Sh’elah
A woman whose boyfriend is a rabbi wishes to convert to Judaism. She is quite knowledgeable and is also enrolled in a formal course of study under Reform auspices. The woman is only months away from ordination as a Unitarian Universalist minister and intends to serve a UU church. She finds no conflict between her UU faith and Judaism, and notes that there are already born Jews serving as UU ministers. Should the beit din allow the conversion of this woman? (Rabbi Lisa Rubin, Director, Exploring Judaism, Central Synagogue, New York)
T’shuvah
We know that at different times and in different circumstances, rabbis have set different standards for conversion. This reflects the reality that “halachic decisions cannot be understood in terms of rabbinic law alone, but must be studied in the framework of the sociological and organizational needs of the decisor and those whom he supports.”[1] How a rabbi weighs a prospective convert’s motivation and commitment depends on the circumstances. “Given the complexity of human behavior and the near impossibility of sorting out ‘sincere’ from insincere motivations, Jewish law leaves the decision to the discretion of the rabbi, who must determine whether the candidate for conversion chooses Judaism for reasons the community would find acceptable.”[2] In the words of R. Joseph Karo, “Hakol l’fi r’ot beit din”—“It is up to the court to decide as it sees fit.”[3]
In making a decision about this woman’s suitability as a prospective giyoret, we are being asked whether Judaism and Unitarian Universalism are compatible commitments. Let us first consider what it means to be a Jew, whether by birth or by naturalization (conversion).
I. What is conversion to Judaism and what does it entail?
A. Conversion: Becoming a ben/bat b’rit
The religion of ancient Israel had no formal process of “conversion.” When the Torah refers to the ger it does not mean a “convert,” i.e., one who has accepted the religion of Israel. Rather, it means a non-Israelite who lives permanently among the Israelites—a non-citizen, who was obligated to adhere to some Israelite laws, and had the privilege of participating in some rites.[4] However, even before the Babylonian Exile, the people of Israel also engaged with the question of whether a non-Israelite could become a devoted adherent of the God of Israel, and if so, whether that made them an Israelite/Judean/Jew.[5] (Indeed, some scholars view the Book of Ruth as a post-exilic polemic against the view of Ezra-Nehemiah that the community of Israel is restricted to born Israelites.[6]) Negotiating the relationship between ethnic Jewishness and religious Jewishness was a complex process that extended over centuries.[7] In the context of first the Persian, and then the Greco-Roman, environment, our sages recognized the Torah’s ger toshav, “resident stranger,” as an increasingly obsolete category and instead reinterpreted ger to mean “proselyte,” i.e., one who wishes to join the house of Israel by committing not only to the God of Israel, but to the way of life ordained for Israel in the Sinai covenant.
Acknowledging the God of Israel as the one God who created the universe, i.e., rejecting idolatry, was not sufficient, however, to make one a Jew. Rather, to the rabbis it made one a righteous gentile, an adherent of the seven commandments of the children of Noah.[8] Becoming a ger tzedek, a “righteous proselyte,” was something entirely different. That required committing not only to the God of Israel, but also to the laws of Israel, i.e., to the Sinai covenant. To convert means becoming a party to the covenant, a ben/bat b’rit.
Our sages saw Ruth as the paradigmatic convert, and her interaction with Naomi became the paradigm of how Jews should treat prospective converts.[9] A midrashic reading of the dialogue between Ruth and Naomi[10] reinterprets it to become the model for standard conversion procedure: investigation into self-serving motives as opposed to genuine spiritual seeking; discouragement from taking on a burdensome fate; warnings about the demands of this new lifestyle; teaching the prospective convert the practicalities of living a Jewish life, but without too much burdensome and discouraging detail; ensuring that they understand the consequences of adherence or non-adherence to the mitzvot (i.e., reward and punishment in the world-to-come), and then finally formalizing their entry into the community of Israel through circumcision (for males) and immersion. All these are also detailed in a baraita that becomes the basis for all subsequent discussion of conversion. The baraita includes this provision: “If he accepts (kibbel), we circumcise him immediately….”[11]
The crucial term here is kibbel, “accept.” Prior to carrying out the formal procedures (circumcision and immersion) that effect the change in legal status, the ger/giyoret must accept the responsibilities of being a party to the covenant (ben/bat b’rit). That is what it means to be a Jew.[12] We formally affirm that inherited status of ben/bat b’rit for each newborn Jewish child, either through b’rit milah or b’rit bat; we formally extend that status to those who wish to join the house of Israel as parties to the covenant by naturalizing them through gerut, conversion. “Just as Israel entered the covenant (nichn’su lab’rit) by means of three commandments, so converts enter – by means of ritual circumcision, immersion, and [when the Temple stood,] bringing an offering.”[13]
The baraita’s language of “acceptance” is the same language the Mishnah uses to explain the significance of reciting the Sh’ma twice daily:
Rabbi Joshua ben Korḥa said: Why does [the paragraph beginning] Hear, O Israel precede [the paragraph beginning] If, then, you obey the commandments? So that one first accepts upon oneself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven (’ol malchut shamayim), and then after that, the yoke of the commandments (’ol hamitzvot).[14]
Thus Rashi explains that the essence of conversion is entry into the covenant, expressed as “accepting the yoke of the commandments:”
“We inform them about some of the commandments”—For now, by means of immersion, they are completing the process of conversion. Therefore at the moment of fulfilling the commandment of immersion, they must accept upon themselves the yoke of the commandments.[15]
And Maimonides phrased it in this way:
Thus for all generations, if an idolator wishes to enter the covenant and to take refuge beneath the wings of the Divine Presence, and accept upon himself the yoke of Torah [emphasis added], he requires circumcision, immersion, and the making of an offering; or for a woman, immersion and an offering. For it is written (Num. 15:15): There shall be one law for you and for the resident stranger.[16]
B. What must a convert believe?
Modern readers may find it strange that the Tannaitic locus classicus on conversion does not explicitly address belief. But Jews stood out in the Greco-Roman context as the only genuine monotheists. Indeed, they were so exceptional in this regard that Roman law recognized their right not to offer sacrifices to the emperor or to other gods. Furthermore, we know that Greco-Roman synagogues attracted a considerable number of non-Jews who attended with some regularity, but did not formally join the community.[17] Anyone with a serious interest in actually becoming a Jew knew perfectly well that the Jews were monotheists and that they believed in a God who created the universe and revealed to them the laws by which they were to live. Accepting the commandments thus implicitly affirmed acceptance of the Commander.[18]
Maimonides, for whom correct belief was of paramount importance, chose to add a doctrinal component to the process of conversion: “…and we inform them of the essential principles of the religion, which are the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry….[19] While this view was not adopted by either the Tur or the Shulchan Aruch,[20] many later authorities were troubled by the fact that the foundational halachic text, the baraita in Y’vamot, does not explicitly set a standard for belief. Since the halachah regards the formal conversion procedures (milah and t’vilah) as valid after the fact, it is possible that someone could go through the formal process of conversion without making an explicit and clear statement of what they actually believe about the meaning of those acts, or committing to living a covenantal life.[21] In theory, of course, the sages viewed this as unlikely in the extreme, since the halachah mandates that the beit din should examine a prospective convert’s motivation and reject any for whom conversion is a means to personal gain (a spouse, status, money, etc.), leaving only a sincere desire to enter the Sinai covenant. In practice, however, the issue has always been less clear cut, for how can anyone measure the sincerity of another person? Sincerely accepting the obligations of the covenant, however, is what is required. Thus, for example, R. Solomon Zalman Lipschitz (1765–1839) explained that the halachah meant only that a formal conversion was valid after the fact even if the convert was not properly taught; but “[failure to] accept the commandments obviously invalidates [the conversion], for this is the essence of conversion and the entry into the Jewish religion.”[22]
R. Mark Washofsky has summarized this matter as follows:
A candidate’s sincerity is judged by his or her demonstrated desire to practice Judaism in accordance with our beliefs and interpretations. We insist that the convert declare his or her free choice to enter the covenant between God and Israel, renounce all other faiths and religions, pledge loyalty to the Jewish people, and promise to live a Jewish life and raise his or her children as Jews. As Reform Jews, we define our range of acceptable “beliefs and interpretations” as liberally as we can;…[o]n the other hand, we are a religious community, and we therefore share in common certain ideas as to what that designation means….One who wishes to join our community but who rejects the most central elements of Jewish religion as we interpret it is not ready for conversion.[23]
II. Can a Unitarian Universalist be a ben/bat b’rit?
In the case before us, the prospective giyoret insists that there is no conflict between becoming a faithful Jew and remaining a faithful Unitarian Universalist, even becoming a Unitarian Universalist minister, because there are no conflicts between the beliefs of the two religions. We reject that contention. To put it simply: Unitarian Universalism does not require an exclusive commitment to any particular religious tradition, but Judaism does. Our tradition likens the covenant to a marriage between God and Israel—but it is not an open marriage.
Liberal Judaism affirms the value of religious pluralism in our society. Our understanding of pluralism allows us to engage in interreligious dialogue, participate in interfaith worship that is respectful to all faiths involved, and occasionally borrow non-Jewish patterns and styles of worship and adapt them to our own distinctly Jewish worship. That understanding, however, also presumes the existence of real and essential differences, distinctions, and boundaries between religious faiths and faith communities. Judaism, therefore, is different from other faiths in its commitments and practices, and it is frequently the task of rabbis to call our people’s attention to this distinctiveness and the boundary lines that define our unique religious tradition.[24]
According to its official website, “Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religious tradition that was formed from the consolidation of two religions: Unitarianism and Universalism.”[25] A history of the religion provided there traces its roots to the pre-Nicene Christians who rejected trinitarianism and offers this conclusion: “Our history has carried us from liberal Christian views about Jesus and human nature to a rich pluralism that includes theist and atheist, agnostic and humanist, pagan, Christian, Jew, and Buddhist.”[26] The Unitarian Universalist website further states:
We have radical roots and a history as self-motivated spiritual people: we think for ourselves and recognize that life experience influences our beliefs more than anything.
We need not think alike to love alike. We are people of many beliefs and backgrounds: people with a religious background, people with none, people who believe in a God, people who don’t, and people who let the mystery be.
We are Unitarian Universalist and Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Humanist, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, atheist and agnostic, believers in God, and more [emphasis added].[27]
And:
Our beliefs are diverse and inclusive. We have no shared creed. Our shared covenant…supports “the free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” Though Unitarianism and Universalism were both liberal Christian traditions, this responsible search has led us to embrace diverse teachings from Eastern and Western religions and philosophies….
We are united in our broad and inclusive outlook, and in our values, as expressed in our seven Principles. We are united in shared experience: our open and stirring worship services, religious education, and rites of passage; our work for social justice; our quest to include the marginalized; our expressions of love.[28]
And:
In Unitarian Universalism, you can bring your whole self: your full identity, your questioning mind, your expansive heart. By creating meaningful communities that draw from many wisdom traditions, and more, we are embodying a vision “beyond belief:” a vision of peace, love, and understanding.
We have more than one way of experiencing the world and understanding the sacred….
Explore the links below to learn how Unitarian Universalists weave these traditions and identities into who they are today.
Atheist and Agnostic / Buddhist / Christian / Earth-Centered / Hindu / Humanist / Jewish / Muslim[29]
This commitment to openness to belief is matched by a commitment to openness in praxis.
Many Unitarian Universalists and our congregations celebrate Christian holidays like Christmas, Jewish holidays like Passover, and Pagan Winter Solstice, among others. Our holiday services use the stories and traditions creatively, calling us to our deeper humanity and our commitment to the good.[30]
How compatible is this Unitarian Universalist self-understanding with Judaism?
- God
The Torah says: I am the ETERNAL your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage; you shall have no other gods besides Me.[31] But a Unitarian Universalist is free to choose to worship multiple deities or powers, including the earth, Jesus,[32] Hindu deities, and more; or no deities.[33] It may well be that as an individual, a UU feels most comfortable relating to God as articulated by Jews. But according to the UU website, UU worship is characterized by the inclusion of spiritual practices (prayers, holidays, and rituals) from all traditions. For a Jew to engage in the worship of any power in addition to God is to engage in shituf, adding other powers alongside the One God, and we are forbidden to do so.[34] - Torah
To be a ben/bat b’rit means to be committed to the primacy and exclusivity of Torah as one’s spiritual path. UUs are committed to finding meaning equally in a range of places. How can a committed Unitarian Universalist affirm the unique authority and exclusive claim of Torah in their life? As this committee has said:Reform Judaism is a religious movement of Jews dedicated to the covenant between God and the Jewish people. If we do not insist that the ger meet this fundamental standard and find herself ready to affirm the reality of God in Jewish religious life and experience, it would be a legitimate question whether we have any standards at all.[35]
In the case before us, we can simply replace the word “God” with the word “Torah.” This individual may feel that her religious outlook and way of life are compatible with a Jewish outlook and way of life. But avowing a desire to commit to Torah while also maintaining a commitment to remain open to other ideas, philosophies, religions, and spiritual practices is completely illogical. The Sinai covenant requires an exclusive commitment on our part, not just an agreement to go along with it as long as it is compatible with another system of sacred meaning that holds one’s primary loyalty.
- Israel
Each of us has multiple identities, and at different times and in different contexts we bond with different circles—by family, by family role, by gender, by nationality, by politics, by skin color, by leisure interest, by occupation, etc. But kol Yisrael areivim zeh bazeh—“All Israel are responsible one for the other.” We Jews are an extended family; we are each other’s community. And our collective relationship with God calls us to be an am kadosh, a holy people, of which the synagogue, the k’hilah k’doshah (holy community), is a representation in miniature. Just as we may not simultaneously be married to two people, so we may not be fully committed to two sacred paths, or two holy communities. The synagogue must be a Jew’s holy community. Yes, there are Jews who find meaning in Unitarian Universalism. But as the UU website shows, they do it by selecting elements of their Jewish heritage to fit into the UU framework.Many Unitarian Universalists (UUs) have a connection to Judaism. Whether we are ethnically, culturally, or spiritually Jewish, whether we’re married to a Jewish person, or simply inspired by Jewish wisdom, we have a place in Unitarian Universalism. One of the six sources we draw upon in our worship and religious education is “Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves.”
We honor Jewish holidays with a progressive and inclusive twist. UUs with Jewish heritage hold Passover seders, celebrate Hanukkah, and mark the High Holy Days. When we worship together, Judaism comes into play in a variety of ways depending on the congregation. In the fall our Sunday services often draw on themes from Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Our winter holiday-themed services often tell the story of Hanukkah. In the spring, we tell the stories of Moses and the Exodus, and some congregations gather around an all-ages all-faiths table to join in a celebratory Passover Seder led by Jewish UUs. Any time of year in our congregations, we may hear wisdom from the Bible, some midrash, a Hasidic tale, or a funny story from a Jewish culture.[36
This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, living in covenantal relationship with the God of Sinai.We are troubled that this prospective convert cannot see any conflict between Unitarian Universalism and Judaism. Yes, both traditions reject the trinitarian doctrine that became the basis of organized Christianity; but so does Islam, and no one would claim that one can simultaneously be a faithful Jew and a faithful Muslim. To reduce Judaism to the rejection of trinitarianism is absurdly simplistic, and deeply disingenuous. We do not intend to disparage Unitarian Universalism in any way. As the Pittsburgh Platform put it, “We recognize in every religion an attempt to grasp the Infinite, and in every mode, source or book of revelation held sacred in any religious system the consciousness of the indwelling of God in man.”[37] But that does not mean that all traditions are interchangeable. To be a Jew is to follow a distinct and distinctive spiritual path. The UU path is perfectly acceptable for a UU. We cannot say, however, that it is an acceptable path for a Jew who wants to be faithful to the covenant between God and the Jewish people.
We are in no way closing the door to interfaith activities. Nor are we engaging in a knee-jerk Jewish reaction to anything with Christian overtones, however attenuated and superficial. We are not saying that Jews should not attend, as guests, the sacred experiences of our neighbors, our friends, and, sometimes, our relatives. We value the opportunity to engage, as individuals and as congregations, with our neighbors from other religious traditions, in ways that respect the distinctiveness and maintain the integrity of all traditions present. Indeed, as the chasm grows in our society between those who live with an awareness of the transcendent and those who are insensible of it, it is not at all surprising that religious Jews will sometimes find more commonality with religious non-Jews than with non-religious Jews. But all of that is different from what we are facing here, which is the contention that one can be simultaneously a Jew and something else, that one can live wholeheartedly devoted to two paths. For faithful Jews that is beyond the pale.
III. Additional considerations
The would-be giyoret argues that she knows many Jewish UUs, including UU ministers, apparently implying that it would be unfair to hold her to higher standards than born Jews. It is true that born Jews can explore other paths, and that “they remain part of us as long as they do not abandon our people or join a different religion.”[38] But a Jew who indicates that they are “separating themselves from the community” (poresh min hatzibur) by adopting another religion is considered a mumar, a “changed” Jew, i.e., an apostate. The mumar does not cease to be a Jew; Jewishness—acquired through birth or through conversion—is permanent. However, the mumar ceases to be a Jew in good standing in the community, and is excluded from participation in Jewish ritual.[39] Were any beit din to convert this woman, she would immediately become a mumar, and therefore no beit din should convert her. If at any time she wishes to commit to an exclusive fidelity and enter the covenant, she would be welcome.
Furthermore, this individual is about to become a UU minister. Were a beit din to convert her, she would then constitute a role model for Jews who might be exploring Unitarian Universalism. They would learn from her that it is perfectly acceptable for a Jew to share their commitment to God and Torah with other religious frameworks, and that it is perfectly acceptable for a Jew to participate wholeheartedly in a wide variety of spiritual practices that, in their own context, teach messages that are not compatible with a Jewish covenantal commitment. At that point she would become, for them, chotei umachti et harabim—“one who transgresses and causes others to transgress.”[40]
Finally, the question alludes to the fact that this individual is in a relationship with a Jew. Although conversion for the purpose of marriage is expressly forbidden by the Talmud and the codes, nevertheless the very same halachic literature has plenty of examples of individuals whose conversions were not purely motivated by religious devotion, but who came to a genuine devotion.[41] In the modern era, the reality is that many individuals first encounter Judaism through a prospective spouse, and we are happy for it. As this committee has said: “…[I]t is difficult to imagine a more ‘sincere’ purpose for choosing Judaism than the desire to join one’s spouse in creating a cohesive Jewish home and family.”[42] In the case before us, however, it is clear that conversion would not lead to a “cohesive Jewish home and family.”
IV. Conclusion
In 1971, a distressed rabbi inquired of R. Solomon Freehof concerning a proposed interfaith activity that was acceptable to the Christians involved, but trod on Jewish sensibilities. In supporting the rabbi’s negative response, Freehof offered commiseration: “Here, therefore, is again a case where the ecumenical mood unfairly makes us look narrow and provincial.”[43] Half a century later, those sentiments still resonate. We want to be open and welcoming to all those who sincerely want to join us. But in a time and place where many people think that religious identity is just as fluid and self-defined as gender identity, we must dissent, and insist on the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the covenant between God and Israel, and expect that those who join us will accept what that means. We therefore advise the beit din that they should not proceed with this conversion.
CCAR Responsa Committee
Joan S. Friedman, chair
Howard L. Apothaker
Daniel Bogard
Carey Brown
Lawrence A. Englander
Lisa Grushcow
Audrey R. Korotkin
Rachel S. Mikva
Amy Scheinerman
Brian Stoller
David Z. Vaisberg
Dvora E. Weisberg
Jeremy Weisblatt
[1] Moshe Zemer, “Ambivalence in Proselytism,” in Walter Jacob and Moshe Zemer, editors, Conversion to Judaism in Jewish Law, Studies in Progressive Halacha, vol. 3 (Pittsburgh: Freehof Institute of Progressive Halacha, 1994), 93; David Ellenson, Tradition in Transition (New York: Lanham, 1989), 92-93.
[2] Mark Washofsky, Jewish Living: A Guide to Contemporary Reform Practice (New York: UAHC Press, 2000), 210.
[3] Bet Yosef to Tur YD 268 s.v. u-mah she-katav rabeinu.
[4] See David L. Lieber, “Strangers and Gentiles,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, (Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), Vol. 19, 241-242. Gale eBooks (accessed July 20, 2020). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX2587519250/GVRL?u=ohlnk162&sid=GVRL &xid=ee7b53d5.
[5] See the extensive discussion of whether to render the classical Greek term Ioudeios as Jews or Judeans in English, and the implications of that decision, in Timothy Michael Law and Charles Halton, editors, Jew and Judean: A MARGINALIA Forum on Politics and Historiography in the Translation of Ancient Texts (Creative Commons, Marginalia Review of Books, 26 August 2014).
[6] Adele Reinhartz, “Ruth,” in Adele Berlin and Marc Brettler, editors, The Jewish Study Bible, 2nd edition (NY: Oxford University Press, 2014), 1574.
[7] See Shaye J.D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999).
[8] BT Avodah Zarah 64b; Yad, H. Melakhim 8:10.
[9] BT Y’vamot 47b; Ruth Rabbah 2:22-25, 3:5.
[10] Ruth 1:8-18.
[11] BT Y’vamot 47a-b.
[12] “Now then, if you will obey Me faithfully and keep My covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all the peoples. Indeed, all the earth is Mine, but you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex. 19:5).” “Then [Moses] took the record of the covenant and read it aloud to the people. And they said: ‘All that the ETERNAL has spoken, we will do and obey!’ (Ex. 24:7)” “I make this covenant, with its sanctions, not with you alone, but with but both with those who are standing here with us this day before the ETERNAL our God and with those who are not with us here today (Deut. 30:13).”
[13] BT Gerim 2:4.
[14] M. B’rachot 2:2.
[15] BT Y’vamot 47b, Rashi s.v. u-modi’in oto mik’tzat mitzvot.
[16] Yad H. Issurei Bi’ah 13:4.
[17] See Moshe David Herr et al., “Rome,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, vol. 17 (Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), 406-417. Gale eBooks (accessed July 22, 2020). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX2587516895/GVRL?u=ohlnk162&sid=GVRL&xid=188ad9fb. On the presence of pagans in synagogues see, e.g., Paula Fredericksen, When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), 190f.
[18] For a contemporary parallel, consider this: The booklet published by the US Citizenship and Immigration Service for immigrants to use in preparing for their citizenship test begins with an introduction to the US constitution, but nowhere explicitly states that the US is not a monarchy. US Citizenship and Immigration Service, Learn About the United States: Quick Civics Lessons for the Naturalization Test, revised February 2019. https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/study-test/study-materials-civics-test. Accessed 3 July 2020.
[19] Yad H. Issurei Bi’ah 14:2. His view was strenuously endorsed by the Maggid Mishneh in his comment on H. Issurei Bi’ah 14:1.
[20] Tur ShA YD 268.
[21] Yad H. Issurei Bi’ah 13:17; ShA YD 268:12. There is extensive discussion of this question in the Entsiklopedya Talmudit entry on Gerut (vol. 6, columns 431ff.).
[22] ShU”T Ḥemdat Shlomo Yoreh De’ah 29-30, cited in “Gerut,” Entsiklopedya Talmudit, vol. 6, col. 231, n. 80.
[23] Washofsky, Jewish Living, 210.
[24] Reform Responsa for the 21st Century (RR21), vol. 2, 5764.3: “May a Jew Join the Society of Friends?” https://www.ccarnet.org/ccar-responsa/nyp-no-5764-3/ .
[25] https://www.uua.org/beliefs/who-we-are/history. Accessed 17 July 2020.
[26] Mark W. Harris, Unitarian Universalist Origins: Our Historic Faith. https://www.uua.org/beliefs/who-we-are/history/faith. Accessed 17 July 2020.
[27] https://www.uua.org/beliefs/who-we-are. Accessed 17 July 2020.
[28] https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe. Accessed 17 July 2020.
[29] https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/beliefs. Reformatted to save space. Accessed 17 July 2020.
[30] https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-do/worship/holidays. Accessed 17 July 2020.
[31] Ex. 20:2–3.
[32] The Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship web page states: “Most Unitarian Universalist Christians vary in their opinions about the relationship of Jesus to God. Some would be comfortable stating that Jesus was the Son of God; meaning that his relationship with God, while a mystery, imbued him with a special quality of being and knowing that has not been experienced since.” http://uuchristian.org/our-history-beliefs. Accessed 17 July 2020.
[33] On the difference between an atheist and an agnostic with respect to conversion, see American Reform Responsa (ARR) #65 “Gerut and the Question of Belief” regarding the conversion of a professed agnostic. It concludes: “We would not have accepted her if she denied the existence of God, but we should accept this convert with the feeling that her attachment to Judaism and the knowledge of it are sufficient to bring her into Judaism and to help her develop a commitment to this religion. As her Jewish life continues, she may also change her views on the nature of God.” https://www.ccarnet.org/ccar-responsa/arr-209-211/.
[34] Yad H. De’ot 1:6. See Recent Reform Responsa (RRR) #10: “Jew Joining the Unitarian Church.” https://www.ccarnet.org/ccar-responsa/rrr-56-58/.
[35] Teshuvot for the Nineties (TFN) 5754.15: “Atheists, Agnostics, and Conversion to Judaism.” https://www.ccarnet.org/ccar-responsa/tfn-no-5754-15-147-152/.
[36] https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/beliefs/judaism. Accessed 17 July 2020.
[37] “Declaration of Principles” (1885), https://www.ccarnet.org/rabbinic-voice/platforms/article-declaration-principles/.
[38] TFN 5754.15.
[39] BT Sanhedrin 44a: “A Jew who has sinned remains a Jew.” The literature on the mumar is voluminous. R. Solomon Freehof provided a compendium of the major sources in Reform Jewish Practice and Its Rabbinic Background [vol. I] (Cincinnati: HUC Press, 1944), 140-144. See also Reform Responsa for the 21st Century (RR21), vol. 1, 5758.11: “On Patrilineal Descent, Apostasy, and Synagogue Honors,” https://www.ccarnet.org/ccar-responsa/nyp-no-5758-11/.
[40] Rashi to BT B’rachot 35b s.v. le-Yerav’am ben Nevat; and He’arot of R. Elyashiv ad loc.: “The explanation is simple: When a person commits a transgression and others see him, they will learn from him to do it.”
[41] See, e.g., the well-known story about Hillel and the proselytes, BT Shabbat 31a.
[42] TFN 5754.15.
[43] R. Solomon B. Freehof to R. Morris Kipper, Coral Gables, FL, 20 Apr 1971. “Responsa Corr Apr May Jun 71,” Freehof Papers, Rodef Shalom Congregation, Pittsburgh.
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.