Ashdod, Israel – The High Court of Justice took a dramatic decision today, giving the dayanim of the Higher Rabbinical Court and the Ashdod District Rabbinical Court 90 days to explain why they had revoked the conversions made by the special conversion court of Rabbi Haim Druckman.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
The court also asked the attorney-general for his opinion on whether the rabbinical courts were empowered to revoke the decisions of the National Conversion Authority, headed until recently by Druckman.
The decision was made in response to two petitions. The first was filed by a mother, her three children and 11 organizations, most of them advocating women’s rights, against decisions by the Ashdod District Court and a Higher Rabbinical Appeals Court. The courts ruled that a Danish woman who had converted to Judaism in Druckman’s court was not Jewish.
The second petition, filed by attorney Susan Weiss, head of the Center for Women’s Justice, involved a woman from the Soviet Union who also converted in Druckman’s court, and was also declared not Jewish by the rabbinical court.
In the first case, the two rabbinical courts blasted Druckman for being too lenient in his standards for accepting converts into Judaism. In fact, the Higher Rabbinical Appeals Court went so far as to revoke all of the conversions conducted by Druckman over a 10-year period, while he headed the National Conversion Authority.
The authority was established to make it easier for non-Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union to convert to Judaism. It was established in the Prime Minister’s Office as an independent religious court system parallel to the rabbinical courts, which also dealt with conversions as well as marriage and divorce.
In the first case, Ashdod District Rabbinical Court Dayan Avraham Atiya was presiding over an uncontested divorce proceeding between the woman and her husband, when he asked her whether she was observant.
When the woman said she was not, Atiya declared that she was not Jewish. In subsequent additions to his ruling, based in part on news reports, he blasted Druckman personally. When the woman appealed the decision, the Higher Rabbinical Appeals Court upheld the lower court decision and blasted Druckman again.
The petitioners called on the High Court to revoke the rabbinical court decisions to declare the petitioners not Jewish, and its decision to place the women and their children on the list of those who may not marry.
The state, which is not a party to the petition, submitted an opinion to the court supporting the part of the petition that called for the revocation of the rabbinical court decisions on the Jewishness of the women, on the grounds that the decision violated the principles of fairness. Neither side in the divorce case had asked the court to rule on the women’s Jewishness, and the court had not given them a fair chance to defend themselves on that count, the state maintained.
Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch made it clear that she agreed with the petitioners and the state in this matter.
But the more far-reaching question was whether the rabbinical courts had the right to overrule the special conversion courts.
The attorney for the rabbinical courts, Shimon Ya’acobi, said this question was a halachic matter that the secular court system was prohibited to handle. He also said that the fear that the rabbinical court decision would affect the lives of thousands of people who had been converted in Druckman’s courts had not materialized.
“We are dealing with a specific matter which should be dealt with on an individual basis,” said Ya’acobi. “The issue hasn’t turned into a dramatic phenomenon which makes it necessary to determine an overall policy.”
But the justices disagreed.
“We don’t sit here looking for cases to deal with,” retorted Justice Elyakim Rubinstein. “The case came to us because the [rabbinical court decisions] did exactly what you [Ya’acobi] don’t want. The courts ruled without hearing the [converts] and struck a blow against thousands of converts. Now you say we shouldn’t deal with this matter in public. If the rabbinical courts had wanted to deal with the matter quietly, they could easily have done so.”
it is tragic to see negative politics seep into the process of conversion.. it is a terrible sin to discriminate against a convert…their standing in heaven is mighty and revered…
there are in my judgement to components to conversions..one is halachic and the other is political,,,halachic standards can vary from court to court..it is arrogant of any of us including other jewish courts to second guess God fearing competent rabbis even if their “philosophy” disagrees with our own…there are many factors and nuances in assessing each potential convert and we should not judge after the fact(God can do that) …as to the political side i believe we should welcome and encourage legitimate converts through the halachic process… we have to accept other types of shchita for example…even if its different from our own..for example satmar versus OU supervision…they are both kosher despite philosophical differences. we need issues to unite the jewish people and not draw wedges amongst ourselves…
Who is a Jew is a halachic question, and must be dealt with exclusively by botei din and poskim. These dayonim seem to have behaved with incredible chutzpah towards R Druckman, but perhaps they had good reason; it’s difficult to penetrate this thicket without the sort of evidence that one can’t get just from news reports. However, right or wrong, the Bagatz has no right to interfere.
the secular courts have no standing in this matter
demographics i didnt know this much about the rabbi
what’s the deal with a convert who was sincere at first, mekable ol malchus shomayim, shomer torah u’mitzvos, and then later down the line lapsed into their old ways? is that different from a convert who was insincere to begin with?
these geyrim are converted without acceptance of torah and mizvos and are not jews. Drukckman has real chuzpa to distort our Jewish purity and should be put in his place!
This is real challenge for the courts but ultimately, they will likely affirm rav druckman’s and the NCA’s decisions. As to your vile and stupid comment about converts to yiddishkeit not occupying “positions of authoritiy” over yiddin, there is a convert in the new government cabinet, at least two of the most senior IDF officers are converts etc.
This is just another example as to why we need to let the civil courts exercise final jurisdiction in domestic matters. They should carefully consider the views of the rabbinical courts as the “experts” in these areas, but ultimately, we cannot allow them to ruin hundreds or thousands of people’s lives the way this decision has the potential to do. A blind adherence to technicalities must not be allowed to stand.
The true problem lies with the original mandate of Drukman’s so-called “beis din”. It should have been originally subjected to the jurisdiction of the Rabbanut. The fact that it was independent, is itself a fundamental flaw in its authority. Any ruling from that “beis din” is null & void (at least according to the established Israeli Rabbanut system – the many other chareidy batei dinin are independent from the Rabbanut).
But, hey, what good is the Rabbanut system if at the end of the day IT is subject to the jurisdiction of the secular court? Zilch!
It would therefore follow that any “giyur” done by the Rabbanut is as invalid as Drukman’s!
This will be the ultimate test!
Only if the Rabbanut can hold it’s line against the secular courts, will it be considered a valid Beis Din [albeit liberal].
Once a person is accepted as a keruv, there is no basis for reversing that decision unless it can be shown that the person deliberately lied or deceived the rav who was responsible for the conversion. If there was a mistake by the rav, howver, it is assur and would be a chilul hashem to simply say “sorry, we made a mistake 10 years, you are now a goy again and your children are mamzerim”.
“I think that Milhaus meant that converts cannot serve as roshe yeshivot or other positions where they have some authority in matters of halacha. There is obviously no legal prohibition under halacha or civil law for a convert to judaism to serve in a political or military position in EY where he/she exercises authority over jews.”
Actually, that’s not only not “obvious” but wrong. The issur is primarily a political/military one that is extended to other areas. Thankfully, it’s not one that will be employed any time soon in the Israeli government or military.
The true problem lies with the original mandate of Drukman’s so-called “beis din”. It should have been originally subjected to the jurisdiction of the Rabbanut. The fact that it was independent, is itself a fundamental flaw in its authority. Any ruling from that “beis din” is null & void (at least according to the established Israeli Rabbanut system – the many other chareidy batei dinin are independent from the Rabbanut).
But, hey, what good is the Rabbanut system if at the end of the day IT is subject to the jurisdiction of the secular court? Zilch!
It would therefore follow that any “giyur” done by the Rabbanut is as invalid as Drukman’s!
This will be the ultimate test!
Only if the Rabbanut can hold it’s line against the secular courts, will it be considered a valid Beis Din [albeit liberal].
The secular courts have no say in this matter. If they go against the Rabbonim and force their will on the people. they will split the Jewish nation because no sincere Orthodox person will accept a Ger to marry them or count them for a minyan etc. until they verify which beis din performed the conversion.
I have heard of this problem with R Druckman before I start my own conversion, I don’t understand why some rabbis think his conversions are invalid… what are their criterias ? Wherever you go, each bet din has its own criterias, I think it’s all about who can have a power on this matter… I wanted to convert with Edah hachareidis, but then found out it wasn’t recognized by israeli state at all because of their political views, they don’t care if the conversion is valid, 100%kosher…and on the other hand i know that some batei din abroad don’t recognize israeli conversions… sadly a convert can always be questionned about his/her jewishness… even if the person isn’t religious after conversion it’s not a reason to revoke conversions, otherwise if it’s possible to do so, it means conversion itself is just a game and these rabbis can’t expect people to be true and serious about converting to judaism if they are not themselves serious about the choice they make to convert someone…
all this conversion system is a big mess,I hope people will finally see G-d and not rabbis or secular court as a Judge…
A ger can’t be a rosh yeshiva baloney can’t be a melech or kohen and that’s it their were and are many roshei yeshivas who are or stem from geirim
Almost all of you are making wildly uneducated halachic statements about the validity of conversions. Gerus is a very complex topic and great gedolim have offered dramatically different opinions on the issue throughout the generations. You all shoot-from-the-hip poskim out there should study the shutim and the history books before you bash either side. You will be in for a surprise.
Why should those converts who went in good faith to Rabbi Druckman’s beit din and who subsequently have been shomer mitzvot have had their conversions annulled? Why did the higher rabbinical court decide to sweep away the innocent along with the guilty?