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 02:08:16 GMT

cohen@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen) writes:
> <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)> writes:

> >I never said anything about proving one's Jewishness!  Please!!!
> >I beg you.  Stop attributing your assumptions to me.  What we were
> >discussing was a conversion taking place.  What were the circumstances
> >surrounding that conversion?  Was it a proper conversion?  The fact
> >that 265 million Americans *may* be Jews is completely irrelevant to
> >this discussion.  We have someone who went through *some* procedure,
> >guided and supervised by *some* individual.  What I asked is what would
> >render that procedure invalid under a particular set of guidelines,
> >and whether those guidelines themselves are valid.

> You clearly miss the whole point.  If you are questioning
> conversions, you are questioning Jewishness.  Since the
> converting Rabbi's inner thoughts are the key, according to you,
> NO conversion can be proved to valid.  Your whole attitude is
> only consistent with NO ONE being able to prove that they are
> Jewish since we do not have records back to Abraham.  QED

Hello?!  Are you listening?

First, I didn't say the rabbi's inner thoughts are key.  I asked WHAT IF
they are relevant.  Second, I said nothing about proof.  For that you'll
have to wait for chapter two.  Until then, please refrain from telling
me what I did say, especially when I didn't.

Thanks again.

Now, let's start over.  Maybe you should take a tranquilizer.  Calm?

Okay.  Make believe you don't know that I'm one of those evil Orthodox
creatures, one of the most pernicious and odious little vermin that
nature ever suffered to crawl across the surface of the earth.  I
meet you on the street and we start discussing conversions to Judaism.
I ask you about a possible set of guidelines for conversion.  First
I ask if requiring the convert to adhere to a particular belief is
acceptable.  Then I ask if the rabbi or beit din supervising the
conversion should himself adhere to that belief.  Then I ask if
TlMmS can be one such belief.

Now,

    #    ######
    #    #
    #    #####
    #    #
    #    #
    #    #	[in the event that; granting that; on condition that]

TlMmS fits, and

    #    ######
    #    #
    #    #####
    #    #
    #    #
    #    #	[in the event that; granting that; on condition that]

Rabbi X does not adhere to the belief,

  #####  #    #  ######  #    #
    #    #    #  #       ##   #
    #    ######  #####   # #  #
    #    #    #  #       #  # #
    #    #    #  #       #   ##
    #    #    #  ######  #    #		[consequently]


is it acceptable to suspect the rabbi's emphasis on this issue,
thereby suspecting the conversion

 #####
#     #
      #
   ###
   #

   #	[question]


Pick any issue near and dear and substitute it for "TlMmS."  How
about observance of the mitzvot.  Could that be a suitable requirement?
Now, before you jump on that one too, let's ignore the issue of
different interpretations of the mitzvot.  Let's say we're talking
about ANY interpretation.  This would restrict ONLY those who feel
that, while there exist mitzvot (of some flavor or brand of Judaism),
there is no need whatsoever to observe them.

Would a rabbi who believes that there is no obligation to observe even
the mitzvot that he agrees exist, as he understands them, be considered
reliable for the purpose of conversions according to Halakha?

If you answer that his belief is absolutely immaterial, then we are
done, except that I may disagree.  If you say his belief in this
example is at all significant, then we can move on to the next
explosive part of the discussion.

Looking forward to the fireworks.

-Don Gertler