CONVERSION TO JUDAISM PART 6

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.

Conversion to Judaism part 5

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. 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 acknowledgement 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 pointy, 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.