There is a lot about the debate about the conversion law, both sides of it, that I don't really understand. Because of that I don't have a solid opinion on the matter. I am posting here my random thoughts and questions and would like to hear from you, the readers and commenters, how you see it.

First of all, how we do geirus, nowadays is not at all based on Shulchan Aruch. The requirements in Shulchan Aruch are extremely minimal compared to what is required today.

I have spoken to rabbis in the past about this and the response seems to generally be that it was made stricter over the years out of necessity - after seeing so many fraudulent conversions, attempts to deceive or scam the system, etc.

I am not sure how much leeway that gives us to change the requirements. Perhaps in a lechatchila situation we can demand whatever we want, but to call anything less than the maximum stringencies to be against halacha, does not seem correct when the new system is still well above Shulchan Aruch requirements.

There is talk about the new law being against halacha and allowing non-Jews to convert against halachic requirements. There is also talk about politicians setting standards for conversion instead of rabbis. Both of these claims confuse me for the same reason - the law isnt changing any conversion standards, just allowing more rabbis, all certified and appointed by the Rabbanut, by the way, to perform conversions.

I also don't know why this is even protestable, from a halachic perspective. I do understand that the system should perhaps be centralized, and standardized, and this would decentralize it and make the standards fuzzy. But from a halachic perspective I dont get it. There is no halacha requiring conversion to be controlled by the chief rabbis. Any beis din can perform conversions (obviously following halacha). So how is allowing more rabbis and not just the chief rabbis to perform conversions against halacha or allowing non-Jews to convert?

I understand the protest is really against having some specific rabbis perform conversions. I don't see why rabbis who want to convert should not a) have to be certified in conversions b) required to follow a set of guidelines and standards. Any rabbis who want to form batei din and convert candidates should have to first obtain certification in conversions by the rabbanut and be given a set of standards. Just like what happens in kashrut, mikvas, circumcisions, and pretty much every other religious service. These controversial rabbis, who are really the target of the attacks, should also have to be certified and follow the standards. They might follow the low end of the standards rather than the high end, but it would still be within the standards.

They talk about non-Jews and intermarriage, but regarding conversions these people are mostly not classic gentiles looking to convert. They are mostly in the category of zera yisrael - descendants of Jews. We generally treat them with less restrictions than gentiles. Obviously a Jew marrying a zera yisrael is still intermarriage, but regarding conversions the requirements on a zera yisrael would be a bit lighter than the requirements on a real non-Jew.

Speaking of which, I have heard this about zera yisrael and how we are meant to encourage their conversion and make it easier n them rather than harder. But is that actually a halachic rule? I have no idea.

What's the point in having chief rabbis if you dont give them any power or authority over a major issue affecting Judaism? Even if all the city rabbis who would perform conversions would do so perfectly according to halacha, why shouldnt the chief rabbis have some authority over this?

Do people out there really believe that the opposition to the law is because the conversions would be against halacha? On the flip side, is there any justification to that claim?

I keep hearing statements, from askanim, rabbis and even the chief rabbi, like "we wont allow politicians to determine conversion policy". I don't know where that comes from. I would definitely b against that as well, but when I read about the conversion law I do not see in it politicians involved in determining conversion policy. It simply expands the authority of who can perform conversions from the limited chief rabbinate to all city rabbis. Either I am reading it wrong, or the stated reason is a distraction because it is a better claim than opposing rabbis they themselves appointed.

With all the comments I have heard that those behind the new law are really looking to take conversion out of the grip of the Haredim, I don't get it. The Chief Rabbinate is not haredi. There are some, plenty even, Haredim who work for the rabbinate, but it is difficult to say that something held by the chief rabbinate is in the grips of the Haredim. And the reverse as well - why are the nationalists or DL or whoever looking to take it away from the chief rabbinate? That is also their people and is being controlled by the State's representatives. 

and I'll add this Facebook post to my thoughts as well: