After being a bit strident in my last posting, for which I apologize, I want to turn to something I just saw really beautiful and loving that I happened to see live yesterday as I was on the treadmill.  It’s so easy for me to write in strong language on this blog or any blog from the comfort of home, in safety and tranquility, but once in a while you come across accounts of people who are really making the ultimate sacrifice and putting their lives on the line.

Please take fifteen minutes to watch this powerful tribute by President Obama to Leslie Sabo, a”h, an casualty of the Vietnam war who heroically gave his life to save his fellow soldiers.  It was one of the most stirring speeches I have seen.  May God bless the memory and soul of Leslie Sabo and all those who gave up their lives for the United States and for Israel – two great allies in a world of of grave dangers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/05/16/president-obama-awards-medal-honor-specialist-leslie-h-sabo-jr

As we head for Yom Yerushalayim on Sunday, may Hashem bless all of us and the holy city of Jerusalem with peace.

Rabbi Asher Lopatin

While there is a lot to critique in the Orthodox world – Modern, Centrist and Chareidi – all of us sometimes take  a strident attitude that may not exhibit sufficient respect and love for our fellow Jews and their motivations.  All of us can make an effort to try to make our first response be one of embracing all of Orthodoxy – all Jews of course, and all human beings – and being open to learning – sometimes with a critical, but respectful ear – from our fellow Orthodox Jews

There is no need to apologize for the Hareidi or Centrist or even Modern Orthodox community.  We just need to speak from a loving and caring place. I am a pluralist: We need to learn from all Jews, and connect and relate to all Jews – Reform, Conservative, Renewal ; I believe it is critical for Judaism that we engage with the greater society as well.  That openness, however, requires that we understand that our spiritual and religious home remains with those who embrace Torah Judaism based on our age old tradition (masoret) and based on a loyalty to Hashem’s divine and eternal commandments.  Sometimes the Chareidi world may seem foreign to Modern Orthodox – myself included – but with the right effort and the right attitude, Modern Orthodox Jews, who live in the contemporary world, embedded in contemporary society, can still recognize their spiritual brothers and sisters – Orthodox Jews – and still remember where their home is.

Yes, there are serious challenges in the Hareidi community regarding dealing with the issue of pedophelia and abuse, and stifling those who are crying out for help.  And yes, I believe in transparency and speaking out – not being afraid.  We should be angry at terrible things happening. But Modern Orthodox Jews can have the greatest impact on the Hareidi world, our Orthodox brothers and sisters in Lakewood, Brooklyn and Monsey, when they hear our critiques with love, concern and humility in our voice.

Morethodoxy – this great blog – believes in the same passionate Yiddishkeit that Hasidishe and Yeshivishe  Yiddishkeit have espoused for centuries: let’s make sure that all Orthodox Jews know that we are one with them, and together,  we can address even the most heinous crimes and failings in our communities.

Rabbi Asher Lopatin

I first found out about something like an “Ethical Seal” when I was in Israel eight years ago on the fast day of Shiva’a Asar B’Tamuz, and I went to a modern Orthodox program sponsored by Bema’aglei Tzedek, a social action organization, which was rolling out their Tav Chevrati – social justice seal.  The Bema’aglei Tzedek program had several prominent rabbis speaking, and ended with a huge, separate seating mincha minyan.  It blew me away to experience exactly what the prophets would love for us to do on a fast day: learn about what Torah has to say about a just society, and plan to implement that Torah.  And in fact, that is what the Israeli Tav Chevrati – Social Justice Seal – of Bema’aglei Tzedek does and what the American Tav HaYosher – the Ethical Seal – of Uri L’Tzedek does.  Both of them are seals that restaurants can voluntarily get, which ensures that they are following the laws of the land – dina d’malchuta dina – in how they are treating their workers.

The Israeli seal is more complicated, but the Uri L’Tzedek (American) Ethical Seal is simple: restaurants have to demonstrate to volunteer mashgichim and mashgichot (supervisors) that they are paying their workers for their time worked (at minimum wage or wages agreed upon), that they are giving their workers the breaks they are legally mandated, and that the safety conditions in the restaurant meets code.  The Tav is only given to restaurants that have rabbinical supervision to their kashrut, so as not to confuse people who may see a Hebrew label and think the restaurant is kosher, which it is not, unless the food follows halachic standards of kashrut.

The Tav, “Ethical Seal” is not a political, social engineering seal, but, rather one that just verifies that the restaurant bearing it conforms to American law.  I do not expect the mashgiach for the kashrut, who may be checking for bugs, or salting the meat or making sure that every ingredient has the right label, to be able to verify what the workers are doing and whether they are being paid and treated according to US law.  Unfortunately, overworked and understaffed enforcement arms of the government are not able to police restaurants either for these matters.  An extremely high percentage of restaurants do not conform with the law – and luckily, the kosher ones have the opportunity of verifying that they are following Jewish law by following the law of the land.

The Tav HaYosher was born from Orthodox activists in Israel, inspired by Israel and the words of the prophet King David, who asked Hashem to guide him in the “circles of righteousness.”  These are people who were energized by the rigor of the halachic life and decided that halacha and Torah could give them the power to change society and to make sure the world of the Nevi’im (prophets) were not just nice Haftaras, but were real, living Torah, Torat chayim.  They had, and continue to have, as their guides some of the greatest Torah luminaries, such as Rav Yuval Cherlow and Rav Beni Lau, recognized rashei Yeshiva and gedolim.

Both the Israeli and the American “Tav”s – seals -  are careful not to call themselves a “hachsher” or a “hashgacha” which might challenge the importance of ritual kashrut. (See the article by Rabbi Avi Shafran in Dialogue , Winter 5772.) To the contrary, the Tav is coming to re-enforce the amazing strides we have made over the past half century in ensuring that “kosher” really means halachically kosher, by restricting itself only to kosher certified restaurants.  But they wisely do not get involved in which hashgacha is good and which bad.

I am writing this on the 32nd day (lamed beit, or lev) of the Omer – as we think about the “lev” – the heart – of the Jewish people.  Embedded in the heart of the Jewish people are the words of God and God’s prophets, along with the generations of great rabbis who ask us to seek justice and follow the laws of the lands in which we live.  I ask each and everyone of us: if we go into a restaurant in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Boston, Seattle, Teaneck, etc. – over 100 restaurants across America, and over 350 locations in Israel – please ask for the Tav!  If they have never heard of it, contact Uri L’Tzedek and tell them to reach out to that establishment.  Having the Tav means the restaurant is following our Torah true tradition of justice and following the law.  If you eat in a kosher Tav restaurant, you are not only fulfilling the ritual of kashrut, you are fulfilling the ethical laws of caring for your fellow human being and living a just life.

Rabbi Asher Lopatin

Imam Yahya Hendi who was born in Nablus and apparently didn’t have the right documentation to enter Israel, lucked out in one way: he flew back via Amman on the non-stop United Airlines flight right to Washington DC. So he looked a bit fresher than we did. There were some miscommunications and some unclear signals that went on which caused Imam Hendi not being allowed into Israel over the Allenby bridge from Jordan. He was able to come into Ramallah where we saw him on Sunday, and the Israel Foreign Ministry said that they got him all the documents necessary by Sunday to get him into Israel. He claimed that he still couldn’t leave from Tel Aviv with the rest of us, and would have had to go back to Jordan to leave. Israel needs to be allowed to establish laws that protect her citizens, and this may very well be one of them. At the same time, holding Imam Hendi back was seen by many in our delegation as an act of insensitivity and randomness, and it was seen in the context of the security people in Tel Aviv still opening suitcases and giving people what they saw as a hard time, despite having letters and representatives from the Foreign Ministry right there in the airport.

It hurt me to see Israel criticized for just trying to keep suicide bombers out of Israel and off of airplanes. But it also hurt me to see Israel losing an opportunity for showing Indonesians, Muslims and Christians was a moral and accepting country Israel really is. And if the agents at Ben Gurion or at the border would have been more professional, less hard and cold, even smiled more, maybe it would have helped. One of the American Imams on the trip made a lot of sense when he talked about applying the sensitivity training to Israeli security that American TSA officers needed to be trained in. My guess is that while some actions Israeli border security agents use are important to the safety of Israel, there isn’t as much concern to make sure that people feel respected and comfortable. Of course I understand that saving a life is more important than not offending someone. But I think you can do both. Anyway, the reality is that people understood that Israel is a democracy, and they met many people in Israel that they felt were working on fixing things that were wrong. These border issues are just an extra drag in the wrong direction for Israel, but Israel itself will have to find the right balance – not a rabbi heading back to Chicago or an Imam in Washington DC. I just don’t like to see a weakness in Israel’s profile being taken advantage of.

Anyway, after arriving pretty ragged, everyone managed to clean up well and we arrived at the State Department looking just fine everyone dressed up as is the custom in Washington. People kvetched about the border crossing and access issues (there were some riots in Al-Aktza that freaked out some member of the group – having to hear gunshots, having to leave early) and being profiled at Ben Gurion. Wendy Sherman, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs came into our meeting for 15 minutes and did a great job of diffusing this issue by saying that her own son (or grandson?) was detained for two hours because his name was similar to one on the terrorist list. So it even happens in America, the land of liberty and freedom! The State Dept. also gave us coffee, tea and Pepperidge Farm cookies – and they let us take them into the session even though the sign said no food or drink in the conference room. Thank you State Dept. – shows impressive sensitivity and flexibility!

From State we went back to the Indonesian Embassy for lunch. In addition to the great Indonesian food, they brought in deli from Eli’s Kosher restaurant in DC – right nearby the embassy in Dupont Circle. This was very special: I felt so welcomed by this gesture. In Indonesia and Jordan I had to bring tuna fish and mayo from the States. It wasn’t difficult to bring deli from a few blocks away, but they did it with such enthusiasm and warmth that I really saw the Indonesians as they wanted to be seen: caring, open minded, tolerant and flexible. This lunch in the embassy was openness to diversity at its best.

The rest of the day consisted of meetings with the White House where basically the White House rep. to the Jewish community and to the Arab community just told us how important peace in the Middle East was and how concern President Obama was to help the parties achieve that peace. That was their job, and they did what they were supposed to do. At Congress, we were addressed by Congressman Keith Elisson – the first Muslim in Congress – and Rep. Jim McDermott – a very nice, non-Indonesian looking congressman who heads the Indonesian caucus. Go figure. And for this entire time, Ambassador Dr. Dino Djalal from Indonesia was with is – with his wonderful wife. We felt that this mission was important to him, and he took pride in it, and to have his wife there added to his honoring us. I am so grateful to him for his graciousness and courage in pushing this Indonesian and multi-faith mission forward. He acknowledged how much he hoped that one day Indonesia could have relations with Israel, and his wife sincerely said how much she hoped to make it to Jerusalem.

Two more things before flying back to Chicago armed with Kosher Krispy Kremes for Rachel and the Lopatin kids: First, the goodbye was so powerful for me. I kissed so many of my new Indonesian friends and teachers. These are thoughtful people, and I felt they opened up to me, so I felt connected to them. One of them, Dr. Richard, wants me to come back to Indonesia to teach in his seminary for a few weeks – religion, political science, and anything else I was interested in. He and his fellow Christians and Muslims from Indonesia spoke of making Judaism officially the seventh recognized religion of Indonesia! For that I would come back – but I haven’t spoken to Rachel about it yet…

Secondly, an interesting incident that occurred at lunch in the Embassy. We were talking about the Al-Aktza mosque and whether the Dome of the Rock was a mosque or not, and one of the moderate, open minded American imams declared that the entire elevated area – the area that is called the Temple Mount – is all considered the Al-Aktza mosque. This discussion connected with my declaration that any peace treaty should allow Jews to go up and pray Jewish prayers on the Temple Mount, and, long term, Jews should be allowed to build a synagogue up there, along side the mosques. Well, this really got the Imam angry, and he said that any talk like that was a non-started and it would kill any peace efforts – “not one Muslim would allow for that.” Sharing the “Haram ashSharif” – the Temple Mount, now considered by him in its entirety a great mosque – would be tantamount to tearing down the mosque itself. I argued that this is the holiest place on earth for Jews, and he argued that it was a mosque. Clearly there is a lot of work to do when the most open minded and tolerant Muslims declare Jews persona-non-grata at their holiest site. It was sobering, and a bit sad. Luckily, one of the other Imams – older and more experienced with interfaith work – said that this model, of sharing a mosque and a synagogue, was slowly and quietly being developed in America. One day, he said, it could be exported, and that it was a model that perhaps could be used on the Temple Mount. But on the other hand, could we get our Jewish brothers and sisters to agree that a mosque would legitimately remain on the Temple Mount? And what about Christian worship on the Temple Mount? Should we advocate for that?

Lots of questions on this trip. But also so much hope that we can share the holiest land on earth, God’s home, as it were. I really believe that religious leaders of all types can help lead the way in showing how much we need each other and how much we can come together even if we disagree in fundamental ways. Beyond that, the fact that a Zionist American Jew could bond with Christian and Muslim Indonesian leaders – well, Israelis and Palestinians may be able to do it as well. Israel can never let down its guard and its purpose in being the Homeland of the Jews and the safe haven for the Jewish people. But from this trip I hope that maybe one day Palestinians will be a help rather than a threat to this Jewish State, and the Jewish State, the Jewish Homeland will “davka” – precisely be the vehicle by which Palestinians realize their aspirations which have been denied by the Arab states around them for six decades.

As Shabbat comes in on a rainy Chicago, I pray for the peace of Jerusalem as my fellow Jews have prayed for 3000 years, and as other religions have prayed as well. I feel blessed to have been invited on this trip of discovery, and as a Jew living in an era of a proud, moral and thriving Jewish state, I feel blessed to be have been able to show my fellow religious leaders that God has comforted God’s People, and blessed them with a showcase to the world, with a land that will one day model peace and tranquility.

Shabbat shalom and Shalom al Yisrael.

Guest Post from Rabbi Seth Winberg who received rabbinic ordination at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, and an M.A. from Yeshiva University. Rabbi Winberg is currently Assistant Director at the University of Michigan Hillel.

-

Poor Rabbi Dov Linzer. I am honored to have been a student of his remarkable erudition and emotional sensitivity. Reacting to unconscionable behavior in the name of Torah by some Jews in Israel, Rabbi Linzer’s op-ed, “Lechery, Immodesty, and the Talmud”, appeared in the New York Times late last month. A full analysis of talmudic sources appeared on his blog a month before the op-ed. The upshot of Rabbi Linzer’s argument is that the Talmud “places the responsibility for controlling men’s licentious thoughts about women squarely on the men.”

Professor Shaul Magid quickly responded in an open letter to Rabbi Linzer: “To instantiate your reading of the Talmud would require you to act decisively to abolish all the legal mandates that objectify women’s bodies and put the onus on the men to take full control of their libido and desire.” Rabbi Linzer did not go far enough for Professor Magid in promoting liberal values.

Rabbi Avi Shafran, Director of Public Affairs for Agudath Israel of America, also attacked Rabbi Linzer. According to Rabbi Shafran, Rabbi Linzer exploited the violent behavior directed at women and children in Israel to further his ideological agenda. Rabbi Shafran implies that Rabbi Linzer’s reading of talmudic texts is wrong. But Rabbi Shafran offers no evidence for this claim. Perhaps Rabbi Shafran will soon share his reading of the talmudic sources.

Until then, Rabbi Shafran provides no substantive objections to Rabbi Linzer’s reading of sources. Instead he resorts to name calling. Rabbi Linzer’s ideology, says Rabbi Shafran, is “redolent of the Conservative movement’s early days.” (Professor Magid, the rabbi of a Conservative synagogue, would surely disagree with Rabbi Shafran for two reasons: (1) for Professor Magid, Rabbi Linzer is too Orthodox to be Conservative and (2) because for Professor Magid “Conservative” is not an insult.)

Professor Magid’s open letter to Rabbi Linzer at least provides substantive arguments for us to consider. Unfortunately, the letter contains inaccuracies about halakhah. Let me provide two examples. First, Professor Magid claims that “traditional Jewish law” does not allow women to say kaddish in the presence of men. What “traditional” source says women cannot say kaddish with men? The first halakhic source I know of which condemns women saying kaddish is from the 1600s long after the Babylonian Talmud (see Havot Yair, 222). That source does not mention modesty as a concern. And as Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen has pointed out, Havot Yair’s objection was a minority view at the time in Amsterdam, and he agreed in principle that women could say kaddish in the presence of men.

One need only point to a responsum of the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, of blessed memory, to show women may say kaddish in the presence of men (see Iggerot Moshe, Orah hayyim, vol. 8, #12).

The most troubling inaccuracy in Professor Magid’s open letter is about mehitzah, the partition which separates men and women during public prayer. He asserts that the purpose of a mehitzah is to prevent men from seeing women. The more commonly accepted purpose of a mehitzah is to prevent intermingling of men and women in the context of public prayer (see Iggerot Moshe, Orah hayyim, v. 1 #39 and #41, and Seridei Esh, v. 1, #8, p. 19 which reports Hasidic opposition to Rav Moshe’s view). Contrary to what Professor Magid says, the mehitzah is not put up to prevent sight-lines. Professor Magid’s vague language also suggests that the mehitzah is of talmudic origin. In fact, there is no discussion of mehitzah in pre-modern halakhic literature, let alone talmudic literature. (See Rabbi Dr. Alan J. Yuter’s “Mehizah, Midrash, and Modernity: A Study in Religious Rhetoric” in Judaism 28 (1979): 147-159.)

Professor Magid may consider these the quibbles of an Orthodox rabbi. (I do not.)

A final broader comment about Professor Magid’s open letter. Rabbi Linzer demonstrates a pattern of attitudes (not laws) regarding modesty in the Talmud (not post-talmudic halakhic literature). Professor Magid responds with examples of rabbinic law (overwhelmingly post-talmudic) that he does not like for ideological reasons. Surely Professor Magid realizes that an Orthodox rosh yeshiva is not going to abrogate normative halakhah on the basis of a pattern of attitudes regarding modesty.

Rabbi Linzer is trying to have a real conversation about important values. If Rabbi Shafran and Professor Magid take Torah and ideology seriously, perhaps in the future they will engage in relationship building with their liberal Orthodox colleagues and leave polemics for other situations.

The larger challenge in this discussion is the extent to which the entire conversation is dominated by men. (I am guilty as charged.) I am pleased to see Rabba Sara Hurwitz adding her perspective. I pray that other women–students and graduates of Yeshivat Maharat, the Drisha Scholars Circle, GPATS, and similar programs–will add their voices too.

Rabbi Asher Lopatin

Rabbi Shaul Magid’s “Open Letter to Rabbi Dov Linzer on Modesty and Jewish Law” (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/5613/an_open_letter_to_rabbi_dov_linzer_on_modesty_and_jewish_law_/

tries to limit Rabbi Linzer’s attempt to defend all of genuine Jewish law and tradition from being the basis for the radicalism that we are witnessing in Beit Shemesh, Meah She’arim and other places.  “What anyone claims as the position of the Talmud is false by definition,” he writes.  Clearly Rabbi Linzer can only stake out “a Talmudic position and not the Talmudic opinion.”  I agree with his point that no one, and no one source,  can speak for all of Judaism.

Nevertheless, after making his point, Rabbi Magid then attempts to do exactly what he criticizes Rabbi Dov Linzer of doing: painting all of Jewish law and tradition with a single monochrome brush.  Whereas Rabbi Magid accuses Rabbi Linzer of defending all of Jewish law – and showing how progressive it is – by a single quote from on passage of the Talmud, Magid tries to show how the Jewish legal system as a whole, as we know it today, “serve[s] as the foundation of the problem” and that the “key authoritative texts of the tradition” have given rise to misogyny and bias against women.  If Rabbi Magid were following his own arguments consistently – and I support his argument – he would have to admit that Jewish law and Jewish sources are diverse and not monolithic.  Just as some authorities could bring proof to refute Rabbi Linzer’s declaration that “The Talmud says (to men): It’s your problem, Sir [if the women are not dressed in the way you would want them to dress]; not theirs.”, likewise, Rabbi Linzer and those Modern Orthodox who support his view can bring real sources through the generations that would support his arguments.  

Rabbi Magid tries to show that there are no nuances or disagreements in traditional sources regarding mehitza, prohibition on hearing a woman’s voice or even women saying Kaddish.  While there certainly are sources which claim the purpose of a mechitza (separation in a synagogue between men and women) is for the men not see the women, Maimonides, in his key halachic work, the Yad Hachazaka, specifically rejects the idea of seeing, and writes that the purpose is merely to separate, not to hide the women.  There are traditional Jewish sources which  challenge any prohibitions on a woman’s voice, except if it sexually intended, and Chavot Yair, four centuries ago, dismissed any halachic prohibition on women saying Kaddish.  Modern Orthodox women cover their hair today because they are following what the Talmud calls “Jewish tradition” through the millennia, not because men might be attracted to women’s hair.  That was established a century ago by the Lithuanian author of the Aruch HaShulchan.  Even chareidi women who wear gorgeous, natural hair wigs, are not doing so to reduce sexual attraction.

Rabbi Magid can claim that these sources are minority sources, or contrived, but the history of halacha is filled with minority opinions that come to dominate.  Just consider Maimonides trying to claim that the scores of anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Torah and the Talmud are merely metaphors!  Do we really believe this?  Well, Orthodoxy does, whether it was contrived to fit Judaism into Greek thought or not.  When the Tosafists of the 12th century saw women shaking lulav or saying blessings over hearing the shofar, they found internal halachic justification for such behavior, without the need to reject the halachic system.  

Modern Orthodoxy might not be the only way, and the Ultra-Orthodox view of women and modesty may indeed be able to find sources in the halachic tradition.  However, Rabbi Linzer, and those of us in the Modern Orthodox world who support his enlightened view of relations between men and women, do not need to jettison the traditional halachic system to find a better, and, in our own mind, a more Torah true attitude.   From Maimonides to the Tosefists to the Chavot Yair till today, rabbis will struggle to understand what the halacha and the Talmud is really saying.  They will end up with diverse understandings based on who they are, where they are living, and which values they are sensitized to.  But this diversity is not false or disingenuous : it is the way the halachic system was designed to work to allow us to meet the challenges of every generation.  Rabbi Linzer’s take on modesty and men’s responsibility is a Torah-true outcome of that process, which can find real halachic sources from the Talmud till today.

So it is time to reconsider something that some of my Right wing friends are suggesting: Israel should annex – unilaterally if need be – the West Bank, Yehuda and Shomron, and give the 1.7 million Arabs living there the vote. That will throw off the demographic strenglehold of the Chareidi parties by shaking up the make-up of the Knesset. No doubt many of those Arabs will vote for the Leftist, more secular parties. In addition, to deal with the imbalance of Arab votes, Israel should open the gates to more Jew-ish people from Africa and South America and combine them with the Jew-ish people from the former FSU to build a fire-wall against the Chareidi Ultra-Orthodox parties. The Ultra-Orthodox will not embrace these Jews or quasi Jews from Nigeria and Unganda – in fact, the Conservative world has done more to reach out to them than anyone else. So we will have the perfect balance in Israel to recalibrate and minimize the power of the Ultra Orthodox world and restore Israel to the “status quo” that existed in the early decades of the State, when Shlomo Goren and much more tolerant and Zionist religious Jews dominated the Jewish scene. This is not a joke: Israel, in my mind, is suffering from forms of xenophobia that are keeping the United States back as well, when we compare it to the growth and success of Australia and Canada which have successfully allow immigrant populations to provide diversity and balance.

I welcome the conversation…

Rabbi Asher Lopatin

1) If a couple – whether they be same sex, other sex, intermarried, etc – are part of the community and they adopt a baby, or celebrate that child’s birthday or bar mitzvah – that child deserves to be celebrated.  Celebrating the Bar Mitzva or the adoption of a child just – with a cake at kiddush, or with the entire kiddush – just means that Judaism is happy for kids to have loving and caring parents.  It does not mean that the parents are a good match, a halachic match or even bashert.  It is just a celebration of a family.  Families come in all shapes and sizes – some halachic, some not.  Our responsibility is to make sure that the kids see Judaism as beautiful and as compelling as possible.

2) Rav Hyim’s hypothetical case of a non-Jew getting an aliya may happen all the time in today’s world when we don’t examine people’s pedigree before they get an aliya.  We do check before we would marry them, but not before an aliya.  If we know that we accidentally gave a non-Jew an aliya, – even if there is a doubt – we can just add an acharon and still have 7 aliyot.  

3) Are the Batei Dinim that are dragging conversions out over several years, making potential converts miserable actually violating the prohibition of “innue hager”?  Rav Sha’ar Yashuv HaCohen paskined that they are considered geirim once they are involved in the conversion process.  So it would seem that our Batei Dinim are at list happy to risk violating this Torah prohibition, in order to be extra extra sure that they follow the strictest opinion possible to convert people.  Frequently they process conversion candidates inefficiently and painfully by making them have to face a bunch of rabbis who are not trained in the field of conversion, and are not doing it professionally.

No more apologies when it comes to values like welcoming Jews to shul, or making people feel comfortable in a Beit T’fila – a place of prayer and Torah – or when it comes to treating those who want to be Jewish with dignity.  The Torah asks us to stand up, and Morethodoxy is about standing up for these Torah values.

Rabbi Asher Lopatin