy of Sephardic geyrim as much as a ger who converted through a litvashe Bes din. ”
Right on Milli is ill informend
20
Jul 05, 2009 at 04:24 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Chief Rabbi’s statement
08/07/2005
In April 2005 an appeal was made to me by Mrs Helen Sagal, to reconsider the ruling of the London Beth Din in relation to her Jewish status and by implication that of her son Guy, for whom she had applied for a place at JFS. Together with other members of the London Beth Din I met Mrs Sagal. We were able to discuss with her the circumstances surrounding the conversion process which took place in Israel in 1990, doubts about the validity of which had been raised. In the light of that conversation we sought further information from Israel. That process has inevitably taken time. It was, however, necessary for us to be able to come to a fully informed judgment. The facts that have emerged are these:
1. Mrs Sagal was unable to provide us with evidence that, whether at the time of her conversion or subsequently, she maintained even the most basic observance of Jewish law, essential to the validity of a conversion.
2. In addition, there were serious procedural irregularities in the original conversion in Israel. In reply to our letter setting out the facts of the case, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate wrote to us confirming the right of the London Beth Din to examine her case afresh. This we have done, and on the evidence available to us, we are unable to ratify her conversion. This means that we cannot recognise her Jewish status.
This has been a difficult and painful case for all concerned. The London Beth Din and I have spent many weeks trying to find grounds on which to confirm her Jewish status. We have worked together on this case, exploring every avenue and possibility, but we have not succeeded in finding any basis on which to reach an alternative conclusion. There is a way forward, which will require commitment from the Sagal family. If they are willing to undertake the journey toward Jewish practice, we will enrol Mrs Sagal and her children in a conversion process with the aim of establishing their Jewish status beyond doubt. The door is open and we will give them every help.
====
In addition, the JC (the same JC on which you rely for the fact of her conversion) revealed that there was no record or file of this conversion ever taking place, and that the rabbi who supposedly conducted it could not remember it. ”
You left out the fact that prior to the London Bet Din forcing his hand and requiring a new conversion under their absurd stringincies (I would refer you to previous Milhouse postings on why such stringincies are un-Halachic) the Chief Rabbi was himself prepared to accept a compromise where the boy would be admitted to JFS and the larger issue of his status for marriage etc. would be deferred. So, obviously, he had enough questions about his own Bet Din's claims against the Sagal conversion as well as the reality that the family were (and are) well--regarded members of the modern orthodox Kehillah that he was prepared to make a deal. Is the Chief Rabbi now an apikoras?
21
Jul 05, 2009 at 04:15 PM Anonymous Says:
“ The bes din in question was established under the supervision of the chief sephardic rabbi of EY and is the affiliated with the sephardic bes din in NYC run by Rav Asher Hatchuel, Shlita. You obviously have no idea of how the batei dinin in EY are structured and the legitimacy of Sephardic geyrim as much as a ger who converted through a litvashe Bes din. ”
Correction: The sephardic batei din in Isratel operate independently of Rav Hatchuel's bes din in NYC.
22
Jul 05, 2009 at 04:57 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Chief Rabbi’s statement
08/07/2005
In April 2005 an appeal was made to me by Mrs Helen Sagal, to reconsider the ruling of the London Beth Din in relation to her Jewish status and by implication that of her son Guy, for whom she had applied for a place at JFS. Together with other members of the London Beth Din I met Mrs Sagal. We were able to discuss with her the circumstances surrounding the conversion process which took place in Israel in 1990, doubts about the validity of which had been raised. In the light of that conversation we sought further information from Israel. That process has inevitably taken time. It was, however, necessary for us to be able to come to a fully informed judgment. The facts that have emerged are these:
1. Mrs Sagal was unable to provide us with evidence that, whether at the time of her conversion or subsequently, she maintained even the most basic observance of Jewish law, essential to the validity of a conversion.
2. In addition, there were serious procedural irregularities in the original conversion in Israel. In reply to our letter setting out the facts of the case, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate wrote to us confirming the right of the London Beth Din to examine her case afresh. This we have done, and on the evidence available to us, we are unable to ratify her conversion. This means that we cannot recognise her Jewish status.
This has been a difficult and painful case for all concerned. The London Beth Din and I have spent many weeks trying to find grounds on which to confirm her Jewish status. We have worked together on this case, exploring every avenue and possibility, but we have not succeeded in finding any basis on which to reach an alternative conclusion. There is a way forward, which will require commitment from the Sagal family. If they are willing to undertake the journey toward Jewish practice, we will enrol Mrs Sagal and her children in a conversion process with the aim of establishing their Jewish status beyond doubt. The door is open and we will give them every help.
====
In addition, the JC (the same JC on which you rely for the fact of her conversion) revealed that there was no record or file of this conversion ever taking place, and that the rabbi who supposedly conducted it could not remember it. ”
Milhouse -- I'm rapidly losing respect at your attempts to persuade by ignoring any data that might contradict you:
From the Jerusalem Post:
"Mrs. Sagal developed an intellectual interest in Judaism while studying law at Birmingham University. She began visiting Israel. The intellectual interest became a strong emotional attachment. She applied for conversion, and was converted under the auspices of the Lod Rabbinical Court. For good measure her conversion has subsequently been endorsed, in writing, by Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar."
Incidentally, regarding the Lightman case and the fact she subsequently married a Cohen -- under your own rules, so what? First, its the Cohen's problem not her's. Second, as you've said so many times, for a variety of reasons, we should not be in the business, post ipso facto, of trying to ascertain what intent a ger may or may not have had at time of conversion.
If you followed your own reasoning, you should be viciously attacking the Chief Rabbi for his dangerous and meddlesome chumrahs!
23
Jul 05, 2009 at 11:06 PM Rochel Says:
“ Chief Rabbi’s statement
08/07/2005
In April 2005 an appeal was made to me by Mrs Helen Sagal, to reconsider the ruling of the London Beth Din in relation to her Jewish status and by implication that of her son Guy, for whom she had applied for a place at JFS. Together with other members of the London Beth Din I met Mrs Sagal. We were able to discuss with her the circumstances surrounding the conversion process which took place in Israel in 1990, doubts about the validity of which had been raised. In the light of that conversation we sought further information from Israel. That process has inevitably taken time. It was, however, necessary for us to be able to come to a fully informed judgment. The facts that have emerged are these:
1. Mrs Sagal was unable to provide us with evidence that, whether at the time of her conversion or subsequently, she maintained even the most basic observance of Jewish law, essential to the validity of a conversion.
2. In addition, there were serious procedural irregularities in the original conversion in Israel. In reply to our letter setting out the facts of the case, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate wrote to us confirming the right of the London Beth Din to examine her case afresh. This we have done, and on the evidence available to us, we are unable to ratify her conversion. This means that we cannot recognise her Jewish status.
This has been a difficult and painful case for all concerned. The London Beth Din and I have spent many weeks trying to find grounds on which to confirm her Jewish status. We have worked together on this case, exploring every avenue and possibility, but we have not succeeded in finding any basis on which to reach an alternative conclusion. There is a way forward, which will require commitment from the Sagal family. If they are willing to undertake the journey toward Jewish practice, we will enrol Mrs Sagal and her children in a conversion process with the aim of establishing their Jewish status beyond doubt. The door is open and we will give them every help.
====
In addition, the JC (the same JC on which you rely for the fact of her conversion) revealed that there was no record or file of this conversion ever taking place, and that the rabbi who supposedly conducted it could not remember it. ”
OMG, how can you put this on internet, it's so personnal, this matter has to stay between the beth din and her... we're not here to discuss her personnal status regarding her proper conversion or not, but whether the school has right to accept children in this case.
24
Jul 05, 2009 at 10:59 PM Rochel Says:
“ What are you talking about?? The predecessor case in question is the Lightman case -- she had an orthodox Israeli conversion per the Jewish Chronicle:
"The woman in question, Helen Sagal, had converted to Judaism in 1990 under Israel’s Sephardi Beth Din and married her Israeli husband, Raoul, in an Orthodox synagogue in Tel Aviv. They wanted their son, Guy, to have a Jewish education." ”
hum I don't think you should have posted her name, it's not respectful to show up her identity, but anyway, not all israeli conversions are recognized, especially in some batei din in Europe, included Lyon Beth Din in France, some are okay some are not, Israel is well-known for its lenient standards in conversion, it's the "easy path" lots of people choose, it's faster and easier but after that one should know that there are consequences.
Aren't there reform schools in London ?
25
Jul 06, 2009 at 12:57 AM Not Just That... Says:
“ There is a concept in jewish law that we must submit to the laws of the country we live in except for certain fundamental values like avodah zorah. Here we have a case where a jewish father wants to send his children to yeshiva to learn torah and a narrow minded self-hating jew like yourself suggests that we should "resist" because you don't like how the children's mother was converted...for shame. ”
That's really not true. We submit to the laws of the country unless obeying the law would require deviance form any halachah. At best, in some cases, rabbanim have permitted a respected kullah to be used in place of a normative chumrah, to avoid having practical halachah come into conflict with denna d'malchusa. Beyond that, we always go with Jewish Law as primary, even for such "minor" things as Shabbos, kashrus, tzedakah, and... wait, here's a good one... CHINUCH.
So, Rabbi Sir Jonathan and the LBD have to decide whether the law as established by the court is in conflict with Jewish law, or is not in conflict. If it is in conflict, they either have to find a way to remove the conflict, or they have to violate the law. Rav Chaim Volozhin famously shut down the yeshiva to avoid the conflict while keeping compliance with Russian law.
26
Jul 06, 2009 at 06:32 AM good idea Says:
how about allowing half jewish kids go to yeshiva so they can get a jewish education and maybe marry and raise children of their own jewish. THE KEY TO JEWISH SURVIVAL IS JEWS RECEIVING JEWISH EDUCATION!
why should we complain if an intermarried couple wants their children to be jewish? then we complain when they go to xtian school or become reform!
DUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! is there a logical yid out there? beam me up shlomo.
27
Jul 13, 2009 at 06:32 AM Rachel Says:
To answer Rochel, re; Are there any reform schools in London. Yes! brilliant ones, however, due to the number of United synagogue members/orthodox temporarily joining Reform/Liberal synagogues in order to get into these very good schools, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Reform/Liberal members to gain a place. What hypocrisy. J Sacks should be addressing these sort of issues, rather than waste time and money pursuing a cause which he has not even the support of the majority of JFS parents.