דף הביתשיעוריםGiyyur

Giyyur 009

נושא: Giyyur

Bet Midrash Virtuali

BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI

of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel
and the Masorti Movement


HALAKHAH STUDY GROUP


THE HALAKHAH OF GIYYUR (Conversion to Judaism)

Wherever you go I will go; wherever you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die and there I will be buried. Thus and more may God do to me if anything but death parts me from you. [Ruth 1:16-17].

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

Part Two

26:
In Giyyur 006 we began our discussion of a barayta which may be found in the Gemara [Yevamot 47a-b] which is most pertinent to our discussion on conversion to Judaism. We must now turn our attention to the explanations that are offered in the Gemara [Yevamot 47b] about that barayta.

27:
The barayta told us that the Bet Din addresses a would-be convert in terms such as:

What have you seen that you come to convert? Do you not know that Israel in this day and age are rejected and spurned and that they endure suffering? … We teach him a few light mitzvot and a few serious mitzvot.

On this the Gemara asks a very simple question: "Why?" Meaning, why do we address the applicant in such a discouraging manner? And why do we describe for him or her a sample selection of Jewish practices – some easier some not so easy? And the Gemara gives a very succinct answer:

So that if he desists, he desists.

28:
From this response it is clear that the purpose of the discouraging welcome is to ensure that the candidate knows what he is letting himself in for. After hearing about the state of the Jewish people and after having heard a selection of the religious practices that he will be expected to perform from the moment of conversion the candidate may well decide that conversion to Judaism is not for him. So, if he desists and goes on his way, so be it – and, as Rashi intimates in his commentary, it is no big deal for us.

29:
The laconic way in which the Gemara explains that the candidate may decide not to convert and will go on his way suggests that the sages of the Gemara were not concerned with attracting non-Jews to Judaism. They were not over-demanding in what they expected of a person newly converted to Judaism but they were not going to accept as Jews people who might not be faithful members of the Jewish people even in adversity and who did not want to observe Jewish religious practices. This laconic statement suggests that at least some of the sages were aware of the problems that the possibility of conversion creates. The Gemara now develops this thought:

Rabbi Ĥelbo says: Converts are as problematic for Israel as a scab! As [scripture] says [Isaiah 14:1]: "And strangers shall join them [the Jewish people] and shall become attached to the House of Jacob."

The Hebrew term that the prophet uses for "attached" is also the term that the Amora Rabbi Ĥelbo uses for "scab". A scab is something that attaches itself to the skin after a wound has been inflicted. This statement has been seen as a deprecation, a warning not to accept converts easily because they can cause great problems for Israel's spiritual well-being. Rashi, in his commentary, explains in what way converts may be detrimental:

They continue their former behaviour and Jews learn from them or [even] rely on them regarding what is permitted and what is forbidden.

From this it seems clear that the sages were not concerned with the possible religious dereliction of the insincere convert as such but were most concerned about the possible influence they may have on simple Jews, even to the extent of Jews relying on the partial knowledge of new converts concerning what is permitted and what is forbidden. (We shall see much later on how other sages tried to interpret the teaching of Rabbi Ĥelbo in a positive light.)

30:
You may recall that certain mitzvot were singled out by the barayta as being required instruction for the candidate for conversion:

We [also] inform him about the sins of leket, shikheĥah, pe'ah and ma'aser ani

(Please see Giyyur 006) for a brief explanation of these Hebrew terms.) Once again the Gemara asks a very simple question: "Why?" Meaning, why is the Bet Din required to warn the candidate for conversion about these four mitzvot in particular? (Regarding all other mitzvot – even the most essential, such as the unity of God and the sanctity of Shabbat – it was quite sufficient to teach just a sample.)

31:
In order to understand the answer of the Gemara to the question we must note that all these four mitzvot have one thing in common: they all permit the indigent person to enter the farmer's property and take what is legally his under the poor law. It would be 'nice' to think that the sages were here teaching the convert about the values in Judaism of generosity, charity and mutual support. But their purpose, as the Gemara explains, was to teach about the value of human life.

Rabbi Ĥiyya bar-Abba quotes Rabbi Yoĥanan: A non-Jew is killed for [even] less than one perutah and it is not repayable.

Clearly, this teaching of Rabbi Yoĥanan requires explanation. Apparently, among non-Jews theft was considered a capital crime: any person caught red-handed pilfering in private property could be killed on the spot by the owner, regardless of the value of what was being pilfered. Nor does the culprit have the right to offer to refund what has been stolen to save his life. It was thus essential that converts understand that the law among Jews is different: indigent people have a legal right to enter into the convert's fields and vineyards at harvest time (once the conversion process is completed) and to take whatever the law permits them to take. The convert must be made aware that what appears to him, from his previous experience, as theft, pure and simple, is in fact perfectly legal and is a part of Israel's system of gemilut ĥasadim, kindness between human beings.

25:
The original barayta also said that:

We do not offer too much [teaching, that will discourage him] nor do we enter into details.

Here the Gemara asks a different question: "What is the scriptural basis for this statement?" One would have thought that the teaching of a candidate in the intricacies of Jewish religious behaviour would have been essential, so what scriptural justification can possibly be offered for this extraordinary leniency? The Gemara responds:

Rabbi El'azar says: What is the scripural basis [for this]? – It is written [Ruth 1:18] "When [Naomi] saw how determined [Ruth] was to go with her, she ceased to argue with her.

In the very first shiur in this series we noted that for the sages the conversation between Naomi and Ruth in the first chapter of the book of Ruth is accepted as a paradigm of the ideal conversion process. When Naomi realises that Ruth is quite determined to join her in her return to Judah she stops trying to persuade Ruth to return to her own people. Similarly, says Rabbi El'azar (who was a student of the Rabbi Yoĥanan mentioned above), once the Bet Din is reasonably certain of the earnestness of the candidate they should proceed to the rite of conversion without further delay. And again the Gemara asks "Why?" – why should the conversion now be expedited? And the response:

We do not delay in the performance of a mitzvah.

Once it has been established that this person is serious about joining the Jewish people and being observant of the Jewish religion the rite of conversion becomes a mitzvah, a religious duty, which should not be delayed or postponed.

(If you would like to read the Hebrew text of the Gemara please click here.)

To be continued.

NOTICE:

Because of the incidence of Tish'ah b'Av the next shiur in this series will be, God willing, on Monday 18th August.



דילוג לתוכן