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.