AMICUS CURIA ON THE KNESSET BILL (5757) (1998) CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF CONVERSIONS BY CLERICS OF THE CONSERVATIVE, REFORM, RECONSTRUCTIONIST ANTI JUDAIC RELIGIONS
Prepared by: The Bet Din Elyon of America for the Supreme Court of Israel
The Torah was given on one mountain by one God to one people not four Torah’s on four mountains to four peoples. God, as our scriptural text sources clearly indicate abhors pluralism:
“There shall be one law for the citizen and for the stranger who dwells among you” (Ex 12:49); “There shall be one law and one ordinance for you and the stranger who dwells among you” (Num. 15:16); “How long will you continue to be pluralistic? (Kings I:18,21); “Don’t meddle with pluralism” (Proverbs 24:21).
For many years there has been a disinformation campaign waged that the anti-Halachic, egalitarian Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform (CRR) are branches of Judaism, relegating authentic Jews and their Judaism to a mere minority branch of idiotic, primitive, medieval, anti-progressive, psychotic, fanatic rabble called Orthodox. Rabbi Leo Jung, in 1937, stated:
The term “orthodox” was first applied to the Jews by Abraham Furtado (1756-1816) in connection with the Sanhedrin conferred by Napoleon. Shortly after, the birth of Reform Judaism emphasized the use of the term “orthodox” applied first to Judaism as found in the Bible, Talmud, Codes and Responsa; secondly to Jews who accept its authority and who endeavor to obey its behests. The designation “orthodox”, moreover, obscures the fact that what is so called, is in reality Judaism proper (UOJCA Convention).
Accordingly, Judaism has no branches. The CRR are fraudulent. Let us examine why. Actually one need not rely on Halachic sources to quantify the true nature of the CRR, since distinguished and acknowledged secular scholars have researched the matter in depth to the point that ironically the CRR heretical movements in Jewish society are forced to concede upon confrontation, their true origins and goals. Thus the late authority on Jewish philosophy and mysticism, Professor Gershom Scholem wrote “they soon reappeared as leaders of Reform Judaism…” (Redemption Through Sin—published several times as an essay in Tzion, Commentary, 1971, and The Messianic Idea in Judaism, MIJ, Schocken, 1971, p. 140, also in his Mechkarim U’Mekorot B’Toldot HaShabtaut V’Gilguleha, Jerusalem: Bialik, 1974). The “they” were the satanic Sabbatian Frankists. Isaac Bashevis Singer’s “Satan in Goray” is a fictional account based on factual historical sources of how the Shabbetai Tzvi (1626-1676) false messianic movement deteriorated to “Jews for Satan”. In the process these people were no longer Jews. Special cults of Sabbatians proliferated with such names as Donmeh and Frankists and even lodges such as the Asiatic Brethren. The latter lodge’s initiation rite consisted of eating pork and milk. The Breslau Asiatic Brethren lodge initiated the first major Reform congregation in the 19th century headed by Abraham Geiger. Sabbatian cults are well documented in the Encyclopedia Judaica and in the writings of distinguished Israeli academics including Professors Y. Tishbi (deceased), Yehuda Liebes and Yaacov Katz. In a nutshell, these groups practiced incest, adultery and homosexuality. They conspired with the Illuminati (Scholem, aforementioned Mechkarim, pp. 141-209) with goals of destroying all religions and fusing all nations into one. They, thus, cooperated with anti-Semites in spreading the “blood libel”. The Vaad Arba Aratzot, the Supreme Rabbinic Court of Europe, excommunicated them (Pinkas Vaad Arba Aratzot) on 20 Sivan 1756 with the following language:
Their wives and daughters are whores and their children are bastards to the tenth generation.
The Vaad regarded them and any derivative of them as Gentile enemies of Judaism. Rabbi Yaakov Emden (d. 1776) posited that if they are not pursued and destroyed, European Jewry would pay in a later generation with a churban—abject destruction, especially in their glorification of the Diaspora and negation of returning to, and settling the land of Israel. Rabbi Emden also believed that the efficacy of such a destruction would be effectuated by their machinations to destroy the universal Noahidic laws as subscribed to by Christianity and defended the motives of the pious Christians of his day. Scholem further states as follows concerning the Sabbatian Frankist Wehle family:
The son of Jonas Wehle was, in 1832, among the founders of the first Reform Congregation in Prague
Scholem also stated in Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (Schocken, 1954, p. 304):
Around 1850, a consciousness of this link between Sabbatianism and Reform was still alive in some quarters.
Accordingly, the Reform movement, as delineated by Scholem and his academic colleagues, was two-faced. Externally, klapei chutz, it advocated a Jewish escape from Judaism claiming under the pretension of academic scholarship that the Torah was Israel’s gift to God written by humans and, therefore, not binding. However, it claimed loyalty to the Noahidic laws and posited modernity, science and rational philosophy. Secretly, klapei pnim, the inner circle were mystic Satanists of Jacob Frank’s (d. 1791) “red kabbala”, yearning for the dawn of an antinomian new age where its secret ambitions could become public policy. In the early 70’s the movement agitated for abortion, the capital crime of murder under the Noahidic laws. At the end of the 70’s it fought for the notion of patrilineal descent, i.e., whereby the Jewish identity of a child could be determined contrary to Jewish law (see Litvin and Hoenig, Jewish Identity, Feldheim, 1970) by the father having prohibited sexual relations with a non-Jewish woman. Finally in the summer of 1990, in time for the 200th anniversary of Jacob Frank’s demise, the Reform movement adopted a resolution accepting homosexual and lesbian clergy. Homosexuality is a capital crime in Judaism, (Lev. 20:13) an abomination! a capital crime under the Noahidic laws. Reform clerics, however, began to preach and then practice in 1996, an even worse abomination—homosexual marriage. The Talmud (Chulin 92) asks if the homosexual abomination is so rampant among the Gentiles, why does God not destroy them? Answer—they don’t have the chutzpah to sanctify their perversions through marriage. Our Bet Din has taken notice of, and brought to public attention (radio commercials in New England, April 1997), the fact that the original 13 colonies of the United States advocated capital punishment for homosexuality as, for example, the following statute:
If any man lyeth with mankind as he lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abominations, they both shall surely be put to death.
The Liberties of the Massachusetts Colonies in New England, 1641
Indeed, the Hittite Code of this country and that of Hammurabi all inveighed against homosexuality.
Our public campaign to Gentiles concerning the Noahidic laws is rooted in Maimonides’ (Rambam’s) statement based on Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer that we have no missionaries to convert Gentiles to Judaism. However, we are commanded to “coerce all the inhabitants of the earth to accept the Noahidic laws.” (Hil. M’lachim 8:10) The Rambam’s citation for homosexuality being a Noahidic capital crime is Hil. M’lachim (9:5-6).
Our Bet Din publicized a “Declaration on Homosexual Abominations and Lesbianism” (Jerusalem Post, May 27, 1994) wherein we declared in summary the following: Homosexuality is a cardinal crime in Judaism. Our sages ruled long ago that if a person is asked privately under threat of death to engage in homosexual relations with any man, death is preferable (Sanhedrin 74a, Yad, Hil. Yesodei HaTorah chapter 5). This holds for idolatry, murder and any of the capital sexual crimes such as adultery and incest. However, in private, one is prohibited to sacrifice one’s life for parochial mitzvot, e.g., eating non-kosher foods or violating Shabbat, a capital offense. Applying the equality of cardinal crimes across the board, our Bet Din ruled:
Advocacy of moral crimes is considered in the same category as idolatrous advocacy. The advocate, be he your own brother, son of your mother, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend that is of your own self (Deut. 13:7) is to be disposed of as a threat to the covenantal community. Such a person is not to be pitied, spared nor concealed (v. 9) but is to be killed (v. 10). This is one of four cases where the Torah demands the Courts publicize the case. “And all Israel shall hear and fear, and shall cease to perform any such evil as this in your midst” (v. 12). We relied especially on the Rambam:
But these the rebels who renounce (the Torah) are lower than the pagans. As for the Pagans, we do not dispose of them; for they, i.e., the righteous ones have a share in the hereafter, but these are to be killed, and they do not have a share in the hereafter (Hil. Eydut 11:10).
A Noahide…if he knew that she was his friend’s wife, but did not know she was prohibited to him, but rather he thought that this thing (adultery) was permitted to him…he is killed and it shall not be construed for them as a mistake because it was obligatory for him to learn and he did not learn (Hil. M’lachim 10:1).
What applies to adultery also applies to homosexual relations. The Rambam’s position in Hil. Eydut has been codified (Shulchan Arukh, Choshen HaMishpat 34:22) by Rabbi Yosef Caro (1488-1575) across the board as follows:
The informers and the Apikorsim (heretics) and the apostates are lower than the pagans.
The Morasha L’Hanchil edition of Choshen HaMishpat (5754); substitutes Gentiles for pagans and presents another variant text following that statement: “And the Canaanites are lower than them.”
Now Rabbi Caro in his Kesef Mishna commentary on Hil. Eydut, maintains that the original text of the Rambam relies on the Talmudic text (Avoda Zara 26), which only applies to those that are apostates out of spite to idolatry. However, he certainly agrees that the idolatry source is to be construed broadly. This view has been expressed by many authorities and commentaries, e.g., Ibn Ezra, and it has been noted that the term avoda zara, which literally means strange worship, is utilized instead of avodat elilim, idol worship; because worship and practices which are strange to the observant Jew are in effect idolatry. As for the Canaanite text, it conjures up the perversions of these heathens in the Torah:
According to the deeds of the land of Egypt…you shall not do and according to the deeds of the land of Canaan
The Sifra states, the Egyptians performed homosexual and lesbian marriages and the Torah states explicitly that: “All these abominations have been done by the inhabitants” (v.27), referring to the Canaanite inhabitants of ancient Israel. But even pagan peoples such as Hittites had punishments for homosexuality. If the inhabitants of Sodom were exterminated by God for their homosexuality, then it is no wonder that the Sanhedrin in Israel, upon being presented evidence of a gang raped dead woman, offered as a consolation prize for a homosexual rape (Judges 19); ordered the war to destroy the tribe of Benjamin which allowed these abominations, resulting in the death of 25,100 Benjamites (Judges 20:35).
The Reconstructionists advocate homosexuality and so-called same-sex marriages. As for the Conservatives, consider the following JTA news item that appeared around June 4, 1992 in the Anglo-Jewish press: “The rabbis of the Conservative movement have voted to allow their colleagues to work at gay and lesbian congregations.”
A week later, Debra Nussbaum Cohen of the JTA wrote an in-depth news release on reactions of others. Among the statements quoted was the following:
The new Conservative position represents a capitulation to immorality, it institutionalizes and legitimizes repugnant moral standards…which is repugnant and ugly in the eyes of the Lord (Rabbi Pinchas Stolper, UOJCA).
Carrying this statement to its ultimate conclusion, it is obvious to anyone with a clear and logical mind that any Conservative cleric, irrespective of his own personal conduct, becomes culpable; for inevitably he is a local guide for his constituents who rely on his judgment. Indeed, even prior to the Conservative movement crossing this red line of conduct which a righteous Gentile would abhor, Rabbi Ahron Soloveitchik ruled (Hapardes, Marcheshvan 5747) regarding them:
It is clear that if someone is part of the evil chain (Sanhedrin 26), even if he is a complete believer in all the principles of faith and observes the mitzvot and is a great scholar…he is unfit…for a Conservative rabbi…in a Conservative congregation is part of the Conservative movement.
It is no small matter that his brother Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik z’l, stated (Chag HaSmicha, 1956, RIETS) that a mixed-pews synagogue was pagan, and reiterated the statement at a Rabbinic convention of the Rabbinical Council of America:
I would still advise every…Jew to forego…group prayer even on Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, rather than enter a synagogue with mixed pews…any rabbi or scholar who attempts to sanction the desecrated synagogue, ipso facto casts a doubt on his own moral right to function as a teacher or spiritual leader in the traditional sense of the word.
Rabbi Norman Lamm (President, Yeshiva University), in a comprehensive study on mixed-pew services, claims they are “of a specifically pagan root” (Tradition, 1959, p. 161-2). If one were to reexamine the Rambam in Hil. Eydut (11:10), and interpret strictly in accordance with the Talmudic origin attributed by the Kesef Mishna as dealing only with willful idolatry, then extrapolation of Rabbi Lamm’s and Soloveitchik’s cited views leaves no doubt that the “rabbi” of the mixed-pew congregation is a kind of pagan high priest who is still liable, whether his actions are de jeure or de facto. Indeed, the first Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel, Yitzhak Herzog declared, “their temples follow a kind of Christianity without a cross” (Rabbi David B. Hollander, Jewish Press, July 26, 1996). Remember, however, that a meshumad—one who apostatizes to Christianity—while being a traitor, nevertheless upholds the Noahidic laws. Accordingly, the heretical movements claiming to be part of Judaism are worse, rejecting civilized conduct for barbarism. Indeed, they are not Judaism at all. Each one today can be considered a pagan cult, not Jewish, who have ensnared innocent Jews into their non-Jewish cult. Indeed, a reform cleric declared (Ibid, July 5, 1996, p. 69):
It is time to be true to ourselves and our members. We in the Reform movement must state publicly that we are a different religion.
It should be pointed out that, like Reform, the Conservative movement also had its roots in Sabbatianism. Indeed, even more so because it boasts an undisputed founder, Zechariah Frankel (1801-1875), a Reform “rabbi” who walked out of a Reform convention of his colleagues in 1845, to form a movement to conserve Judaism—e.g., the issue of Hebrew in prayer. Scholem and others have documented Frankel’s Frankist lineage, born into the Sabbatian Frankist Wehle family of Prague (MIJ, pp. 167,357) “bastards to the tenth generation”. Furthermore, Professor Scholem in a lecture at Hebrew College (Boston, November 30, 1975) presented evidence that Solomon Schechter’s mentor Adolph Jellinek was a Frankist. Jellinek and his brother were militant Marxists. Further studies indicate that Schechter too was both of these. Indeed, Norman Bentwich (Solomon Schechter, a Biography, JPSA, 1938) concedes that he too, like Frankel, was a Reform cleric. We can, thus, better understand that with such beginnings, it is no wonder that the Conservative and their derivative Reconstructionist movement, like Reform, embrace pagan Satanic lifestyles.
CRR clergy play a vicious game of Gestalt’s psychology, a form of mind rape called RESPECT ABUSE. They abuse the innate respect that people have for Judaism and the Rabbinate by posing as Jewish rabbis. That they have the chutzpah after all the rotten dastardly things they did and continue to do and dare to fraudulently continue their head games before your Court is amazing. It shows that they hold this Court in contempt and think that the Court is so illiterate in Jewish history and ignorant of Jewish values that they will be able to continue their act before the Israeli Supreme Court and its Judges.
They invariably excuse themselves by inventing disinformation and other fabrications of Judaism. They even have come full circle on the blood libel, which their Frankist forbears engaged in, resulting in Jews being murdered. Thus, for example, Ismar Schorsch, Chancellor of the Conservative Seminary called Agudat HaRabbanim criticism of his movement “an act of terrorism” (Daily News, 4/16/97). He then went on to declare that a religious Jew relying on the texts concerning heretics will invariably kill; a CRR cleric stating:
In the current highly charged atmosphere is to incite unwittingly some unbalanced young fundamentalist either in Israel or America to carry out the letter of the law.
(NY Times, Nat. Ed., 4/17/97, page 20)
This inflammatory libelous statement, is even more insidious when one considers that Schorsch is the author of Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870-1914 (JPSA 1972), which is ample testimony that he knows better, especially with his 71 pages of footnotes and bibliography. Indeed, the very archives that he cites on p. 269 and 270 of his book, contains a treasury of information concerning the actual laws of executing the death penalty in our time. Again turning to the Rambam texts dealing with summary execution (Hil. Mamrim 3:2 and Hil. Chovel U’Mazik 8:10-11), Rambam declares that our category of traitor may be killed anywhere even at the present time when we do not try cases involving capital punishment. Nevertheless, he states that in the West, they punish the sinner and there is a variant reading removed by the censors. (Ibid, 8:11) that they execute him. This refers to the fact that these people were actually executed if two criteria were met; sentencing by a Bet Din—Court of Jewish law, and permission of the Government. There are many texts to prove this. There is a Responsum by the Rashba (Solomon Adret d.1310) in the Bodelian Library (Oxford), Jewish Quarterly Review (1896 8:228), attesting to an execution with permission of the government, where the Rashba asked the MaHaram of Ruttenberg for his opinion. There are also short (Otzar Dinim U’Minhagim) and long(Otzar Yisrael) articles entitled Malshinut, attesting to this. The Rosh (Shut, Klal 17:8) rules likewise, the death penalty when the government allows a Bet Din to adjudicate such matters. In his encyclopedia HaOnshin Achrei Chatimat HaTalmud (Jerusalem, 5682/1922) Rabbi Simcha Assaf presents case after case to prove the point. He cites a defense for the practice by the Rosh’s son (pp 77, Shut, 63) because:
In order that the Gentles not adjudicate the cases, since many are saved by our judiciary who would otherwise be executed through their judgments.
In order to kill those that deserve death under our laws such as the informers and the like that would otherwise escape death under their laws.
So much for the CRR’s contemporary smear campaign against religious Jews. Since the CRR clergy condone conduct which all righteous Gentiles eschew and abhor, then they certainly have chutzpah to demand that their phony conversions of Gentiles to Judaism be recognized, especially in Israel where total CRR membership is less than 1% of the Jewish population. How is that for democracy?
What then, however, is the Halachic status of CRR laymen and the Israeli chiloni? CRR laymen—excepting certain of their lay leadership—by and large are victims of RESPECT ABUSE. They become so confused that the profane appears divine. The Rambam states:
Karaites rejecting the Oral Law are considered as innocent victims of circumstances whom we have the obligation to restore (Hil. Mamrim 3:3), since they follow the “customs of their fathers” and are considered “as the Jewish baby who was raised by Gentiles”.
He, therefore, does not apply the law of summary execution of heretics. The Chazon Ish states:
It appears that the law of summary execution of heretics only applies in an era when God’s providence is revealed as in an era of miracles and heavenly voices, and the righteous of the generation are guided by divine providence which is evident to everyone…for everyone knew that evil brings chaos, destruction and pestilence to the world. (YD, Hil. Shechita 2:16)
Accordingly, he held that it does not apply in our times. Ezekiel 9 posits that in a Shoah the ones that are spared are those who scream bloody murder against abominations in society; and predicted the destruction of our people and the First Temple. Nevertheless, when Elijah confronted the priests of Baal before the Israelites, the people repented of their sins and assisted him in summary execution of these pagan priests, allowing none to escape (Kings I 18:40). Thus, we see that summary execution was reserved for those who enticed others to sin, while the laity was given a chance to repent in that generation.
In our time, we see the dichotomy expressed by great Decisors. Consider the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s z’l letter of 15 Tamuz 5719 (1959) dealing with another Rambam:
My considered opinion…is based on the indisputable Halachic decision formulated by Rambam (Hil. T’shuva 3:8) according to which the doctrines and ideology of the Conservative and Reform movements can only be classed in the category of heretical movements… membership in the New York Board of Rabbis… or similar religious bodies, strikes deeply at the roots of true Judaism. Such membership cannot escape the logical inference that the Conservative and Reform movements are recognized by the orthodox members of said bodies as belonging within the fold of true Judaism, differing only in degree or minor detail; whereas in truth, these movements deny the very basis of true Judaism. Protestations to the contrary can only be regarded as empty words, refuted by actions.
On 18 Adar 5716 (1956) 11 deans of America’s leading Yeshivot issued a declaration enjoining membership in the New York Board of Rabbis and similar groups. Several years later, Rabbi David B. Hollander addressing Yeshiva University Alumni applied the same Rambam; differentiating between the CRR clergy and the laity stating:
Applying this to clergy (CRR) and only to clergy, because the laity is misled and can only be considered as non-observant, not as rebels who reject the law…Thus the clergy (CRR)…are promoting the spiritual and physical decline of the Jewish people. Under these circumstances how can Orthodox Rabbis be colleagues of the enemy in a rabbinic society.
He then discussed the issue of tolerance stating:
Why can we not be equally tolerant of the Conservative and Reform movements and their clergy? Tolerance does not extend to fraud…The clergy (CRR) are misleading the Jew by expressly or impliedly telling him that they are following, preserving the faith of their fathers, when this is plainly false.
In conclusion, the unaffiliated laity in the Diaspora or the so-called chiloni laity are considered Tinok Shenishba (a Jewish baby raised by Gentiles). They are considered on a higher moral plane Halachically than the modern priests of Baal. Their position is certainly intellectually superior to the deceit and respect abuse of the CRR. One of the worst elements of frauds of the CRR is in claiming the unaffiliated Jew as their own. It is certainly and obviously not true for the chiloni Israeli and is definitely not so for the vast majority of unaffiliated Jews in the Diaspora. Yet the CRR will continue to mislead your Court with the big lie that they represent the majority of unaffiliated Diaspora Jews. They have no such mandate.
“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, I am HaShem (Lev. 19:18).” Upon which the Baal Shem Tov comments, HaShem can be written with two yuds. If one yid (a Jew) is on one side of the earth and another yid at the opposite end, then fulfilling this mitzvah means one Jew feeling the pain of the other’s fingernail.
Therefore, your Court of the State of Israel has a fiduciary obligation to make sure that the CRR, clergy and/or its representatives who can never even qualify under the Noahidic laws as righteous Gentiles, never obtain a foothold in the State of Israel, nor in any matters relating to Judaism, for they are not Jewish, but satanic. Furthermore, they have no business serving on religious councils dealing with Jewish matters. Indeed, a righteous Gentile has more in common with Judaism than CRR clergy, as we have demonstrated.
Presented to the Court in the spirit of:
…the nursing father who carries the sucking baby (Num. 11:12; Sanhedrin 8a)
In other words, a proper Rabbinic Court carries on its back the collective responsibilities and the burden of its fellow Jews like the loving father who cares for the nursing baby who will never, God forbid, discard the baby because it dirtied its diapers. It is time not only to change the dirty diapers but make sure they are never soiled again, especially by your Court.
Moshe Antelman, Av Bet Din
R. Bernstein P. Goldsmith Z. Levitt
M. Blitz S. Hecht K. Meir
M. Brown C. Hershanov M. Morgenstern
S. Fishbain Y. Jacobson D. Nachmias
M. Friedman S. Kaftori Y. Silver
Y. Gersh H. Kranz S. Sorscher
Y. Gilner D. Lapin E. Sprecher
Y. Glasner T. Tzuker
POB 855 Brooklyn, NY 11219 A Sanhedrin Ktana founded in 5735 (1974) by disciples of the Moetzet Gdolai HaTorah