Talk:Ger tzedek

message: IZAK don't be anonymous, you do realize that you have completely reversed the point of view of the original article instead of adding thwe alternative POV?Wiki is not about t4rying to force one POV into domination but to report all of the POVs in a neutral manner.Zestauferov 05:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

message: Hi Zest:You are introducing ERRONEOUS definitions and confusing people. A "Ger" or a "Ger Tzedek" is someone who has become fully and Halachically Jewish 100% because they have undergone "GIUR" ("Conversion) and this is what makes them into a "Ger". "Ger Tzedek" refers to a very "Righteous" convert. One CANNOT be refered to as either a "Ger" or "Ger Tzedek" PRIOR to the actual "day of conversion" when an AUTHORIZED Beit Din accepts the PROSPECTIVE Ger and oversees the Halachic requirements, such as immersion in the Mikveh supervised by that Beth Din. ONLY THEN does the Beit Din ISSUE a "SHTAR  GIUR" (Certficate of Conversion) certifying that the former GENTILE (GOY) is now a Jew (Halachik Jew).  So to call someone who has NOT immeresed in the Mikveh a "Jew" is incorrect from the point of view of Halacha and any branch of Orthodox Judaism and most Conservative Judaism goes by this procedure. The Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism do not have these standards for conversion to Judaism. The branch of "Netzarim" people, who believe in "Ribi Jesus" are confusing you. Maybe you would enjoy learning at http://www.aish.com/ or http://www.ohr.org.il/  or at http://www.chabad.org/ and you will see that they will all say what I have just told you here. IZAK 19:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halakha & Gerim 

message: This section of the discussion does not belong here it has been moved following no objection to the Talk:Nazarene Judaism page. Zestauferov 11:02, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the link and incorporated the material into the article to give some context. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on Netzarim

message: I do not believe a rabbinical court can reverse a conversion, but they can annul it if they find it was entered into under fraudulent premises.  The most famous case (that I'm aware of) is the Paula Cohen (if memory serves me right about the name), who converted in Israel, promptly married a Kohein, moved to the UK, where the London Beth Din refused to accept the conversion.  Once the rabbi in Israel heard that she'd a) moved out of Israel and b) married a Kohein, they "took back" the conversion as well.  Without getting into the case beyond this, the point made was that Ms. Cohen intended fully to marry a Kohein at the point when she converted.
---
If I am not mistaken, essentially the same principle applies to Orthodoxy's rejection of, say, Conservadox conversions: they are done according to Orthodox ritual, but one of the premises (namely, an Orthodox understanding of the nature of the law) is not present. I don't think the semikha of the Rabbi involved is the primary issue; most Conservadox rabbis have Orthodox semikhas. Hasdrubal 20:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversing conversion 

message: As far as I know there isn't a general restriction against converts serving on a beit din.  There is, however, a restriction against them serving on a beit din that is witnessing a conversion.  (There are, after all, other uses for a beit din).  For some reason I can't quite understand, it is thought that converts have a conflict of interest in such a situation.--Leifern 02:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a convert cannot be appointed a Dayan (he may sit on a beth din though). This is based on a textual hint in the Torah and not on logic. The other restriction is female converts marrying kohanim. JFW | T@lk 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restrictions on a convert 

message: :Judaism was once more of a proselytizing religion than is commonly thought.  The very word "proselyte" originally meant a Greek who had converted to Judaism.  In the Gospels there are criticisms of Pharasees for being so enthusiastic about making conversions.  Byzantine authorities passed edicts against converting to Judaism as late as the 6th century.  The Byzantine government would not have needed to pass such laws if conversions were not occurring.  
Dinopup, could you please provide some sort of sources for this; e.g. the verses in the gospel, or the date or name of the Byzantine edicts?  Also, you conclusion about those edicts seems highly POV; do you have support for this reasoning? Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what verse Dinopup had in mind, but a notable one is Matthew 25:15, which in the King James version reads "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."Benami 14:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinopup's additions 

message: Ger does not mean Convert! Hitgairut = conversion and is from a competely different root. Just because two root words in Hebrew look the same it does not mean they are etymologically related. It is shameful that there should be any Hebrew speakers confusing the two words here. Ger (as in Ger Tzedek, Ger Toshav or Ger Ha Shaar) means Stranger/foreigner/sojourner and that is all. Any other meaning for a similar Hebrew sound is a different Hebrew word.
:It's the same word, it has multiple meanings. Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poppycock!