Transcript of the Verdict of R' Shirman's Court, Part IV

Here is Part IV; Part III was here.

[Note: I am spelling the name Shirman because I've seen it transliterated that way in several places. I've also seen Sherman and Scherman. No disrespect is intended; please let me know if you have an accurate source for the English-language spelling.]

This, to me, begins the most problematic section.
The entire first part depended on the allegation that R' Druckman does not require mitzvah observance, a contention which is simply declared without substantiation.
Here, though, the discussion enters into signature forgery and inappropriate signatures, and seems to be based in public fact... this does worry me.


Section 6: תאור פרשיות זיוף תעודות מעשה בית דין לגיור שנעשה על ידי אבה"ד הרב דרוקמן וסגנו הרב אביאור
In addition to his ruling, R’ Attiyeh asked R’ Shirman to confirm his finding that the converting court is pasul, and so the conversion is invalid. R’ Attuyeh cited the case brought by Attorney ש. יעקבי against R’ Druckman for forging a conversion document for a court in Warsaw, by signing on it when in fact he was in Israel on the date of the conversion. R’ Druckman acknowledged, in a hearing, that he was not in Warsaw during the conversion, and was not part of a group of three as noted in the document on which he had signed. He explained that he had promised the woman to convert her, and so he had signed on the deed.

Attorney יעקבי added that R’ Avior, a member of the conversion courts, was also actively involved in the creation of that forged document.

Attorney יעקבי also contended that this was not a lone incident, and mentioned another, similar case. He said that R’ Druckman had been summoned to a hearing over that, and had pledged not to do this again.

Attorney יעקבי also contended that he had tens more cases like this.

R’ Atiyyeh also included ifnromation from a journalist Elazar Levine, from a website, on the investigation into R’ Druckman.

R’ Shirman said that after analyzing Attorney יעקבי’s information, he found a frightening picture of false documents and false testimony on acts of the conversion courts and confirmation of Jewish status in close to 200 conversion documents from 1999 through 2005.

R’ Shirman cited a letter from 2000 from R’ Yisrael Rosen, then the head of the conversion courts, to R’ Mordechai Eliyahu, on forgery he had uncovered from an unnamed judge who had signed on documents for conversions for which he had not been present – documents which said במותב תלתא יתיבנא etc. R’ Rosen said the signing rabbi did not deny the allegations. R’ Rosen said he thought the signing rabbi was simply careless in signing papers that were put before him without examining them.

R’ Shirman contends that R’ Rosen sent the letter to R’ Druckman and received no reply.

R’ Rosen said he asked R’ Druckman directly about what would be required in order to be able to sign a document, and R’ Druckman said being present for tevillah would suffice. R’ Shirman argues that this should not be sufficient to be able to sign the paper, given that the paper mentions having investigated and clarified the desire of the conversion candidate.

R’ Shirman goes on to detail the process of the investigation of R’ Druckman, the rest of the beit din, and specifically R’ Avior who is accused of signing R’ Druckman’s name on conversion documents.

The reason given by R’ Rosen for these signatures is that R’ Yisrael Meir Lau required that a qualified dayyan be present at every conversion.

R’ Rosen’s lengthy file concludes with three questions asked of R’ Mordechai Eliyahu as well as R’ Avraham Shapira z”l:
1) What to do with court documents that are now known to be false and have not been given to the converts yet;
2) What to do with court documents that are now known to be false and have been given to the converts already;
3) What to do with court documents from the past half-year since these allegations have come to light.

More in Part V on the way R' Shirman's court addresses these questions, here.