Giyyur 020

(For the Hebrew text of this passage please click here.)

1:
From the beginning of this series of shiurim we have been studying the attitude – almost invariably positive – of the sages of the Talmudic era towards converts and the conversion process. We are now approaching the time when we must turn our attention to developments in the post-Talmudic era and in particular in modern times. Throughout the history of the Jewish people in the Middle Ages there were instances of conversion to Judaism. In those cases where we know the details the batei din seem to have followed in general the accepting attitude of the Talmudic sages. There was only one aspect of conversion that was of particular consequence to the rabbis of that period. (As far as the Jewish people are concerned the Middle Ages may be said to stretch from about the year 500 CE to around the year 1800 CE!) The matter that was of particular consequence was whether or not the motive of the candidate had anything to do with marriage prospects.

2:
In the Talmudic era the attitude of the sages, in the main, was that even if the ulterior motive of a candidate was known to be marriage with a Jew that should not shed a negative light on the conversion procedure of that candidate. The thinking was that even someone who was converting for ulterior motives could become a good Jew. We first encountered this line of thinking in Giyyur 003. But let me now present to you another source which highlights this attitude even more clearly. This passage comes from the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Kiddushin 42a].

Once again, we note here that there was a prima facie attitude that any conversion that was not for purely religious reasons was invalid ab initio. However, the great Bablyonian Amora of the first generation, Rav, lays down a categorical ruling: such candidates are to be accepted. Not only this, but more so! Not only are they to be accepted, but we should not even deter them as we usually deter converts at their first appearance before the Bet Din. (See Giyyur 006.) On the contrary, says Rav, we should welcome them into our midst!

If you would like to read the Hebrew text of this passage please click here.)

3:
The Gemara does not give any rationale for Rav's teaching. It is possible that he realised that in such cases – such as conversion for love of a Jew – love would have its way anyway. It was better to accept these candidates and make them welcome as Jews: it is possible that they might learn to live a good Jewish life if they are accepted warmly. The alternative, Rav knew only too well, was not one convert less but one Jew less – intermarriage and apostasy.

4:
This fear – indeed, horror – of intermarriage led to a change of attitude that Rav could hardly have forseen. In the Middle Ages there was great concern about biblical stories which seemed to be suggesting that there was many a great Israelite hero who was married to a non-Jewish woman! What about Samson and his three Philistine wives, only the last of whom was Delilah? What about King Solomon and his thousand wives and concubines from all over the world? This and similar considerations caused a virtual re-interprepation of the biblical account. The clearest expression of this understanding of what 'really' happened is perhaps to be found in Rambam's Mishneh Torah [Laws of Forbidden Marriages 13:14-15], where he writes as follows:

5:
We can read this line of reasoning with a considerable amount of incredulity. We could pick holes in the argument with little trouble. We can, perhaps, smile (or worse!) at the rather naive idea that in biblical times post-biblical rabbinic institutions, such as the Sanhedrin and the lesser courts, held sway. But none of this matters. What matters is that, despite the attitude of Talmudic sages such as Rav, conversion for ulterior motives became suspect.

6:
However, let us not imagine that throughout the Middle ages, and into the nineteenth century, liaisons between Jews and non-Jews did not exist. I shall offer one example only because it involves well-known personalities and provides two examples of such liasons. Jacques Fromental Halevi was a great composer of grand opera in the French tradition. Actually, his name was Ya'akov Efrayim Lèvy, but he preferred the francophonic style. He was born in 1799 and died of tuberculosis in 1862. His father had been a rather renowned cantor (Ĥazzan) and his daughter Geneviève eventually married the truly great composer, Georges Bizet (the creator of the opera Carmen). Let me assure you immediately that Bizet did not convert to Judaism! Halevy's greatest opera is "La Juive" (the Jewish Woman). (I was privileged to see a stunning performance of this opera in Tel-Aviv a couple of years ago.) The story is set around the year 1414, when the Austrians dominated Switzerland, and the Jews were persecuted by all classes. The action is in the city of Constance. Prince Leopold, disguised, and pretending to be a Jew, seeks to win the affection of Rachel, daughter of Eleazar, a wealthy and devout Jew. I need not tell you more of the plot; this is sufficient to indicate that such liaisons certainly existed.

7:
In order to understand the halakhic developments in modern times we shall have to understand what happened to the Jewish people and the Jewish religion at the dawn of the modern era. That is what we shall do, God willing, in our next shiur.

To be continued.