The Conversion Crisis part 2

So why, in apparent violation of the Biblical commands to "Love the Convert" and "do not oppress the Convert" and the Talmudic admonition not to "lock the door before potential converts" are converts today being dragged over hot coals, and finding deadbolt locks on every door? The reasons are varied; some making some sense, others being more political, although most would balk at my use of the word. Let's first take the arguments that are genuine concerns. First is the reality that we live in an open society. Whereas once, the Jews lived behind ghetto walls, either figuratively or in actuality, today, a large percentage of even ultra Orthodox Jews suffer the heartbreak of having one or more children go "off the derech (path)". Even those who are doing the most for bringing people in, have no clue how to handle this. Throwing that child out, and changing the locks, does happen. This is primarily an attempt to "save" the other kids. Those families are forever broken, with feelings of hurt and resentment on all sides. When it comes to converts, enthusiasm for Judaism today may give way to secularism tomorrow, or conversion to another faith the day afterwards. Many rabbis feel that we must, at the very least, be as certain as possible that the new convert is prepared for the real world. That is the reason that although, in classical sources, there are no requirements of knowledge or observance before the conversion, today, most rabbis require significant knowledge and full observance beforehand. Full disclosure of what it means to be a Jew, will prevent someone from thinking "hey, had I known this law or that, or this attitude or that, I would not have chosen this path". Another really major hurdle is the view I recently explained of Rabbi Yitzchak Schmelkes in the late nineteenth century, that a conversion is invalid if the candidate had any mental reservations about any law, or indeed about any Jewish principle. This was an entirely knew idea, accepted, at first in some right wing circles, but now fairly standard in most of Orthodoxy. Some have written against this idea, but find themselves marginalized. Beyond that, the idea has become so fundamental in people's minds, that all converts are now looked upon with suspicion; what were they  thinking at the moment of conversion?. One acquaintance of mine, a former Minister as well as an attorney, attended a lecture given by a prominent rabbi who did much in "kiruv" in the mid twentieth century (my wife, Sima, had also been a follower of this rabbi when I met her). When the rabbi opened the session to questions, the former Minister challenged one of his assertions. The rabbi thereupon said "I have grave doubts as to the validity of your conversion". (This statement violates several Biblical laws).The support given the view of Rabbi Schmelkes, was endorsed by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, considered the greatest rabbi in America, or perhaps the world, in right wing Yeshivish circles in the U.S, (I do not share that view). essentially guaranteeing its acceptance . It should be stressed that in those circles, Rabbi Feinsteins views were accepted more for his reputation, than for  examining  his logic and faithfulness to sources.Please see my series on "Daat Torah" for the explanation of that approach. Actually, in his responsum, he shows that this is NOT the view of Talmud, but goes on to question how bringing in a not fully observant convert could benefit the Jewish people.  When I was researching the background for this post, I had been studying the different views, especially between RAMBAM and the Tosafot, if non-Jews may, if they choose, observe mitzvot beyond the Seven Noachide Laws. RAMBAM says "yes". The Tosafot say "no". RAMBAM only excludes a few; namely, the ones of which it is written "It shall be a sign between Me and the Children of Israel". Whereas many take RAMBAM at his word, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein had written that virtually all mitzvort have a Jewish theme, and are therefore forbidden to non-Jews. RAMBAM, according to Rabbi Feinstein, only included the mitzvot of charity, and bringing certain sacrifices. The rabbi writing the article on this topic, rather than seeing if this explanation fits RAMBAM's words, simply concluded with the words "since Reb Moshe was more widely recognized than the other rabbis, his view must be accepted". These are the ideas that have made life so difficult for converts and potential converts. In my next post, i will cover those that I consider to be politics.

The Conversion Crisis part 1

When I went into the rabbinate in 1971, placed in a prominent Midwest University, I asked the rabbi who had prepared me for ordination (as a young man, he had studied under the Chafetz Chaim in Radin, and was now a member of the Right Wing Agudath HaRabbanim), how was I to relate to those people who had had non Orthodox conversions. Without hesitation, he opened Tractate Yevamot in the Babylonian Talmud to page 47, and showed me two remarkable passages.Both spoke of people who were living as Jews, but there was doubt about their mothers actually having been Jewish. People were referring to them as non-Jews. In the one case, the person in doubt was a woman. One of the rabbis remarked "It is impossible that she never immersed for her menstrual cycle (nidah)" (and therefore is considered Jewish) In the other case, a man with the same issue was under discussion. Again, a rabbi interjects "It is impossible that he never immersed for a seminal emission".(The Torah requires immersion in such a case only in relation to the Temple Laws of Purity. Ezra extended that to Torah study and prayer. This was suspended during Talmudic times, although some still practice it). The implication here was that once immersion had taken place, either with intent of conversion, or intent of fulfilling a mitzvah, the person was now Jewish.(RAMBAM has a different, non-literal interpretation of the passage). The rabbi who had taught me concluded, that any convert who had undergone immersion was now Jewish, independent of our recognition or non-recognition of the converting rabbi. The fact that virtually all Reform and Conservative rabbis are no longer observant of the laws of Shabbat would automatically invalidate them. But they may very well be irrelevant. This has been my policy ever since, although I favor re-conversion, no questions asked, as a stringency. This, in fact, was the policy of most Orthodox rabbis at the time. Today, you will hear vociferous denials from Orthodox rabbis and rabbinic organizations. Where does the dispute lie? Why the shift? The above-mentioned Talmudic discussion in Yevamot, goes through several stages of discussion. In practive, we do all of them, but the question is, if all was NOT done, what are the minimum requirements needed for the conversion to be efficacious? The ideal conversion consists of informing the candidate of some of the mitzvot and their seriousness. (Whether a formal acceptance of the convert is necessary, or merely acknowledgment of what he has been told, is not clear). This is to be done before three dayyanim (judges), but any three adult, male, observant laymen would also be 100% kosher. The candidate, if male, is then circumcised, and given time to heal before completing the conversion. If already surgically circumcised, a drop of "blood of the covenant" is drawn. At that point, both male and female converts are immersed in a mikveh (or suitable body of water). That's it. A discussion ensues concerning what if only circumcision was done? (The Babylonian Talmud rules "no" the Jerusalem Talmud says "yes") Another view says that immersion alone is required for conversion, circumcision being an obligation incumbent on every Jewish male, but not an absolute requirement for conversion. Another opinion is that circumcision is the main requirement for conversion of males, immersion for females. Whether a Beit Din is an absolute requirement or not is also discussed. One man came to a rabbi and confessed to him that he had "converted himself" The rabbi asked "do you have any witnesses?" (Implying that corroborating witnesses are necessary). When the man replied "no", he was told "you are believed enough to disqualify yourself, but not your children." The Talmud also speaks of "Converts who converted among the Gentiles, and never heard of Shabbat". (Shabbat 68b). No one questions the validity of the conversion; only the degree of liability of the convert. Are witnesses absolutely required, or would definite public knowledge be sufficient? In Tractate Sanhedrin, many leniencies are allowed for the makeup of the Beit Din for a conversion "SO AS NOT TO LOCK THE DOOR BEFORE CONVERTS." The legal codes written after the time of the Talmud all quote the "ideal" way, and that has become standard. But, as all the other ways are left in the Talmud (with the possible exception of circumcision only) as open questions, it is impossible to say that they are not valid. So why the extreme stringencies that are practiced in the last twenty-five years? That will be my next post.

Judaism and the Occult part 7

An overriding consideration in all I have written, is the verse:

"Thou shalt be perfect with the L-RD thy G-d." Deuteronomy 18:13)

The word translated as "perfect" (Tamim) can also mean "blameless", as well as "simple". The Torah puts limits on our desires to know, or alter, the future. If we disregard for the moment RAMBAM's view that all of these actions are intrinsically forbidden, are we about manipulating G-d and His plans? If something unpleasant has, in G-d's plans, been decreed against us (chas v'Shalom), should we then try to "trick" him into not following through? G-d will, however, heed our pleas (again, disregarding RAMBAM's view that G-d is unmoved by our prayers). Both the Tanach and Talmud are filled with passages about the efficacy of supplication. The Divine Oracle, the Urim v'Tummmim, which existed from the time of Moses until the destruction of the First Temple, was only allowed to be consulted by the King, and then only in a matter of national concern. Tarot cards, feature Jewish, Christian, and Pagan symbols. Their connection with idolatry is unmistakable. But even if we go beyond that, is asking cards for guidance being "perfect" or "simple" with G-d? Psychics? The scientific jury is still out if psychic phenomena are real. . Many things simply cannot be explained. I have two personal friends who claim to be psychics. About fifteen years ago, Sima was diagnosed with a serious illness, with little hope for survival held out. Both of these friends told us that the diagnosis was not correct. We learned three years later that they were right, and that the doctor had been ashamed to tell us of his error. I cannot give a rational explanation for this. But when I thought that she was in grave danger, I turned to prayer,not to magic. As to astrology, although RAMBAM declared it forbidden even to believe in it, most of the Rabbis of the Talmud did, and many later rabbis were professional astrologers. The consensus in the Talmud is that it is indeed real, but we are not to delve into it too much, especially for telling the future. However, if we should hear something from an astrologer, we should take his words seriously. I used to not believe in astrology. But when we lived in Israel, there was an astrologer on the radio every Friday morning named Miriam Binyamini. Her predictions were so specific (you will receive an unexpected check on Tuesday), and so accurate, that I changed my opinion. Once, Sima said "you listen to her. My feet hurt, and I need to lie down". A few seconds later, the astrologer said "all you Libras (Sima's sign) are feeling pain in your feet, so go lie down".Can I explain it? No, I can't. But I know that there is much in the world that we don't understand, and probably never will. But if we remember that we live in G-d, that will grant us peace of mind, as well as perspective. One of the Names of G-d is "Shaddai". This name has several interpretations. One of these is "sheday" (He is enough). G-d is sufficient for all of our needs; we need not look elsewhere.

Judaism and the Occult part 6

"'Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the L-RD your G-d." (Leviticus 19:31)

Anyone who has grown up in a traditional Jewish home, will remember frequent visits to the cemetery to visit the graves of relatives. The older people would weep. There were usually people around the cemetery who were available for a few dollars to recite a prayer for the dead, and give words of praise for the family who are so devoted as to spend their time visiting. If the family in which you grew up was Hasidic or Mizrahi (Mid East Sepharadic), you also visited the graves of the righteous. I have met many people who see Judaism primarily as a cult of the dead. Kaddish, Yahrtzeit, Yizkor, seem to be the central events in the life of a Jew. Every major holiday (in Ashkenazic tradition), features the Yizkor memorial prayers. Many who are less observant, will guesstimate the time for Yizkor, so as to avoid the worship service. Yet, RAMBAM rules that it is forbidden to even visit a grave, and memorial prayers are totally absent from his vocabulary. Judaism is about life, not death. Yet, we have a letter which he wrote while visiting the Holy Land, in which he speaks about two great experiences; his visit to the Temple Mount, and his visit to the Cave of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron, "where I kissed the graves of my Mothers and Fathers". True, some claim that the letter is a forgery, but they offer no proof for this assertion. Might he have changed his mind? Or perhaps there are different types of grave visits. The Zohar explains this, and similar passages, in a way that raises further questions. "Do not contact the dead", refers to the wicked who are as dead. (I actually saw a modern Christian source that suggested the same answer). But the Zohar goes on: "Besides, when pagans visit graves, they go with idolatrous and magical rites. When we go, it is with repentance, fasting, prayer, and charity". That would appear to be a "cop out". If the act is forbidden, how would these acts make it better? Rather, the Zohar appears to be saying that visiting, or contacting the dead is only forbidden if it is accompanied by pagan rituals. There is only one such incident in Tanach. King Saul, abandoned by G-d, seeks out a witch (most of whom he has had killed), to contact the spirit of the Prophet Samuel. RAMBAM sees this as mere trickery on the witch's part, and foolish superstition on Saul's part. But is the real problem in the story that Saul knew he was abandoned by G-d, so he went to other gods for help? The Talmud has many stories of people interacting with the dead. One great third-century rabbi is said to have returned home from the grave every Friday night, in order to recite Kiddush for his family. In the Zohar and ARI, there are many such incidents of the dead appearing, as well as tzaddikim who haven't been born yet! There is an entire volume in the "Writings of the ARI" (actually written down by his disciple, Rabbi Hayyim Vital) of what to do, pray and meditate at the graves of the righteous. ARI and his students would ask many questions of the dead, concerning the meaning of life, the deeper meanings of Torah, and how to find G-d. The same act that for the pagan was a form of idolatry, for the Kabbalist became a form of connecting with everything holy; achieving insights not normally available to living people. So is the Torah forbidding the very act of visiting, or communing with the dead, or is it seeking to avoid idolatry at every turn? An additional inherent danger is deifying the dead. I have witnessed people pray to the dead for health, prosperity, and a host of everyday problems. They are not gods, and they cannot grant these things. But, from the Kabbalistic perspective (also to be seen in the Talmud), it is fine and proper to ask the dead to pray for us. Only G-d knows the future. The dead can intercede with G-d on our behalf. I will examine a few other issues in this topic. But the pattern should by now be clear. For RAMBAM and other "rationalists", if we don't understand something, it is superstition, and hence forbidden. For the mystic, there are infinite possibilities, so long as we do not stray from G-d, or try to "outsmart" or circumvent Him.

Judaism and the Occult part 5

The idea that ultimately, even idolaters connect with G-d on some level, opens the door to possibilities not generally considered, but also to charlatanism. When Mother Teresa died, there were numerous reports of people being healed of serious illnesses when they attended her funeral. My wife, Sima, asked me how I understand that. The question was deepened a few weeks later, when Mother Theresa's diary was discovered and made public. She had lost her faith years before, and was, essentially, an agnostic. Could the"miracles" have been due to placebo effect; people's belief in her healing power essentially causing spontaneous healing? Or could it be that despite her lack of conviction, her life, dedicated as it was to giving of herself to help the poor, sick, and dying,had somehow connected her to "the G-d of gods", and channeled Divine energy to these people? On the other hand, a few years ago, there was a news item here in New York, about a scam in which several women were going around the city,telling people that their "powers" showed them that the person with whom they were speaking, was under a curse, which these women could remove...for only a few tens of thousands of dollars. When I lived in Ohio, I loved watching the healer/preachers on Sunday morning TV. There was one in particular, who would go through the audience, informing people of diseases which they had, but of which they were not yet aware. Then, he would proceed to "heal" them! Many of these were, of course, charlatans. But are all healers charlatans? I have no doubt that RAMBAM, and other "rationalists" would see all of this as superstition, and hence forbidden. But there are scientists studying these phenomena under laboratory conditions. Many things defy rational explanation. A case in point is the Copper Wall Project, conducted at the Menninger Clinic in Kansas, from 1983 to 1995. You can find it online. Two groups of people, some renowned "energy healers" of various religions and traditions participated, as well as "ordinary" people for controls. . They were placed, one by one, in a room with copper walls, ceiling and floor. They were hooked up to voltmeters, EKG and EEG machines. The walls were also hooked up to sensing devices. They were told to concentrate or meditate at the walls. The control group experienced nothing. All the healers, however, generated electrical currents in their own bodies, that were also reflected on the walls. There were surges of electricity, ranging from 4 volts, to 221 volts. These surges lasted from 0.5 seconds to 12.5 seconds. The second part of the project had the healers concentrate on volunteer patients. Some of these patents were in the copper room together with the healers, although no physical contact was allowed. Other patents were in another room. Similar, although smaller, electrical surges were measured in the patients who were in the copper room, these were at the same moment that these were being generated in the healers' bodies. Those who were outside the room, experienced no electrical fluctuations, but many could sense energy, at the same moment that the healer was producing a current. The study showed several things. Energy generation and transmission were possible and real. But the questions, which remained unanswered, were twofold. Is spiritual healing a function of electricity? People placed in areas of electromagnetic fields are generally made ill, not healed. And those who accurately felt energy coming to them; what was the nature of that energy? It wasn't electricity. What was it? These questions remain unanswered. I have searched in vain for articles "debunking" this project (which was published in peer-reviewed medical journals). Could it be that the energy being generated and transmitted was spiritual? Sadly, scientists do not speak in those terms. We must also ask the question if such "meddling" into the unknown, is consistent with Torah? If we accept the view of RAMBAM, everything unknown and not understood, being considered superstition, violates the Will of G-d. But, as long as idolatry is not involved, why is this different from medications that were unknown in RAMBAM's time? Did the fact that the participants in this study were of many faiths...and no faiths, meant that they had tapped into forces beyond (or deeper than) what they themselves knew? To be continued.