Giyyur 023

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

24:
We have seen that from the moment of the emergence of Reform Judaism in the early decades of the 19th Century a change came over what is now called orthodoxy. Obviously, the change was a reaction against the wild excesses of the Reform movement in its early years. Traditonal Judaism began putting up barriers against change and setting up barricades against incursions of western mores and culture into the fabric of Jewish society. (It was the execcess of Reform and the reactionary excesses of traditional Judaism that were the catalyst that saw the creation of what we now call Conservative or Masorti Judaism.)

25:
In our study of the changes that came about in the relationship of the Jewish people to converts and the conversion process we must concentrate of the changes that were introduced by the stream which became known as orthodoxy. Even though the watchward of the emergent orthodoxy was "no change" it did, in fact, intoduce many changes into Jewish practice that earlier sages would not have thought of – and probably would not have countenanced. The reason for the introduction of these changes was, as we have mentioned, the perceived need to protect Judaism from the threat that was seen from western culture.

26:
What happened regarding conversion is a typical example of the process. In 1876 Rabbi Yitzĥak Schmelkes of Lvov (Lemberg) published a responsum under his sobriquet Bet Yitzĥak. In this responsum he ruled that

As we have seen in all our studies thus far such a declaration was unheard of during all the centuries that had passed since Talmudic times. The reasoning that Rabbi Schmelkes gave for his ruling was extremely problematic. Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century one of the great ultra-orthodox rabbis, Ĥayyim Ozer Grodzinsky, said that Rabbi Schmelkes' proofs were "no proof at all". (Though, of course, being ultra-orthodox himself he nevertheless supported Rabbi Schmelkes' conclusions!)

27:
Another source [Bekhorot 30b] that was quoted at this time was one that we have already encountered [Giyyur 007]:

The tenor of this passage makes it clear that the would-be Jew must know something about Judaism before his conversion because otherwise he would not be able to demur at this mitzvah or that. Rabbi Yosé bar-Yehudah goes even further: he must accept the interpretation of Torah as established by the sages without question. However, there is ample evidence in the Talmud that at least some of the sages, while not denying the requirement that a candidate for conversion must accept Torah – both written and oral – with no exceptions, managed to alleviate the absoluteness of the requirement. See the original shiur [Giyyur 007] for the expansion.

28:
On this passage Rabbi David Golinkin has written:

In any case, we have seen in Giyyur 007 examples of Talmudic sages who either did not know of this ruling or simply ignored it. Furthermore, none of the great halakhic codes, such as Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, the Tur and the Shulĥan Arukh, bothered to quote the passage let alone enact it as law.

29:
In his responsum Rabbi Golinkin sums up as follows:

As we have seen, what the great codes do enact into law is the long barayta that we studied in detail in
Giyyur 006. In Giyyur 007 we saw that the barayta states quite categorically that

The question may be asked: "What is the barayta referring to when it says 'if he accepts'? Ramban (Nachmanides) in his novellae to the passage of the Gemara in question says that it means that he accepted upon himself in the Bet Din to be circumcised and to bathe in a mikveh!

To be continued.

In Giyyur 018 we encountered the very difficult teaching of Rabbi Ĥelbo that "Converts are as problematic for Israel as a scab."

Daniel Bass offers his own very interesting interpretation of that teaching.

What is the nature of a scab? It is a noticeable defect on the skin. It is abrasive, annoying, the wound it covers itches constantly, ever making us aware of the existence of the scab. The natural tendency then is to pick and scrape, to try and scratch the scab away. And if we do? The wound becomes infected, the eventual scar is worse.

So too with a convert.

At first a convert is noticeable and sticks out from the body of Israel. Old customs, incomplete learning, lack of familiarity will lead to behaviors that irritate or grate other Jews. They may try to pick at the convert's sincerity or exclude the convert from the community. The results to the Body of Israel of this exclusion are well illustrated by the previous story of Timna and Amalek [Giyyur 005].

What is the proper way to deal with a scab?

Despite the constant irritation, treat the scab as a natural part of one's skin. Ignore the itch and refrain from scratching. In due time the scab falls away bit by bit, the wound is healed, and there remains skin indistinguishable from the rest. So too with a convert. If we treat the convert as a full member of B'nei Israel, and ignore the failings and faults of the convert, then in time those behaviors will subside, and the convert will be indistinguishable from the rest of B'nei Israel.

I wish everyone a very happy Ĥanukah!