1950s: proposed joint beth din In the 1950s Rabbi
Joseph Soloveitchik and other members of the
Rabbinical Council of America engaged in a series of private negotiations with the leaders of Conservative Judaism's
Rabbinical Assembly, including
Saul Lieberman; their goal was to create a joint Orthodox-Conservative national beth din for all Jews in the United States. It would create communal standards of marriage and divorce. It was to be modeled after the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, where all the judges would have been Orthodox, while it would have been accepted by the larger Conservative movement as legitimate. Conservative rabbis in the Rabbinical Assembly created a
Joint Conference on Jewish Law, devoting a year to this effort. For a number of reasons, the project did not succeed. According to Orthodox Rabbi Louis Bernstein, the major reason for its failure was the Orthodox rabbis' insistence that the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly agree to expel Conservative rabbis for actions they took prior to the formation of the new beth din, and the RA refused to do so. According to Orthodox Rabbi
Emanuel Rackman, former president of the RCA, the major reason for its failure was pressure from
haredi Orthodox rabbis, who held that any cooperation between Orthodoxy and Conservatism was forbidden. In 1956, Rabbi
Harry Halpern, of the
Joint Conference wrote a report on the demise of this beth din. He writes that negotiations between the Orthodox and Conservative denominations were completed and agreed upon, but then a new requirement was demanded by the RCA: The RA must "impose severe sanctions" upon Conservative rabbis for actions they took before this new beth din was formed. Halpern writes that the RA "could not assent to rigorously disciplining our members at the behest of an outside group." He goes on to write that although subsequent efforts were made to cooperate with the Orthodox, a letter from eleven
Rosh Yeshivas was circulated declaring that Orthodox rabbis are forbidden to cooperate with Conservative rabbis.
1978–1983: Denver program, patrilineal descent In
Denver, Colorado, a joint Orthodox, Traditional, Conservative and Reform Bet Din was formed to promote uniform standards for conversion to Judaism. A number of rabbis were Orthodox and had
semicha from Orthodox yeshivas, but were serving in synagogues without a
mechitza; these synagogues were called
traditional Judaism. Over a five-year period they performed some 750 conversions to Judaism. However, in 1983 the joint Beth Din was dissolved, due to the unilateral American Reform Jewish decision to change the definition of Jewishness: Specifically, in 1983, the
Central Conference of American Rabbis passed a resolution waiving the need for formal conversion for anyone with at least one Jewish parent who has made affirmative acts of Jewish identity. This departed from the traditional position requiring formal conversion to Judaism for children without a
Jewish mother. The 1983 resolution of the American Reform movement has had a mixed reception in Reform Jewish communities outside of the United States. Most notably, the
Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism has rejected patrilineal descent and requires formal conversion for anyone without a Jewish mother. However, in 2015 the majority of Britain's Assembly of Reform Rabbis voted in favor of a position paper proposing "that individuals who live a Jewish life, and who are patrilineally Jewish, can be welcomed into the Jewish community and confirmed as Jewish through an individual process." Britain's Assembly of Reform Rabbis stated that rabbis "would be able to take local decisions – ratified by the
Beit Din – confirming Jewish status."
1980s: proposed Israeli joint beth din In the 1980s Modern Orthodox Rabbi
Norman Lamm, Rosh Yeshiva of
Yeshiva University, along with other American and Israeli Orthodox rabbis, worked with Conservative and Reform rabbis to come up with solution to the "Who is a Jew?" issue. In 1989 and 1990 Israeli Prime Minister
Yitzhak Shamir spearheaded an effort to find a way to resolve the impasse. A plan was developed by Israeli Cabinet Secretary
Elyakim Rubenstein, who negotiated secretly for many months with rabbis from Conservative, Reform and Orthodox Judaism, including faculty at Yeshiva University, with Lamm as
Rosh Yeshiva. They were planning to create a joint panel that interviewed people who were converting to Judaism and considering making
aliyah (moving to the State of Israel), and would refer them to a beth din that would convert the candidate following traditional halakha. All negotiating parties came to agreement: • Conversions must be carried out according to halakha • the
beth din (rabbinic court) overseeing the conversion would be Orthodox, perhaps appointed by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, and • there would be three-way dialogue throughout the process. Many Reform rabbis took offense at the notion that the
beth din must be strictly halakhic and Orthodox, but they acquiesced. However, when word about this project became public, a number of leading haredi rabbis issued a statement denouncing the project, condemning it as a "travesty of halakha". Rabbi Moshe Sherer, Chairman of Agudath Israel World Organization, stated that "Yes we played a role in putting an end to that farce, and I'm proud we did." Norman Lamm condemned this interference by Sherer, stating that this was "the most damaging thing that he [Sherer] ever did in his forty year career." Rabbi Lamm wanted this to be only the beginning of a solution to Jewish disunity. He stated that had this unified conversion plan not been destroyed, he wanted to extend this program to the area of halakhic Jewish divorces, thus ending the problem of
mamzerut. Brichto's proposals encouraged rabbi
John Levi to support such an initiative in
Melbourne. The proposal was rejected by
Immanuel Jakobovits, Baron Jakobovits, then
Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. Jakobovits reasoned: "How can an Orthodox Beth Din validate a conversion without kabbalat mitzvot [acceptance of the commandments]?" The justification given for the change in approach is that the original conversion must never have been valid in the first place as it is clear from the convert's subsequent actions they were insincere at the time of conversion. A situation of confusion in Jewish identity in Israel was made worse when Haredi Rabbi
Avraham Sherman of Israel's supreme religious court () called into question the validity of over 40,000 Jewish conversions when he upheld a ruling by the Ashdod Rabbinical Court to retroactively annul the conversion of a woman who came before them because in their eyes she failed to observe Jewish law. This crisis deepened when Israel's Rabbinate called into question the validity of soldiers who had undergone conversion in the army, meaning a soldier killed in action could not be buried according to Jewish law. In 2010, the rabbinate created a further distrust in the conversion process when it began refusing to recognize orthodox converts from the United States as Jewish. Indeed, the great-niece of the renowned Zionist
Nahum Sokolow was recently deemed "not Jewish enough" to marry in Israel, after she failed to prove the matrilineal Jewish descent for four generations. Following a scandal in which U.S. Rabbi
Barry Freundel was arrested on charges of installing hidden cameras in a
mikveh to film women converts undressing, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate said it would review the validity of all past conversions performed by Freundel, then quickly reversed its decision, clarifying that it was joining the Orthodox
Rabbinical Council of America in affirming the validity of the conversions. In December 2014 an Israeli court decided that a conversion could be annulled. In his decision Justice Neal Hendel wrote: "Just as the civil court has the inalienable authority to reverse – in extremely rare cases – a final judgment, so too does the special religious conversion court. For otherwise, we would allow for judgments that are flawed from their inception to exist eternally." ==Consequences==