I have just about completely stayed out of commenting on the big fight raging in the country about who controls  the conversions, and whether or not to allow the army rabbinate to convert soldiers who will be recognized with  official status. I stayed away from it because I don't get it - the halacha of geirus in Shulchan Aruch is far more meikil in every aspect than what the rabbonim advocate, so i don't get the basis for the seriousness of the argument. I have been told that today it is far more common for people to try to become Jewish with ulterior motives than it used to be and therefore they must be more machmir, but still - what is in Shulchan Aruch is in.

I still am not going to comment on the geirus fight, but on a side issue. Rav Amar has been convening a committee to analyze the situation and come to decisions to form an opinion as to whether or not to give the army rabbinate the authority to convert.

Rav Amar, with the guidance and approval of Rav Ovadiah Yosef, has been working to find a way to set guidelines by which the army rabbinate can convert those soldiers who wish to convert, while ensuring that such conversions would be acceptable and halacha and would not later be overturned retroactively.

In response, those who oppose allowing the army rabbinate to convert soldiers have started slinging mud. Instead of debating the issues and working to set guidelines, perhaps trying to get Rav Amar to accept stricter guidelines than he would have otherwise (I am not saying he would be too meikil, but form their perspectibe that is what they are worried about), instead of dealing with the issue, they have resorted to name calling. They have pasted pashkevilim and are planning protests including protesting outside the homes of the rabbinic members of the committee. The pashkevilim are pretty nasty basically sayign that they are allowing conversions of people who do not accept the Torah at all, and based on the opinion of Rav Kanievsky such conversions are not allowed they then call those performing and allowing them (read: Rav Amar) "Apikorsim".

I get that they don't agree. In halacha we always have differences of opinion and machlokes. In Shulchan Aruch it is so, and down to regular differences of opinions between different rabbis paskening the same question. It is fine to debate the issue and not agree. At least keep the argument to the issues, rather than resorting to name calling in the rudest way of people who are great talmidei chachomim.

Why can't they just debate the issues, and work to find solutions and common ground, on the basis of mutual respect? Why is it always my way or the highway?

Rabbi Sherman of the Rabbinical Court has invalidated another conversion.

I don't want to relate to the specific case, as I am not familiar with the details, nor am I an expert on the laws of conversion.

on the one hand I think he is very bold. To do this again after the firestorm he created the last time he invalidated a conversion takes a lot of inner strength, conviction, and belief that you are doing the right thing. That he was now influenced by concern of the fallout, but did what he felt was right, draws a certain sense of admiration from me.

On the other hand, it is incomprehensible that people should go through a[n already super strict] process, crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's demanded by the authorities, and will proceed to live their lives as Jews, and years later some other rabbi will be able to come forward and invalidate all that and make your whole life into a scam.

Obviously in extreme cases where they find fraud or problems with the process, if that is what is needed to be done, so be it. But to just be able to do so, I would not say "on a whim" but perhaps I would say "so easily", seems to me to be very problematic and morally wrong.

Again, I am not relating to the specific case of the woman whose conversion Rabbi Sherman canceled. I don't know her situation. But this whole process should be different.

Either the original conversion process should be different, yet it is already controlled by the Orthodox Rabbinate, so how much different can it be? Or the post-facto relationship with the authorities has to be defined better to avoid such situations. But I don't see how this can continue that people go through an official process and then years later they are told that it was all worthless.

Rav Yuval Sherlo, the Rosh Yeshiva of the Hesder Yeshiva of Petach Tikva and a rising, though sometimes controversial, star in the National Religious Rabbinate weighed in with interesting thoughts on two topics.

1. On the topic of the recent geirus controversy - Rav Sherlo wrote a column in which he lays the blame completely on the National Religious public.He wrote that because the National Religious leadership removed itself from the public leadership, by declaring in advance that it would sit in the opposition and not join the Olmert government, it removed itself from being in position to lead rabbinicly. The decision was legitimate, but it has ramifications. By staying in the opposition, it means that its Rabbis would lose out the appointments to the Chief Rabbinate and as city Rabbis. the Haredim win those positions now because their parties are in the right positions.
   Also, the National Religious Rabbinate never held a serious discussion to come up with Halachic methods, that are acceptable lechatchila, for conversions, converts and how to deal with them. What is considered "acceptance of mitzvos", how much follow up there must be, how much ibvestigation must be conducted to reveal deception, and the like. Because they have not determined their positions on these matters, the National Religious public should be looking inward and should blame themselves. Until they came up with their own halachically acceptable decisions and positions, they cannot spend their time blaming others [i.e. the Haredim].
   
   Rav Sherlo says that the National Religious should leave the Haredim alone, not lay blame at their feet for the situation, not complain about the Haredim. Rather, they should be working to fix the problem. They should be formulating positions and working on their own plans. When the time comes, he says, "We will return and will take the responsibility for those Torah issues, and that will strengthen the Israeli nation in the ways of halacha.


2. Rav Sherlo was asked for a psak by a female correspondent how she hsould relate to the phenomenon of Mehadrin buses.
   She writes that the bus she takes to work is a mehadrin bus. It is not clear whether Egged has a right to make such a segregation, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the situation in the case pending before it. She writes that she personally has a problem with it. Her problem is two-fold:
   1. the idea of it is degrading to her and the extremism involved distrubs her.
   2. She is prone to motion sickness and sitting in the back, nearer to the engine, increases her discomfort.
   So she asks Rav Sherlo what his position on these buses is, does she have to respect the religious extremism of others and sit in the back even though it increases her discomfort, if the back of the bus is full but there are seats available in the front half - can she sit there, and is there a difference for a pregnant or older woman?
   Rav Sherlo responds that he belives there is great importance in keeping the public forum a place that is tzanua, not having immodest advertising signs up for example, and that we should live with tznius. But, Rav Sherlo writes, "I am against the mehadrin buses. These buses are mehadrin in shaming other people. in dealing with tznius in an immodest fashion, and more." Rav Sherlo continues that he thinks "that a person should not do it specifically, just to oppose it, and get on the bus in the front. One does not need to start a war over this, at this point. But if you are doing it not just to oppose - "Davka" - but for a purpose, such as your motion sickness, or when there are no available seats in the back, then you can sit wherever you want. And those who change things, they have the lower hand" .
   

I have not written about the geirus controversy for two reasons:

1. Many others have written about it, from either side of the table, and I had nothing new or better to say on it.
2. I do not really know what to believe. Are the Rabbonim on the beis din really canceling all these conversions just because of politics and tryng to take away legitimacy from the National Religious community? It seems so ridiculous! They must be basing it on actual halachah, even if they are taking a more machmir stand than what others might deem prudent. But on the other hand, the allegations of how this whole thing went down seem so strong that it is hard to believe politics are not involved. I am no expert in the halachah, and I am not savvy to the political games being played in this situation, so I chose to stay out of it. The only thing I have now decided to do is point you to a post by Ben Chorin who has a shocking revelation of how things work in this system.
   

The Mishpacha (Hebrew) newspaper had a fairly shocking story this week. You will not believe it to be true..

I will translate it here to English. If you wish to see the original, bluke scanned it and commented on it.

In a baal teshuva yeshiva there was a student who has been learning there for the past 2 years, who came from a country with a mass aliya. This student has "strengthened himself" [i.e. become religious] and has been keeping all of the mitzvos. Over a recent shabbos he was a guest at the home of one of the married kollel students.

The avreich realized the student despised the chulent and could not even taste a little bit of it. He remembered the words of the Rishonim, that someone who does not eat hot food on shabbos [day] needs to be investigated to see whether he might be a heretic (source: the Baal HaMaor).
In addition, he realized that the student did not shuckle/sway when he prayed, and this too is brought down (in the Zohar) as being a custom of Jews.

Since he realized that this student came from a neglected country {i.e. ostensibly Eastern European, but it does not specify] , he connected the dots and decided that according to halacha this student was likely not a Jew.
Attempts to investigate the background of the student revealed nothing conclusive, so the avreich, at the behest of the student, approached Rav Elyashiv with the situation and asked what to do.

Rav Elyashiv answered that the student must go through a conversion as a stringency [because of the chance he might not be jewish]. However any wine he might have handled is not to be considered "yayin nesech" [wine handled by a non Jew which may not be imbibed by a Jew], as the student behaved like a Jew and considered himself a Jew the whole time, and it is only a "safek" that he might not be a Jew [so the issue of yayin nesech does not apply].

As I said, you would not believe it. So now we are deciding whether or not a person is Jewish by whether or not he likes chulent and whether or not he shuckles during shmoneh esrei.

Soon we might have measurements for how much of a sway is called a sway. The meikil opinion will say something like a sway of 7 centimeters is ok and the most machmir opinion will say probably a minimum sway of 11 centimeters.

And then there will be a debate what is called chulent. What if you make your chulent without barley? And if you use chicken instead of beef?

I took out my shulchan aruch and looked up the halacha. At the end of Siman 257 the Rama mentions the issue quoted from the Baal Hamaor in the story. He says that one who does not eat "chamin" - hot foods, but this word is used in modern day Hebrew to mean chulent, one is suspect of being an apikorus.

According to the commentaries and the explanations, the issue is not if one does like hot food/chulent. Rather, it is if one refuses to eat it becaus ehe is of the opinion that one is not allowed to heat up food on shabbos, using the method we consider permitted. The heretics held to the literal meaning of verses and decided that one could not heat up food at all on shabbos, while we are of the opinion that there are certain methods in which heating up food is allowed. One who refuses to eat hot foods on shabbos is suspect of being a heretic.

And before I continue, let me just say before some people jump down my throat, that I am sure Rav Elyashiv knows that section of shulchan aruch at least as well as me, if not 500 times better (though one does not need to be the gadol hador to quote a siman in shulchan aruch).

The halacha does not say one has to eat chulent. It talks about hot foods. Had they offered this student hot soup maybe he would have accepted. Had they offered hot shnitzel maybe he would have devoured it. According to the reported story, they offered him a food that he did not like.

As a matter of fact, and this might solidify my standing in the minds of some of you, we often in the summer shabboses do not have chulent. I have not made chulent for three weeks in a row now. It is just too hot for chulent in my opinion. Does that mean we might not be Jewish? Does it matter that we have hot soup for lunch? (hot soup is better than chulent because, even though it is hot, it is a lighter meal.)

As well, it does not say that one who does not eat hot food might be a gentile. It says he might be an apikorus. An apikorus is generally a Jew. A Jew does not need to go through conversion when he becomes religious.

It is possible that this student, who clearly grew up non-religious in a completely non-religious and even ostensibly a non-Jewish environment, did not like chulent because he did not grow up with it culturally.
So all of the sudden he is exposed to a new food he has never seen before, and chulent by any description is not a pretty food, he is turned off by it and refuses to eat it, and his Jewishness is suspect?

As well, maybe that avreich just made a horrible chulent!! I wonder if they tried to serve him different chulent recipes and he had to reject each one before they decided he was not a Jew. Or did he just not like this one chulent and that was enough to seal the deal?

As well, there are many people who do not sway when davening. Many German Jews do not. Bluke reports that Rav Moshe Feinstein was famous for not swaying when he davened.

These are ridiculous criteria to use to decide whether or not someone is Jewish.

That being said, my only conclusion can be that the newspaper got the story wrong. Completely wrong, I mean. Not just the "inaccurate details wrong" as in all newspaper articles, but completely wrong.

They must have been missing a major detail. There must have been another reason to suspect his background. I do not believe Rav Elyashiv bases geirus on someones like or dislike of chulent.