Responsa

NARR 184-185

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

117. Name of a Teenage Convert

QUESTION: The son of a Christian father and a mother who is about to convert to Judaism also wishes to convert to Judaism. When a Hebrew name is given to him what are the alternatives? Should he be treated simply as a convert or should the name of the parent, now Jewish, be included? (Rabbi Elyse M. Goldstein, Randolph MA)ANSWER: Let me refer you for some of the references to a portion of this matter to, “A Hebrew Name for a Child with One Jewish Parent” (W. Jacob Contemporary American Reform Responsa #34). In that situation, however, we were dealing with a newborn child of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father; the status of that child was that of a potential Jew not a convert. In this instance, as the mother has converted to Judaism already and her son wishes to follow her, we should honor the relationship between mother and son by using the mother’s Hebrew name. We cannot designate the natural father as he is not Jewish and so might mention no father at all. That is the path followed for example in a mi sheberakh recited for someone who is ill. Of course, this prayer is recited at a time of crisis. The other possibility would be to use the mother’s name and then designate Abraham (ben Avraham) as the spiritual father as is customary with most converts. This would certainly be appropriate and should not be offensive to the father. We should also consider the possibility of the father’s later conversion in order to join the religious community of the rest of his family. If that is judged likely then it would be wise to simply use the mother’s name and later add the father’s name on occasions when the Hebrew name is used. In this way an even stronger family bond would be forged.June 1988

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 241-242

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

71. An Apostate Proselyte

(1980)QUESTION: What is the status of a proselyte who has decided to return to his/her original religion? What is the status of the children?ANSWER: Any convert to Judaism has acquired an entirely new status. Indeed, the Talmud has compared a proselyte to a new-born child (Yev. 22a). He or she has not only adopted the faith of Israel, but has also become a part of the people of Israel. For this reason, it has been customary to name proselytes “The son or daughter of our Father Abraham (Beit Yosef on Tur, Even Ha-ezer 129; Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 129.20; Felder, Nschalat Tsevi 1.31, 124) or Sarah, our Mother” (Gates of Mitzvah, p. 24). It is, therefore, the almost unanimous opinion that converts who revert to their original religions remain Jewish and are to be considered Jewish for all purposes (Bechorot 30b). Their status was the same as that of Jewish apostates. This problem has been dealt with again and again with the same conclusion (Yev. 47b; Asher Ben Yehiel, ibid., Tur, Yoreh De-a 268; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 268.12, as well as the commentaries on these passages; Freehof, Reform Responsa, pp. 192ff). The Shulchan Aruch and most of its commentaries agree that the child of an apostate female proselyte, or of a male married to a Jewish woman, would be considered Jewish and would need no formal conversion to Judaism. An adult proselyte who has become a Jew voluntarily cannot annul this process in any way (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 268.2, 12). Isserles indicated that the Rabbinic ordinances, however, demanded of an apostate returning to Judaism or the child of an apostate woman (who had been born or converted to Judaism), repentance before a court of three, as well as immersion in a Mikveh (Radbaz, Responsa III, 415; Isserles to Yoreh De-a 268.12; Hoffman, Melamed Leho-il II, 84) for full acceptance into the Jewish community. Abraham Gumbiner (Magen Avraham to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 326.8) reminded us that ritual immersion was not legally necessary, but was a fence around the law. All this clearly indicates that Judaism does not recognize a permanent change in status away from the Jewish people. A convert reverting to another religion would be considered an apostate. We cannot, of course, deny individuals the right to adopt a religion of their choice. They have the freedom to adopt Judaism and the freedom to leave it. For all practical purposes, they will then be outside the Jewish community (in contrast to Bech. 30b), but we would always be willing to accept their return to us. Their children, too, will have full rights as Jews, should they wish to exercise them.Walter Jacob, ChairmanLeonard S. KravitzEugene LipmanW. Gunther PlautHarry A. RothRav A. SoloffBernard ZlotowitzSee also:S.B. Freehof, “Marrying Apostate Daughter of Jewish Mother,” Reform Responsa, pp. 192ff; “Status of Apostates (Children and Adults),” Recent Reform Responsa, pp. 120ff.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 386-387

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

122. Kaddish and Distinctions Between the Dead

(Vol. XXIV, 1914, p. 153) If this question refers to the preceding, I would suggest that the mourners stand at all recitals of the Kaddish for the dead, for whom mourning is a legal duty (viz., relatives in the first degree). If this question be general, I refer to Yoreh De-a, Hil. Avelut, where certain distinctions are set forth as the established din and minhag.K. KohlerSee also:S.B. Freehof, “Kaddish for First Wife,” Reform Responsa, pp. 162ff; “Kaddish and Yahrzeit for a Child,” ibid., pp. 165ff; “Kaddish for Apostates and Gentiles,” Recent Reform Responsa, pp. 132ff; “Some Kaddish Customs,” Current Reform Responsa, pp. 178ff; “Kaddish and the Three Steps Backward,” Recent Reform Responsa, pp. 217ff; “Gentile Visitors and the Kaddish,” Modern Reform Responsa, pp. 62ff; “Kaddish When Worshiping Alone,” Recent Reform Responsa, pp. 14ff.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 238-239

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

69. Prospective Convert Who Fears Circumcision

(1978)QUESTION: Is there any precedent in Halacha for a prospective convert who fears circumcision to avoid it? Similarly, is there a precedent for a prospective convert who has a deeply-rooted fear of water? Must he/she proceed with the requirement of Mikveh? (Rabbi Lawrence A. Englander, Mississauga, Ontario)ANSWER: The traditional requirements for conversion are clear (B. Yev. 46, 47; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 268; Yad, Isurei Bi-a 15). A court of three is necessary, and prospective converts must be warned that they are joining a persecuted community and that many new obligations will be incumbent upon them. In the days when the Temple stood, they were to bring a sacrifice, take a ritual bath, and–in the case of males–be circumcised. To this day, the requirements of a Beit Din, Tevila, and Berit remain for traditional Jews. Sources are clear on the requirements, but considerable discussion about them exists in the Talmud. For example, R. Eliezer stated that if a prospective male convert was circumcised or took a ritual bath, he was considered a proselyte. R. Joshua insisted on bath, and his point of view was adopted (B. Yev. 46b). Hillel and Shammai disagreed about a prospective male convert who was already circumcised. Beit Shammai insisted that blood must be drawn from him, while Beit Hillel stated that one may simply accept the circumcision without drawing blood (B. Shab. 135a). The Rabbinic authorities decided in favor of Beit Shammai (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 268.1; Yad, Isurei Bi-a 14.5). Clearly, there were differences of opinion about the steps necessary for the ritual conversion in ancient times. As is well known, the Talmud also contains a variety of opinions about the desirability of accepting converts. These reflect the historic competition with Christianity, persecution, etc. in the early centuries of our era. As we view the rite of conversion from a Reform point of view, we should note that the Reform Movement has placed its stress on careful instruction, with more attention to intellectual rather than ritual requirements. The Central Conference of American Rabbis in 1892 abolished the requirement of any ritual, including circumcision. Most Liberal rabbis, however, require circumcision or accept the existing circumcision (in accordance with the opinion of Hillel in B. Shab. 135b). Converts were to be accepted after due instruction before “any officiating rabbi assisted by no less than two associates.” There has been very little discussion of Tevila by Liberal Jewish authorities. The custom has fallen into disuse, but was never actually rejected by Liberal Judaism. There are a number of cities in the United States and Canada in which Tevila has been encouraged or required for Reform conversion, as there has been cases of Tevila undertaken at the express wish of the prospective convert. Immersion in a Mikveh should not prove particularly difficult, however. The Mikveh itself need contain only forty se-a of water, which is approximately a hundred and twenty gallons, and must be about four feet in depth, so that a person can easily submerge himself completely (Sifra 6.3; B. Yoma 31a, Er. 4b). During most of the conversion procedure the convert would be in water up to his/her neck, and then for an instant be completely submerged. In other words, as we are not discussing a deep body of water or an extensive one, it should not be much more difficult than entering a bath; therefore, someone with a phobia about water should be able to undergo the ritual. However, as it is only rarely used for Reform conversion, we can dispense with it for such a convert even in a community where it is usually utilized. Theoretically, circumcision may be viewed similarly according to the statement of the Central Conference of American Rabbis of 1892. In practice, circumcision has, however, been a virtually universal requirement. It may be made easier, especially for an adult or an older child, by providing an anesthetic. The early authorities of the last generation were against using an anesthetic (Meir Arik, Imrei Yosher II, 140). This was part of the rejection of all innovations, but more recent authorities have not hesitated to approve the use of an anesthetic (J.L. Zierelsohn, Ma-archei Lev, 53; Gedalia Felder, Nachalat Tsevi, p. 57). When the operation is done on a new-born child, it is presumed that the nervous system does not yet fully convey a sense of pain, but as that is not true of an adult or an older child, anesthetic may alleviate the pain and remove the fear of the impending operation. Circumcision may, of course, be postponed indefinitely due to health reasons, and we might consider the phobia as such a health reason. In this way, one could also assure the convert that he would be acceptable even without circumcision. The prospective convert should be encouraged to undergo circumcision although, strictly speaking, this requirement may also be waived according to the earlier Reform decision.Walter Jacob

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 79-80

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

46. Privacy of a Convert

QUESTION: The

congregation keeps a public register in its library of all the life cycle events such as birth,

Bar/Bat mitzvah, confirmations, marriages, and deaths. All conversions are also included.

Does such a public register of conversions invade the privacy of the convert? Is it appropriate to

maintain it in the congregational library? (Rabbi J. Edelstein, Monroeville,

PA)ANSWER: Conversion in Judaism is a public rite conducted before a court of

three (Yeb. 47b; Yad Hil. Issurei Biah 13.14, Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268,

269). Such requirements obviously makes it initially a public act and assures proper status in the

community for the convert. We, however, are concerned with the sensitivity of converts at a later

time. Two discussions provide some insight into this question. All converts receive a Hebrew

name. Although nothing is said about this in the major codes, it has become a general custom.

New male converts are generally named “the son of Abraham”; Abraham is considered the father

of all proselytes (Tanhuma Lekh Lekha 32, ed. Buber). Although this custom is frequently

followed (Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 129.20; Felder, Nahalat Tzevi 1.31, 124), it

is not mandatory, nor is anything said about naming female proselytes, although we often name

them “the daughter of Ruth,” the most famous Biblical female proselyte. As such names are

publicly used particularly in the Torah service, they are a public reminder of

conversion. We should also remember that individuals who are converted as infants

may be given the opportunity to determine their own religious status at the age of maturity

(Bar Mitzvah for boys and slightly earlier for girls). They may reject Judaism without

prejudice, if they wish (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268.7). This has made it necessary for

the status of young convert to be remembered. Traditionally, there have also been some matters

of marriage law which specifically involve converts. They have been given broader latitude about

whom they may marry, and this includes individuals of doubtful descent (Kid. 72b; Shulhan

Arukh Even Haezer 4.22). In this discussion, tradition has stated that this special status

would continue until the tenth generation, or until the fact that “the family stemmed from a

proselyte had been forgotten.” A number of famous individuals have been specifically recalled as

proselytes (Adiabne and Antipater in Josephus Antiquities XX 2; Onkelos in Meg. 3a;

etc.) Conversion to Judaism remains public knowledge. However, there is no intent to

embarrass the convert. It would, therefore, be proper to have a public register of all life cycle

events and conversions in the congregational library, yet it should be placed in such a way that it

will not be used simply to satisfy idle curiosity.February 1984

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

RR21 no. 5760.6

CCAR RESPONSA

5760.6

A Convert’s Hebrew Name

She’elah

A Jew-by-choice in my community does not wish to accept the customary Hebrew name bat Avraham avinu ve-Sarah imeinu. She objects to this name for two reasons. First, since the name advertises her status as a convert, she finds it to be embarrassing and thus a possible violation of the rule that one is not to remind a ger/giyoret of his/her past. Second, this name ignores the identity of her actual parents, who though they do not join her in conversion nonetheless have raised her and loved her from birth. She wants her Hebrew name to include the names of her parents. Is this permissible? If so, should we find Hebrew equivalents for her parents’ names? (Rabbi Gerald Raiskin, Burlingame, CA)

Teshuvah

The Convert’s Name in Jewish Tradition. By long-standing practice, we refer to the Jew-by-choice as “the son/daughter of Abraham our father” (ben/bat Avraham avinu).[1] R. Yosef Karo, who mentions this practice in his Shulchan Arukh,[2] identifies as its source a responsum of R. Asher b. Yechiel (13th/14th-century Germany and Spain).[3] R. Asher tells us that the ger (convert) is called “the son of Abraham” because Abraham is called “the father of many nations” (Gen. 17:4-5). This suggests a Talmudic debate concerning the mitzvah of bikurim, or “first fruits.” The Torah instructs that an offering of the “first fruits” of the harvest be brought to Jerusalem, to the priest in authority in those days, and that the person who brings the offering recite a “confession” (vidu’i), a litany expressing our gratitude for having been brought forth from Egypt and for having inherited a “land flowing with milk and honey” (Deut. 26:1-11). The question: does a convert recite this confession when he brings his bikurim to the Temple? The Mishnah answers “no”: the ger may not recite the vidu’i because, as his ancestors were not Jewish and did not inherit the land of Israel, he cannot truthfully give thanks for “the land that God swore to our ancestors to give to us (Deut. 26:3).”[4] The Talmud Yerushalmi, however, cites the conflicting view of Rabbi Yehudah: the ger does recite the confession, because Abraham, “the father of many nations,” is the spiritual ancestor of converts as well as of born Jews.[5]

How does the halakhic tradition decide between these conflicting interpretations? Some authorities follow the Mishnah and even extend its rule, declaring that a convert cannot lead either the birkat hamazon (grace after meals) or the synagogue service (i.e., he cannot serve as sheliach tzibur) because those liturgies, too, contain words that seem to exclude the ger.[6] Yet over time, the Yerushalmi’s more inclusive view came to predominate.[7] A proselyte may therefore lead the worship service and recite any portion of the liturgy that speaks of “our ancestors,” because those are his or her ancestors as well.[8]

This insight has never been communicated so clearly and forcefully as by Maimonides, in a teshuvah to a Jew-by-choice named Ovadyah:[9]

You ask whether you may recite privately and publicly the words “our God and the God of our ancestors,” “who has sanctified us by the mitzvot and commanded us,” “who has chosen us,” “who performed miracles for our ancestors” and similar statements in the liturgy. You may recite them all; you are not to change any of the wording; you are to recite the blessings and prayers according to the same formulae used by born Jews… The essential point is that our father Abraham taught Judaism, the faith in the one God, and the rejection of idolatry to all the people, bringing many under the wings of the Divine Presence… Therefore, whosoever converts to Judaism, from now until the end of time…is a disciple of our father Abraham…the father of every proselyte… There is no difference between us and you in any of these matters.

The ger, in other words, is called ben Avraham avinu in order to proclaim that he is one of us and part of our family, to affirm that the Jew-by-choice and the Jew-by-birth enjoy the same religious status in the eyes of God and of the Jewish people.[10]

The Convert’s Name: A Source of Embarrassment? According to our tradition, therefore, the name ben/bat Avraham ve-Sarah is a powerful symbol of inclusion, of the proselyte’s full and equal membership in the covenant of Israel. How disappointing, then, that for the person mentioned in our she’elah the name has become a cause of discomfort. Does the embarrassment she feels warrant the changing of her name? It is true that the Torah warns us not to oppress the ger (Lev. 19:33) and that the tradition understands this oppression as ona’at devarim, verbal embarrassment: that is, we must not scorn the proselyte by mentioning his or her Gentile origins.[11] Yet this prohibition has always referred to the gratuitous insult, the conscious, intentional attempt to shame.[12] It has never been understood as an argument for changing the proselyte’s traditional name, nor could it be, since to ascribe a person’s spiritual lineage to Abraham and Sarah is among the highest compliments we can pay him or her. We are indeed forbidden to embarrass the Jew-by-choice, but to call him or her “the child of Abraham and Sarah,” however, is most definitely not a matter of embarrassment or shame.

One could respond, of course, that shame is in the eye of the beholder, that this Jew-by-choice would feel a sense of embarrassment when her Jewish name is read in synagogue, and that she is therefore entitled to alter that name. Yet such a course, we think, is precisely the wrong solution for her problem. While we do not question the sincerity of her feelings, we suspect that her embarrassment has less to do with her Jewish name than with some unresolved doubts she may still harbor over her decision to convert and its effect upon the members of her family. If so, then our response should be a pastoral one. Her rabbi should work with her to help resolve the tensions associated with that choice. Alternately, her embarrassment may be rooted in external factors; perhaps the community has not been as welcoming and as accepting of her as it could and should be. If so, the proper response is again a pastoral one. The rabbi should work with the community to explore why this is happening and to remind them of our duty to love the Jew-by-choice as one of our own.[13] Altering the name, by contrast, does nothing to help her confront these issues. It merely allows her to hide the fact of her conversion, an act that contributes in no way to her healthy adjustment to her Jewish status. It is an act, moreover, that has the most negative connotations for us as Jews and particularly as Reform Jews, members of a movement that is committed to outreach and to the full inclusion of the Jew-by-choice in our community. We do not believe that conversion is something to hide, a source of embarrassment. We believe, rather, as tradition teaches us, that the name ben/bat Avraham avinu ve-Sarah imeinu is a badge of honor and respect, bestowed with love and admiration, that ought to be worn with satisfaction and pride.

The Jew-By-Choice and Her Parents. May the Jew-by-choice replace Avraham and Sarah with the names of his or her actual parents, even though they remain non-Jews? It is true that the proselyte is obligated to render honor to his or her parents as an expression of love and of gratitude for all they have done to raise, care for, and educate their child.[14] Yet this duty does not touch upon the question of name. The “Hebrew name” by which one is called in synagogue is more appropriately called a Jewish name.[15] It is a covenantal name, a declaration that the one who bears it is a member of the community that stood at Sinai to receive the Torah. In this covenantal name, the names of one’s parents do not testify simply to one’s biological lineage. Rather, they register the fact that it was through these parents that this person was brought into the berit (covenant) between God and Israel. The parents of this Jew-by-choice surely gave her love and care and taught her many of the values by which she lives. But they did not teach her Torah; they did not bring her into the covenant. As an adult,[16] this is a decision she made on her own, and for that reason her covenantal parents, the ones from whom she legitimately claims her Jewish descent, are Abraham and Sarah, who we are told brought many seekers like her under the wings of God’s presence.[17]

Conclusion. When a person chooses to become a Jew, he or she receives the name ben/bat Avraham avinu ve-Sarah imeinu, signifying the he or she is one of us and at one with us, a full partner in the community of Israel and its covenant with God. It is an important statement of our religious belief, of our understanding of the meaning of conversion and of the Jewish experience. It is a mark of respect and honor. It is not a cause for embarrassment, nor is it a sign that the proselyte has broken ties with his or her Gentile family. Any and all difficulties that the Jew-by-choice encounters upon joining our people should be faced squarely and seriously, but it would be a serious mistake to try to address those problems through altering his or her Jewish name.

 

NOTES

[1] The addition of “and Sarah our mother”-ve-Sarah imeinu-is an innovation of recent decades. Nonetheless, support for this innovation may be found in Tosafot, Chagigah 9b, s.v. bar: Bar He He was, according to some opinions, a convert, “that is, the son of Abraham and Sarah, for whom the Hebrew letter heh was appended to his name.”

[2] Shulchan Arukh EHE 129:20. The issue there is the correct name for a ger in his bill of divorce (get).

[3] Resp. Harosh 15:4. Karo provides this identification in his longer work, the Beit Yosef to Tur EHE 129 (in the section Hilkhot Gitin, fol. 29b, near the end of the first column).

[4] M. Bikurim 1:4 and Bartenura ad loc. See also Sifrei to Deuteronomy, ch. 299.

[5] PT Bikurim 1:4 (64a), and see Bartenura to M. Bikurim 1:4. Compare as well Maimonides, Commentary to M. Bikurim 1:4: Abraham taught faith in God to the world and is thus the father of all.

[6] The second blessing of birkat hamazon contains the words “You have bequeathed to our ancestors a good land…”, and the first benediction of the tefilah, the central prayer of the worship service, reads “our God and God of our ancestors.” The authorities include Rabbeinu Tam (Tosafot Bava Batra 81a, s.v. lema`utei), the Or Zaru`a, Hilkhot Tefilah, ch. 107, and the rabbis of medieval Würzburg, Germany, who prevented converts from serving as worship leaders (Mordekhai, Megilah, ch. 786).

[7] Yad, Bikurim 4:3. The Yerushalmi itself goes out of its way to reject the position enunciated in the Mishnah, citing a teaching by R. Yehoshua b. Levi that the halakhah follows Rabbi Yehudah and a ruling to that effect by R. Abahu in an actual case (involving prayer, it would seem, since bikurim were no longer offered at that time).

[8] See Shulchan Arukh OC 53:19: the view that the ger may not serve as sheliach tzibur has been “rejected.” Among those who take this position are R. Yitzchak of Dampierre (Tosafot, Bava Batra 81a, s.v. lema`utei); Nachmanides (Chidushei Haramban to Bava Batra 81a); R. Shelomo b. Adret (Chidushei Harashba to Bava Batra 81a); R. YomTov ibn Ishbili, (Chidushei Haritva, Makot 19a); R. Nissim Gerondi (Chidushei Haran, Bava Batra 81a).

[9] Resp. Harambam, ed. Blau, no. 293 (no. 42 in the Friedman edition). In this responsum, Rambam repeats the decision reported in his Commentary to M. Bikurim 1:4: the halakhah does not follow the Mishnah but rather the ruling of the Talmud Yerushalmi.

[10] See R. Benzion Meir Hai Ouziel, Resp. Mishpetei Ouziel II, Yore De`ah, no. 59: the name ben Avraham avinu functions to establish the halakhic ruling (lehorot) that the proselyte is entitled “to lead the prayer service and the birkat hamazon, to say ‘our God and God of our ancestors’ and ‘we thank you O God for having bequeathed a good land to our ancestors.’”

[11] BT Bava Metzi`a 58b-59a; Yad, Mekhirah 14:12-13; Shulchan Arukh CM 228:1-4.

[12] Examples (see the sources cited in the preceding note): “see how one who once ate impure things seeks to fill his mouth with words of Torah!”; “remember the deeds (i.e., the idolatry) of your ancestors.

[13] Deut. 10:19; Yad, De`ot 6:4.

[14] See BT Yevamot 22a: although considered in principle a “newborn child,” a ger must not ignore those moral duties which he or she observed as a non-Jew, “lest it be said that (the ger) has descended from a higher degree of holiness to a lower one”; Yad, Mamrim 5:11; Shulchan Arukh YD 241:9. On the nature of the mitzvah to honor one’s parents as an expression of gratitude for their having raised and cared for the child, see Teshuvot for the Nineties, no. 5753.12 (pp. 201-207), “Kaddish for Adoptive and Biological Parents.”

[15] See, for example, the service for berit milah and the covenant service for a daughter in the CCAR Rabbi’s Manual (1988), pp. 12 and 21 respectively: the child’s name is bestowed by the formula veyikarei shemo/a beyisrael, “his/her name in Israel shall be…”. See as well at p. 208, the service for conversion: “and from this time forth you shall be known in the Jewish community as ____ Ben/Bat Avraham veSara.”

[16] This is an important distinction: if a minor child converts along with the parent(s), the child may be called the son or daughter of the parent(s), since it is the latter who actually teach Torah to the child. See the responsum of R. Ouziel cited in note 10, and R. Gedalyah Felder, Sefer Nachalat Tzvi (Toronto, 1978), I, 124-125. This is not the case in our she’elah, which deals with an adult proselyte who did not learn Judaism from her parents.

[17] See Bereshit Rabah 39:14 and Rashi to Gen. 12:5), on “all the souls they had gotten in Haran”: to bring people to Judaism is equivalent to creating them, to giving them life.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 182

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

115. The Name of a Convert

QUESTION: A mother and daughter wish to convert to Judaism. They have studied for two years and are ready to become part of the Jewish community. The mother will be named bat Avraham Avinu; may the daughter be designated as the daughter of her mother rather than bat Avraham Avinu if she is converted somewhat later than the mother? (Rabbi M. I. Silverman, Albany NY)ANSWER: The practice of naming a convert as “daughter/son of Abraham” is a custom rather than the law and so it is not mentioned in either the code of Maimonides (Yad Hil Issurei Biah) or by Joseph Karo (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah). The custom is old and was mentioned in the Tosefta (Git 6.6) in connection with a get (divorce). The notation of “daughter/son of Abraham” may have been used to remind the community that this proselyte may marry a mamzer (Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 4.22), and that a proselyte may not be appointed as the King over our people. As these and a few other matters are of little significance for us in modern times we need not be strict about using the term “daughter/son of Abraham”. There is no obligation to use it at all. If, however, because of custom you wish to use it with the mother, that is appropriate. However, for the daughter it would be better to use the name of the mother and thereby to indicate both the family relationship and that the daughter has followed in her mother’s footsteps in her religious choice.January 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 215-216

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

67. Mental Competency of a Convert

(1979)

QUESTION: A prospective convert appears to be mentally unbalanced (paranoid), therefore, his understanding of Judaism is limited. Shall we accept or reject such a convert? (Elizabeth Levine, Congregation Beth-El, Fort Worth, Texas)

ANSWER: Conversion to Judaism is a major religious step which cannot be taken lightly; this act has legal (halachic) implications. It is clear that Jewish law mandates that anyone acting in a legal capacity must be mentally competent (Git. 23a; Yad, Hil. Edut 9.9; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 188.2). The tradition also demands that any individual engaged in a religious act, especially initially (lechatechila) must be completely mentally competent (Mishna 18, Rosh Hashana 8; Meg. 2.4; Chag. 1.1; Men. 9.8; Git. 2.5, etc.). The mentally incompetent and those with other deficiencies could not engage in a valid religious act. If certain kinds of ritual acts had been done by someone mentally incompetent and performed properly, then they were considered acceptable bedi-avad.

The Talmudic authorities and the Rabbinic authorities subsequently struggled to achieve a proper definition of mental incompetence and found it as difficult as we in modern times. They, of course, pointed to a variety of strange behavior (Chag. 3b; Nid. 17a; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 1.5). Ultimately, this was left to the insight of the presiding judge (Yad, Hil. Edut 9.9; Hil. San. 2.1). These basic decisions were followed by the responsa as well (Isaac b. Sheshet, Responsa, #468; Rashbam, Responsa, vol. 2, no. 1, etc.), and were not modified in any substantial manner.

The Rabbinic injunction that conversion be carried out before a Beit Din which shall consist of three members (Yev. 46b) makes it clear that this act, although basically religious in nature, is a legal transaction. Therefore, all of the above statements would be applicable. A person who proved to be mentally incompetent, but had been converted to Judaism, is accepted bedi-avad, but certainly not lechatechila.

As a complete understanding of all aspects of Juda ism is necessary for a sincere and complete conversion, such prospective converts must be of sound mind and mentally competent. We cannot accept individuals who do not meet these prerequisites.

Walter Jacob

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 88-90

 

CCAR RESPONSA

 

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

 

52. Homosexual Convert*

QUESTION: “In

our community there is a small group of ‘gay’ Jews who have gathered together to form a

havurah (Some of them are members of my congregation). The havurah meets

on a regular basis and holds a monthly shabbat service. Occasionally members of the

havurah attend regular services at the Temple or join us for special programs. We have

attempted to be as open to them as possible. Recently a few non-Jews have been attracted to

the havurah. Several of them have indicated an interest in Jewish life, and one individual

in particular has approached me in regards to the possibility of studying in order to convert to

Judaism.” In light of the strong antipathy of Judaism to homosexuality, should we accept a

known and active homosexual who desires to convert to Judaism? (Rabbi R. Safran, Ft. Wayne,

IN)

ANSWER: The attitude of traditional Judaism to homosexuality is clear. The

Biblical prohibition against homosexuality is absolute as seen in the verses–“Do not lie with a

male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence” (Lev. 18.22); “if a man lies with a male as

one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death –

their blood-guilt is upon them” (Lev. 20.13). Other statements are equally clear. The Talmudic

discussion of the matter makes no substantive changes and continues the prohibition. It deals

with the question of minors, duress and various forms of the homosexual act (San. 53a ff; Yeb.

83b; Ker. 2a ff; Ned. 51a, etc.). In the subsequent codes, the matter is briefly mentioned with the

same conclusions (Yad Hil. Issurei Biah 1.5, 22.2; Tur and Shulhan Arukh Even

Haezer 24). There is very little material in the responsa literature which deals with

homosexuality, as it does not seem to have been a major problem. The commentators to the

above mentioned section of the Shulhan Arukh felt that suspicion of homosexuality could

not arise in their day, and so various preventive restrictions were superfluous. For example,

Moses Rifkes (seventeenth century Poland) stated that this sin did not exist in his time (Be’er

Hagolah). Until the most recent modern period, there has been no further discussion of this

matter.

The Central Conference of American Rabbis has dealt with the issue of

homosexuality over a number of years. In 1977, the following resolution was

adopted:

Whereas, the Central Conference of American Rabbis consistently

supported civil rights and civil liberties for all people, especially for those whom these rights and

liberties have been withheld, and

Whereas, homosexuals have been in our

society long endured discrimination,

Be it therefore resolved, that we

encourage legislation which decriminalizes homosexual acts between consenting adults, and

prohibits discrimination against them as persons, and

Be it further resolved,

that our Reform Jewish religious organizations undertake programs in cooperation with the total

Jewish community to implement the above stand.

We will not discuss the modern

Jewish attitude toward homosexuals which has been shaped by two factors: (a) the attitude of

tradition towards homosexuality, (b) our contemporary understanding of homosexuality, which

sees homosexuality as an illness, a genetically based dysfunction or a sexual preference and life

style. There is disagreement whether homosexuality represents a willful act or a response to

which the individual is driven.

If a homosexual comes to us and seeks conversion, we

should explain the attitude of traditional Judaism and that of our Reform Movement to him quite

clearly. After that, if he continues to show an interest in Judaism and wishes to convert, then we

may accept him as any other convert.

The entire matter is somewhat complicated by

the fact that this group of homosexuals has organized itself into a havurah. We must ask

ourselves whether it is simply for the purpose of companionship, or if this is a group who will

seek to attract others to a homosexual lifestyle. In the case of the latter, we could certainly not

accept a convert who intends to influence others in that direction. Otherwise, a homosexual who

wishes to convert to Judaism should be accepted as any other convert.

June 1982

 

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 199-200

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

127. A Convert from Another Land

QUESTION: A young woman has come to the United States from Australia. She was converted to Judaism there and possesses the proper documentation; the conversion in this instance seems to have been done rather hurriedly. Should we accept it? She wishes to marry an American Jewish boy. (Robert Gold, Baltimore MD)ANSWER: Unless we have very good reason for rejecting the conversion from a foreign land, we should accept it. Those reasons would primarily deal with the behavior or knowledge of the convert. If the convert’s attitude towards Judaism raises doubts, then we are entitled to question the conversion. Otherwise, someone who comes to us with appropriate documentation should be accepted. We may, of course, suggest further study to the young woman on the grounds that her knowledge of Judaism seems limited. This would make it easier for her to establish a Jewish home and to raise her children within the Jewish community. Such suggestions made in a positive manner will have the desired effect; they will avoid the problems of questioning the efforts of colleagues elsewhere while at the same time maintaining our own standards for conversion.May 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

✕