We have seen that based on all classical sources, a potential convert has only minimal preparation or training. His sincere desire to enter the Covenant is all that is required. We tell him, at the time of his conversion, about a few of the mitzvot. After his conversion, he begins his Jewish journey. If, at some point, he regrets his decision, or even converts to another faith, he nevertheless remains a Jew. There were different policies in different places as to what he should know, and what is expected of him. In some places, conversion was illegal, and even punishable by death for both the convert and the rabbis. Conversions were still performed clandestinely. Things began to change in the 1870s. Rabbi Yitzchak Scmelkes of Lvov (also called Leviv or Lemberg), a prominent rabbi in the Lithuanian tradition, although he lived in what was then Poland (now Western Ukraine), published a responsum that took a whole new direction. He pointed out that the Talmud says that the convert must accept upon himself the obligations of the Torah. If he says "Everything except..." he is not accepted. Rabbi Schmelkes opined that not only if he SAYS so, but even if we know that he will not be fully observant, or even if he has a mental reservation concerning any mitzvah, the conversion is completely invalid. This approach would solve the problem of non-Jews entering the Jewish people, only to continue living as non-Jews. However, it stands in complete opposition to every known source. This responsum was accepted in right-wing "yeshivish" circles, not so much for its logic, but based on the prestige of Rabbi Schmelkes. In some places (especially England) it was completely accepted by the rabbinate.It was largely ignored in other places. Although all Orthodox rabbis would want a convert to be a fully practicing Jew, there were other considerations. How about a non-Jew married to a Jew, or about to be married? Wouldn't conversion prevent an intermarriage? By the turn of the twentieth century, people had the option available of non-Orthodox (often halachically invalid) conversions. To this day, many Reform conversions feature neither circumcision nor immersion.One prominent Beit Din in a major Midwest American city, would gladly do conversions, no questions asked, for those who had Reform or Conservative preparation, in order to prevent questions about who is or isn't Jewish. As late as the 1970s, few would question such a conversion, provided it was performed correctly. This continued well into the 1980s, which I am certain would be vigorously denied today. Most Orthodox rabbis would redo a non-Orthodox conversion, even if apparently done correctly, in order to prevent doubts and confusion. One prominent rabbi, an officer in the RCA, told me of a case in which he was about to do a wedding, when he learned at the last minute that the bride was adopted, but never converted. He did a conversion for her while the guests were already seated, ready for the wedding ceremony! But change was in the air. A popular pamphlet appeared in the late 1960's, entitled "The Goyim (Gentiles) Among Us". The title is a reference to a science fiction movie about space aliens who look like humans, but are getting ready to destroy us. The pamphlet took the ruling of Rabbi Schmelkes, warning people that right next to you in Synagogue, are non-Jews with a supposedly Orthodox conversion, just waiting to marry your sons and daughters. Moshe Feinstein, issued a responsum that if the convert will obviously not be observant, the conversion is invalid even ex post facto. He was simply spouting Rav Schmelkes' view. Anticipating objections, he incredibly gives the Talmudic sources that contradict this, concluding, however "anyway, what favor are these rabbis doing for the Jewish people, making more Jews with no strong ties to Jewishness?" Please note what happened here. Moshe Feinstein is quoting an unfounded halachah, shows it is unfounded, and is ruling based on his gut feeling. This gained wide acceptance not because he had convinced us of his halachic stance, but his subjective feeling. Had it been any rabbi with less stature than he, it would have been laughed out of consideration, or at least been weighed against other factors. But it was "Reb Moshe". This approach became more widely accepted, although many rabbis still held out for a more lenient, and source-based, approach.But a feeling of malaise was in the air. This feeling was strengthened by a survey, conducted in the late 1960s, that showed that only 10% of Orthodox converts in the New York area, were observing ANYTHING five years later. The view that we were being too lax in our conversion practices became more widespread. By the late 1970s, the RCA, the primary organization of American pulpit rabbis, had taken conversion privileges away from individual rabbis, and formed regional Batei Din, headed by accepted "experts". (How they had the right to do this is another question. I have no idea). At first, moderate observance was required of converts (Shabbat, Kashrut, and Family Purity). This soon changed to full acceptance of Rabbi Schmelkes' standards. Also, they reversed the long-held stance that if non-Orthodox conversions included immersion in a mikveh, it was probably OK, but good to do over "just in case", changing it to considering them completely invalid. There were, and are, Orthodox rabbis who oppose these policies, but they find themselves maligned and marginalized within rabbinic circles. Meanwhile, in Israel, the position of the Chief Rabbinate had always been very liberal about conversions, Rabbi Uziel, the Sephardic Chief Rabbi when Israel was first founded, even wrote a responsum that all we require of a convert is to accept that there is one G-d, that He is a Unity, and a desire to "live like the average Jew in his generation".But leniencies also have limits. One Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi (in the 1970s) was so lenient, that people whom he converted claimed that they didn't even know that it was happening to them! The pendulum was ready to swing in the other direction. Conversion in Israel is now very difficult. Not only that, but conversions done decades ago, according to the earlier standards, are being reviewed, and often declared invalid.The primary consideration in all these cases is not sources, but the stature of the rabbis who proposed these standards. But revolt is in the air! More about that, next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment