Responsa

NARR 197-199

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

126. A Convert and Hebrew

QUESTION: A middle aged convert is hesitant about conversion. She has given up all identity with Christianity, studied Judaism diligently to the best of her ability, and has learned enough to qualify as a convert. She feels that she is ready and the rabbi also indicates that conversion is now possible. She has, however, hesitated to take this step on the grounds that she knows very little Hebrew, has no linguistic aptitude. and feels that she can not be a good Jewess without a firm grasp of Hebrew. Would we agree with her or would we state that Hebrew is not essential? (Tillie Lebowitz, Tulsa OK)ANSWER: The Hebrew language has played an important role in Jewish life throughout our history. Throughout the ages we have done our best to encourage the study of Hebrew; our greatest literature has been written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Within the Reform movement we have put less emphasis on Hebrew and more on the vernacular in our services, in order to enable the worshipper to understand the service fully. Yet we retain a considerable amount of Hebrew in the liturgy. Problems with understanding the Hebrew language go back to the end of the Biblical period. A large proportion of our people were no longer familiar with Hebrew, even in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh 8:8), so the Scriptural reading had to be translated for them. By the time of the Mishnah, the common people no longer used Hebrew, therefore, the shema, tefilah and the birkhat hamazon were permitted in the vernacular (M Sotah 7.1). This, then, also was the later decision of the Talmud (Sotah 32b ff); it enabled individuals who recited petitions to pray sincerely and with full knowledge of what they were saying. A parallel stand was taken by later authorities, so the Sefer Hassidim of the eleventh century (#588 and #785) stated that those who did not understand Hebrew should pray in the vernacular. Maimonides provided a similar statement (Yad Hil Ber 1.6), while the Tur and Shulhan Arukh made a distinction between private and public prayers. Private prayers were preferably said in Hebrew, while those congregational prayers might be recited in the vernacular. They expressed a preference but did not exclude the vernacular in either instance (Tur Orah Hayim 101; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 101.4). Aaron Chorin, Eliezer Lieberman and others, who defended the changes made by the Reform movement in the last century and its use of the vernacular, however, insisted that a number of prayers should continue to be recited in Hebrew (Qinat Haemet; Or Nogah Part I). Of course, they felt that nothing stood in the way of using the vernacular. In most conversion courses the study of a minimal amount of Hebrew is encouraged, although with the limited amount of time available real familiarity with the language is impossible. In many instances the convert will be able to read simple prayerbook Hebrew and know the meaning of a text by association. The continuation of Hebrew studies has always been encouraged but not made a mandatory part of the conversion process. We would, therefore, say to this individual that a minimum knowledge of Hebrew will be helpful for familiarity with religious services and as an association with tradition. More advanced knowledge of the Hebrew is desirable, but may not be possible for everyone. The sincerity of this convert is enough to lead to her acceptance. She should be assured that a fuller knowledge of Hebrew is not required of her. We will welcome her with the hope that she will be a good addition to our people.February, 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 92

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

55. Conversion with

Reservations

QUESTION: Several Christians who seek to become Jews

have indicated that they are convinced of their ability to become Jews but can not absolutely

abandon the divinity of Jesus. May such individuals be accepted as converts? (Rabbi H. L.

Poller, Larchmont, NY)ANSWER: The traditional requirements for conversion are

clear (Yeb. 46, 47; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268; Yad Hil. Isurei Biah 15)–a

court of three is necessary. Prospective converts must be warned that they are joining a

persecuted community and that many new obligations will be incumbent upon them. They were

to bring a sacrifice in the days when the Temple stood, and males had to be circumcised and

take a ritual bath. The Bet Din has asked the prospective convert a number of questions

which deal with his education and commitment to Judaism. One of the questions which has

traditionally been asked is whether the convert receives upon herself the entire Torah

without exception (Bekh. 30b; Yad Hil. Issurei Biah 14.8; Tur and Shulhan

Arukh Yoreh Deah 268.2 ff). Traditional Judaism would interpret this as an obligation to

observe all of the commandments. We state that the convert has an obligation to practice

Judaism according to our Reform tradition. Both would, however, agree that this indicates a clear

willingness to abandon all other former beliefs. This would definitely include belief in the divinity

of Jesus. Individuals who believe in the divinity or a special status of Jesus may, of

course, study Judaism. It will help them understand Judaism better, but we can not accept them

as converts until they are willing to give up their belief in Jesus without any mental

reservations.February 1984

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 211-215

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

66. Conversion Without Formal Instruction

(Vol. XCII, 1982, pp. 209-211)

QUESTION: A couple in a mixed marriage have maintained a Jewish life-style for more than a decade. He is Jewish, and she came from a Protestant background. They were married civilly, and she had not practiced her religion or believed its tenets for many years prior to her marriage. She has received no formal instruction in Judaism, but for the last decade she has lived a Jewish life. She has attended services during the Yamim Nora-im, and intermittently during the year, has participated in many programs of the Temple and its sisterhood, enrolled in some adult education classes, and raised her children as Jews. The family observes Jewish holidays at home by lighting candles and making Kiddush each Friday evening and on the eve of holidays; they erect a Sukka and light Chanuka lights. She considers herself Jewish, as do her friends. She would now like to have this “Jewishness” recognized officially. She does not wish to attend the Introduction to Judaism class for young new converts. She would also feel out of place at the standard conversion ceremonies which her congregation conducts publicly. How can she officially be considered as Jewish? (F.L., Miami, Florida)

ANSWER: Let us begin by reviewing the Reform discussion and the development of the tradition. The American Reform discussions of conversion from 1890 onward make it quite clear that the principal requirements were intellectual; we have been more concerned with understanding than ritual (“Milat Gerim,” CCAR Yearbook, 1947, pp. 15ff; see also responsa #69-71 below). In keeping with this emphasis, Introduction to Judaism classes have been organized by virtually all congregations. In larger communities, some of the congregations have joined together and offered centralized classes on a year-round basis along with individualized instruction by the congregational rabbi. Traditional Judaism, of course, also requires instruction, but usually places the emphasis upon the specific duties incumbent upon either the man or the woman, rather than on a more general background. For traditional Jews, the ritual of conversion is of primary importance, irrespective of the instruction which had taken place.

The traditional requirements for conversion are clear (Yev. 46, 47; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 268; Yad, Isurei Bi-a 15)–a court of three is necessary. Prospective converts must be warned that they are joining a persecuted community, and that many new obligations will be incumbent upon them. They were to bring a sacrifice in the days when the Temple stood, and males had to be circumcised and take a ritual bath. To this day, the requirements of a Beit Din, Tevila, and Berit still remain for traditional Jews. The 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 either circumcised or took a ritual bath, he was considered a prose-

lyte. R. Joshua insisted on both, and his point of view was adopted (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 that circumcision without drawing blood (Shab. 135a). The Rabbinic authorities decided in favor of Beit Shammai (Sh.A., Yoreh De-a 268.1; Yad, Isurei Bi-a 14.5). There were differences of opinion about steps necessary for the ritual of conversion in ancient times. The Talmudalso contains a variety of opinions about the desirability of accepting converts. These reflect historic competition with Christianity, persecution, etc., in the early centuries of our era.

The Talmudic discussions insist that the convert must join Judaism without any ulterior motives, and if such are present, the conversion is void (Yev. 24b). Of course, the opinion applies only prospectively, not retrospectively, and bedi-avad they were accepted. Some authorities were more lenient in regard to ulterior motives, so Hillel (Shab. 31a) readily accepted a convert who stated that he wished eventually to become a High Priest. R. Hiya accepted a woman who wanted to marry one of his students (Men. 44a). In modern times, although most Orthodox authorities would reject converts who seek to join us for the sake of marriage, some would accept them in order to avoid the conversion by Reform rabbis (Mendel Kirshbaum, Menachem Meshiv, #9), because civil marriage has preceded, or because the couple is living together (David Hoffmann, Melamed Leho-il, Even Ha-ezer 8, 10; Yoreh De-a 85). Similar arguments have been advanced by Meshulam Kutner in Uketora Ya-asu and by Moses Feinstein in Igerot Mosheh, Even Ha-ezer I, 27. However, the greatest number of Orthodox authorities have rejected these arguments (e.g., Joseph Saul Nathanson, Jacob Ettlinger, and Yehiel Weinberg). Their rejection, even for consideration as converts, was based upon the ulterior motivation and the likelihood that they would not accept all the commandments which are not generally observed in the Jewish community today and probably not kept by the Jewish partner (Isaac Herzog, Heichal Yitschak, Even Ha-ezer I, #20; Meir Arak, Imrei Yosher I, #176; Abraham Kook, Da-at Kohen, #154; Moses Feinstein, Igerot Mosheh, Yoreh De-a I, #157, 160; Even Ha-ezer III, #4).

Some Orthodox authorities have ruled that the conduct of a Jewish way of life, even without documentation of conversion, creates a valid assumption of Jewishness (A. Karelitz, Chazon Ish,Yev., par. 83, #6; Beit Hadin Harabani Hagadol, Jerusalem, Appeal 1968/26, case of Chanoch and Miriam Langer). Each of these decisions was based upon Talmudic statements which indicated that this line of thought applied in cases where either father or mother was Jewish (Yev. 45b).

Now let us turn to the specifics of your question. Although the Reform Movement has insisted on instruction and intellectual understanding of Judaism, it has never specified precisely how this instruction is to be obtained. Usually, a young convert receives such instruction through Introduction to Judaism classes and reading connected with them. Such classes extend over a period of three months to a year and meet once or several times a week. The reading assignments are usually geared to the intellectual level of the prospective convert. In some instances they include only a familiarity with basic books on holidays, liturgy, and history, while others require a thorough knowledge of Jewish history, philosophy, literature, and liturgy. There is nothing which would preclude acquisition of such knowledge over a period of years and in a more informal manner, as the woman described in this question. She has undoubtedly accumulated a considerable body of knowledge through her attendance at services and programs in her synagogue, through random reading, and through constant association with Jewish friends. Certainly, her present knowledge of Judaism would exceed that of anyone who completed the customary introductory courses. Even more important is the fact that her commitment has shown itself to be sincere and has stood the test of time. She not only possesses an intellectual understanding of Judaism, but feels herself Jewish and has involved herself in many aspects of Jewish life both inside and outside the synagogue. From the point of view of knowledge and commitment, we may therefore consider her an appropriate candidate for the final steps of conversion. We should encourage her to move in that direction, especially as she and her husband wish to take this step.

There is nothing in our Reform tradition which demands a public conversion ceremony. Her formal reception into Judaism could take place privately, in the presence of a rabbi and two witnesses.

The prospective convert would be told about Tevila and, in case of a male, about circumcision or tipat dam. They should be encouraged to proceed in these directions if that is the custom of the community; however, neither ceremony is mandatory. It is quite clear from tradition that if such an individual at any time undergoes Tevila, even though not specifically for the purpose of conversion, it would be considered the same as if he had undergone it for that purpose (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 268.3). This should be considered seriously if the family has any intention of settling in Israel. A Hebrew name of the convert’s choice can be appropriately provided at this time as well.

In summary, it would be perfectly possible to accept such a woman as a convert to Judaism with very little further action on her part. This step should be made as easy as possible, and we should do everything in our power to bring Gerei Toshav completely into the sphere of Judaism.

Walter Jacob, Chairman

Simeon Maslin

W. Gunther Plaut

Harry A. Roth

Rav A. Soloff

Sheldon Zimmerman

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5753.20 265-266

CCAR RESPONSA

Rejecting One’s Conversion as an Infant

5753.20

She’elah
I have always informed parents of children who were converted as infants when their parent became a Jew, that their

children have a right to reject their conversion when they reached maturity, which I have considered to be the eighteenth

year. How does Reform Judaism review this issue? (Rabbi Thomas P. Liebschutz, Winston-Salem, N.C.)

Teshuvah
The matter has been discussed by Rabbis Solomon B. Freehof and Walter Jacob.¹ You will find both

teshuvot attached. They have followed the traditional view that a person may repudiate his/her conversion as a

child. We note however, the dissent of Rabbi Moses Schreiber (the Hatam Sofer) who said that when a parent is

converted along with the child, no repudiation is possible.²

As Liberals, we would hold with the mainstream ruling that persons converted in childhood — with or without their

parents converting at the same time — have a right to reject Judaism upon reaching maturity.

When is the terminus ad quem when such a rejection must be effected? Traditionally, the age has been 13, but

we believe that your position is preferable, namely to postpone this terminus until the age of 18.

To be sure, this creates an awkward situation when such a child becomes bar/bat mitzvah or is confirmed. Both acts serve

as a confirmation of Jewishness. The parents, along with the rabbi, will have to explain to the child that the mitzvot will

be accepted at this time in accordance with his/her understanding of Judaism, but that at maturity, he/she may re-evaluate

that decision. We thus would consider the earlier asseveration as provisional in view of the immaturity of the person at

that time. Obviously, this matter has to be handled with considerable sensitivity.

Notes

Freehof, Current Reform Responsa (1969) #20, pp. 80-83; Jacob,
Contemporary American Reform Responsa, #47, pp. 80-81.
For the repudiation, see BT. Ketubot 11a; SA, YD 268:7; and
for the Hatam Sofer, see his Pitchei Teshuvah to YD

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 81-83

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

48. Conversion of a Young Child of a First

marriage

QUESTION: How shall we deal with the children of a non-

Jewish divorced parent, now converted to Judaism, who has married a Jew in her second

marriage and wishes her children to be Jewish? (Rabbi J. Folkman, Columbus,

OH)ANSWER: Such a family situation, of course, demands care and sensitivity

about the concerns of all parties. The children currently find themselves in a family with Jewish

parents, while they remain Christian, but we should not take their conversion or education as

Jews for granted. In most, though not all instances, this would require the consent of the natural

father. He should also be consulted and in some way he must be included in the ceremonial

occasions in the lives of his children. If there is agreement on these matters, then we

should proceed with these children as with any other children who seek to become Jewish. In the

previous generation, the religious education of such children and their Bar/Bat Mitzvah

and Confirmation were considered by the Central Conference of American Rabbis as equivalent

to their conversion (“Report on Mixed Marriage and Intermarriage,” C.C.A.R. Annual, pp.

158 ff). Today it would be preferable to proceed somewhat differently. Young children in the

religious school should not be left uncertain about their Jewish status . Therefore, we should

provide an understanding of Judaism at the level appropriate for the child and convert them fully

while still young (Ket. 11a). In the case of boys who are not circumcised, circumcision

should occur if at all possible. If a child was already circumcised, some parents may want to

undertake tipat dam, but that remains optional. Girls should be entered into the berit

with a special ceremony (See S. J. Maslin, Gates of Mitzvah, p. 15). More

traditional parents may also want to have the child undergo tevilah (Yeb. 46a ff;

Yad Hil. Issurei Biah 14; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268). It is quite clear from

tradition that if such a child at any later time undergoes tevilah, even though not

specifically for the purpose of conversion, it would be considered the same as if he had

undergone it for this purpose (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268.3). The Talmud

debated the need for both circumcision and ritual bath. R. Eliezer (Talmud Yeb. 46a)

indicated that a proselyte who was circumcised, and did not take the ritual bath, was considered

fully Jewish. The decision went against him. Orthodox and Conservative rabbis in our day

require it, but we as a movement do not, though in certain areas this has become standard

practice as well. Tevilah should, therefore, be considered as optional, as it is with adult

converts. The children should be given a Hebrew name, and a certificate of conversion would

then be presented to them and their families. This procedure, as outlined, has the

advantage of making the children completely Jewish. They would possess that status throughout

their religious education. No question about their status would rise during these years and their

education would follow the same pattern as that of every other Jewish child. It should be pointed

out that such conversion, while full and complete ritually and legally, obligates the parents to

provide a Jewish education, Bar/Bat Mitzvah and Confirmation for these children. Only

through years devoted to learning will Judaism become meaningful to the

children. According to tradition, of course, such children have the right to challenge

their conversion upon reaching majority. When such children reach the age of thirteen for boys

and twelve and a half for girls, there is a traditional mechanism by which converted children may

reject Judaism without prejudice (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 468.7). In earlier days, a

formal process of rejection was required because of the rigidity of the Jewish-Gentile

relationship. Nowadays, no such rejection mechanism is necessary, because belonging to the

Jewish people and faith is essentially voluntary. This is, therefore, not necessary for us, and

Bar/Bat Mitzvah and Confirmation would be an equivalent to a young adult’s reaffirmation

of Judaism. In summary, we urge that a complete conversion take place for the young

individual if it is agreeable to both parents, and then insist that the youngster be provided with a

Jewish education.April 1981

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 83-85

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

49. Conversion of a Young

Child

QUESTION: What should be done for a four year old who was

baptized as a Catholic and born to a Roman Catholic mother? The mother has now married a

Jew who has legally adopted her son. Both have agreed that the child should be converted to

Judaism and raised as a Jew. He is surgically circumcised. What procedure should this

conversion follow? (O. R., Pittsburgh, PA)ANSWER: We should begin by reviewing

the traditional requirements for conversion. They are clear (Yeb. 46, 47; Shulhan Arukh

Yoreh Deah 268; Yad Issurei Biah 15); a court of three is necessary. Prospective

converts must be warned that they are joining a persecuted community and that many new

obligations will be incumbent upon them. They were then to bring a sacrifice (in the days when

the Temple stood), take a ritual bath, and in the case of males, be circumcised. To this day the

requirements of a bet din, tevilah and the berit remain for traditional Jews. The

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 both, and

his point of view was adopted (Yeb. 46b). Hillel and Shammai disagreed about a prospective

male convert who was already circumcised. Bet Shammai insisted that blood must be

drawn from him, while Bet Hillel stated that one simply accept that circumcision without

drawing blood (Shab. 135a). The rabbinic authorities decided in favor of Bet Shammai

(Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268.1; Yad Issurei Biah 14.5). Clearly, there were

differences of opinion about steps necessary for the ritual of conversion in ancient times. The

Talmud also contains a variety of opinions about the desirability of accepting converts.

These reflect historic competition with Christianity, persecution, etc. in the early centuries of our

era. The Talmudic discussions insist that the convert must join Judaism without any

ulterior motives, and if such are present, the conversion is void (Yeb. 24b). Of course this

opinion applies only prospectively, not retrospective, and bediavad, they were accepted.

This is hardly at issue here, but let us understand this line of reasoning as well. Some authorities

were more lenient in regard to ulterior motives, so Hillel (Shab. 31a) readily accepted a convert

who stated that he wished eventually to become a high priest. R. Hiya accepted a woman who

wanted to marry one of his students (Men. 44a). In modern times, although most Orthodox

authorities would reject converts who seek to join us for the sake of marriage, some would

accept them in order to avoid conversion by Reform rabbis (Mendel Kirshbaum, Menachem

Meshiv, #9), because civil marriage has preceded, or because the couple is living together

(David Hoffmann, Melamed Lehoil Even Haezer 8, 10; Yoreh Deah 85). Similar

arguments have been advanced by Meshullam Kutner in Uketorah Yaasu and Moses

Feinstein in Igrot Mosheh (Even Haezer I, 27). However, the greatest number of

Orthodox authorities have rejected these arguments (Joseph Saul Nathenson, Jacob Ettlinger,

Yehiel Weinberg). Their rejection even for consideration as converts is based upon ulterior

motivation and the likelihood that they would not accept all the mitzvot as they are

generally not observed in the Jewish community today, and probably not kept by the Jewish

partner (Isaac Herzog, Hekhal Yizhoq, Even Haezer 1, #20; Moses Feinstein, Igrot

Mosheh Yoreh Deah, I, #157, 160; Even Haezer III, #4). I have quoted all of these modern

Orthodox authorities to show that our gerut may not be accepted by traditional authorities.

The Orthodox would, in any case, not accept a liberal conversion. They would consider our

bet din invalid and would certainly feel that our converts would not have accepted the

yoke of the commandments, the entire system of mitzvot. 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 on 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 in

accordance with the opinion of Hillel (Shab. 135b). Converts are to be accepted after due

instruction before “any officiating rabbi assisted by no less than two associates.” There are, of

course, definite limits to instruction in this instance, but some initial education can be

undertaken. Except in a cursory way, no discussion of tevilah has been

undertaken by liberal Jewish authorities. The custom has fallen into disuse, but was never

actually rejected. It is followed for niddah by only a small percentage even within the

Orthodox community. The practice has been further hindered by endless Orthodox debates

about the technical requirements of miqveh. A ritual immersion has, therefore, not been

considered necessary for conversion in many Reform Jewish communities. There are, however,

a number of cities in the United States and Canada in which tevilah has been encouraged

or required for Reform conversion. In others it is optional. We might conclude that if

the custom possesses meaning for the communities and for the prospective convert, it should be

encouraged. This would make it more difficult for traditionalists to challenge liberal conversions,

although Orthodox authorities will never willingly accept anything we do as our basic premises

differ sharply. When infants who are adopted become Jewish, it may also be done

through the naming ceremony conducted either at home or in the synagogue. In many Reform

congregations, this would be considered sufficient ritual conversion for girls and also for a large

number of boys. This act, along with Jewish education, would bring the child into the covenant of

Judaism in the same manner as a child born Jewish . We have several possibilities

which might be followed in the conversion of this young boy about whom you ask. He should

certainly begin to receive some Jewish education. As he is already circumcised, his parents

might want to undertake tipat dam. Although tradition would encourage this, we would not

suggest it for a child four years old. It would certainly provide a negative initial experience with

Judaism. However, tevilah, with an appropriate ceremony, or a Hebrew name bestowed

either in the synagogue or at home, would provide a proper initiation into Judaism through

something meaningful and understandable to the young boy and his parents.October 1980

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NYP RR21 no. 5760.5

CCAR RESPONSA

5760.5

Conversion When The Spouse Remains a Gentile

She’elah
A woman has asked a congregational rabbi to sponsor and guide her through the conversion process. After a thorough initial interview, the rabbi discovers that her husband, a Roman Catholic, has no intention of converting to Judaism along with her. Although the rabbi judges her character and motives to be sincere in every way, he cannot agree to be her sponsor because her conversion will result in an interfaith marriage. If she were single or married to a Jew, there would be no question of her qualifications as a potential Jew by choice. Should this woman’s love of Judaism and her sincere desire to convert be impacted by the religious identity of her partner? If an interfaith marriage is the result of this conversion, is the sponsoring rabbi held responsible? (Kathy Kahn, UAHC Commission on Outreach)

Teshuvah
Should we accept for conversion a married person whose Gentile spouse does not share the desire to become a Jew? Orthodox rabbis would likely respond in the negative. The conversion of one spouse would create a mixed marriage, which is prohibited under Jewish law.[1] Orthodox halakhists would interpret the potential convert’s desire to remain in what would become a mixed marriage as a lack of commitment on his or her part to “accept the mitzvot” and to live a fully Jewish life; such a lack of commitment is a serious impediment to the acceptance of a conversion and to its subsequent validity.[2] Even those authorities who are generally lenient with regard to accepting proselytes would presumably reject this conversion.[3]

Should we Reform rabbis respond in the same way? On the one hand, we certainly view the phenomenon of mixed marriage as a matter of deep concern, in that it calls into question the Jewishness of home and family life and the very survival of the Jewish people. We teach that “it is a mitzvah for a Jew to marry a Jew so that the sacred heritage of Judaism may be transmitted most effectively from generation to generation.”[4] Our Conference has formally declared “its opposition to participation by its members in any ceremony which solemnizes a mixed marriage.”[5] Even though many of our members will, under certain circumstances, officiate at ceremonies of mixed marriage,[6] they do so not to lend Jewish religious sanction to those unions but rather in the hope that their act might increase the possibility that the couple will create a Jewish life for themselves and for their children. Even though we do our utmost to reach out to religiously-mixed couples and their families and even though we want them to feel fully at home in our synagogues, we do not see mixed marriage as a proper religious choice for a Jew. Given this stance, it might be argued that we should deny this woman the opportunity to convert to Judaism, on the grounds that converting her would create a mixed marriage in this case and give the impression that we condone mixed marriage in general.

Yet there is another side to this argument. In presiding over this conversion, the rabbi and the beit din do not “create” a mixed marriage. The couple are already married to each other in the eyes of the state, and the conversion does nothing to affect that status in either Jewish or civil law. The ritual of conversion (giyur) is emphatically not a wedding or some other “ceremony which solemnizes a mixed marriage.” Nor does the conversion signal that we somehow “condone” mixed marriage. Although a mixed marriage will be the result of the conversion, it is not its intended result, the goal or purposeful outcome of the action of the beit din. The giyur centers not upon the couple–indeed, the husband is not a participant in the ceremony– but upon the individual who chooses Judaism. It concerns itself with her, with the motivations that have led her to Judaism and with her readiness to enter the covenant of God and Israel. Far from condoning mixed marriage, the conversion does not address that subject at all; it does not alter in the least our teaching that “it is a mitzvah for a Jew to marry a Jew.”

The new Jew-by-choice, it is true, will be living in a situation in which she does not fulfill the mitzvah of Jewish marriage. This fact, however, is not a sufficient cause to deny her request to become a Jew. We do not demand of a ger or giyoret that he or she observe “all” the mitzvot (however we understand that term) as a condition for conversion. For that matter, it is far from certain that even the traditional halakhah makes that demand.[7] This person, to be sure, has come to Judaism at a time and from a place in her life that present special challenges to her as she undertakes to “find satisfaction and joy in the fulfillment of Your sacred mitzvot.”[8] Yet each of us, it must be said, travels a unique path to Jewish commitment. All of us struggle to overcome the obstacles that stand in our way to a more complete Jewish life. None of us is perfect (however we understand that term) in his or her Jewish observance, and we do not require perfection from this proselyte. All we ask of her–and this is no little thing–is that she make a sincere and informed decision to adopt the Jewish faith as her exclusive religious expression and that she identify her fate and destiny with that of the people of Israel.[9] Who are we, who do not know this person, to say that she has not made such a commitment? Who are we to say that she is not one of those who, according to our agadic tradition, has come to discover that she, too, stood at Sinai and entered the covenant?[10]

How do we determine whether this person is in fact fully and sincerely prepared to accept the faith of Israel and to join the Jewish people? That decision, our sources teach, is left to the judgment of the local rabbi.[11] Our point is simply that, given that her motives are “sincere in every way,” the fact that this woman’s husband will remain a Gentile does not constitute in and of itself a reason for us to turn her away. The rabbi, we think, is entitled to accept her as a Jew-by-choice.

At the same time, however, it should be abundantly clear that the rabbi is not required to accept her. We say this because, though her marriage does not automatically disqualify her from conversion, it most certainly signals the rabbi to proceed with caution. Again, we emphasize that we do not know this person and that we have no reason to doubt the sincerity of her decision. Yet we cannot overlook the fact that a conversion in a case such as this creates a mixed-religion household, and this raises serious questions as to the capacity of even the most devoted proselyte to construct a Jewish life. Our ceremony for giyur requires that the Jew-by-choice answer “yes” to the following, among other questions: “Do you promise to establish a Jewish home?” and “If you should be blessed with children, do you promise to raise them as Jews?”[12] Even with the best of intentions, a proselyte whose spouse remains a Gentile will face enormous difficulties in achieving these goals. For example, does the spouse identify strongly with his or her own religion? A household in which some other religion is practiced on an equal basis with Judaism cannot be called a “Jewish” home in any plausible sense of that term. If children are born to the couple after one of them converts, does the Gentile spouse support him or her in raising those children exclusively as Jews? Children raised in more than one religious identity do not qualify for Jewish status under the CCAR’s Resolution on Patrilineal Descent.[13] All of this testifies to the fact that Judaism is not simply a matter of personal spirituality, restricted to the worship service. Judaism is a complete and all-encompassing religious way of life; it must be practiced in the home as well as in the synagogue, in the family as well as in the heart. No matter how sincere a potential convert’s personal commitment to the Jewish faith, he or she is not yet ready to become a Jew unless that commitment is realized in the arena of home and family life. It is up to the rabbi to determine that such is the case.

Finally, we must raise the issue of the stability of the marriage and the family relationship. A decision to choose Judaism is a life-transforming event, a matter of ultimate seriousness. From this point forward, the Jew-by-choice is committed to new patterns of worship, of ritual behavior, and of personal consciousness. “The proselyte,” we are taught, “is like a new-born child”[14]; making a significant break with all that is past, he or she from now on seeks religious fulfillment as a member of the community of Israel. What does this transformation do to the spouse who does not join in it? How will it alter the common fabric of the marriage? Does it reflect a separation between the couple, a coming apart? As a matter of pastoral responsibility, the rabbi must inquire as to the psychological sources of this decision and as to its effects upon the marriage and the household.

Conclusion. A person who wishes to become a Jew should not be rejected merely because his or her spouse will remain a Gentile. In dealing with conversion, our primary responsibility is toward the individual proselyte. If the rabbi determines, through careful examination, that the decision to convert is “sincere in every way,” then he or she may be accepted as a Jew-by-choice. On the other hand, the spouse’s decision not to become a Jew may be an indication of serious obstacles to the proselyte’s creation of a Jewish life and of problems in the marriage. The rabbi must be satisfied that these difficulties are not serious before proceeding with giyur. In any event, both the rabbi and the prospective proselyte are well advised to proceed slowly, deliberately, and with all caution. No arbitrary time limit can or should be set. Let them rather take all the time they need to determine whether this decision is the right one, both for the Jew-by-choice and for the Jewish people.

NOTES

The prohibition is derived from Deuteronomy 21:13; see BT Kidushin 68b. Another possible source is Deuteronomy 7:3, which ostensibly forbids marriage only with members of the seven Canaanite nations. Maimonides, however, reads the prohibition as covering all Gentiles; see Yad, Isurey Bi’ah 12:1.
On the requirement that the ger/giyoret accept the mitzvot (kabalat hamitzvot) see BT Yevamot 47a-b; Yad, Isurei Bi’ah 13:4 (where he speaks of accepting the yoke of the Torah; Shulchan Arukh YD 268:3. That this acceptance must be complete, without any reservations whatsoever, is indicated in BT Bekhorot 30b: a Gentile who comes to accept the Torah except for one precept is not accepted for conversion. Although this statement is not codified in either the Mishneh Torah or the Shulchan Arukh, it does reflect the thrust of contemporary Orthodox halakhic opinion, which suggests that the proselyte’s failure to observe all the commandments is retroactive evidence that the conversion was null and void ab initio. See, for example, R. Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook, Resp. Da`at Kohen, nos. 154-155, and R. Yitzchak Halevy Herzog, Resp. Heikhal Yitzxhak EHE 1:1, nos. 19-21. Yet not all Orthodox halakhists take this position; see at n. 7, below.
A case in point is R. Benzion Ouziel, Resp. Mishpetei Ouziel EHE 18. In this teshuvah, he demonstrates his generally lenient approach by accepting conversion for the sake of marriage, even though this is generally considered an improper motivation for conversion, on the grounds that this step is necessary to combat the plague of mixed marriage that afflicts the Jewish community. In the same responsum, however, he addresses a second question: is it permissible to convert a Gentile woman who is already married to a kohen? Here his answer is no: since a kohen is prohibited to marry a proselyte (giyoret), to convert this woman would mean that he would transgress that prohibition. R. Ouziel says this, even though the kohen is already violating the prohibition against intermarriage. Based on his reasoning, it seems clear that he would also rule strictly in our case, in which a conversion would lead to a transgression (intermarriage) in a place where, at the moment, no transgression exists.

Gates of Mitzvah (New York: CCAR, 1979), 36. And on page 37: Judaism resists mixed marriage because it weakens the fabric of family relationship and the survival potential of the Jewish community, and because it makes it more difficult to establish the mikdash me-at that should be the goal of every Jewish marriage.
See Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook 83 (1973), 97, for the text of the resolution. An expansive argument on behalf of the resolution is found in American Reform Responsa, no. 149.
As indicated in the second paragraph of the resolution cited in note 5.
See note 2. Although the preponderance of contemporary Orthodox opinion requires that the proselyte accept “all” the mitzvot–which is tantamount in their eyes to a requirement that he or she become an Orthodox Jew–some authorities hold otherwise. Some understand the requirement of kabalat hamitzvot as the ger/giyoret’s self-imposed obligation to undergo circumcision and/or immersion before a beit din (Chidushei Haramban, Yevamot 46b; R. Meir Posner, Resp. Beit Meir, no. 12). Others see it as a general commitment “to forsake his people and its gods, to take refuge beneath the wings of the Shechinah, to accept the religion of Israel and to enter the Jewish community” (R. Shelomo Lifschitz [18th-19th cent. Poland], Resp. Chemdat Shelomo, YD 29, nos. 22-23). R. Benzion Ouziel sees kabalat hamitzvot primarily as the proselyte’s acceptance of the obligation to keep the mitzvot; this acceptance is valid even if we know in advance that he or she will not observe them (Resp. Mishpetei Ouziel II, YD 1:58). In other words, the giyur “takes” even though the proselyte does not live a thoroughly “Orthodox” life style following the conversion. On all this in detail, see Zvi Zohar and Avraham Sagi, Giyur uzehut yehudit (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1997), 171ff.

Rabbi’s Manual (New York: CCAR, 1988), 200, from the “Giyur Service in the Synagogue.”
See BT Yevamot 47a, the ger’s declaration of his readiness to accept the vicissitudes of Jewish existence; and see Rashi ad loc., s.v. ve’eini kehda’i.
The teaching that all future converts were virtually present at Sinai, a midrash on Deut. 29:14, is found in BT Shabbat 146a.
In matters of conversion, “everything is left to the judgment of the court”; R. Yosef Karo, Beit Yosef YD 268, based upon Tosafot Yevamot 24b, s.v. lo.

Rabbi’s Manual, 201.
The text of the resolution itself (see Rabbi’s Manual, 226) speaks of the performance of “timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people”; these are “mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity” (emphasis added). See also Teshuvot for the Nineties, 5755.17, 251-258; Questions and Reform Jewish Answers, no. 109; and Contemporary American Reform Responsa, no. 61.

BT Yevamot 22a and parallels.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 200-201

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

128. Conversion of a Child with Two Non-Jewish Parents

QUESTION: A mixed married couple were members of a congregation. The woman had no desire to convert to Judaism but was committed to raising her son as a Jew. She became a regular Temple goer and has continued after his death. She had another child by a non-Jewish man with whom she had a brief relationship. she intends that the child be raised as a Jew just as his brother. Should a mohel perform a berit milah on this child? (Lewis Barth, Los Angeles CA)ANSWER: The newborn baby here is clearly non-Jewish. The fact that the mother was not married to the father plays no role in our discussion. It has always been possible for bet din converting a young child and thus stand in loco parentis. We have used this procedure since Talmudic times (Ket 11a) although in modern times we refrain from it as we do not want to convert any minors who may come to us because of specific family problems or some temporary youthful attraction. We have frequently counseled teenagers with an interest in Judaism to study it academically but not to convert (W. Jacob Contemporary American Reform Responsa #50). In this instance, of course, we face a different situation as this is a baby and is not the child of an outsider, but of an individual who has made a commitment to Judaism albeit without conversion. The mohel should circumcise this child as an act of conversion with the appropriate special blessing; milah leshem gerut is frequent among us. Tevilah should also be considered in accordance with local custom. Technically the child possesses the right to renounce his conversion when he reaches maturity (W. Jacob Contemporary Reform Responsa #49). The previous actions of the mother guarantee that the child will be raised as a Jew along with his older brother. The rabbi should take whatever opportunities this and other occasions present to encourage the young woman to convert to Judaism and in this way to bring religious unity to her young family. Without this step and therefore without a Jewish parent in the home it will be difficult to raise these children as Jews. We should encourage her in every way possible.September 1987

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 196-197

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

125. Conversion of a Child

QUESTION: A non-Jewish woman, previously married to a non-Jew, with an eight year old daughter, has married a Jewish man. They have had a child who has been named in the synagogue and is being reared as a Jew. The second husband has now adopted the older daughter. She wishes to become Jewish; should there be a formal conversion or may she be considered under “patrilineal descent?” (Rabbi Morley T. Feinstein, South Bend IN)ANSWER: Whenever we discuss individuals and patrilineal descent, one of the physical parents must be Jewish. When there is one Jewish parent, either father or mother, a potential for Jewish life exists. The Central Conference has therefore declared “Depending on circumstances, mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity will include entry into the covenant, acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, Bar/Bat Mitzvah, and Kabbalat Torah (Confirmation). For those beyond childhood claiming Jewish identity, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation with their rabbi” (W. Jacob (ed) American Reform Responsa p 550). In this instance the child has no Jewish parents and is being adopted relatively late in her life. She should therefore be formally converted. This would, of course, be different from the conversion of an adult and would consist of her enrollment in religious school at the appropriate grade level, and a formal ritual in the synagogue, as well as immersion in a miqveh, if that is customary. These acts on her part would make the religious transition real and undoubtedly be important to her. They will strengthen her ties to her new family and should be considered an extension of the formal adoption which has taken place.December 1988

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 80-81

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

47. Infant Conversion

QUESTION: A young

couple is in the process of converting. In this instance, the conversion, or the study toward

conversion, has been spread out over a period of two years due to desire for a thorough study,

as well as business problems. The couple is committed to Judaism and the conversion should be

finished in January. The couple expects a child, most likely a male, in September. The local

mohel refuses to do a berit milah, even leshem gerut, as neither parent is

Jewish. What can be done in this instance to start this young lad in life as a Jew? (Rabbi J.

Adland, Indianapolis, IN).ANSWER: Tradition makes clear provisions for the

conversion of Gentile infants to Judaism. The conversion was undertaken by a bet din

who stand in place of the father (Ket. 11a; Yad Hil. Isurei Biah 13.7; Tur, Shulhan

Arukh Yoreh Deah 268.7). This procedure was followed when a father and mother do not

convert to Judaism but wish their son or daughter to be Jewish (Rashi, Rashi, Ritba Ket. 11b).

There was some discussion as to whether a formal bet din was necessary for such

conversion. In the case of the boy there was also controversy as to whether the circumcision

must be done at the request of the bet din or independently (Smak in the name of Aderet;

also Ritba and Meiri to Ket. 11b). Although there is a fair amount of discussion on the

details of the conversion and whether, in the case of a boy the berit milah precedes or

follows the immersion in a miqveh, there is no debate on whether conversion under

these circumstances is possible. It is clearly possible and obviously occurred regularly in the

past. An infant convert always has the right, whether conversion is done at the request

of his father or at the request of a bet din, to renounce his conversion on reaching

maturity. If such renunciation takes place, it is not held against the individual in any way (Ket.

11a; Rashi to Ket. 11a; see also Ritba, Aderet, Meiri; Tur, Shulhan Arukh Yoreh

Deah 268.7). This question is raised upon reaching maturity, i.e., the age of thirteen for boys, or

twelve for girls. It would, therefore, be perfectly possible for you to convert this

youngster at the time of his berit, or if it is a girl, shortly after her birth. This may be done

with or without miqveh according to local custom. This would be completely in keeping

with tradition, as well as Reform Jewish practice. If the local mohel, because of some

individual idiosyncrasy, refuses to do so, then the berit may be conducted with equal

validity by a Jewish physician. The rabbi would recite the appropriate prayers for gerut

and berit milah.August 1984

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.