Giyyur 024

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

30:
We have been following developments in the matter of conversion to Judaism during the past 150 years. We have seen that the reaction of the orthodox world to the emergence of Reform (which, in turn, was a development that derived from the social revolutions of the late 18th and early 19th centuries in the west) was to set up barricades and to introduce ĥumrot (stringencies) into the conversion process that had hitherto been unheard of. The main novel stringency was that the candidate for conversion must undertake to observe all the mitzvot with no doubt and no quibbling. This prompts an investigation into what really is required of the would-be convert.

31:
In Giyyur 006 we saw that the Bet Din was required to inform the candidate of several mitzvot – some relatively easy to observe others more stringent – and to warn him (or her) that upon conversion their status vis-à-vis reward for observance and punishment for non-observance of the mitzvot at the hands of heaven would change. The Gemara [Yevamot 47b] then concludes:

In the previous shiur we saw that Rabbi Moshe ben Naĥman (1200-1270 CE) in his novellae (ĥiddushim) says that this means that he is to be circumcised and he is to bathe in a mikveh without delay "if he accepted upon himself in the Bet Din to be circumcised and to immerse." There is no mention here of what is going on or not going on in the mind of the candidate.

32:
Rabbi Ben-Zion Me'ir Ĥai Uzzi'el (1880-1953 CE) was the first Sephardi Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel. In his collection of responsa (Piskey Uzzi'el) he writes concerning the passage in the Gemara that we have just mentioned:

33:
Again, in modern Israel, a case came before a rabbinical court in Tiberias in which a professional soccer player wanted to convert even though it was clear that he would have to desecrate Shabbat to attend matches on Shabbat. Rabbi Moshe Hacohen responded:

34:
The thrust of such statements by prominent rabbis is in perfect agreement with the conclusion of the Gemara itself. You will recall that in Giyyur 009 we already noted this:

In the middle ages this same conclusion was already adopted by Rabbi Moshe of Coucy in his Sefer Mitzvot ha-Gadol:

To be continued.

Mike Lewyn writes concerning the difficulties that modern orthodoxy puts in the path of would-be converts:

I heard a very interesting chat from a (modern) Orthodox rabbi about these issues a couple of nights ago; he gave a kind of Conservative justification for Orthodox halacha, arguing that if your goal is ensuring that converts stay Jewish, changing times may justify strictness. In particular, he was speaking about the problem of conversion for the sake of marriage, arguing more or less as follows: in pre-20th century Europe (whether medieval or early modern), it made sense to allow a spouse to convert without too much scrutiny, because given the low rates of divorce in that environment because you could pretty much assume that the marriage would stay together and thus the spouse would stay Jewish. By contrast, today, marriages break up frequently, so unless you set a high bar for conversion, the spouse will convert to Judaism and then return to her prior religion if the marriage breaks up. So if you want to spouse to stay Jewish, you convert only when she is really, really sure that she wants to be observant. It seems to me this line of reasoning applies beyond spouses. In 1850 in Vilna, being a Jew was so unpleasant that you could assume that anyone who wanted to convert was likely to stay Jewish through thick and thin- so there was no need to demand much of converts. Today, following medieval halacha would lead to a lot of "easy come, easy go" conversions. So paradoxically, the "Conservative" strategy of adapting halacha to social change leads to "haredi" results (a strict conversion policy), and vice versa.

I respond:

I find this reasoning quite spurious. First of all, the statement that "our goal is ensuring that converts stay Jewish" in itself is sheer nonsense! Once a person has converted to Judaism according to halakhah they are Jewish until the day they die, regardless of how they live or do not live a life of Torah and mitzvot. Secondly, we have seen from what we have learned in general during this series of shiurim and from today's shiur in particular that the goal of the Bet Din is not to sensure that converts observe Judaism in their lives. We must certainly hope so, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the conversion itself.

The argument concerning marriage and the divorce rate is also spurious. It would be ridiculous if we were to hesitate to perform marriages because of the possibility of their dissolution. The marriage of a Jew-by-Choice is no different than the marriage of a Jew-by-Birth. Furthermore, the assumption itself is unworthy. I personally know two women who converted to Judaism, married, and later divorced. Both continue to live fully observant Jewish lives. If we had followed the reasoning of the rabbi quoted by Mike we would have deprived both women of the right and pleasure of living a full Jewish life, to say nothing of their share in the life to come.

Lastly, in an age where marriage is based on love the union is most likely going to take place regardless of the religion of the parties. It is surely better – for children, for community and for the Jewish people – that during the lifetime of the marriage (be it until death or until dissolution) both parties be Jewish.

I wish everyone a very happy zot Ĥanukah! Our series of shiurim on conversion is drawing near to its close. I would very much like to receive suggestions and requests concerning the next topic to be studied in the Halakhah Study Group. You can write to me here.