From: gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:08:44 GMT

dcs@witsend.tnet.com (D. C. Sessions) writes:
> gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)  wrote:

> # Now, assuming this is a legitimate [Oops!  I used the "L" word]
> # approach, while understandably not to your liking, can we at least
> # require the same belief of the person responsible for supervising
> # and educating the convert?  Try to ignore the OCR labels.  As I
> # stated, O may have difficulty with *itself* on this issue.  But
> # is this inherently evil?  Again, we're not requiring it of every
> # Jew just to be called a Jew, merely of the prospective convert
> # into our people, as well as the person guiding the new Jew-to-be.
> 
>   OK, admitting for the sake of argument that a precondition for
>   conversion is that the individual accept the direct divine
>   origin of Torah (not the way I learned it, BTW; only that one
>   must accept the binding nature of the obligation -- but let
>   that pass for now).  It seems that you are arguing that since
>   the Conservative movement doesn't catechize its rabbis on the
>   question that we may assume the converse, that is, all
>   Conservative converts are converted by rabbis who do NOT accept
>   Torah leMoshe miSinai.  Even more, you seem to extend this to
>   the assumption that the convert him/herself doesn't accept TlMmS.

First, I specifically said above to forget about labels, since some Os
may not fufill this hypothetical "requirement."  Conversely, some Cs,
and even Rs, may adhere to it.  Second, I have said nothing about whether 
we can assume any particular rabbi to be on one side or the other of the
issue.  Third, I said nothing about the catechism process (more on  this
one later).  I simply asked whether a rabbi who does not accept TlMmS
can be presumed not to impress said "requirement" fully and properly
on the potential convert, since to do so would be hypocrisy.

As to whether there exist any C rabbis who accept this principle, I
would be a fool to argue either way on this.  (I know I'm a fool, but
I'll refrain from this argument nonetheless.)  Certainly one may come
upon one's beliefs on one's own, for instance.  My assumption was
based on a rabbi who did not himself accept TlMmS.  How we test that
acceptance was not discussed.  Perhaps we could try the novel approach
of asking him directly.  I realize it's unnatural even to consider such
a method here in scj, but let's try to be more accepting.

Thus, whether all C rabbis accept or not -- or all Os or Rs for that
matter -- is immaterial.  Given one that does not accept it, what do
we conclude?

As to the beliefs of the convert, well, that's a funny question.
(That's funny-strange funny, not funny-ha-ha funny.)  The issue is
not what the convert ends up accepting, since if that were the only
concern, he/she could convert without a rabbi or beit din.  The issue
is whether he/she ever converted, *after which* the belief would be
secondary.  As I've previously stated, once the person has converted
properly [loaded word], he/she is a Jew in every way.  Just as a
native Jew without the belief is still a full Jew, so the convert
remains a Jew.

>   The logic here is obviously faulty.  I personally know at least
>   two Conservative rabbis who most profoundly believe TlMmS, and
>   I know at least one Reform convert who does.  In the latter case
>   I also know that the rabbi in question does NOT accept TlMmS, so
>   your logic falls down here in two separate ways.

What is faulty is your assumptions injected into my logic.  I
have not argued that all C rabbis think this way or that, nor
that all O rabbis do one or the other.  I have, in other threads,
argued that the C *movement* espouses (in their literature and
pronouncements, for example) the Torah miShamayim approach.
Individuals choose for themselves.  Many Cs, as with R and O,
are ignorant of the movement's scholarship and doctrine.  How
many R Jews, for instance, are familiar with the abundance of
literature created by the R movement (of which Daniel Faigin
provides an occasional glimpse), much less ascribe to ever
detail of it?  Likewise the Os and Cs.

>   Beyond that,
>   you have yourself admitted that the Orthodox don't catechize
>   their rabbis all that strictly, so it's REALLY hard to see that
>   anyone can seriously claim that ALL O-conversions are kosher and
>   ALL C-conversions aren't.

Here we go again.  I did not "admit" that the O "don't catechize
their rabbis all that strictly."  I did not discuss the catechism
(Why do I dislike that term?) of O rabbis at all.  As I thought I
had made unobfuscatably clear (yeah, right), one can be taught one
thing and believe another.  I said that there is a possibility that
some O rabbis may not believe in TlMmS.  (Perhaps that renders them
non-O, in which case there are no such O rabbis, by definition.  It
depends on what the standards are for O, and who decides.  That's
another discussion.)  I threw it in specifically to make it clear
that I was not directing this at C, but at those who do not fulfill
this hypothetical criterion, be they C, R(x2), O.

>   Which isn't to say that there isn't a safek.  Knowing some of
>   the C rabbis that I do, *I* couldn't wouldn't accept the blanket
>   statement that all C-conversions are kosher.

Why not?  Let's take what I hope is an unusual and extreme example.
A rabbi of the X movement converts by saying, "I know that in your
heart you feel Jewish, so you are Jewish."  Now, this rabbi appears to
believe -- or even freely offers -- that no formal conversion procedures
are required.  Further, he requires neither an extended period of study
nor acceptance of the obligations of the mitzvot.

Would you not trust him to perform a "kosher" conversion?  If not,
why not?  What are your requirements?  Let's say he comes to you and
tells you that, while he feels his normal "procedure" is all that's
required, he will perform a few conversions the "right" way, the
way you like them.  Would you trust him implicitly to perform kosher
conversions?  I, for one, trusting soul that I am, may suspect
that he'll put less than adequate emphasis on the study part or
the mitzvot.  If I'm wrong, he's a hypocrite.  If I'm right, I
may have Halakhic justification for doubting his conversion.

The next logical topic for discussion may be whether a particular
issue of concern in the procedure can, in fact, influence the
Halakhic validity of the conversion.  Perhaps TlMmS is completely
irrelevant.  That should be discussed, as a particular, only
after we agree that there exists such a thing as an non-kosher
conversion.  If all conversions, even the "you think you're a dog,
so you're a dog" type, must be considered kosher, then we have
no common ground.  It appears that we are in accord on this, though,
since you said you wouldn't accept all conversions.

Again, I will not claim that TlMmS is such a requirement of conversion.
I used it as a hypothetical example to get through the discussion,
and because an early poster (Mr. Cohen, I believe) implied that he
could reject some conversions inconsistent with his beliefs, but that
he could not abide the Orthodox doing such a thing if the reason
was such and such.  I wanted to explore whether he saw a logical
difference between the two or whether the issue was purely
Halakhic.

I did not claim that this was a legitimate Halakhic issue.  I asked
what he would say IF it was.  I got flamed.  And what was the structure
of the flames?  They all began with, and were predicated on, misstatements
of my position.  We were told what I said when I never said it.  Then
I was flamed for saying it.

>   Let's leave it at
>   the level of reasonable doubt and I might go along.

This is crucial.  At what level of certainty do we consider the
person a Jew?  If we set our threshold too low, we are sanctioning
intermarriage, for example.  If we set it too high, we are excluding
Jews from the nation.  I'll let the rabbis decide.  If I find
consensus among Halakhic scholars (whose sensibilities are similar
to mine vis a vis TlMmS and Halakha), my Rav will presumably accept
it and I'll accept it.  That's the best I can do.  Perhaps they
base their opinion on statistics.  Most Cs do this; most Rs do that;
most Os do something else.  Lots of probability in Halakha.

-Don Gertler