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: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:18:18 GMT

stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
> Don Gertler writes:

> >What constitutes a Conservative Jew?  Is it that he/she does not
> >accept that the Torah was given by G-d to Moshe at Sinai?  Let's
> >for the sake of argument, take that definition.  Now, let's also
> >say that the O feel that a convert must accept Torah leMoshe miSinai.
> >The O may have grounds for feeling that one who does not himself
> >accept this tenet cannot be relied upon to impress it upon a convert
> >or to question the convert's conviction on this topic.  Now, IF
> >all of this were true, would you be have no conflict with O?
> >
> >Of course, you might like to see further investigation of those
> >who claim to be O, since some in this category may also not accept
> >TlMmS.
> 
> If you want to start another flamefest, you're doing a very good
> job with your provocations against your fellow Jews.

Calm down, Stan.  My intent here was not to start a flamefest.
When it is, you'll know it.

> The fundamental FACT is that Orthodox Judaism is just one INTERPRETATION
> of the Law that God gave us ALL at Mount Sinai.  The R and C observe
> the same Law that you observe, consistent with their LEGITIMATE
> INTERPRETATIONS of it!

Well, perhaps the R and C do observe the same Law as I do (I'm not
exactly sure what that means), but they do not observe the same laws.
I agree that much interpretation has been incorporated into Halakha.
I may feel I'm observing kashrut even if I eat un-hekhshered cheese.
In that case, I may have a legitimate case in arguing against an O
who feels otherwise.  If, however, I eat pork, I would be somewhat
disingenuous in arguing adherence to the laws of kashrut.  If R does
not *require* adherence to kashrut, then they are not following the
same laws as I am.  If they argue that pork is okay under the new,
improved laws of kashrut, then we have a different disagreement.

Now before I continue, let me just point out that I used a hypothetical
case in the above.  Note the "if"s.  I emphasize this since a similar
exercise in my earlier posting seems to have gone right over your head.
I said there, "for the sake of argument."  If the difference is not
as I suggest, state that.  It may be equally valid for other analogous
differences, and they should not be ignored.

If the difference between O and C *is* as I suggest (for the sake of
argument), then perhaps we may wish to follow the rest of the argument.
There may be other branches, with more "if"s.  If the conclusion is
not to your liking, but the premises are, then debate the logic.

I was responding to Ronald Cohen's article regarding a C conversion.
In that case, he stated that the conversion was according to "traditional
halach" [sic].  Here is his statement:

<<> Ah, but their mother had converted to Judaism according to the
<<> traditional halach!  The problem according to O is that they
<<> will not recognize a C beit din.  So by O's definition it is
<<> "not according to halacha."  Now if that is the point of O, that
<<> only O's are kosher, than I cannot accept the O philosophy.
<<> Note that if the O position was that the status of the
<<> conversion is unclear until investigation, I would have no
<<> conflict with O on this.

What I was trying to ascertain was whether he felt that a halakhic
issue that relates to belief is also invalid, if such exists.  If
such does exist, is it inappropriate to require a rabbi to believe
a certain way in order to accept that he properly probes a potential
convert for those beliefs?

Whether those beliefs are necessary in a convert is another issue.
While the O will not -- indeed, cannot -- negate the Judaism of a
born Jew regardless of acceptance of a particular belief, they may
feel that a convert should accept it.  They may not.  I was just
asking.

This is why I took care to add the following paragraph, which you
neglected to reproduce:

<<Of course, you might like to see further investigation of those
<<who claim to be O, since some in this category may also not accept
<<TlMmS.

Even if my first paragraph could be misconstrued, I should think
that this addition exposes an inherent difficulty in such an approach
to conversion.

> So do us all a favor and stop preaching to us about how only your sect
> observes God's Law.  And to also save time, when you start asking
> how "A", "B", or "C" can be valid interpretations when the Torah says
> something different, we can easily answer that the Torah also says "D",
> "E", and "F", but we don't see those as part of your observance of
> Judaism today.

We all make mistakes.

> Finally, please save your flames for our common enemies.

I have saved my flames.  Why are you hallucinating?

-Don Gertler
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.arabic,talk.politics.mideast