In memory of Rabin's assassination,
Conservative Jews around the world have been learning Mishnah with Rabbi Simchah
Roth.
B E T M I D R A S H V I R T U A L I
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Daily Mishnah Study
in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
23rd June 1997 1 18th Sivan 5797
Today's shiur is dedicated by Ze'ev Orzech to the memory of his
mother, Sala bat No'ah ve-Hinde, z"l, whose yahrzeit was on 14th
Sivan.
During the period that our shiurim will be sporadic, and at the
request of several people, I shall try to learn with you some
pages of Gemara. (This is also a 'test case' on my part, to see
whether it is at all possible to teach Gemara 'on-line': your
comments would be welcome.) The pages selected are Tractate
Yevamot, folios 46a to 47b, where the topic is most timely:
Conversion to Judaism. For a very general overview of the
relationship between Mishnah and Gemara (Talmud) see the
"Introduction" at our web site archives.
Let us first quote the Mishnah upon which the discussion in the
Gemara is based. Since, for our purposes, this mishnah is only
the springboard for the discussion on conversion taken up by the
Gemara several folios later, I shall not explain this mishnah or
answer questions concerning it.
TRACTATE YEVAMOT, CHAPTER FOUR, MISHNAH TWELVE (FOLIO 44a):
One who remarries his divorced wife, or marries a sister-in-law
to whom he has already given Chalitzah, or marries the female
relative of such a woman - [one who acts thus] must divorce the
woman and any offspring is a mamzer [illegitimate]; this is the
opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The rest of the sages say that the
offspring is not a mamzer, but they admit that if one marries a
female relative of his ex-wife the offspring is a mamzer.
It is the mention of "mamzer" that prompts a discussion on
conversion, on folio 46a:
GEMARA:
Rabbi Chiyya bar-Abba happened to visit the village of Gabla,
where he saw that Jewish girls had become pregnant by converts to
Judaism who had been circumcised but had not bathed [in a
mikveh]; he also saw there non-Jews pouring wine of Jewish
vintage and Jews then drinking it; and he also saw non-Jews
stewing Thermus-vegetables which Jews then ate. He saw all these
and made no comment at all. When he came before Rabbi Yochanan,
the latter told him to go back there a declare that their
children were mamzerim, that their wine was forbidden as "Yeyn
Nesekh", and that their Thermus-vegetables were forbidden because
of "Bishul Nokhri" - since they are not Torah observant Jews.
EXPLANATIONS:
1. The village of Gabla was probably on the Golan, where there
was a mixed community of Jews and non-Jews living together.
(This was quite typical of Eretz-Israel during the Talmudic
period.) It would seem from the account given here that
socializing between the two communities was advanced - unlike
the situation in modern Eretz-Israel, but vividly recalling
the situation in many parts of the modern Diaspora. This
socializing had the three consequences observed by Rabbi
Chiyya bar-Abba. They did not seem to him to be untoward,
but he reported them to his great Mentor, Rabbi Yochanan, the
head of the Yeshiva in Tiberias. (Rabbi Yochanan was one of
the most influential of the sages of Eretz-Israel during the
Talmudic period, laying the foundations for what was
eventually to become the Talmud of Eretz-Israel.)
2. The three consequences observed by the sage were
(1) the fact that in Gabla non-Jews had been accepted into
Judaism without bathing in a Mikveh [ritual bath] and
that they had subsequently married Jewish women and had
children by them;
(2) that Jews were drinking wine that had been handled by
non-Jews (which is forbidden, in case the wine was used
for idolatrous purposes);
(3) and that Jews ate food cooked by non-Jews (which is also
forbidden).
3. Rabbi Yochanan instructed Rabbi Chiyya bar-Abba to return to
Gabla and to declare to the residents that the children born
of these marriages were mamzerim - since their fathers were
not considered Jewish. (This is the only one of the three
"sins" of the people of Gabla that has consequence for our
discussion.)
GEMARA (continued):
Rabbi Yochanan is here being quite consistent. Rabbi Chiyya
bar-Abba has quoted him as saying that no one can become a 'ger'
[convert] unless he both undergo circumcision and immersion in a
ritual bath. Since these men had not bathed in a mikveh they
were still non-Jews. Furthermore, Rabba bar-Bar-Channa has
quoted Rabbi Yochanan as also saying that when a non-Jew or an
indentured servant [Eved] has sexual intercourse with a Jewish
woman, the offspring is a mamzer.
EXPLANATIONS (continued):
4. Both Chiyya bar-Abba and Rabba bar-Bar-Channa are students of
Rabbi Yochanan, and in typical fashion the Gemara brings the
teacher's opinion as quoted by the students who heard him say
it. (There is a different 'formula' to indicate material
quoted from indirect knowledge.) Note that it is the two
separate statements that, when combined, indicate Rabbi
Yochanan's teaching on this matter: a 'ger' who has not
bathed in a mikveh is still a non-Jew, therefore the
offspring are mamzerim. (Note also that Rabbi Chiyya
bar-Abba had not originally thought this to be the case, but
he presumably defers to his great Mentor.)
5. Abba is a familiar contraction in Galilean Aramaic for the
name "Avraham". Rabba is probably a further contraction of
"Rabbi Abba". Channa is a man's name in Galilean Aramaic,
the equivalent of "John" (as it is also in modern Arabic).
The Galileans were notoriously careless in their
pronunciation.
6. The Gemara also explains in similar fashion Rabbi Yochanan's
instructions concerning "Yeyn Nesekh" [the wine] and "Bishul
Nokhri" [the cooking}, but this part of the discussion has
been omitted here as being of no consequence for our topic.
Suffice to say that the halakhah follows Rabbi Yochanan's
opinion: a bottle of kosher wine opened by a non-Jew is
rendered unfit for Jewish consumption (after a Jew has opened
it it may be handled by a non-Jew); kosher food cooked
entirely by a non-Jew is unfit for Jewish consumption - but
it is sufficient for a Jew to make some insignificant
contribution to the cooking process (such as lighting the
stove) for all the food to be kosher.
7. The development here is typical of a Talmudic discussion.
The mention of "mamzerim" in the mishnah leads to the story
of Chiyya bar-Abba's visit to Gabla and Rabbi Yochanan's
reaction to what was observed there. Rabbi Yochanan's
teaching concerning the requirements for 'giyyur'
(conversion) - both circumcision and mikveh - will now lead
to a full-blown discussion on that issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Daily Mishnah Study
in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
27rd June 1997 2 22nd Sivan 5797
Today's shiur is dedicated by Edward Langer in honour of the
Simchat Bat of Dorina Langer (Rina Hadassah bat Shoshana
ve-Efraim Ha-Cohen) which will be on June 29.
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 46a:
There is a Baraita which reads as follows: "If a 'ger' has had
himself circumcised but has not bathed in a mikveh, Rabbi Eliezer
is of the opinion that he is a valid 'ger', since we find that
our forefathers were circumcised but did not bathe. If a 'ger'
has bathed in a mikveh but has not had himself circumcised, Rabbi
Yehoshu'a is of the opinion that he is a valid 'ger', since we
find that our foremothers bathed but were not circumcised. The
rest of the sages are of the opinion that in either case such a
person is not a valid 'ger' unless he both has himself
circumcised and also bathes in a mikveh."
EXPLANATIONS:
7. The development here is typical of a Talmudic discussion.
The original mention of "mamzerim" in the mishnah led to the
story of Chiyya bar-Abba's visit to Gabla and Rabbi
Yochanan's reaction to what was observed there. The latter's
teaching concerning the requirements for 'giyyur'
(conversion) - both circumcision and mikveh - now leads to a
full-blown discussion on that point.
8. The discussion in the Gemara opens by quoting a Baraita. The
term Baraita is a contraction of the Aramaic 'Matnita
baraita' which means 'an external mishnah'. For our purposes
we may define a baraita as being any halakhic material from
the age of the Tannaim (see Introduction in Web Archives for
a description of this term) that was not included by Rabbi
Yehudah the President of the Sanhedrin in the Mishnah. Such
material has the same format and language as the Mishnah, and
the Gemara very often quotes such material either to
supplement information given in the Mishnah or to contrast
it. Rabbi Yochanan, being an Amora (see Introduction in Web
Archives for a description of this term) is bound by an
explicit teaching from the Tannaitic period, therefore his
statement that the children of Gabla were mamzerim because
their fathers were 'gerim' who had not bathed in a mikveh is
now examined in the light of the baraita quoted.
9. The baraita contains three halakhic opinions: that of Rabbi
Eliezer, that of Rabbi Yehoshu'a and that of the rest of the
sages. (As the Gemara will point out later, the rules of
interpretation indicate that the halakhah follows the
majority view - that of 'the rest of the sages'.) Rabbi
Eliezer holds that circumcision is essential for conversion,
but bathing in a mikveh is only a desideratum. Rabbi
Yehoshu'a holds that it is the bathing in a mikveh that is
essential for conversion. The rest of the sages hold that
both elements are essential to the conversion process.
10. Rabbi Eliezer's opinion is based on what he sees as a
historical fact. Until the people of Israel received the
Torah at Mount Sinai their official 'halakhic' status was
that of 'Noachides', 'gentiles'. It was the acceptance of
the Torah that changed their status and the status of their
descendents for ever into that of halakhic 'Jews' (though the
term 'Jew' here is an admitted anachronism used by me only
for the sake of facility of expression). The book of Joshua
(5:5) tells us that all those who left Egypt were
circumcised, and Rabbi Eliezer sees this as a precursor to
accepting the Torah at Sinai.
GEMARA:
Why does not Rabbi Yehoshu'a deduce the halakhah from the
'fathers' [as Rabbi Eliezer does], and why does not Rabbi Eliezer
deduce the halakhah from the 'mothers' [as Rabbi Yehoshu'a does]?
You cannot say that the reason Rabbi Eliezer does not deduce the
teaching from the 'mothers' is because he holds that we may not
deduce a halakhah applicable in 'real life' from a situation that
could never be possible; for in another Baraita we read: "Rabbi
Eliezer holds that the Paschal lamb offered throughout the
generations [after the Exodus] must come from non-sacred animals,
because the Paschal lamb offered in Egypt came from non-sacred
animals". Now Rabbi Akiva [upon hearing this teaching about the
Paschal lamb] had asked Rabbi Eliezer how it was possible for him
to deduce a halakhah applicable in 'real life' [Paschal lamb in
later generations] from a situation that was not possible [sacred
animals in Egypt]. He replied: "Even so, it's a good proof and
we can learn from it."
EXPLANATIONS:
11. The Gemara asks why the two Tannaim, Eliezer and Yehoshu'a,
could not each accept the other's view - why did they see
them as mutually contradictory and not mutually
complementary, thus creating a situation in which either view
would be acceptable. The Gemara starts with Rabbi Eliezer.
We might think that the most obvious reason why he would not
accept the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshu'a is that it is flawed:
how can one deduce a halakhah concerning men, who can be
circumcised, from women who cannot? This would be like
deducing a halakhah applicable in 'real life' (for male
converts) from a situation that could never be possible
(female converts being required to be circumcised). However,
the Gemara points out that this cannot have been the cause of
his disagreement, since he himself does not refrain from such
reasoning! He teaches that the Paschal lamb eaten by each
family at the seder service during the whole time of the
existence of the Bet Mikdash had to come from non-sacred
animals (and not animals that were set aside as tithed or had
been dedicated by their owners to the Bet Mikdash, and so
forth); he deduces this from the fact that the lamb eaten by
the Israelites at that first Passover in Egypt (and whose
blood was daubed on their doorposts) had to come from
non-sacred animals - because before the giving of the Torah
there could not have been any other kind of animal! This,
too, is deducing a halakhah applicable in 'real life'
(Paschal lamb in later generations) from a situation that was
not possible (sacred animals before the giving of the Torah).
12. Rabbi Eliezer's response to Rabbi Akiva's objection proves
that he was not adverse to making such deductions, so this
cannot have been the reason why he would not accept the point
of view of Rabbi Yehoshu'a in the matter of conversion. Even
though women cannot be circumcised, not seeing circumcision
as essential to conversion because our 'foremothers' were not
circumcised prior to receiving the Torah is surely also "a
good proof and we can learn from it."
To be continued.
DISCUSSION:
David Sieradzki asks the following question concerning our
previous shiur:
I thought, based on our study of Mishnah Kiddushin, that the only
way to produce a mamzer was based on an incestuous, adulterous or
otherwise Torah-prohibited sexual relationship. It would follow
that the union of a Jew and a non-Jew would be considered
non-Jewish, but not a mamzer - and that the defect could be cured
by putting the child through a halakhic conversion.
I respond:
David, you are answered out of your own words! "Or otherwise
Torah-prohibited sexual relationship." I quote from RMSG of 18th
July 1996:
In Devarim [Deuteronomy 7:3-4] we find the following passage:
"You may not intermarry with them [non-Jews]. You shall not
marry off your daughter to his son nor shall you accept his
daughter in marriage to your son. For he will wean your son away
from following me..." Rashi, noting that the pronoun at the head
of this last sentence is masculine, comments that if the son of a
non-Jew marries your daughter he will wean the son [called in the
Torah 'your son'] that she will bear him away from Judaism.
"Thus we learn that the son of your daughter and a non-Jew is
termed 'your son', but the son of your son and a gentile woman is
not termed 'your son'". In a similar comment on the Gemara on
Yevamot 17a, Rashi points out that the Torah has nothing to say
about the possibility that the gentile partner of 'your son'
might wean her son away from Judaism - because the Torah does not
consider that child to be 'your son', but 'her son'! "A grandson
born of a Jewish woman is termed your son, but a grandson born of
a non-Jewish woman is not termed your son".
Thus we have learned that the marriage of a Jewish woman to a
non-Jewish man is prohibited by the Torah, but the child is
Jewish. Only a Jewish child can be defined as a 'mamzer' - the
product of a union forbidden by Jewish law, as you yourself have
pointed out. Therefore, the possibility of subsequent conversion
is irrelevant: halakhically, you can't convert a Jew to Judaism.
Shabbat Shalom to everybody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Daily Mishnah Study
in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1st July 1997 3 26th Sivan 5757
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 46b:
None of the sages disagrees that, in the case of a convert who
has bathed but not had himself circumcised, that this is
effective. What they do differ on is the case of one who has
been circumcised but has not bathed. Rabbi Eliezer learns his
teaching from the case of our forefathers; and Rabbi Yehoshu'a
teaches that our forefathers also bathed. One possible source
from which he learned this teaching is: the Torah says "Go to the
people and sanctify them today and tomorrow and get them to wash
their clothes". His thinking could have been that there are
cases where people are required to bathe but are not required to
wash their clothes: is it not logical to assume that in this
case, where they are required to wash their clothes, that they
are also implicitly required to bathe themselves as well? [But
this cannot be maintained for] it could have been required just
for the sake of hygiene. So we must assume that he deduces his
teaching from this second source: "And Moses took the blood and
sprinkled it on the people". Now we know that there is no
sprinkling of blood without prior bathing. And whence does Rabbi
Yehoshu'a assume that our foremothers bathed? - It is a logical
assumption: if they did not do so in what other way did they come
under the protection of the Shekhinah?
EXPLANATIONS:
13. The discussion in the Gemara started off with the assumption
that there was a fundamental disagreement between Rabbi
Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshu'a across the board, as it were, in
connection with the essential requirements for conversion.
However, the previous discussion on the teaching of Rabbi
Eliezer leads the Gemara to understand that the two sages
are, in fact, in agreement concerning the case of one who
bathed but had not been circumcised. They are in
disagreement about Rabbi Eliezer's teaching that a conversion
can be valid even if the would-be convert has not bathed in a
mikveh and has only had himself circumcised. We recall that
rabbi Eliezer had brought as the basis for his teaching the
fact that - as he saw it - our forefathers had not bathed
before receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai. (Both sages seem
to agree that the preparations made by the people of Israel
before receiving the Torah can be taken as a paradigm for
conversion.) The Gemara now says that Rabbi Yehoshu'a
rejects this as essentially a misreading of the facts: our
forefathers did bathe, he claims, before receiving the Torah.
The Gemara suggests two avenues of deduction by which he may
have learned this. The first will be found faulty, but the
second will be found to be sound.
14. The first method attributed to Rabbi Yehoshu'a works as
follows. We know that God required our ancestors to wash
their clothes before receiving the Torah because the story in
Exodus clearly says so [Exodus 19:10]. Other cases that
require bathing in a mikveh do not require washing of
garments as well, so is it not logical that where washing of
garments is specifically required bathing of the body may
also be safely assumed as an implied requirement? The Gemara
rejects this as being false logic, since Rabbi Yehoshu'a has
not given any indication why he assumes that the washing of
the clothes before Sinai was anything but an act of simple
hygiene with no spiritual significance whatsoever.
15. This, therefore, could not have been the line of thinking of
Rabbi Yehoshu'a. The Gemara comes to the conclusion that he
deduced his teaching that our forefathers also bathed before
receiving the Torah from a different verse. Exodus 24:8
tells us that Moses sprinkled blood over the people in the
initiation rites described in that chapter. Now we know that
all other cases where the sprinkling of blood is required,
prior bathing in a mikveh is also required. This must
obviously be the case here as well even though it is not
specifically mentioned.
16. This leave but one more issue to be resolved in the
discussion on the teachings of Rabbis Eliezer and Yehoshu'a
quoted in the baraita that started this discussion. Rabbi
Yehoshu'a was quoted as claiming that our foremothers bathed
in a mikveh before receiving the Torah. No mention is made
in the Torah of any such event, so why does Rabbi Yehoshu'a
make such a claim? The Gemara replies that it is purely a
logical assumption on his part: the men were circumcised and
bathed in a mikveh before receiving the Torah; the women
obviously could not have been circumcised, so if they did not
bathe in a mikveh how did they come under the protection of
the Shekhinah? This is a poetic term indicating that when a
person embraces Judaism the Divine Presence reciprocally
embraces them in its protective embrace. Some symbolic act
must have been performed by the foremothers to change their
status from Noachides to Jews. Since it could not have been
circumcision it must have been bathing in a mikveh.
To be continued.
DISCUSSION:
I have received several messages concerning my response to David
Sieradzki. He had asked why Rabbi Yochanan had classified the
children of Gabla as mamzerim since mamzerut could only be
brought about by an illicit union. My response, of course, left
some with the impression that halakhah categorizes children whose
mother is Jewish and whose father is not as being mamzerim. This
is not the case.
One of the pitfalls of studying Gemara that must assiduously be
avoided at all costs is the drawing of conclusions from just one
discussion - and in our case from part of one discussion. I was
clarifying for David the teaching of Rabbi Yochanan: that does
not necessarily imply that halakhah accepts his teaching - just
as halakhah does not accept the teaching of either Rabbi Eliezer
or Rabbi Yehoshu'a in the subject we have discussed in this
shiur. It so happens that on the previous page, just before
where we started our study, the Gemara had had a long discussion
on this topic, which was summarized quite succinctly [Yevamot
45b]: "And the halakhah is that a non-Jew or an indentured
servant who has sexual union with a Jewish woman - the foetus is
legitimate ['kasher']".
This has highlighted for us a rabbinic rule that one should never
deduce halakhah only from one's study of a discussion in the
Talmud, but better rely on the great poskim [decisors] such as
Rambam or Tur and so forth. In order to determine halakhah one
needs breadth of vision to see the whole canvas, not just one
small part of it.
Please let me reiterate: those who are interested in the
discussion on mamzerut in general please go to our web-site
archives and use the search engine that is to be found there.
When we studied Tractate Kiddushin we had a very long and full
discussion on this topic in which, I believe, all possible views
were presented through the instrument of discussion over a period
of several weeks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Daily Mishnah Study
in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
7th July 1997 4 2nd Tammuz 5757
Today's shiur is dedicated by Barry Frieslander to the memory of
his maternal grandmother, D'vorah bas Kos - a true ayshes chayil.
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 46b:
Rabbi Chiyya bar-Abba reports that Rabbi Yochanan said that "a
person is not a valid 'ger' unless he both has himself
circumcised and also bathes in a mikveh". This is obvious: where
the view of an individual sage clashes with the view of the
majority of the sages the halakhah follows the majority!
EXPLANATIONS:
17. Having discussed the difference of opinion between rabbis
Eliezer and Yehoshu'a, the Gemara now brings us back to the
original story of the visit of Rabbi Chiyya bar-Abba to the
village of Gabla on the Golan. In consequence of that visit
we learned that Rabbi Yochanan was of the opinion that "a
person is not a valid 'ger' unless he both has himself
circumcised and also bathes in a mikveh". On this opinion of
Rabbi Yochanan the Gemara now comments that Rabbi Yochanan is
stating the obvious. One of the most basic assumptions of
the Talmud is that none of the sages (who were passing on all
their teaching by word of mouth only) would ever have
expressed any teaching that could have been known to their
students without the teacher's help. In this case what Rabbi
Yochanan (an Amora from Eretz-Israel) states is already clear
from the very baraita that we have just been studying (which
contains the views of the much earlier and more authoritative
Tannaim). You will recall that our baraita contained three
views: that of Rabbi Eliezer, that of Rabbi Yehoshu'a and
that of "the rest of the sages". A golden rule of
interpretation of Tannaitic halakhic literature is that the
halakhah always follows the majority opinion. If we have the
differing views of two individual sages (Eliezer and
Yehoshu'a) that are contested by "all the rest of the sages",
then the halakhah will follow the view of "all the rest of
the sages" - however prestigious the two sages may be.
Therefore we do not need the later Rabbi Yochanan to tell us
the obvious!
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 46b:
Who are "the rest of the sages"? - Rabbi Yosse. There is a
baraita that reads as follows: "If [a ger] comes and says 'I have
been circumcised but have not bathed' - Rabbi Yehudah says that
we get him to bathe in a mikveh, and it makes no problem; Rabbi
Yosse says that we do not do so. That is why, says Rabbi
Yehudah, we may get a ger to bathe on Shabbat; Rabbi Yosse says
that we do not do so."
EXPLANATIONS:
18. The Gemara suggests that a possible reason why Rabbi Yochanan
"stated the obvious" was because he knew that "all the rest
of the sages" was merely a technical device, and that, in
fact, the majority view was expressed by one individual sage
- Rabbi Yosse [ben-Chalafta], a sage from the generation
after rabbis Eliezer and Yehoshu'a.
19. The technical device was to indicate a rejected opinion by
naming the sage who stated it and to leave accepted halakhah
anonymous. In the case of our baraita, rabbis Eliezer and
Yehoshu'a are named, therefore the halakhah cannot be
according to their views; the view of Rabbi Yosse cannot be
quoted in his name since his view is the accepted halakhah,
therefore he has to become "the rest of the sages" (who
concurred with his view).
20. The Gemara now sets out to indicate why we may assume that it
is Rabbi Yosse who is hiding behind the sobriquet "the rest
of the sages". It does so by quoting another baraita in
which there is a 'machloket' [difference of opinion] between
Rabbi Yehudah [bar-Ilai] and his contemporary Rabbi Yosse.
The Baraita is concerned with a case where a man admits that
although he has undergone circumcision for the purposes of
conversion, he has not bathed in a mikveh. Rabbi Yehudah
would just get him to bathe, in order to complete the
formalities of conversion; he would do so because in his
opinion either formality (circumcision or mikveh) is
sufficient to give effect to the conversion. If the
circumcision of this person was valid for the purposes of
conversion the mikveh will be a harmless addition; if the
circumcision was not valid for the purposes of conversion
then the present bathing in a mikveh will be sufficient to
affect that purpose. Either way, for Rabbi Yehudah there is
no problem. Rabbi Yosse will have none of it: the bathing in
the mikveh can only take place if the original circumcision
was valid for the purposes of conversion, since both elements
are an absolute necessity.
21. The continuation of the baraita further elucidates the views
of the two sages. Rabbi Yehudah would permit our 'ger' to
bathe on Shabbat. Since, according to Rabbi Yehudah, the
prior circumcision has already effected the conversion the
bathing in the mikveh would be no different from any other
bathing in a mikveh, which is permitted on Shabbat (for
instance for a woman after her period of menstruation).
Rabbi Yosse could not agree: it is not the bathing for him
that is problematic, it is the halakhic meaning of the
bathing: since he requires both elements it is the bathing in
the mikveh which will give effect to the conversion and thus
change that person's status irrevocably. It is the change of
status which cannot be effected on Shabbat. It thus becomes
apparent that it is Rabbi Yosse who holds the view that
represents the view of "rest of the sages" that "a person is
not a valid 'ger' unless he both has himself circumcised and
also bathes in a mikveh".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Daily Mishnah Study
in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
9th July 1997 5 4th Tammuz 5757
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 46b:
The baraita said: "That is why we may get a ger to bathe on
Shabbat". This is obvious. Since Rabbi Yehudah only requires
one of the elements, in a situation in which someone has already
been circumcised he could bathe in a mikveh on Shabbat - so why
the explanation 'that is why'? You would have assumed that for
Rabbi Yehudah it is the bathing in the mikveh that is essential
and therefore it cannot be done on Shabbat because it involves a
change of status; that is why the baraita had to make it clear
that for Rabbi Yehudah either element is sufficient.
EXPLANATIONS:
22. The Gemara now interrupts the flow of the discussion in order
to elucidate a matter raised in the baraita just quoted
(which recorded the difference of opinion between rabbis
Yehudah and Yosse, and which was quoted in order to prove
that Rabbi Yosse is "the rest of the sages"). The Gemara
points out that the explanation in the baraita "That is why
we may get a ger to bathe on Shabbat" is superfluous. The
baraita has already made clear the teaching of Rabbi Yehudah
that either circumcision or bathing in a mikveh is sufficient
for the purposes of conversion - so it doesn't take much
intelligence to deduce that when a candidate comes forward
who has already been circumcised [for the specific purpose of
conversion] his bathing in a mikveh is merely 'pro forma' and
has no halakhic necessity, and therefore it there is no
reason to prevent this taking place on Shabbat - as we have
already explained in our previous shiur. We know that no
baraita contains material that is superfluous since
everything had to be committed to memory. So what does the
element in the baraita that starts with the words "it is for
that reason" teach us that we could not have deduced by our
own reasoning? The answer of the Gemara is as follows:
without that specific statement you might have been left with
the mistaken impression that Rabbi Yehudah REQUIRES bathing
in a mikveh: "If [a ger] comes and says 'I have been
circumcised but have not bathed' - Rabbi Yehudah says that we
get him to bathe in a mikveh, and it makes no problem". The
additional element "That is why, says Rabbi Yehudah, we may
get a ger to bathe on Shabbat" prevents you from falling into
that misapprehension (for the reasons we have explained
above).
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 46b:
"Rabbi Yosse says that we do not permit a ger to bathe on
Shabbat". This, too, is obvious: since Rabbi Yosse sees both
elements as being essential he cannot permit the change of status
[involved in bathing in a mikveh] on Shabbat. You would have
assumed that for Rabbi Yosse it is circumcision that is essential
and it is only in a situation where the candidate has already
been circumcised [and we do not know whether it was done for the
purposes of conversion] that he prohibits bathing on Shabbat, but
in a case where the candidate was circumcised in our presence he
would have no objection to him bathing on Shabbat. That is why
the baraita makes specific Rabbi Yosse's view that both elements
are essential.
EXPLANATIONS:
23. This part of the argument is easier to understand having just
been through a similar process with as regards the view of
Rabbi Yehudah. The Gemara explains that the mentioning the
specific prohibition by Rabbi Yosse of mikveh for a ger on
Shabbat precludes the drawing of the wrong conclusion
concerning his view. We could have laboured under the
misapprehension that the reason why Rabbi Yosse will not
permit a ger who has already been circumcised to bathe in a
mikveh to complete the conversion process is because he views
the circumcision as being essential, not the bathing. When
we have no knowledge of the reasons why this person is
already circumcised we must assume that it was not for the
purposes of conversion and that this element has not yet been
fulfilled. That would lead you to assume that when we do
know that a candidate was circumcised for the specific
purpose of conversion, Rabbi Yosse would have no objection to
his bathing in a mikveh. Thus the additional information
that Rabbi Yosse does not permit a ger to bathe on Shabbat
prevents us drawing that wrong conclusion: for him no ger may
bathe on Shabbat - period - and it has nothing to do with the
prior circumcision.
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 46b:
Rabba reports that there was a certain case that came before
Rabbi Chiyya bar-Rabbi. (Rav Yossef reports this case as having
come before Rabbi Oshaya bar-Rabbi, and Rav Safra says that it
came Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi Chiyya.) A ger came before him who
had already been circumcised but had not yet bathed in a mikveh.
He told him to wait until the following day when they would
supervise his bathing. We may deduce three teachings from this
episode. Firstly that a ger requires three judges; secondly that
the process is not complete until there has been both
circumcision and bathing in a mikveh; and thirdly that a ger may
not bathe at night. Why can't we also deduce from this episode
that conversion also requires three fully qualified rabbis? -
Because it could be that those three happened to come along.
Rabbi Chiyya bar-Abba reports the teaching of Rabbi Yochanan that
conversion requires a panel of three since the Torah refers to it
as 'judgment'.
EXPLANATIONS:
24. We note how careful the Gemara is to record uncertainties
concerning the provenance of teachings: when teachings are
passed on orally who said what can be most significant. In
the present case it is obvious that the uncertainty is
because the names of the tradents may have been switched in
transmission. The Rabbi Chiyya involved in this episode is
one of the sons of Rabbi Yehudah the President of the
Sanhedrin and the compiler of the Mishnah (or another of his
sons, Oshaya; or yet another combination of these names).
However, both Rashi and the Tosafists in their commentaries
assume that this is not an either/or situation, and that the
Gemara should be understood as cumulative: Rabbi Chiyya
bar-Rabbi, Rabbi Oshaya his brother and Rabbi Oshaya
bar-Chiyya were the three members of the Bet-Din convened by
Rabbi Chiyya. As dubious as this sounds at first blush, I
must admit that it makes much better sense of the ensuing
discussion.
25. One evening a gentile presented himself before Rabbi Chiyya
and said that he had already been circumcised but he still
needed to bathe in a mikveh in order to complete his
conversion. The rabbi told him that this would be seen to
the following day. (How simple life was in those days!) The
Gemara suggests that three teachings can be learned from this
episode. Firstly that the conversion process requires three
judges - because presumably the rabbi expected more people to
be available for this purpose the following morning. The
second and third teachings are self-evident: that
circumcision is not enough (because he told him to complete
the process the following day) and that mikveh (for
conversion) may not take place at night (because he told him
to wait until morning).
26. The Gemara then suggests that another lesson that could be
derived from this episode is that the three judges of the
panel supervising the conversion must be fully qualified
rabbis. But this suggestion is dismissed: it could be that
those three came together fortuitously. (All three sages
mentioned are, of course, fully qualified rabbis.) Halakhah
does indeed recognize the possibility that conversion may be
legitimately supervised by a "Bet-Din shel hedyotot", a court
comprised entirely of laymen. Please note that this argument
and its refutation only makes sense if we accept the
understanding of the Gemara that Rashi and the Tosafists
understood.
27. Yet another teaching of Rabbi Yochanan is brought by Rabbi
Chiyya: that conversion does require a Bet-Din of three (be
they rabbis or laymen), since the Torah in Bemidbar [Numbers
15:16] stipulates that "there shall be but one judgment for
you and for the ger that joins you". The word 'judgment'
suggests a court of law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Daily Mishnah Study
in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
11th July 1997 6 6th Tammuz 5757
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 46b:
There is a baraita which reads: If a ger comes and says 'I am a
ger' you might think that we just accept him; that is why the
Torah says "with you": someone who you know of a certainty to be
so. If he comes with witnesses, how do we know? The Torah says
"When a ger resides with you in your land". This could refer
only to the land [of Israel]: how do we know the same applies
outside the land? The Torah says "with you": wherever you may
be. In that case why does the Torah say "in your land"? - Rabbi
Yehudah says that in the land he must bring proof but outside the
land he does not have to bring proof. But the rest of the sages
say that both in the land and outside it a ger must bring proof.
EXPLANATIONS:
28. The previous story in the Gemara concerned a ger that came
before Rabbi Chiyya and admitted that although he had been
circumcised he had yet to bathe in a mikveh. This sounds
very casual, so the next part of the discussion in the Gemara
concerns the credibility that may be accorded a person making
such a claim or an even greater one. The discussion is
opened by quoting an apposite baraita. The baraita discusses
a situation in which a person comes along and claims to have
converted to Judaism. The baraita teaches that we do not
credit such a claim unless the claimant brings testimony to
back up the claim. This is deduced from a Midrash on a verse
in the the book of Vayikra [Leviticus 19:33]. The verse
reads: "When a ger resides with you in your land, do not put
him at a disadvantage". On the basis of the premise that no
words in the Torah are purely incidental the Midrash
interprets the seemingly superfluous words "with you" to
indicate that you must be satisfied that he really is a ger.
This can only be achieved through reliable testimony. (It is
for this reason that to this day every convert is given what
we call "ma'aseh Bet-Din" - a document issued by the Bet-Din
giving the details of the conversion as evidence that may be
produced elsewhere as necessary.)
29. The Midrash on the words "with you" in the verse under
discussion, however, leads to a discussion on the meaning of
other words in the verse. Do the words "in your land" imply
that it is only in Eretz-Israel that conversions may be
effected? The baraita points out that such an interpretation
would vitiate the force of the words "with you": wherever you
may be - in the Land of Israel or in the Diaspora. But such
an interpretation would render the words "in your land"
superfluous. Rabbi Yehudah [bar-Ilai] (who seems to have had
a very liberal attitude towards conversion) interprets this
phrase as meaning that it is only in Eretz-Israel that a ger
is required to submit testimony. But the rest of the sages
(whose view, of course, reflects accepted halakhah) reject
this interpretation.
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 47a:
If a convert comes with reliable testimony do we really need a
Biblical verse [to tell us to accept it]? Rav Sheshet says that
this refers to hearsay evidence: "We have heard that he was
converted by such-and-such a Bet-Din". You might have thought
that such evidence should not be credited, so the verse is needed
to teach us [that it is to be credited]...
EXPLANATIONS:
30. The above discussion is surely self-explanatory. Many legal
systems will not accept hearsay evidence. Rav Sheshet
interprets the verse of the Torah under discussion as
specifically permitting hearsay evidence in the case of a
convert, since the acceptance of written testimony and
certification is so logical that a Biblical verse to that
effect is surely unnecessary.
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 47a:
There is a baraita which reads: "And you shall judge justly
between a man and his brother or a convert" [Deuteronomy 1:16].
This prompts Rabbi Yehudah to teach that a ger who was converted
by a Bet-Din is a ger, but a ger who converted himself is not so
considered. A case once came before Rabbi Yehudah in which a man
claimed that he a converted himself. Rabbi Yehudah asked him
whether he had witnesses and the man replied that he did not.
Rabbi Yehudah asked him whether he had children and was told that
he did. Rabbi Yehudah said: "Your admission is credited where it
only disqualifies yourself, but it cannot be credited where it
disqualifies your children".
EXPLANATIONS:
31. After having omitted some discussion which is not entirely
relevant to our topic, we resume with a most interesting
baraita. Basing himself of the verse which reads "And you
shall judge ... a convert" Rabbi Yehudah [bar-Ilai] (whose
teaching is uncontested in this baraita) learns from this
verse that conversion can only be by judgment (in a Bet-Din)
and therefore someone who one day decides that from
henceforth they are Jewish without going through the formal
procedure of conversion through a Bet-Din is not a ger -
however sincere the conversion may actually be. This is not
something that the individual may decide, but something that
must be decided by the recognized institutions of the Jewish
people. But even more interesting is the account of an
actual case that came before Rabbi Yehudah in which a person
confessed that although he was assumed by all who knew him to
be a Jew and although he led a completely Jewish way of life,
he had never been formally converted to Judaism by a Bet-Din.
Rabbi Yehudah partially dismisses the statement. The only
person to suffer the consequences of this person's statement
can be the actual person involved. However, this person's
self-disqualification cannot disqualify others (the
children).
32. Two further short notes on this baraita are required. The
Tosafists assume that Rabbi Yehudah holds the same minority
view as Rabbi Yochanan was later to hold (as we have seen)
that the offspring of a union between a Jewish woman and a
gentile are mamzerim. This would explain his reluctance to
accept the man's confession: it would be tantamount to
declaring his children mamzerim. We can add that even this
assumption would not be necessary if the person confessing
were a woman. The second note is that the teaching of Rabbi
Yehudah is codified as halakhah in the Shulchan Arukh [Yoreh
Deah 268:11]: "A person who is assumed to be Jewish who
claims that they converted themselves - if such a person has
children the statement is not credited to disqualify them but
it is credited to disqualify the author of the statement".
To be continued.
DISCUSSION:
Dan Weber writes:
The new Talmud discussion on conversions is fascinating... If I
am reading the material correctly, it seems that two processes
are required for a kosher conversion: brit milah and mikveh.
This is of interest from two perspectives: reform conversions
and Orthodox non-acceptance of anyone else's conversion. First,
the Reform. I know of a number of Reform Rabbis who do not
require either circumcision and/or immersion. Since the Talmud
is quite clear (I think) that both are required, are such Reform
conversions invalid even in the eyes of Conservative/Masorti
Rabbis? Second, it also seems quite clear to me that conversion
does NOT require a statement of belief in a particular
version of Jewish thought/style of living. Unless the Talmud
makes this clear later on, it would seem to me that regardless of
personal interpretation of Jewish practice, if one undergoes brit
milah/mikveh, the conversion is valid. If this is true, it would
seem to me to put Orthodox refusal to accept Conservative
conversions in a very tenuous position.
I respond:
As to Dan's first question the answer is, I believe, clear.
Conservative Judaism is a halakhic movement and does not accept
that conversions which did not involve bathing in a mikveh are
valid conversions. As to Dan's second point: I suggest we
reserve judgment until all the evidence is in.
Barry Frieslander writes:
Am I missing something here or is the Gemara saying that there
are only two primary requirements for conversion: circumcision
and bathing in the mikveh? We then get into the finer points of
the number of supervising fully qualified judges (or a Bet-Din
shel hedyotot), to bathe or not to bathe on Shabbat, to bathe by
day or night. Is that it? How did the rabbis know if that
prospective convertee was sincere? In times of war, how would the
rabbis know if the candidate was not a "Trojan Horse"? And what
about female convertees? I appreciate the female status of the
time, but surely the Gemara would have made certain provisions
for such an eventuality.
I respond:
The physical requirements are just those two: circumcision and
mikveh. Whether or not there are other non-physical requirements
- see my response to Dan Weber above and be patient until our
next shiur! As to the question of female convertees: as we shall
see, everything that is required of males is required of females
with the obvious exception of circumcision.
Shabbat shalom to everybody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Daily Mishnah Study
in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
16th July 1997 7 11th Tammuz 5757
Today's shiur is dedicated to the beloved and revered memory of
my father, Aharon Eliahu ben Feige Zipporah and Chaim Hirsch Roth
z"l, the 27th anniversary of whose Yahrzeit falls today.
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 47a:
There is a baraita which reads: When, in this day and age, a ger
comes to convert, we say to him, "What have you seen that you
have come to convert? Do you not know that Israel in this day
and age is afflicted, despised, insignificant and driven from
place to place, and troubles beset them?" If he replies, "I know
this and am really unworthy" - he is immediately accepted. We
teach him a few easy mitzvot, a few serious mitzvot, and we teach
him the sin of Leket, Shichechah, Peah and the Pauper's Tithe.
We also teach him the punishment [for non-observance] of the
mitzvot; we tell him, "You must understand that prior to your
assuming your new status if you eat forbidden fat you would not
be deserving of excision, and if you desecrate Shabbat you would
not deserve stoning; but now if you eat forbidden fat you will be
liable to excision and if you desecrate Shabbat you will be
liable to stoning". In similar fashion we teach him the reward
for observance of the mitzvot; we tell him, "You must understand
that the World to Come is intended only for the righteous, and
Israel in this day and age is not able to enjoy either most of
its goodness or most of its calamity". But we neither teach him
excessively or demandingly. If he accepts he is immediately
circumcised (and if ragged edges remain that disqualify the
circumcision he must be recircumcised). Once he has recovered we
see that he immediately bathes in a mikveh. Two rabbis must be
in attendance, and they must teach him a few easy mitzvot and a
few serious mitzvot. He bathes and comes out of the water, and
he is then a Jew for all considerations and purposes. In the
case of a woman - women guide her into the water up to her neck,
while two rabbis are in attendance outside [the pool room], to
teach her a few easy mitzvot and a few serious mitzvot. [All the
above applies] both to an ordinary convert and to a manumitted
indentured servant. In the same place as where menstruant women
bathe, so also do the ger and the manumitted indentured servant
bathe. Anything that is considered to be a barrier applies to
the convert, the manumitted indentured servant and the menstruant
woman.
EXPLANATIONS:
32. The above baraita, which is at the same time both extremely
long and pivotal for the purposes of our discussion, is the
sole topic of today's shiur. The baraita is pivotal for our
discussion because it is the very basis of procedure in the
matter of actual conversion - what is actually done to a
gentile to turn him or her into a Jew. For the remainder of
this shiur I shall try to elucidate the meaning of the
various components of the process as detailed by the baraita.
33. The baraita details the following stages:
a) establishing the 'bona fides' of the candidate (this is of
especial interest in view of the question asked by Barry
Frieslander in a previous shiur about the possibility of a
'Trojan horse');
b) a period of study by the candidate during which s/he
becomes familiar with some of the more salient points of
the Jewish religion;
c) a warning to the candidate that they should seriously
consider the fact that they are about to change forever
their status in the eyes of Torah law - and that change
will not necessarily be to their benefit as seen through
the eyes of their gentile experience heretofore;
d) circumcision - for male candidates;
e) bathing in a mikveh which irrevocably completes the
conversion process.
34. The Baraita uses the phrase "in this day and age". In a
later shiur I shall indicate what the implications are of the
Hebrew phrase 'ba-zeman ha-zeh". At this time let us just
accept that it indicates a period in which the Jewish people
is not sovereign over its own political destiny. (The use of
the phrase in this baraita would seem to indicate nothing
more than the fact that the tanna of this baraita - whoever
he was - accepts that when Israel has political independence
no candidates should be accepted at all! More of this when
we discuss the phrase "in this day and age" in detail in a
later shiur.)
35. The establishment of the candidate's 'bona fides' is
described rather luridly: the Bet-Din, it seems, is expected
to assume that the political status of the Jewish people as a
subject and homeless race must be sufficient reason to
establish the 'bona fides' of the candidate and the fact that
s/he has no ulterior motives. We shall see in a later shiur
that not all the sages accepted the premise that it was
necessary to establish that the candidate has no ulterior
motives - and that even if the candidate does have such
motives they do not necessarily disqualify.
36. The teaching segment of the conversion process as prescribed
in our baraita is that the candidate must be taught "a few
easy mitzvot, a few serious mitzvot, and we teach him the sin
of Leket, Shichechah, Peah and the Pauper's Tithe. I do
not want to get into a philosophical discussion here as to
the meaning of "easy" and "serious" in this context, since -
however multifarious the interpretive possibilities here -
the simple meaning is clear: the candidate must learn about
all kinds of religious requirements in Judaism. But the
manner of teaching is also prescribed: "we neither teach ...
excessively or demandingly". (Why, in a most unlikely
manner, the mitzvot of "Leket, Shichechah, Peah and the
Pauper's Tithe" are singled out for special consideration is
discussed later in the Gemara, so I will not let it detain us
here.)
37. After having studied Judaism to a certain extent it is
presumed that the candidate will be in a position to fully
appreciate the enormous change in status the s/he is about to
undertake. According to Jewish religious teaching the
observance of the mitzvot also creates the possibility of
culpability. If a non-Jew eats the fat surrounding the
intestines of an animal there are absolutely no halakhic
consequences for him; once this non-Jew becomes a Jew the
eating of the minimal amount of forbidden intestinal fat
("chelev") involves the severest of spiritual penalties. The
same will apply to Shabbat observance: if a non-Jew
desecrates Shabbat in any way there are absolutely no
halakhic consequences for him; once this non-Jew becomes a
Jew Shabbat desecration involves the severest of spiritual
penalties.
38. Apart from its obvious meaning for us, I think that this
warning had an extra meaning in the time of the tanna - the
first couple of centuries of the present common era. Among
the Roman and Greek aristocratic intellectuals of the time
there was widespread dissatisfaction with the prevailing
(Olympian) faith, which had lost all credibility. The
gentile world was ripe and yearning for a religious creed
that would be more intellectually and spiritually satisfying.
Judaism was extremely attractive to such people - and many
Roman women accepted Judaism for this reason. (There is more
than just antisemitism in the snide remark of Sallust, for
example, that "every second matrona in Rome nowadays is a
Jewess".) The Roman males were much more cautious, and while
many of them did in fact embrace Judaism completely (and some
of them in the highest echelons of the Imperial society) many
more could not bring themselves to accept the prior condition
of circumcision, which seemed to them with their Graeco-Roman
aesthetic sensibilities to be a barbaric mutilation of the
perfection of the human body. Thus it was that there were
very many Greek and Roman intellectuals who observed Judaism
without actually being Jews. (It was to this audience in
particular that Paul of Tarsus was to pitch his sales-talk so
effectively.) Thus, perhaps we should interpret the
admonitions in the baraita as being directed to this
possibility: why should a non-Jew want to take upon himself
the awesome responsibility of being a member of the Jewish
people when he can enjoy all the privileges without
shouldering any of the responsibilities of membership of the
Jewish people by observance without conversion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Daily Mishnah Study
in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
22nd July 1997 8 17th Tammuz 5757
Today's shiur is dedicated by Cheryl Birkner Mack in memory of
her mother, Esther bat Rivka ve-Shmuel z"l, on the 8th
anniversary of her Yahrzeit which falls today.
DISCUSSION:
So many questions and comments have piled up over the past week
or so that i have decided to devote today's shiur entirely to
discussion.
On 7th July I wrote that >>bathing in a mikveh is permitted on
Shabbat (for instance for a woman after her period of
menstruation). It is the change of status which cannot be
effected on Shabbat.<<
David Bockman questions:
But doesn't the tevilah of a nidah (after the time period is
completed) complete her nidah? Isn't that a "change of status?"
Shouldn't that be assur on Shabbat as a "final hammer blow?" Or
is it enabling the couple to engage in bi'ah on Shabbat and thus
falls under the positive mitzvah of "oneg". How is this
attendance at a mikveh on Shabbat possible?
I respond:
David's first assumption is, I think, erroneous. The bathing in
a mikveh by a woman after her period of menstruation does not
change her status in the Jewish people: she remains what she was
before - a fully qualified Jewish woman. Unlike the convert, her
bathing only changes her ritual status not her personal status.
Surely David's second assumption must be the correct one. (One
of the 39 types of activity forbidden under Shabbat law is
"delivering the final hammer blow" - i.e. doing something that
makes something "usable" that was not previously so. "Bi'ah"
refers to sexual intercourse between a married couple which is
certainly considered part of the joy of Shabbat.)
Uri Sobel writes:
I am puzzled by the Gemara quoted in RMSG of July 9th regarding
the three lessons we can infer (and the one we can't) from the
story of the self-proclaimed circumcised ger and the three Rabbis
who directed him to "wait until the following day when they would
supervise his bathing." I am unconvinced by any of the Gemara's
inferences. Quoting from them one by one, I ask the following
questions:
"Firstly that a ger requires three judges": Since the basis of
the Gemara's later rejection that "conversion also requires three
fully qualified rabbis" is "it could be that those three happened
to come along," it would seem logical to use the same argument to
reject the requirement of three altogether. It is particularly
puzzling, since every example prior to this seems to have
required only a single rabbi.
I respond to each question in turn:
I, too, have been puzzled by these same questions. My
understanding concerning the first point raised by Uri is that it
is a valid assumption that a Bet Din for conversion requires
three judges since a rabbi who was considered "mumcheh la-rabbim"
was legally qualified on his own to render decisions in "dinei
mamonot" [cases involving property] and "issur ve-heter" [ritual
issues]. If conversion may be considered a ritual question then
why should the sage not have acted alone, why did he wait for the
other two sages? Since conversion is obviously not considered to
be an issue of "issur ve-heter" and even more obviously is not a
case of "dinei mamonot", it must be a case of establishing
personal status. This, the Gemara reasonably concludes, may not
be done on the authority of one sage alone even if he is "mumcheh
la-rabbim". Thus the fact that the sage waited for the other two
to join him the following day, while it does indicate that
conversion must be supervised by three (the only other number
known in a Bet-Din that is not trying a capital case [dinei
nefashot], it does not necessarily indicate that they must all
three be fully qualified: he could just as well have chosen two
unqualified persons to join him. The Gemara says that you cannot
presume otherwise from the episode as recounted.
"[S]econdly that the process is not complete until there has been
both circumcision and bathing in a mikveh": Could not one come
to the conclusion that these Rabbis only require bathing, not
circumcision? I find this conclusion more compelling based on
the presumed doubt as to whether or not the circumcision was
valid for the purposes of conversion.
I respond:
But we have already established that "all the rest of the sages"
accept that both circumcision and bathing are essential elements.
Our sage, who is an Amora, would never have dreamed of going
contrary to halakhah already established by the Tannaim. It is
possible that he did assume that since the candidate was honest
enough to admit that his conversion was incomplete that he could
be relied upon when he said that he had been circumcised for the
purposes of conversion (and not for medical or aesthetic
reasons).
"[T]hirdly that a ger may not bathe at night": The story
reported makes no mention of what time of day the ger approached
the Rabbis, nor does it inform us as to what time of day the
Rabbis requested that the ger return for immersion.
I respond:
But the sage does say "wait until tomorrow". Since he could have
assembled any two other people to for the Bet Din why should he
delay unless this was the reason?
Lynn Segal has a difficulty with a phrase that appeared in our
shiur of 11th July last: "A case once came before Rabbi Yehudah
in which a man claimed that he a converted himself... Rabbi
Yehudah asked him whether he had children and was told that
he did. Rabbi Yehudah said: "Your admission is credited where it
only disqualifies yourself, but it cannot be credited where it
disqualifies your children". Lynn writes:
Might I ask you to explain what exactly is meant by "disqualify".
In the context you use it below, does it mean that the person
claiming to have self converted is declared to be a non-jew, as
in to reject the claim of conversion? Or is it the evidence that
is disqualified and judgment on the Jewishness reserved?
I respond:
The meaning of the passage is as follows:
If someone has enjoyed for some time the presumption of
Jewishness and then admits that they "self-converted" (to use
Lynn's felicitous expression), this person's children are
considered Jewish; however the actual person is considered to be
a candidate for conversion who must bathe in a mikveh in order to
complete the process.
On July 16th I wrote: <<Why should a non-Jew want to take upon
himself the awesome responsibility of being a member of the
Jewish people?<<
Barry Frieslander writes:
Surely this is the key to the whole topic. Why would a gentile
want to join a homeless people which was not master of its own
political destiny? I can see an argument that, as word got out,
once political independence is achieved, no further candidates
would be accepted, would give a prospective ger the incentive to
get in while the doors were still open. Against a background of
Greek/Roman instability; disenchantment with the establishment
religions of the time, I can understand that gentiles might begin
looking for "answers" elsewhere. So why was Judaism so attractive
to these people? Here we have a people lacking independence - as
we said - persecuted, homeless and oppressed, having accepted the
obligations and responsibilities of One G-d, HaKodesh, Borachu,
and all His commandments. To top it all, the male ger has to
subject himself to the "barbaric mutilation" of what he saw as
the body perfect. And it does not end there: once the ger has
been circumcised and bathed in the mikveh, he runs the risk of
being labeled a convert by Jews and a Jew by the non-Jewish
community. Surely, he runs the risk of being neither fish nor
fowl, not fully accepted by one and possibly shunned by the
other. So why would he/she want to become Jewish?
I respond:
>>Why would a gentile want to join a homeless people which was
not master of its own political destiny?<<
Surely that is the whole point: only someone who sincerely felt
that they could only find spiritual wholeness as part of the
fabric of the Jewish people would undertake such a step? (there
were certainly other views on this matter, as I have promised to
demonstrate, but this is the view of the tanna of this baraita.
>>So why was Judaism so attractive to these people?<<
Here is a brief account of a midrash [Shemot Rabba 30:9] that
sheds some light on this matter:
Once Achilles [the emperor's nephew] told Hadrian that he wanted
to covert to Judaism. The emperor was astounded: "You want to
join this people that I have crushed and killed [136-137 CE],
this most despicable of nations?! What on earth have you seen in
them that could make you want to convert?" His nephew replied
that the smallest child in Israel knows how the universe came
into being..."
They were seeking philosophical certainty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Daily Mishnah Study
in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
24th July 1997 9 19th Tammuz 5757
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 47b:
It was stated in the preceding baraita: "When, in this day and
age, a ger comes to convert, we say to him, 'What have you seen
that you have come to convert?' ... We teach him a few easy
mitzvot, a few serious mitzvot." What is the reason for this? -
So that if he desists, well and good. As Rabbi Chelbo has said,
"Converts are a problem for Israel like an adhesion" - just like
the biblical verse [Isaiah 14:1] which reads: "And the convert
will become attached to you and they shall adhere to the House of
Jacob".
EXPLANATIONS:
39. The Gemara asks why the baraita that we studied in our last
shiur requires us to ask would-be converts why they want
to convert: this is obviously not the warmest possible
reaction to an applicant! The answer that Gemara provides
suggests that this approach is intended to induce
self-deselection by the inappropriate candidate. Only the
really sincere candidate would take an attitude such as
"They're going to accept me whether they like it or not!" and
the less determined will be put off by the coldness of the
approach.
40. This negative approach towards candidates for conversion is
reflected in the statement of the Amora from Eretz-Israel,
Rabbi Chelbo. Rabbi Chelbo's dictum is, in fact, a very
clever play on words. In the book of Vayikra [Leviticus 13]
the Hebrew word 'sapachat' is used to describe a leprous
scab, and adhesion on the skin. In the book of Isaiah [14:1]
the same Hebrew root is used in another sense to describe the
adhesion of converts and their acceptance into the Jewish
fold. Rabbi Chelbo's dictum, then, has both negative and
positive conotations, but its main thrust is that conversion
should not be welcomed or encouraged since, for better or for
worse, it creates a problem for the Jewish people.
41. Many interpretations of Rabbi Chelbo's statement have been
made - some of them complimentary to converts and some
decidedly not so. Rashi [Western Europe, 11th century], for
instance, says that converts are problematic for Jews because
they not only maintain their previous mores and attitudes,
but the Jews in whose midst they have settled learn from
their bad example. Alternatively, he says (possibly not
realizing the contradiction between his two interpretations)
Jews relying on the intense study that the converts have gone
through tend to rely on them it ritual matters (which, it
would seem, Rashi considers to be ipso facto a bad thing).
The Tosafists [12th to 14th centuries, Western Europe] bring
several other negative interpretations of Rabbi Chelbo's
statement; then they bring a more positive one: the convert
presents a problem to those born Jewish because we are warned
in the Torah forty-eight (!) times not to maltreat the ger -
so it is almost impossible not to incur some sin or other
because of them! Other interpretations include the idea that
it was in order to attract gerim that Israel was exiled among
the gentile nations - which is 'problematic' for the Jewish
people. Yet another positive interpretation is quoted
(elsewhere) in the name of Rabbi Abraham the Ger (there's the
best of both worlds for you): Jews by choice do, indeed, pose
a problem for those born Jewish, since they are usually much
more learned in Judaism and much more meticulous in their
observance of the mitzvot!
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 47b:
[It was said in the baraita] "we teach him the sin of 'Leket',
'Shichechah', 'Peah' and the Pauper's Tithe". Why is this? -
Rabbi Chiyya bar-Abba reports Rabbi Yochanan as saying that this
is because according to gentile law a thief caught in the act may
be killed on the spot and even restitution of the stolen property
will not suffice to avert the punishment.
EXPLANATIONS:
42. 'Leket' refers to the right of the indigent to follow after
the reapers in a field in order to glean. 'Shichechah' is
"the sheaf forgotten" by reapers when loading them up onto
carts for transportation out of the field - these belong by
right to the indigent. 'Peah' is the portion of a field that
the farmer must leave unreaped: the indigent have a right to
reap it for themselves. During each seven-year Shemittah
cycle a tithe [10% of the produce] had to be left for the
indigent in the third and sixth years of the cycle. In the
eyes of a gentile, the sight of strangers entering uninvited
into his fields and taking away his own hard-earned produce
must have seemed like stealing. If he wasn't made aware that
in Israel this is not stealing but the indigent exercising a
right under law, he might very well have treated them just as
he would have treated any other thief caught by him in the
very act when he was still a gentile: he would kill them!
Thus, explains Rabbi Yochanan, even though these four mitzvot
might seem to come under the category of "less serious
mitzvot" - it is very necessary for the convert to be made
aware of these rights and privileges of the needy.
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 47b:
"But we neither teach him excessively or demandingly" [said the
baraita]. Rabbi Elazar asks which biblical verse is the basis
for this rule. [Ruth 1:18] relates that when Naomi realized that
Ruth was determined to accompany her she stopped trying to
persuade her otherwise. She had said "On Shabbat our freedom of
movement is curtailed by the Shabbat Limit" - to which Ruth had
responded "Wherever you walk I shall walk". [Naomi had said] "We
may not be alone in male company" [to which Ruth had replied]
"Where you spend the night so shall I". [Naomi had said] "We are
commanded 613 commandments" [to which Ruth had replied] "Your
people are my people". [Naomi had said] "We are forbidden
idolatry" [to which Ruth had replied] "Your God is my God".
[Naomi had said] "Four modes of execution have been delivered to
our courts" [to which Ruth had replied] "As you die so shall I".
[Naomi had said] "Two forms of burial have been delivered to our
courts" [to which Ruth had replied] "And thus shall i be buried".
Then immediately "when she saw that she was determined to
accompany her she ceased talking to her" [Ruth 1:17].
EXPLANATIONS:
43. Rabbi Elazar ben-Pedat, an Amora of Eretz-Israel who was both
Rabbi Yochanan's student and younger colleague [3rd century]
brings a most beautiful midrash on the first chapter of the
book of Ruth. In this midrash the private conversation
between Naomi and her daughter-in-law is seen as a paradigm
for conversion procedure. In this midrash Ruth is the
candidate for conversion and Naomi represents the Bet-Din.
First of all Naomi tries to dissuade Ruth by telling her to
go back to her own people - just like Orpah did. When that
doesn't work, Naomi is depicted as teaching Ruth halakhah -
but with the intention of discouraging her. It is only when
she [the Bet-Din] sees that Ruth [the candidate] is
absolutely determined that she stops the negative approach
and accepts Ruth as her fellow-traveler.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Daily Mishnah Study
in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
30th July 1997 10 25th Tammuz 5757
MISHNAH TRACTATE YEVAMOT, CHAPTER TWO, MISHNAH EIGHT:
If it is claimed that a man [had sexual relations] with an
indentured handmaid who subsequently was manumitted, or with a
non-Jewish woman who subsequently converted - he should not marry
the woman. But if he does marry her a divorce is not required.
If it is claimed that a man [had sexual relations] with a married
woman and the court forced a divorce, if [her lover] marries her
[after her divorce from her husband] a divorce is required.
EXPLANATIONS:
44. I have added this mishnah (and its Gemara) to our study of
Giyyur in order to deal with the issue of conversion that is
not altruistic. Only one element in this mishnah concerns
us, so I repeat it here without the other details:
If it is claimed that a man [had sexual relations] with a
non-Jewish woman who subsequently converted - he should not
marry the woman. But if he does marry her a divorce is not
required.
This mishnah describes a situation in which it is rumoured
that Reuven has had sexual relations with Christina - and for
the purposes of our discussion (and the decision of the
Gemara) - it is immaterial whether the rumour is justified or
not. Subsequently Christina converts to Judaism through a
valid process of giyyur. Our mishnah now presents two
possibilities: the more preferred course of action and the
less preferred course of action. It is preferable that
Reuven not now marry Channah-Sarah (formerly Christina). The
later discussion in the Gemara will explain why. However, if
in spite of this halakhic disapproval Reuven and
Channah-Sarah do marry - the marriage is halakhically valid
and there is no reason for the court to intervene and
separate the the couple.
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 24b:
So she is a valid convert. Compare the mishnah with the
following baraita: If a man converts because of a woman or a
woman because of a man, or if someone converts in order to enjoy
temporal power - Rabbi Nechemya says that they are not valid
converts. For Rabbi Nechemya has said that those who convert
because of lions or dreams and those that convert as did many in
the time of Mordechai and Esther are not valid converts unless
they do so in this day and age.
EXPLANATIONS:
45. The Gemara starts off the discussion on the mishnah by
drawing a halakhic conclusion: "so she is a valid convert".
The reasoning is obvious: if, as the mishnah specifically
states, there is no cause for the court to intervene and
separate Reuven and Channah-Sarah it must be a valid
marriage; and if it is a halakhically valid marriage we must
also assume that the conversion of Reuven's wife was a valid
conversion. This, despite the fact that there is good cause
to suspect that Christina's motives in converting to Judaism
were ulterior rather than altruistic.
46. The consequences of the rule as laid down in the mishnah are
now contrasted with an entirely different view: that
exemplified by Rabbi Nechemya. Rabbi Nechemya was an eminent
sage in the middle years of the second century, a colleague
of rabbis Yehudah [bar-Ilai], Shimon [bar-Yochai] and Rabbi
Yosse - the younger generation coming after Rabbi Akiva's
generation. The period in which they were active was one of
the darkest and most difficult the Jews in Eretz-Israel had
known. The Bar-Kokhba revolt against the Roman overlords had
come to an ignominious end [135 CE] and the emperor Hadrian
(the uncle of Achilles whom we met last time) had outlawed
the practice and teaching of Judaism in Eretz-Israel on pain
of death. This was no idle threat: Rabbi Akiva, who had
ignored the new law, was arrested and executed [136]. Thus
the years 135 to about 150 were years in which it was very
dangerous to be a practicing Jew.
47. Rabbi Nechemya, whose opinion the Gemara quotes from a
baraita, says that in order for a conversion to be valid we
must be certain that there are no ulterior motives involved.
If we suspect that a man has converted in order to marry a
Jewish woman or that a woman has converted in order to marry
a Jewish man or for any other ulterior motive - such as to
enjoy a position of authority or out of fear - such a
conversion must be deemed invalid. Rabbi Nechemya gives
concrete examples: "those who converted because of lions" is
a reference to the Samaritans who, according to the
(non-historical) biblical account [2Kings 17:26] accepted
Judaism out of fear of a horde of lions that were roaming
their countryside. People then had great faith in dreams,
and it is possible that someone might convert because they
dreamed that that was the right thing for them to do and out
of fear as to the untoward consequences if they did not do
so. The bible also tells us that after the victory of
Mordechai and Esther over Haman "many of the people of the
land became Jews for fear of Mordechai had fallen upon them"
[Esther 8:17].
48. Rabbi Nechemya's view seems to be that only in times of
Israel's great distress (such as his own time) can one assume
the altruism of a candidate for conversion - an altruism that
he views as being essential to the validity of the conversion
process. Thus his view is now seen as being in direct
contrast to the view of the tanna in the mishnah concerning
the altruism of a candidate for conversion.
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 24b:
Are we really to understand "In this day and age" literally?!
Understand rather that he means "at such a time as this".
EXPLANATIONS:
49. Before attacking the issue of the two opposing views, the
Gemara first questions the implications of Rabbi Nechemya's
view. He had been quoted as saying that "those who convert
because of lions or dreams and those that convert as did many
in the time of Mordechai and Esther are not valid converts
unless they do so in this day and age." A literal
understanding of his statement would imply that Rabbi
Nechemya would only accept candidates for conversion during
the years of the Hadrianic persecution. This, surely could
not have been his intention. He must have meant that
conversions are only valid, as we have said, in times of
Israel's great distress - such as his own time - when one can
safely assume the altruism of a candidate for conversion.
To be continued.
DISCUSSION:
In the explanations given in our last shiur concerning the Greek
and Roman predilection for Judaism, exemplified by the
conversation I reported between the Emperor Hadrian and his
nephew Achilles, I wrote:
>>His nephew replied that the smallest child in Israel knows how
the universe came into being... They were seeking philosophical
certainty.<<
David Bockman comments:
Strange! Most of the gerim who come to me have said that they
were trying to ESCAPE philosophical certainty, and that Judaism
allows them allegiance to God with the added plus of being
open-minded, as the sages were. Maybe it was exactly the
opposite: the Greeks certainly had "philosophical" certainty, and
maybe the Romans did as well. But perhaps Hadrian's nephew is
comparing the emperor to "Katan she-be-Yisrael", that such
certainty (especially the knowledge of how the world came into
existence, considered science in those days) is the hallmark of
childishness! Perhaps he was saying, rather, that Judaism
offered access to a sense of obligation and mystery (as certainly
seemed to be the fad among the Roman religiously-seeking populace
at the time).
Our next shiur will probably be the last to deal with the current
topic, so if you have questions or comments - now is the time to
send them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Daily Mishnah Study
in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
5th August 1997 11 2nd Av 5757
Today's shiur is dedicated by Reuven Boxman to the memory of his
father, Daniel ben Yitzchak HaCohen z"l whose Yahrzeit falls
today.
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 24b:
This has also been the subject of an Amoraic statement . Rav
Yitzchak bar-Shemuel bar-Marta refers to a statement by Rav: "The
halakhah is according to those whose say that they all are
converts". In which case, why not in the first place? - Because
of what Rav Assi says: "Remove from yourself aspersions and lewd
comments" [Proverbs 4:24].
EXPLANATIONS:
50. We have seen in the previous shiur that the Tanna of the
mishnah under discussion permits a couple to marry (if they
really insist) where the woman had converted. Previously as
a gentile and there had been a rumour that she was having an
affair with the Jew who is now her husband. This suggests
that the Tanna of the mishnah accepts converts who raise a
reasonable question concerning the sincerity of their
conversion. However, we also saw that Rabbi Nechemya goes to
the opposite extreme: he will only accept converts who join
the people of Israel at their peril, since this only can
assure us that their action is entirely altruistic.
51. This dichotomy of views between the Tanna of the mishnah and
Rabbi Nechemya has also been addressed by the great Amora,
Rav. His statement, as quoted, clearly decides in favour of
the more liberal approach: the halakhah is not according to
Rabbi Nechemya, but according to the Tanna of the mishnah who
says that they are all valid converts - regardless of the
extent of their altruism or otherwise.
52. Having established the view of Rav the Gemara now asks an
obvious question. The Tanna of the mishnah would have
preferred that our couple not marry, but agreed that if they
did indeed marry that the marriage was valid. If the
halakhah is as Rav says it is why the preference that they
not marry? "Why [should they] not [marry] in the first
place?" - why does the Tanna say that he would prefer them
not to marry, but will recognize such a marriage if such
recognition is required? This does not sound like an
unqualified approval such a Rav is proposing! The problem is
solved by the later Amora of Eretz-Israel, Rabbi Assi. He
says that the reason for the Tanna's hesitation has nothing
to do with the validity of the conversion or the convert's
motives. The Tanna is concerned not to give malicious gossip
something to feed on. There was a rumour that Reuven and
Christina were having an affair: inevitably, if Reuven
marries Channa-Sarah, people will say "I told you so! They
WERE having an affair!" A verse in the book of Proverbs
[4:24] suggests that one should take the necessary steps to
protect oneself from malicious gossip; therefore, under the
circumstances, it would be better for their good name if
Reuven and Channah-Sarah were not to marry. However, if they
insist there is no halakhic impediment.
GEMARA: TRACTATE YEVAMOT, FOLIO 24b:
There is a baraita which reads: "Converts will not be accepted in
the Messianic Age; similarly, converts were not accepted during
the reigns of David and Solomon." Rabbi Elazar says that this is
based on [an interpretation of] the verse Isaiah 54:15.
53. The Gemara now brings a baraita which seems to support the
view of Rabbi Nechemya against the Tanna of the mishnah.
This baraita tells us that converts will not be accepted in
the Messianic Age: this will be the age of Israel's ultimate
vindication, and the great political and religious successes
of the people of Israel at that future time will be such that
it would be impossible to know whether someone was converting
"because nothing succeeds like success" or for altruistic
reasons. Since the motives of the candidates cannot be
determined objectively, none will be accepted. Similarly,
During the reigns of David and Solomon converts were not
accepted for similar reasons: Israel was too successful.
(This baraita goes directly contrary to other midrashim which
suggest that converts WERE accepted during those reigns -
Uriah the Hittite was a convert and all Solomon's foreign
wives were converts according to these midrashim.) The tenor
of this baraita certainly would suggest that in the modern
State of Israel no converts should be accepted - a
possibility that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has
every put forward as a halakhic norm.
54. Rabbi Elazar [ben-Pedat] seeks to sustain this view by basing
it on the interpretation of a Biblical verse. According to
this midrashic interpretation Isaiah 54:15 should be read as
follows: When Israel is in fear for its existence and God is
not manifested, then -and only then - whoever chooses to
become a ger shall be counted as a Jew.
55. Later halakhah tried to create a synthesis between these two
views: let me try to summarize the statements of Rambam and
the Shulchan Arukh on this matter. The Bet Din should
satisfy itself that the convert is asking to become Jewish
for altruistic reasons (as per the view of Rabbi Nechemya);
however, if a person has already been circumcised and bathed
in a mikveh they are fully-fledged and bona fide Jews - even
if it should be proven that their conversion was for an
ulterior motive. [Rambam, Kedushah, Issurei Bi'ah 13:14-17;
Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 268:12.]
DISCUSSION:
Forwarded message:
Art Kamlet quotes our mishnah: >>If it is claimed that a man [had
sexual relations] with a non-Jewish woman who subsequently
converted - he should not marry the woman. But if he does marry
her a divorce is not required.<< Then he writes:
So if Reuven has not had relations with Christine (Now Chana
Sarah) and they wish to marry, and Shimon is jealous of Reuven
and would like to marry Chana Sarah himself, then if he spreads a
rumor that R & Ch-S have had relations, Shimon has a much better
chance to marry her? I know Shimon would be doing a bad thing,
but he would be helped by this rule.<<
I respond:
I think that today's shiur has removed that possibility: Reuven
and Channa-Sarah are perfectly free to marry if they wish -
regardless of rumours!
Ed Frankel writes:
I understand Rabbi Nechemya's view, and wonder if it is as valid
today as it once was considered. For example, [1] while one does
not convert to marry, does one convert today for the sake of
shalom bayit when there is already an intermarriage? Also, [2]
what if the bet din realizes that a member of the couple before
it would not ever have considered Judaism were it not for the
Jewish partner, but where it is believed that the potential
convert is sincere? Finally, [3] what would the halakhic view be
on kiruv (drawing in) of potential Jews who have some affiliation
with the Jewish community but are not yet Jewish.
I respond (as briefly as possible):
1. Obviously a conversion here would be most appropriate if the
non-Jewish spouse agrees.
2. Ditto.
3. I have never understood why some Conservative leaders think
that it is a Mitzvah to seek out potential converts - and I
am at a loss to explain their view halakhically. It should
be clear from everything that we have discussed so far that
the candidate must seek out the Jewish people - not the other
way round!
*****************************************************************
To dedicate a shiur (lesson) send an amount of your choice,
marked "For RMSG," to: The Foundation for Masorti Judaism in
Israel, 6525 Belcrest Rd., Suite 305, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Attn: Mr. James Demb. (Contributions are tax-deductible in the
US.) YOU MUST ALSO send a private e-mail, stating the requested
date and the occasion for the dedication, to Rabbi Simchah Roth
<siroth@inter.net.il>. This is also the address for discussion,
queries, comments and requests. Please feel free to pass this
material on; my request is that you cite me as the source.
The RMSG archive may be accessed at the following site:
http://www.jtsa.edu/lists/rmsg A search engine is provided.