Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis Are Reversing Conversions By the Fistful

Weren't the two of you going to write a book together? I remember a website asking for BT horror stories. What happened to the book?

It morphed into several different projects. More on them soon, I hope.

I was his roomate at Yeshiva torah Ohr more than 35 years ago. He was and is brilliant, but he dropped out of secular studies after the 8th grade. He does not know anything and thinks his ignorance is a plus. His father was a first grade rebbi at RJJ. He very much wants and needs attention. He is charasmatic. But he is a my way or the highway guy.

No one should give his institution a penny and no one should allow him into any shul or school.

i'm so appalled at Leib Topper's behavior, i don't even know where to begin. let's see...he convinces a 16-year-old boy to drop out of high school to study Torah all day long in a filthy hovel and is more concerned with how he looks in a black hat than whether he's eaten lunch. he tries to dupe the boy's father into quitting his job and moving his family to Monsey, where they will leave all ties with their former life behind. and then there's the revoking of a conversion in Israel all because the woman stepped outside of her house?! excuse me, but i see Orthodox women on the streets of NYC shelepping their 5 kids to go shopping without their husbands all the time (my office is in the same building as a women's clothing outlet and the majority of customers happen to be Orthodox women...or tourists from the South). this dude clearly has no concept of "real life."

my opinion on EJF is conflicted. on the one hand, i feel they're trying to do the right thing by attempting to turn intermarriages into Jewish ones (but they don't seem to care that not every intermarried couple wants to live a sheltered Orthodox life). on the other, stories like this portray them as religious fanatics who take people's physical and mental well-being for granted. while i respect Orthodox Judaism, i don't respect the nutjobs involved in certain sects of it. there are nuts in every religious group though, so this is nothing out of the ordinary.

side note: my father went to RJJ. when recently asked what he got out of it, his reply was "not much." at least he got to go to a public college.

and let's see if anyone can guess what movie my subject line is from. hint: it's directed by a bunch of Jewish guys.

It wasn't because she stepped out of her house! Read more carefully. It was because she wore pants, and no head-cover. Neither is a crime, but she HAD promised. She broke her promise. So, they broke theirs. So? No biggie, if she doesn't care. And she may not care, either, or she wouldn't have done those things. It was a life experiment, and didn't work out for her.

No, obviously, you can't check your common sense at the door, when being religious. We are not in heaven yet, this is the real world.

But the Nazi-style drawing at the top of this piece is unacceptable. And, those are just stock photographs of Religious Jews from some archive.

As you say, how many kids do you have? Why not? Why not put your energies into something that matters and will last, or is it just easier to put on gold leather and a sulky expression, and complain? How are you at getting up in the middle of the night with a sick baby, and doing a job the next day anyway? Ever try that? Try respecting people who do.

And, where's the logic of your de-bunking rabbis, and, in the very same paragraph, disagreeing with them RABBINICALLY?  If you don't believe, what do you care what they say? If you do believe, who ordained you? If nobody, and you believe, then it's the professionals' call, no? This Tropper may not be the cleverest rabbi. But, you still can't ordain yourself, and you can't say, "it's all superstitious nonsense, but Hillel did NOT mean that, in paragraph four".

No need for any halachic scrutiny or approval from the Gedolim whatsoever. They have already approved the distributer.

In the quest to show off to Rav Eisenstein (notice how this slob ran to the Israeli rabbinute even though the couple were not living there) what a machmir kind of guy he is. He has created a situation in which this Sara will commiltet adury and carry mamzerim.

 

Although I have never met Rabbi Tropper and truthfully if I ever do I will probably take an instant dislike to him (just one of many of my bad habits) I'd love to know the other side of the story. (Who knows, it might even make him look worse.)

Anything connected with FailedMessiah is suspect in my book. Although he gets it right sometimes he usually can't get past his boiling rage at rabbinic Judaism and would find fault with anything done by anyone wearing a black hat. It is as if he never got past the first lesson of old western films - The Good Guys Never Wear Black Hats. 

 

I don't know this woman, but  wouldn't jump to the characterization that her Jewish conversion was a whimsical experiment that had gone awry. Wearing pants and not covering your hair, according to most Orthodox posekim, are aveirot. But the Torah is very clear as to what HaShem considers offenses grave enough to cause him to "cut off [the offender] from his people" (i.e. making fire on Shabbat). If I were her, I wouldn't figure that her transgressions of modesty also fell into that category.

I agree. But I didn't mean it was frivolous. I just meant it was an experiment gone wrong. When you try something new, it is not guaranteed to work. I am not endorsing Tropper! His old room-mate doesn't, above. Maybe it should be remarked that converting into something you never were before, and none of your relatives ever were, just because you truly like someone who is that thing, can be a bit of a stretch. It is amazing how people stay with their core selves, all through a varied life. Perhaps we can't have everything, or be everything. Maybe it works sometimes and not other times. Maybe that doesn't mean anybody did anything wrong.

I feel so terrible that Orthodox Jews are now forced to experience the religious exclusion, lack of legitimacy and dismissive contempt so many of them routinely dish out to every denomination they deem "lesser" -- i.e., to the mass majority of Jews.

I'm sorry for paraphrasing myself; Kelsey and I had a good round over this a couple years ago, and I feel all warm inside whenever I go back and read it again.

Yes, Eli, you are correct that these haredi rabbis are behaving strikingly
similar to Reform and Conservative rabbis in that they are changing the ancient tried and true parameters of conversion, as performed
throughout the ages at least since the time of Ezra.

Glad you agree with me that this is a problem, and that the
haredim, the Reform, and the Conservative should stop their nonsense
and go back to the classic rule book.

So true, lil' buddy -- Modern Orthodox Judaism is the only classical denomination, harking back to Ezra.  In fact, I'm sure if Ezra himself were to come back today, he'd buy himself a house in Riverdale and spend his afternoons reading the Jewish Week.

"So true, lil' buddy -- Modern Orthodox Judaism is the only classical denomination, harking back to Ezra"

 Eli, we are speaking of the conversion process. So the answer is yes, the MO are closest to the conversion process and paradigms  that were done throughout pretty much every international Jewish community for close to a couple of thousands of years. I am guessing that since you suddenly seek to expand the conversation dramatically, you are basically conceding I am right and you are wrong specifically about conversion. And that's no problem, Eli. I have learned to read deeply into your writing, and extract your often elaborate way of saying, "Okay, fine."

 

 

But we need to be energy independent.

Sorry Eli, a non sequitur won't do it this time. I call Kelsey as the winner in this one. And don't claim I'm biased; I like to see Kelsey get a good schooling as much as anybody else.

The standard oath that a convert makes in front of a beit din and in the mikva does not stress that the person will always acquit themselves according to Monsey standards. The reason that she did not answer Rav Tropper was that she was angry that her husband went behind her back and she was now being interrogated by Juan de Torquemada.

Rav Tropper is obviously the type who is loath to any broad giving him the silent treatment. Read now carefully! Her Shabbat observance was not in question. Her kashrut was not in question. That she observed the laws of family purity was not in question. These are three major things that we one is normally judged with whether or not one is Frum.

Let's see, she sometimes went without a head cover. Well that would make her more frum than most women (I meant the frum one's) in Lithuania. Yirat Shomayim people that they were. These women never went out with a head covering. She also went without pants. Somebody please explain to me if women's pants are really bigdei eish. Would Rav Elyashuv really pasul a conversion over it? I doubt it. May be Rav Eisenstein would. That is why he and Rav Tropper are so close.

I think that the probable truth of the matter is that Rav Tropper who is already under fire by the Badatz Eidat HaCheredit is worried about his reputation. What would it look like if people saw that some of his converts were Modern Orthodox?!

 

 

 

I refrained from entering the Philip Roth "debate."  Consider it an act of charity and grace.

And with Kelsey, energy independence is never a non-sequitur, despite (or because of) the millions of dollars he has accepted from the Saudi regime.

"I refrained from entering the Philip Roth "debate."  Consider it an act of charity and grace."

Bless you Eli Valley. Do you want the alter I erect to be covered with China silk, or should the virgins be placed on it directly? 

Halfsours:  So did you award him a cookie for his victory?

Anyone else see the irony in calling something named modern orthodoxy the closest thing to the biblical process of conversion?

I'm not really into the virgin scene.

Bart, first of all -- be careful in weighing on "former roommate testimony" threads! (Or are there more than one of you? ;-) )

Let's consider this issue analytically. I will disclose that, as DK knows, I am a former student of R' Leib Tropper's and am still somewhat close to him. But is the argument here, DK, and Bart, that if someone violates all of the Shulchan Aruch after becoming a ger, but is not mechalel Shabbos b'farhesya (does not publicly desecrate the Sabbath), we may not call his or her sincerity into question?

If your answer is no, we do not, I know that if I ask you for a source for that principle, you will not tell me it is in that mean old Shulchan Aruch that was invented by R' Aharon Kotler in a basement in Boro Park, because we know it is not and that in fact that book is full of all sorts of things no one really meant except as kind of a gag. So I think you will tell me, no, rather this is part of the well known "established un-written-down custom of the ancient Modern Orthodox people of Israel."

So, can you, um, actually give me a source for that assertion? That seems to be what you're saying but there must be more to it than just saying it over and over again like, I dunno, a Discovery seminar or something!

Come on, give me some first-tier academic non-women's-studies-department PROOF! 

 

Ron, we did: http://www.jewishideas.org/content/retroactive-annulment-giyyur-conversi...

But give us an example of such "uncoversions" taking place in Jewish history and halacha--where is the source, Ron? You are the one who does night seder.

Also, Rabbi Gil Student, who is a major Right-Wing Modern-Orthodox rabbi with some moderate ultra-Orthodox leanings (supposedly), just wrote a scathing piece against Eternal Jewish Family's support of these nullifcations.

Rabbi Student wrote,

[On a parenthetical note, let me point out that EJF has publicly supported the ruling (link).
No surprise, since EJF is run by one of the leading antagonists of R.
Natan Slifkin (not the antagonist recently arrested but a different
one). My impression is that the organization simply rejects Jews who
don't follow their "Da'as Torah".]

 

 

 

See, this is one of the reasons I don't practice.

I am glad that we agree that Shobbos observance etc.. is baseline criterea that we measure by. Otherwise we would have to pasul conversions on people who talk in shul or speak lashon hara. This woman was not breaking the entire torah. I would ask you for sources or a precedent of someone having their conversion revoked from mere inferencing. Show me any case brought down that a person had a conversion revoked when there were no witnesses involved or that the person did not give personal information voluntarily. See the most recent case with rabbi Attias from Ashdod. The woman admitted that she never kept one Shobbos.

Let's look at the facts as they are presented to us from the article. The husband was asking a sheila regarding his wife. The woman was not even going out without a head cover b'farhesia nor was she doing the same thing in pants. She was  doing it when shopping in non-Jewish neighboorhoods. May be because she felt uncomfortable standing out in them. This compounded with the fact that she refused to answer Rav Troppers questions led him to infer that she probably was not serious about any mitzvot whatsoever. By the way it is not uncommon for women to feel that they are being ganged up on by by her husband and a rabbi. These things must be negotiated with the utmost of diplomacy.

This is a very strong inference considering the fact that he believed what the husband was saying regarding minor infractions. The husband in no way implied that she was being mechalel Shobbos. He inferred the rest himself. He did this from hundreds of miles away without any supporting testimony to his ascertation.  Then he, the posek hador has decided that she is not Jewish and does not need a divorce. That she can find another boyfriend without commiting adultary. Her child is also not Jewish and the Jewish people have no responsibility to him. Even better still, his father has no responsibility for him. Let us not forget that if she gets pregnant from another man the child will not be a mamzer. This man must have huge shoulders when poskening this issue. Does he really have huge shoulders to rule on such issues?

Now perhaps before answering my question, you learned with Rabbi Tropper. May be you can perhaps enlighten me on his qualifications. I do not mean the one's that say he is a big talmud chacham and a marbitzer torah etc. adfinum, ad nauseum. I mean his qualifications in dayanos. Did he even ever sit on a beit din before he embarked on this conversion project? Does he have some sort of important written responsa on Eivan Ezra? Has he ever done anything important outside of kiruv?

The heart of my issue is that this psak reeks of the same shallowness and recklessness as any that he would accuse any left-wing rabbi of making. The consequences of this are also just as damaging. The only differance is that he is wearing the right hat and he has met Rav Elyashuv  so there is a click that would want people to believe that he is capable of making any halachic decision on any complex issues pertaining to personal status or otherwise.

I do not care what Rav he learned with. This alone does not make him a great halachic arbitrator or decisor. 

 

 

 

if someone violates all of the Shulchan Aruch after becoming a ger, but is not mechalel Shabbos b'farhesya (does not publicly desecrate the Sabbath), we may not call his or her sincerity into question?

When did they violate it and who knew? Did they leave the conversion court and eat a cheeseburger? Or is the violation of "all of the Sulchan Aruch" a later act?

Once a person converts, he's Jewish. Unless it can be established that the convert intentionally violated "all of the Shulchan Aruch" immediately after converting (or intentionally and habitually violated Shabbat or other issues that are major in that way), the person's conversion is valid.

What Rabbi Tropper has done is elevate the wearing of pants and uncovered hair to the status of intentional and habitual Shabbat violation.

Past that, Tropper acted (as Rabbis Attia, Sherman, et al would later act) in a fashion with little halakhaic support. The very idea of revoking or voiding conversions is itself modern. You find conversions revoked or voided by the Talmud, for example or by Rishonim. 

And then we have the issue of the lenient view of kabbalat ol mitzvot adopted by Rabbi Uzziel and other poskim (rabbinic decisors). To say another posek or dayan (rabbinic judge) cannot make use of these lenient rulings when he feels it necessary is to void the entire 2000 year history of post-Destruction Jewish law, which at its core demands poskim do this if necessary.

Another posek facing Rabbi Druckman's challenges may choose not to do so because to him those lenient rulings do not carry enough weight and may be, to him, poorly drawn.

But just as that posek has acted appropriately, so has Rabbi Druckman.

That is how the halakhic system has worked for thousands of years.

Should read:" You won't find conversions revoked or voided by the Talmud, for example or by Rishonim."

The issue is not really if a court has the right to revoke a conversion. If the conversion really took place there is no revoking it. The question is rather could a conversion be annulled. In other words can we determine that the conversion was never valid in the first place. The term revocation is is strictly a bureaucratic term in which one stamps a file at a registrar.

You that much written about this in the Talmud or rishonim because until recent times who in their right mind would want to convert to be a Jew with all of its social baggage if they were not sincere. Of course starting 200 years ago you had converts who were not willing to take on the mitzvot but they usually converted reformed. It is only recently that you have this situation where a lot of candidates who are not necessarily sincere are lining up for conversion in Orthodox courts. The same also goes for adoption cases. I cannot imagine for example in Midevil Europe there were that many Jews adopting non Jewish children. These are modern problems that call for modern presidents.

"You that much written about this in the Talmud or rishonim". I meant to write that you will not find much written about this in the Talmud or the rishonim. This was also a response to Shmarya.

"These are modern problems that call for modern presidents."

 

How modern? Bush? Or would Carter be modern enough?

It seems like a job for precedent McCain.

One mumble from the women's department: yes, a head covering can be annoying, hot, and painfully conspicuous in a non-Jewish neighborhood. But wearing a skirt??? That's easy, comfortable, and normal anywhere.

Although, wearing skirts all the time, never ever pants, does make you weird at work. It can cost you friends and advancement. You are an Aunt Tom. A fanatic. Not modern. Not one of us. A permanent clerical worker. Not leadership material. I am contradicting myself a little.

You  don't ignore the very rabbi who converted you. It is a rejection of his authority. Well, you are only a Jew on his authority!! You can change rabbis, but say goodbye, and follow procedure. The couple must have had lots of arguments about her pants and head-covering before the husband went all the way to the far-away rabbi. The rabbi has to respect this kind of complaint.

I guess the past matters. You were born another thing. The past can be put aside, but not made to utterly disappear, as if it had never been. Not by us. By G-d, sure. No, he couldn't de-Jew a wife who was born one.

I have an idea. It is simpler to marry a Jewish woman. Some people will say there is nothing simple about Jewish women. But maybe there is something simple about them. The nice ones. My daughters-on-law. They are angels.

"You don't ignore the very rabbi who converted you. It is a rejection
of his authority. Well, you are only a Jew on his authority!!"

Wrong! One is only Jewish on G-d's authority. Rabbis do not convert people. People accept the torah and convert themselves. The rabbis only facilitate the process by bearing witness, nothing more. The problem is when rabbis think that they have authority from their own good standing that they make erroneous judgments.

 

 

"You  don't ignore the very rabbi who converted you. It is a rejection of his authority. Well, you are only a Jew on his authority!!"

This has been said before, but to repeat, that's not the Halachah. If there is a valid conversion, then you are a Jew. If you then go out and wear pants (or , if a male, wear a skirt, etc.), you are still a Jew.

I have not read the Rabbi's explanation for his action. Is he claiming that the original conversion was fraudulent or otherwise contrary to Halachah? If not, what is his basis? Is that online somewhere (what he said, not how others characterize it).

_____

"You that much written about this in the Talmud or rishonim because until recent times who in their right mind would want to convert to be a Jew with all of its social baggage if they were not sincere"

What about during the First and Second Temple periods?

 

I see your point Yaakov. It would give the converting rabbi, in theory, too much power over the convert for the rest of his life. "Make me tea or I will expel you from the Jewish people!"

I have no training in this, and will be quiet. But we should still love our children's spouses as ourselves. Then, maybe they might actually get married.

And, we could certainly use energy independence.

This situation does raise an interesting issue. If a convert subsequently violates Halachah, does the Rabbi who supervised the conversion have responsibility for the aveiros (sin) subsequently committed by the convert? The simple act of supervisiing a conversion is certain to increase the number of aveiros in the world. The converts I know are often more careful than those born Jewish, but no one is perfect. I wonder if that is why traditonally Judaism discouraged converts.  

I wish I had continued my education and ordination, despite being an atheist, if only to be able to more deftly navigate this issue...it still fascinates me beyond belief (quite literally).

Oy, so much answering to do, so many mediation statements and document demands to draft!

Give me a chance and I'll try to catch up, and be right and all or at least funny.

>> But wearing a skirt??? That's easy, comfortable, and normal anywhere. <<

No it's not.  Try rock climbing in a skirt.  Or scuba diving.  I do both of those things and it is not possible to do them in a skirt.

Why are rock climbing or scuba diving not shtus? Perhaps that's why we have the rule? Anyway, try scuba diving with a kapote and and shtreimel sometime.

 

Kapotes and shtreimels are not halachically mandated.  Find me one ger whose conversion was reversed because he didn't wear a kapote 24/7.

First of all, there is no such thing as an un-conversion (sorry, Dr. Laura!), but rather a reassessment of whether there was in fact a legitimate conversion in the first place. It is erev Shabbos, though, so I do want to introduce these two links into the conversation, since DK linked to the maverick scholar Dr. Zvi Zohar's article. DK's theoretical hero, Rabbi Marc Angel, also relies to some extent on Dr. Zohar's analysis, in this response here to this article by Rabbi Adlerstein on Cross-Currents. (Read the comments to both posts). Frankly, I am not the scholar that any of them are, and won't pretend to be able to pass on either sides's arguments. I only introduce the links as a balance to DK's link, and point out that naturally his article -- which is sensational, and somewhat biased -- does not remotely afford the actual halachic aspects of the topic the depth and complexity necessary to understand them.

Bart, you're all over the place:

The woman was not even going out without a head cover b'farhesia nor
was she doing the same thing in pants. She was doing it when shopping
in non-Jewish neighboorhoods. May be because she felt uncomfortable
standing out in them.

Is "non-Jewish neighborhoods" the new definition of "not b'farhesia"? Is "felt uncomfortable" the new definition of halachic observance? (Would it be okay with those who uphold her status as a Jew if I didn't let her touch my open bottle of wine because I "felt uncomfortable"?)

I don't know that Rabbi Tropper ever held himself out as a dayan, and would be surprised to hear that he had. Although the article is not precise, it seems more likely that he was conveying a psak from someone else, not actually ruling in his own name. If I am mistaken I would like to see some documentation to that effect and I will pick up the phone and ask him myself.

Shmarya, the premise of my question is that we know certain facts, and are now asking what principles we would apply to them. If facts are in dispute, we then have another set of questions.

Let me though ask you a theoretical question, and see if you can answer it directly: If a person puts down his ham sandwich at the door of the conversion bais din, and after completing his interview and immersion stops off to pick it back up, saying, "I want to warm this up before Shabbos comes!" are we cool with that?  No problem?

I know that's not what happened here.  I am trying incrementally to see what the principles sought to be enunciated in this discussion are, however.

Good Shabbos!

Maimonides stated that once a conversion had taken place it was final and the person was a Jew. Even if the person was later found not to have been told properly what was involved, still a Jew. Even if they broke commandments, still a Jew. Even if they reverted to their former religion, still a Jew....an apostate Jew, yes...but still a Jew.

 Until recently Rabbis were not even required for conversions...all that is halakhically required in terms of people is a Bet Din of three Jews in good standing. "Traditional" conversions do not take place in ANY segment of Judaism.today. No convert presents himself, is told a few of the harder and a few of the lesser mitzvot, and is circumcised immediately and immersed as soon as healed (or immersed immediately for women). It now takes years of classes and probing and testing...and even then you are apparently not in the clear since this ruling.

 Perhaps they will take a page from the Mormons, who will retroactively convert your ancestors for you into the remote past....the Haredim will retroactively annul your ancestor's conversions all the way back to Ruth. BTW,  "Ruth" is a great piece of protest literature about another time in Jewish history when you could get a knock on the door in the middle of the night demanding you prove your Jewishness sufficiently or else be summarily banished.

 Nobody has mentioned much about this other Rabbi whose conversions were annuled...he has been charged with apostasy...but on what grounds? He secretly converted to Islam in 1999, or what? If he did not convert to something else then we have a new Haredi-made problem...will born Jews who refuse to toe the new line be taken care by declaring them apostates? Perhaps soon, even a Jewish mother will not protect us from the wrath of the Haredim.

Ron, you wrote,

Let me though ask you a theoretical question, and see if you can answer
it directly: If a person puts down his ham sandwich at the door of the
conversion bais din, and after completing his interview and immersion
stops off to pick it back up, saying, "I want to warm this up before
Shabbos comes!" are we cool with that? No problem?

I know that's not what happened here. I am trying incrementally to
see what the principles sought to be enunciated in this discussion are,
however.

I would answer your question directly, except we already did, Ron. See paragraph two:

Historically, a lapsed convert was still considered a Jew unless those
lapses were immediate to the conversion, public, and intentional. The
convert had to know what he was about to do was wrong, and then had to
do it anyway.

Like you said, we know that's not what happened here.

First, are you disputing the initial facts that David presented in the article? Even so much as saying that David might not know all of the facts?

If you are disputing the facts, is it because you know more facts, or that the facts presented make no sense, as others have said--because the rabbi can't annul the conversion based on halacha? In other words, are you saying that there has to be more to this?

Second, if the facts are not in dispute, then on what basis can the rabbi annul the conversion? If you can't provide a basis for this annulment--then who is it that is doing the most damage, this woman or this rabbi? Putting it halachically, if there is a chilul Hashem here, where is it?

About a new definition of b'farhesia. Generally in halachik terms b'farhesia implies in front of ten Jews. Now in terms of whether or not you would feel unconfortable with her touching your wine is alright by me. It is your wine and you could store it any way that you like. I am just saying that halachically(I would not say according to every opinion) she could still pour you a glass of wine.

Oh I almost forgot regarding your first inquiry; "
Bart, first of all -- be careful in weighing on "former roommate testimony" threads! (Or are there more than one of you? ;-) )"

I do not believe that there is more than one of me out there. There is only one Bartley Culpable. 

 

The point is not what she has done the point is that she broke her promise and rabbi Tropper did the right thing by nullifying  her conversion. Even if she promised not to watch TV and broke her promise the results should  be the same.

 

The fact that some Modern Orthodox women wear pants and watch TV has no bearing on her transgressions and her promises.

.

 

So, if I break a promise, I get to sit in front of three men and say, to paraphrase, 'missed that one'. If she has the same issue, she is excommunicated. You're going to have to do better than that, halachically.

What's missing from all of this--here's the gig, Jewishwise. We have to face our shortcomings. That's the microversion--we come out of Egypt and get to do this eternal job of correcting our problems. If we don't do this our enemies and even heaven and earth will force the issue. And contemplation isn't going to show these problems--actions do, which means sins, which means teshuva. That's a big part of the gig. So I'm missing why this woman doesn't get the luxury every other Jew has, since she is a Jew, of facing problems and adjusting.

Look at the lengths to which Gd goes to keep families together, to promote Shalom Bayit. It seems from the facts, which do not thus far appear to be in dispute, this rabbi is absolutely clueless as to what his role in K'lal Yisroel is.

Kudos to rabbi Tropper for being stringent. He just forgot one little fact, he is telling people who have legitamitely converted that they can eat treif and be mechalel shabbos.

Last time I checked those are a little worse than wearing pants or not covering your hair.

Just to preface: I certainly feel for this woman, and from a cursory knowledge of the facts, am not sure whether a retroactive nullification of her conversion was justified. 

I just want to add to what you said:

We learned about just this issue at my Modern Orthodox seminary. Your statement that; "...there is no such thing as an un-conversion... but rather a reassessment of whether there was in fact a legitimate conversion in the first place.", is right at the core of the issue.

Halakhically a ger is obligated to accept every one of the treatises of the Halakha of the specific branch of Judaism they are converting into, even if they aren't (and certainly wouldn't be) familiar with all of them. It is only an authentic conversion if the convert goes into (and finishes) the process with the conviction to abide by every single law. During the conversion process her intent must be to have complete trust and belief in every stringency. 

If she lapsed retroactively, as a Jew, that is a choice that she bears responsibility for. But if during the conversion process she consciously did not intend on covering her hair while in public, then the rabbi (from a MO halakhic stand point) might have a legitimate reason to revoke her conversion for having be invalid and disingenuous. 

No doubt that holds converts to a higher standard than born Jews. If a convert is having doubts about which mitzvot he or she is willing or capable of upholding during the conversion process, then perhaps Orthodox Judaism isn't for them after all. Since Orthodox conversion means accepting every tenet, a convert has the prerogative to reject certain principles and simply not convert to Orthodox Judaism.

 

Isn't it the rabbi's job to question and probe and find these things out ahead of time? Wouldn't her behavior be one of the first hypothetical questions he asks, to see if she is sincere?

And once she is converted, don't born Jews have the same obligation to judge each other with kindness--as opposed to concluding that she was purposely fooling him, to take the issue narcissistically and cause almost irreparable damage to the family?