Proclaiming
Love the Stranger and your Kin:
Issues Regarding Giyyur/Geirut (Converts, Conversion)
and Kiruv (Outreach)
Last Update: Av 5769 (August 2009)
Elimelech David Yosef Pereira
Introduction
Regarding matters of conversion and outreach, there are growing trends in hashkafa (weltanschauung, worldview) and halakha that are perhaps not explicitly clear to those who, on the one hand, claim they are not in any way harming another. On the other hand they are justifying their actions based on some traditional sources, but without consideration to the dignity of those involved, truly examining their motives, or in accepting the other [competing] solid traditional sources.[1] While these laws are “universally known,” source citations and sevarah (logical reasoning) must both be employed in order to make clear the issues so that we can all readily examine ourselves in these matters and thus lovingly bring people [back] into our midst.[2] Regarding issues of conversion, please refer to the ample endnotes and the following specific resources for background, legal discussion, and further details that may be assumed to be understood throughout and are integral to understanding this discussion.[3] Hopefully, this discussion can serve as a resource so as to find ways to properly revise (vis-à-vis kiryat ha-shamayim, as well as that the Torah is divine in origin, Torah min hashamayim) and examine the halakhic traditions in an attempt to strengthen unity of kelal Yisrael in accordance with the Torah, halakha, and kabbalat ha’shamayim v’mitzvoth[4].
Torah is explicitly clear that we are not to oppress or vex the stranger.[5] We are also commanded to love the stranger[6] (i.e., proselyte, someone who wants to join the community) and our kindred (Lev 19:18). Indeed, we find that HaShem is very explicit that we do not oppress strangers and that G-d accords special favor to them.[7] We are commanded that there is one Torah for all[8] and that converts are to be cared for like a brother[9]. Tzedakah too (righteousness, charity) is to be given even to Gentiles and we are forbidden to turn anyone away[10]; shall we then (i.e., kal vachomer) turn away[11] one who wishes to become kin (and not just to receive benefits[12]) because they regard us with love and admiration as [potential] kindred?
Immediately proceeding the command to not oppress or spread falsehood while preceding the command to love our kindred (i.e., neighbor), we are commanded not to “stand idly by while your neighbor’s blood is being shed.” Shaming, humiliating, and lashon hara (“evil speech”) are considered tantamount to bloodguilt, a serious and heinous crime.[13] In fact, immediately following the command not to afflict/oppress those who are weak, we also read (in Exo 22:24) that we are not to press the poor (i.e., act like creditor, make high demands of). Using the principles of kal vachomer (i.e., if we should not oppress those, how much more should we not act like a creditor or make high demands since these are forms of abuse and oppression), gezerah shavah (i.e., that the poor are likened to the foreigner, orphan, and widow – that is, they are considered the downtrodden, meek, humbled, and weak – that we should not “lord over” or make high demands on any of them), and further incorporating into this line of sevarah the principles of binyan av & davar halomed me’inyano/vedavar halomed mi-sofo we can look to Zech 7:10, Isa 56:3-7, Isa 58:3-7, Eze 18:16-17 as further supporting this entire line of inference between oppression and high demands. Oppressing the convert, denigrating the secular Jew, and harsh & denigrating treatment of any person are forms of bloodshed. Many are well aware that Baba Metsia 59b declares that those who vex the convert transgress 36 or even 46 commandments! How much as well then when we cause torment to the native-born![14]
Indeed the two topics will come to a head when discussing the status of and inclusion of those of differing levels of observance. Distancing a non-shomer Shabbat Jew by treating them as non-Jews from those within the community in question is akin to treating them as an outsider: a stranger, rather than kindred.[15] Thus, matters of conversion must be discussed within the framework of inclusion towards all Jews. This will become more apparent in the proceeding discussion.
Conversion Issues
Several different issues regarding conversion bear discussion: general matters of conversion, how to resolve a safek, the Anusim, those of patrilineal Jewish stock, and the status of converts from non-“universal” courts. In general terms, the halakha for conversion[16] is an immersion in a kosher mikveh, circumcision for a male (or hatafat dam brit if already circumcised), and appearing before a beit din wherein the convert is informed of and asked for their consent to the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., mitzvoth) while attaching themselves to the Jewish people (klal Yisrael)[17]. Specific lengths of study, charging the convert for services or instruction, mandating that only rabbis may make up the beit din (or that rabbis are necessary at all!), and even requiring the convert to have a full understanding[18] of all the commandments of Torah are not requisite. In addition to the prior enumerated considerations given by rabbis & scholars who challenge especially the later notion of “full observance[19],” the conditional approach is problematic in other considerations.
There is no “tzaddik” even without sin (Ecc 7:20) and this is alluded to in many other sources, both in Scripture and throughout the sages. No one can claim to be perfect, yet there are those (growing quickly in numbers and voice) whose theology asserts that tzaddikim never sinned and these same theological supporters are also those who enforce such strictness & humrot upon converts (e.g., their interpretation of what it means when converts bring “evil to Israel” and they say that conversions will no longer happen in the messianic era[20] since they believe we are either in the beginning of or at that threshold: their theological underpinnings naturally result in exclusion or strictness & coercion, whether about potential converts or about Jews who are not observant in their manner of observance). The tzaddik however is noted and accredited for their repentance, for their heeding to gevurah as discipline (Psa 119:75; the sages noted that the tzaddik who sins by night has repented of it by morning[21])! This however in no way condones sin or non-observance nor does it equate tzaddikim with sinners (e.g., those who consistently do wrong or those who may appear to do right, but do not truly repent or have humility before G-d). However, it is from the theological foundation of some that tzaddikim do not sin to the point of almost revering tzaddikim as idols or as G-d (or as “pure divinity,” much in the same manner of idolatrous god-man worship that nascent Christianity began[22]), that paves the way for such strict humrot and requisites that not only vex converts, but put more stumbling blocks before them by making it exceedingly difficult! Indeed, any person – especially the righteous – would have such awe and humility before G-d to understand that they may be mistaken, even when they are right.[23]
In accordance with the principle of not demanding too much of (i.e., to oppress, vex) the stranger it is clear then why Hillel for instance would welcome converts into the fold without even their full observance, learning about, or even full acceptance of halakha![24] In order to reach out to someone to draw them near, one cannot hold out the left hand at length, but must first use the right to draw while the left guides, steers, and helps them to reach greater heights. Indeed, if the potential proselyte is informed that through this irrevocable/life-altering process[25] that they are responsible to G-d for their behaviors and thus are committed to lifelong self-refinement[26] and if they then still commit to the immersion then the convert will be accountable before Heaven for all their deeds (which is no different than Judaism’s tenet that all people, Jews or Gentiles, will be held accountable for their deeds). It should also be noted that even native-born Jews living in ignorance, under duress, or who have been rejected rather than informed of their Torah obligations are considered as if they did not transgress.[27] Those who did not help them and coax[28] (draw near, not coerce[29]) them however will be held accountable.[30] Indeed, Torah’s laws on sacrifices bear mentioning that when those who sinned unintentionally or in ignorance are told what they have done, then they are to draw near to G-d (sacrifice); this is the same theme that we find in the Prophets concerning G-d’s judgment to bring us back to repentance.[31] These concepts will be discussed in more depth in the later sections.
On the basis of the principal of kavna, we rule stringently in regards to Torah laws and leniently in regards to rabbinic laws and rulings (safek derabbanan lekulah). The prescriptions in Torah relating to conversion are simpler than the prescriptions found through the development of the halakha. In fact, the only requirement vis-à-vis p’shat exegesis is the attachment, residence, and binding of the convert to the people of Israel (historically, conversions in the ancient Near East were done by “sojourning” and taking on the laws of the land). The conversion process begins with the binding (halakhically understood at the moment of immersion) leading to a fuller observance of Torah.[32] While it would be imprudent to consider such a far-reaching leniency for practical, sociological, & other reasons today, the foundational framework is clear: the potential convert draws near and thus the Jewish people draw them nearer into the fold. Regarding when such a person is ready to convert in today’s world would be best determined by the convert in conjunction with a beit din.
For those with a safek then, the lenient ruling may not only be correct in principle, but also well-advised. It is known that when there is a doubt as to a bracha for instance, that bracha should not be recited. Even in regards to the Torah, when there was a safek as to whether the sacrifice should be a sin offering, the [lesser] tresspass-offering was offered instead.[33] If that is so then a full geirut process would not only be superfluous, but goes against the very core of the principles by which we base our obligations upon. Anusim, when being accepted back into the traditional[34] fold after the Inquisition/Expulsion, and even authorities today,[35] still hold that they are not obligated to convert but rather were either immersed and/or they only appeared before a beit din to declare and sign their allegiance to the Jewish people (“certificate of return” and letter of chavrutah/friendship). Had one wanted, a safek could be easily declared: questioning their family’s testimony, potential problems with intermarriage or mamzerim (as it could be assumed either way), or other forms of doubt presented so as to require full conversion; this however was not what the rabbis of that generation declared based on traditional understandings of halakha[36]. Indeed, as Chazal points out: when one wants to commit evil, the path is laid before them[37]; if so, it could also be said that should one want to find doubt, it can be found – the reasoning itself is true without the former example! One can question anything and indeed we are instructed to refrain from too much doubt.[38] Chazakah, rov, and miggo here indeed demonstrate further that based on their actions and words, those who wish to remove a safek have usually demonstrated their commitment and thus the court may be justified to proceed immediately to the next stage - as they see fit - so as to resolve the safek.
For instance, had the person wished to lie, they could have advanced a better cause and simply refrained from speaking of any safek. Further, their demonstration to accept the halakha and their knowledge of Jewish laws, rituals, and hashkafa would suffice – even if it was not complete – since if we observe their behaviors and can determine that they have more knowledge and practice than one would expect a Gentile to have from that community then at the very least they have demonstrated their desire to learn and participate as members of the Jewish community. As discussed prior, this is the first step to drawing them in or in the case of anusim: back. In the case of Gentiles even, full observance and knowledge is not even requisite; how much so then for those of questionable halakhic status or verifiable Jewish stock (e.g., patrilineal)? If however, we observe them in private behaving otherwise or learned that they are members of another religion or that they have devious intentions, then in that case chazakah no longer applies as it did and extra severity is not only merited, but warranted if not severe castigation/consequences as the local authorities see fit. It should be clear then that doubt can only be cast when there is sufficient evidence to do so!
Thus, it is integral to get to know a person, to observe their practices, and to sincerely & respectfully find out their level of knowledge and resources. It is still incumbent upon us to test their sincerity, their drive, and their commitment. Testing them, like by setting up challenges, is still integral – even for the meek as this will hopefully inspire confidence and humble assertiveness (each candidate is different and thus differences need to be understood and practical steps must be taken into account by local authorities rather than central authorities; not only is the latter impersonal, but is liable to make more mistakes – this is the case in all systems and perhaps why the Torah gives much latitude to local authorities while still having a prevailing central body for the more difficult challenges). As noted earlier, this includes far more than just time requirements, but also financial requirements. Some potential converts come from meager means; they should not be vexed on two accounts (acting like a creditor and holding back one’s hand to the poor). Some converts or those with questionable halakhic status may be single mothers, older single men, or others who would then be subjected to waiting an unknown number of years before they could marry (not only a mitzvah which may be restricted from them unduly, but isolating those from marriage only incites temptation to sin); such universal or arbitrary standards would only cause loneliness and additional feelings of marginalization or “outsider” status, being “in between” two communities. They may be unable to offer (based not on halakha as is argued here, but on the harshness of the community who claims they are “only upholding halakha”) hospitality due to “kashrut issues” or others, participate fully or counted in a minyan, or to marry & have children (especially those women in their 30s and 40s where health & financial concerns for them and children must be taken into account); to keep people in limbo is a serious breach in our conduct, especially if their status is in question (whether halakhic uncertainty, Jewish stock, or a non “universal” g’yyur) then prolonging that when the community will refrain from fully integrating them is most damaging to both the community and the individual. Some candidates may have sufficient knowledge and practices, but may feel unwelcome by those who seek to impose arbitrary time standards for conversion; each person, to retain human dignity, must be treated as an individual.[39]
Those with safeks may be better advised to do research or appear before a beit din to present their case before undergoing a conversion; as has been previously discussed, it is more prudent not to undergo a conversion if it is unnecessary – just as it would be ill advised to offer an unnecessary sacrifice or bracha (“a sacrifice of lips”; even Moishe is repudiated for offering unnecessary and long prayers on behalf of the Israelites[40]). In the event the person is truly Jewish, the action, blessings, and time spent were in vain, caused undue vexation for many parties from such doubt, and also detracted all the participants from avodas HaShem. Indeed, the community if they feel there is reason to doubt should also understand that there is the possibility that the person is already truly Jewish (however, the latter is not usually considered)! While some may think going above & beyond is prudent, our traditions not only call that wisdom into question but also demonstrate superfluous actions are not virtues, but error towards brazenness and impudence; if it is not obligatory, one is prohibited from such an action[41]. At first glance this may seem overly zealous (as some have unfortunately used it), however we must take into account that at each moment there are many mitzvoth obligatory upon us (such as loving our neighbor); the underlying point is that if there is no necessity to perform such an action, acting like it is required (e.g., presenting an optional strictness, a chumra, as requisite) and reciting a bracha or even performing it at all would be as if adding to the commandments of the Torah[42]. In such cases for Anusim, as Rabbi Soloveitchik advocated (see endnote 34), tevilah (immersion) in a mikveh without the bracha may be prudent (for them to marry; but otherwise should be considered “Jewish”) and thus we may apply this to other cases of safek as has also been traditional to do until most recently (rather now full conversions seem to be the mandated “universal” expectation).
One must also however take into consideration the community and change in attitudes towards religion in general in this era. Especially in countries where Jews are afforded equal rights and religious freedom where a person might consider themselves Jewish for reasons other than halakhic birth or conversion, these considerations should be taken into account. Probing a person though based on race, appearance, surname, or even lack of knowledge are usually not appropriate ways to distinguish Jews; rather this can be unintentional prejudice or even discrimination. The same standards (“one Torah”) should be used for all people, even those who would appear “unquestionably Jewish” so that no one is treated differently; not just the same questions, but the same attitude must be conveyed. Also, those who consider themselves Jews, but are in fact a member of another religion tend to be unfortunately more commonplace today; this trend can only be countered not by strictness alone, but by helping them to come back (for instance, Jews for Judaism’s outreach[43] utilizes this approach[44] very successfully to counter the growing trend of “Messianic” Christians who wrongly believe themselves to be or perhaps who were born Jewish and are now members of another religion, namely Christianity despite what they themselves call it; we cannot accept their misguided heresies, but to reject the person is as though we have accepted their heresies – that is, that we presume them to relegation and will not come back into the fold despite our efforts and duty to help them repent – we have failed in our duty to help them draw near to truth and G-d as discussed in endnotes 27-30). Even just in practical terms, strictness will usually result in isolation and resistance to norms; that person will likely fight the standards or make false claims to advance their cause and will normally seek out others to join their cause (no one likes to be alone). This is the opposite effect one would hope for. Some Chassidic movements have utilized this welcoming approach for “less observant” Jews with great success to increase their numbers and inspire baalei teshuvim.[45]
Just like the considerations for those of questionable halakhic status, the same response can be given to those of patrilineal decent who want to be fully accepted members of the kehillah. While there is precedent in our ancient traditions for such at least potential validity, this is not commonly accepted today nor the halakhic norm – though arguably it will be restored in the Messianic Era when tribal affiliations will be restored and the moschiach will be a scion of David and Solomon.[46] Since halakha can, has, and does change this matter should be more fully discussed and evaluated for revision given the trends of intermarriage with many more who fall into this category than in earlier eras. It may be prudent since Torah and the traditional hermeneutical principles can be applied to give grounds to both patrilineal and matrilineal decent.[47] For example, based on the principle of kavna whereas patrilineality is not considered valid is a rabbinic injunction; thus, a person of patrilineal decent who seeks to enter the Jewish fold may in fact have justifiable reason to claim that leniency is merited.
Historically, the reasons are unclear, though speculations abound, as to why the rabbis changed Jewish status to reflect upon those born of a Jewish mother rather than the father (Philo seems to be the first to suggest this, but Josephus’ accounts suggest patrilineality was common in his time; the Talmud first began codification in the second century CE and it is here that we find matrilineality; nascent Christianity’s genealogical assertions regarding their false messiah-leader used both lines which suggests that this was debated among the Jewish religious sects at the time, but before Rabbinic Judaism committed to matrilineality in the 2nd century CE). There are many arguments of speculation as to why this is the case, but they go beyond the scope of this article. Each generation of sages has the responsibility to investigate halakha[48], rather than depend solely on tradition without having done their work regarding the challenges of the individuals of this generation. Judaism by rote lacks the integral foundation of emunah which is rooted in integration and personalization.[49] Additionally, as circumstances, technology, and other practical matters change halakha then must take this into account. Given that halakha has changed over time[50] there is no basis for the argument that any change in halakha somehow nullifies Torah v’shamayim and kabbalat ha’mitzvoth.
So what do we do then with converts from streams where such haskhafa (belief in the divine origin of Torah, “fear of Heaven”, etc.) may not necessarily be the case – at least in the majority – of the haskhafa of the convert and the beit din? In certain cases where the proselyte has a conversion l’fi halakha, this is almost irrelevant given the above discussions and rabbinic responsa enumerated herein; also Shabbat 68a and Hilkhot Issurei Biah 13:17 give testimony that in these cases (i.e., having immersed) the convert is a Jew l’fi halakha. With regard to those conversions where the convert or beit din did not fully accept the commandments, even then again they may be considered a convert where a proper tevilah in a kosher mikveh took place[51] (as discussed prior, full observance or even full instruction on all the laws[52] was not requisite). Rather than extricate them from the fold and from klal Yisrael – to whom they, like Ruth and other converts in Torah, first pledged their commitment to – instead welcoming them will not only help them to not feel isolated or their need to resist traditional halakha, but will also create unity amongst klal Yisrael[53]. Consider whether Gentiles will view them as Jews during anti-Semitic persecution? Are not martyrs, even soldiers who are not shomer Shabbat, considered to be like tzaddkim when they give their lives as Jews and for Jews? Surely, no Jew in such a scenario would start asking questions, but would actively seek to save the lives of all Jews, regardless of affiliation or even conversion; their life too would be in danger. Further, to posit that no such danger exists today is not only fallacious, but dangerous. A convert has obviously attached themselves for particular reasons, the foundation of which is often in love or admiration: usually for Judaism, G-d, family background, or a Jew. To push aside those who seek us in sincere love is a form of abuse and we only further give them cause to cry out and seek validation (to which G-d promises He will answer[54]), no doubt by forming or joining factions. By drawing them near, we do not cause irrevocable factions to form, but can rather find unity without compromising the integrity of kabbalat v’mitzvoth v’Torah ha-shamayim.
We must accept those who sincerely wish to be adopted into the family, rather than treat them as outcasts and make higher demands of them. They must be welcomed and drawn near with time, rather than made to feel excluded until they reach some great height and the family finally chooses to accept them. Imagine a child being adopted only to be told that they are not really part of the family, but have to prove themselves and must become conformed in all matters of lifestyle before they can even be considered part of the family? And we wonder why if we act like this with our home-born children, demanding that they wear certain color socks or shaming them for it, that they choose to leave our family? The character of G-d and our forbearers does not represent this strict-harshness, who rather seek to draw more people near and nearer with time in love, with respect for the whole person (their feelings and individuality), and with compassion. Torah is not in heaven (Torah min ha’shamayim) as we know; it is in how we interact with others [middoth tovoth[55]] and so thus becomes near to us!
Kiruv (Outreach) and Inclusion Issues[56]
Perhaps a part of the root issue is not halakha or rigidity, but the accountability of the community in matters of kiruv and achdus (unity, cohesion, inclusion). While outreach is something many feel deeply about, the manner in which it is handled, the reasons why it is done, and the means by which one employs it can not only be misguided – as any loving act can be – but can also turn people from human beings into goals, into numbers. Their humanity and individuality, their concerns, their doubts, their fears, their loves, their talents & resources, all that makes each person unique is lost sight when the goal is to bring them into our way of thinking and behavior, or indeed treating them as any sort of object or goal. In today’s hectic world with many time constraints where people reside, work, and participate more disparately (i.e., we may live far from work, school, synagogue, shopping, and all manners of different places that we may frequent) the sort of nurturing welcome required is considered far from practical. If we are honest with ourselves upon close self-examination, we may find that our reasoning for our actions are rationalized and that we can find support or evidence for any number of positions; in today’s world especially this can easily be seen by the vast philosophies and by increasing divisions & quarrels among groups and sub-groups. We can always rationalize and find evidence for our behaviors[57]; the question then is about how we treat others and the consequences of those actions. A core matter then, as always in our actions, is our kavvanah (intention). As can be appreciated, the duties upon us all – our loving and reverent duties – to welcome and care for strangers is far-reaching. We can never know where a person’s path will take them, but one thing is certain: if we try to force them down ours, then they will get lost or resist. Those who seek to help others along their journey to avoid the snares and act as signposts may not be able to keep them from every sin or danger as mistakes are part of learning and wisdom, but they will undoubtedly touch their lives and hopefully show them the true beauty, relevance, and loving kindness that will inspire[58] others much like Avraham Avinu did (and many converts indeed attached themselves to him[59]).
Differing levels of observance should then not stand in our way[60] of inclusion nor is it an implication against the Jew in question. For if we were to take the same level of strictness that we apply to converts to those who differ in observance then we would, in addition to oppressing the less observant, we forsake the principle of chazakah.[61] If each time a “secular” Jew were to say they are Jewish, but exhibited some “deficiency” of knowledge or practice (from the perspective of the accuser who could always raise questions or doubt), then according to the strict standards of what a person must exhibit to be considered a Jew (under conversion or without safek) we would not be able to “trust” that they know enough to consider themselves [and/or their “secular” parents and grandparents etc] Jewish.[62] That is, before inclusion in such communities then a thorough investigation would need to be done; their status being called into question then would require others to treat them as outsiders at their Shabbat tables, in synagogue, and in the community (such as not eating/drinking their food[63], not permitting them to touch certain objects, not offering guest friendship, not offering an aliyah, etc.). Where would this stop? Which level of law may a person seemingly [or G-d forbid, actually] transgress without having their status as a Jew called into question? Who is so holy[64] as to determine and be the judge[65]? Humility inspires us to dan l’chat z’chuf (to judge charitably, give the benefit of the doubt). Rather as has been stated earlier, sufficient evidence to the contrary must exist for a doubt to be cast, rather than suspicions or lack of evidence for presumption (as this is eerily reminiscent to the methodology of the Inquisition, except now by our people towards our people!).
Aside from the arrogance of such practices which are abhorrent to HaShem our Creator, this practice – which is not, unfortunately, uncommon – only serves to alienate more Jews from the community (and drive out potential converts or have them seek a non-“universal” giyyur and as noted earlier, G-d is said to love converts dearly). It creates a barrier that if “they” want to join “us” then they can only do so on our terms, treating them the same, actually worse as we would Gentiles (for at least the Gentile wouldn’t feel as though we are denying who they are!). Practical considerations aside for those whose families perished in the Shoah, for those who came from secular homes where documentation of halakhic status may not have been kept (or may fall short of standards for some courts), and for those who come from communities whose customs may differ (some small Sephardic communities for instance ruled electricity on Shabbat was permissible; given the nature of our dispersion, differences of halakhic interpretation regarding fairly recent technology should come as no surprise as this can be easily historically verified throughout our millennia in exile) the implications are that a majority of Jews would be excluded while only a small minority would hold the power to determine status (and worse yet, that the majority not even have a voice – silenced by the elitist appeal to “divine authority and unchanging tradition” – as the minority have determined).
Instead, looking at the Torah, even
though leadership did exist, delegations from all tribes were to be present and
represented – the laity of the Jewish people always held an integral role[66]. Indeed, the role of the community in
terms of decisions of customs, leadership, and halakha has been arguably more
involved than today where professionals and rabbis exclude them as they are
“not knowledgeable enough.”
To exclude the laity would also serve to validate the source
historical-source critics who argue that this has always been normative, while
the Torah spoke only in idyllic and utopian terms. The Sanhedrin for instance could not
serve as their own witnesses, but depended on the testimony of witnesses
– one such example is regarding rosh hodesh. This served as a check against abuse of
power and elitism while incorporating and unifying the people. Indeed, historically, as the leadership
excluded the laity from their decisions and rulings so did factions increase
and disputes regarding halakha emerge; the
The Israelites united against the Benjaminites for example when they had “completely” perverted Torah and even violated basic decency, justice, and kindness – by acting like Sodomites. Therefore, such fear mongering today that any sort of attempt at unity in kelal Yisrael would result in assimilation and a sacrifice of principles and morality is clearly misguided. Even the Israelites could be reprimanded for not bringing their brethren back into the fold since they so zealously acted and nearly wiped out their memory, spurring them even to sin by abducting young maidens since the women of their tribe were blotted out! HaShem is clear that emissaries are not the only dutiful way we have to bring sinners back into the fold. Shall we make a similar mistake today and not engage those who differ from us in civil discourse[69] and through acts of loving kindness[70]? Should we seek to exclude them giving them more reason to also abandon hope or consideration than for them to turn and listen to our perspectives and find peace? Indeed, it is a mitzvah to bring reconciliation between peoples and this can only be achieved by both sides willing to try to understand the other.[71] It does not imply compromise; it however requires putting ourselves in their shoes, understanding their arguments, and relating & empathizing with their situations. The universal nature of humanity is such that we can all relate to one another; often our communication, our judgments & feelings about ourselves (which impact how we view others as R. Nachman pointed out to us in Azamra for example[72]), and our convictions are often the barriers. Humility which is to know that not one of us is perfect and to know before Whom we stand, would serve us well to understand one another. Just because we believe and must act as if we are right (i.e., with conviction) does not mean that we must then think that by necessity others are wrong or wicked; rather, humility demands that we may in fact be in the wrong even when we feel justified. By beginning a presumption that others are wrong or cannot be trusted is to misapply (i.e.., turn on its head) the principle of chazakah and keeps us from being able to understand and truly feel what the other person believes, thinks, or feels. The benefit of the doubt (dan l'chaf z'chut) is a virtue in our tradition for this and other many reasons.
The presumptions we have influence our judgments of others and the requisites that we believe necessary. We needn’t mistakenly believe all is permissible or that we cannot stand with conviction; rather what is incumbent upon us may be too much for another and so we instead help them up not tell them how far they have yet to climb. Let us not look only downward, but realize that no matter how high we may seem in contrast to others, there is surely more heights than we can even observe. Inclusiveness can be a means to unity that is not predicated on compromise, but based on civility, pluralistic learning or exchanges, a sincere drive to seek truth & peace, and tradition grounded with reasoning & humility.[73]
Conclusion
Indeed, as HaShem points out to us repeatedly in the Prophets that our behavior towards one another is the underlying problem; our failure in other observances of Torah is but a symptom of the lack of love and appreciation for all of what HaShem created, furthering disunity.[74] G-d, as we have seen through numerous references, is adamantly clear that those who practice even the most stringent of laws, but who do not act in accordance with love, humility, and concern for others are judged even more harshly as they have judged harshly. All Jews practice some degree of Torah, whether or not they are even aware: simple acts of kindness, giving charity, visiting the sick, caring for the downtrodden, loving & treating animals respectfully (reverence for G-d also obliges us to reverence for HaShem’s creations; as does love for G-d obliges us to love G-d’s designs born of love), being eco conscious, and many more are just some examples – indeed, some of these are specifically mentioned throughout the Prophets as remedies against the evil decree and punishment, remedies even to encourage positive Torah observance. To know love, a person begins by knowing love and loving themselves.[75] Love for G-d is also performed through our service to HaShem’s creation and the creatures therein; this is one way we can achieve greater Jewish unity.[76] Indeed, it is the relationships between people and others that matter more to G-d than even our relationship individually to G-d[77]! One cannot love G-d if one does not love whom and what G-d loves. And we know G-d loves the downtrodden, the stranger, the poor, the convert – who risks everything and leaves their past behind, and is often alone – indeed G-d loves all of creation and does not want any destruction, but for all of us to turn back, to love justice, practice mercy, and help to repair ourselves and this world. This too must be our mission and becoming a more unified people is integral and indeed makes us powerful emissaries of light to the nations.[78] The mission begins with each of our souls.[79]
Finding
unity by loving & respecting G-d, humanity, and all of creation is central
to our entire purpose as Jews; it is the foundation of
[1] See for
example: Isi Leibler, “Jewish Religious Extremism: A Threat to the Future
of the Jewish People,”
[2] Isa 42:1-7, Bereishit Rabbah 39, Pirkei Avot 1:12, c.f., Shabbat 31a
[3] Rabbi Dr. Marc Angel, “Conversion to Judaism: Halakha, Hashkafa, and Historic Challenge,” 5 Jan 2009.
Rabbi Dr. Marc Angel, “The Conversion Crisis and Challenge,” 2008.
Rabbi Dr. Marc Angel, “Slamming the Door on Converts,” 7 Nov 2007.
Rabbi Dr. Marc Angel, “Conversion Crisis,”
Rabbi Dr. Marc Angel, “More on the Issue of Conversion to Judaism.”
Rabbi Dr. Marc Angel, “Choosing to be Jewish: the
Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, “Afterthoughts on Ruth and Conversion,” 8 July 2005.
Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, “Is Conversion Really Possible?” 8 June 2007.
Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, “Man, G-d, and Torah: ‘Not Yet’ Jews by Choice,” 15 May 2004.
Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, “Solving the Conversion Crisis” [Part 1], 14 Oct 2007.
Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, “Solving the Conversion Crisis and Global Judaism – Part 2,” 28 Oct 2007.
Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, [Solving the] “Conversion Crisis – Part 3,” 19 Nov 2007.
Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, “What is Conversion?” 23 June 2008.
Rabbi Dr. Francis Nataf, “The Jew and the Stranger,” 12 Feb 2009.
Rabbi Francis Nataf, “Moshe the Outsider,” 29 Dec 2004.
Rabbi Dr. Isaac Sassoon, “The Proselyte Who Comes.”
Rabbi Dr. Isaac Sassoon, “Let No Ger Spend the Night Outdoors.”
Rabbi Dr. Abraham Unger, “Jewish Sovereignty and the Conversion Crisis,” 2008.
Rabbi Alan Yuter, “Conversions, Covenant, and Conscience,” 2008.
Rabbi Alan Yuter, “Questioning the Status of Halakhic Conversion is Anti-Halakhic and Unethical.”
Dr. Zvi Zohar, “Halakhic Conversion of Non-Religious Candidates”
Dr. Zvi Zohar, “Retroactive Annulment of Giyyur (Conversion)?”
Anonymous, “Thou Shalt Not Oppress the Ger”
[4] That is, it is in humility that the sources and arguments presented herein be examined and refined by scholars and indeed, our entire community (“laypeople”). The sources and rabbis cited herein should not be understood to necessarily be in support of the advocacy presented herein; the arguments are my own.
[5] Lev 19:33; c.f. Midrash Aggadah Mishpatim 22, 15; Tosefta Babba Kamma 10
[6] Midrash Shochar Tov, 146; Pirkei Avot 1:12; Hilchot Deot 6:4; Numbers R., Naso, 3:2-4; Bamidbar Rabbah 8:2; Y. Kiddushin 65b; Y. Sanhedrin 29b; Bereishith Rabbah 70;
[7] Lev 19:33; Exo 23:9; Deut 10:17-18; Bamidbar Rabbah 8:2; Mekilta Mishpatim 18; Tanhuma 14:1
[8] Num 15:14-16, 27-29; Lev 24:22
[9] Lev 25:35; see also Midrash Rabbah Numbers 8:9 which describes not only our duty to help the proselyte in physical manners, but also to provide them with means to acquire the mitzvoth (it is a mitzvah to live in HaEretz and hence, this mitzvah too must be especially guarded so as to allow proselytes to fulfill).
[10] Ramban Mishneh Torah 7:7; Gittin 61a; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 34; Shu’t Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah 4:37:3; cf. Deut 15:17 (for additional thoughts on tzedakah)
[11] Hagigah 5, Y Kiddushin 65b; c.f. Yalkut Shimeoni to 213
[12] Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 29
[13] Exo 22:20-22, BT Arachin (Erechin) 15b; c.f. commentary Soncino Chumash and Living Torah (Kaplan) and Psa 35:13.
[14] Lev 25:17, Rabbi Dov Linzer, “The Discourse of Halakhic Inclusiveness,”
c.f. also the following:
Rabbi Marc Angel, “Orthodoxy and Diversity,” 2006.
Rabbi Marc Angel, “Teaching the Wholeness of the Jewish People,” 17 Feb 2009.
Dr. Adam S. Ferziger, “From Exclusion to Hierarchy: Orthodoxy and the Nonobservant Jew in Historical Perspective.”
[15] Sanhedrin 44a: “Af-al-pi shechata Yisra’el hu” (even a transgressing Jew remains a Jew). Achdus (unity) is a prime responsibility we all bear and also even speeds our redemption.
[16] Acc. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 268)
[17] For more on the halakhic requirements please refer to the sources enumerated in endnote 3, see particularly: Rabbi Marc Angel, “Conversion to Judaism: Halakha, Hashkafa, and Historic Challenge,” 5 Jan 2009. Also see, Eliezar Melamed, “Laws Relating to Converts.”
[18] Yevamot 46b
[19] C.f., Sanhedrin 44a, Khemdah Genuzah, 15a, R. Abraham de Aboab in Deber Shemuel, No. 45(S. 18c f.).
[20] Although it is also well known that a large surge in converts marks the beginning of said Redemption; and they usually are the ones who assert this teaching.
[21] As quoted by Rabbi Yitzhak Schwartz, teachings on “18 Features of a Tzaddik.” B. Berachot 19a. Also, c.f., Psalms 50 & 51.
[22] Rabbi
Dr. David Berger, “The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox
Indifference,” Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2001, on this
point (also see for a summary discussion: http://yussel.blogspot.com/2005/04/heresy-of-chabad.html). The other dangerous component is the
idea of special or limited revelation as this is how cults and all other pagan
religions began. As the Exodus is a
sign of the ultimate Redemption, so too will it be revealed nationally to
[23] Bava Metzia 59b; Eruvin 13b; c.f. Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, “You Don’t Have to Be Wrong For Me to Be Right: Finding Faith Without Fanatacism,” Harmony Publishers, 2007.
[24] Shabbat 31a (for instance, one convert did not even accept the Oral Torah, yet he was welcomed in and became observant of it in due time after his geirut).
[25] i.e., they may become apostate Jews, but teshuva is always available and incumbent; the convert will be judged by HaShem for the rest of their lives as Jews – even if they convert to another religion, they will then be apostate Jews for example. For more details on conversion and issues of annulment see: “Dr. Daniel Sperber, “Modern Orthodoxy: A Challenge in Leadership,” Conversations, Winter 2009.
[26] c.f., Bereishit Rabbah 44:1 (also see Leviticus Rabbah 30:12 and Gittin 59b for the other foundations upon with Torah was given – our obligations to create peace, unity, repentance, and refinement in the kehillah).
[27] Hilchot Mamrim 3:3
[28] c.f. Hos 2:16
[29] On rebuke/tocheicha: Lev 19:17-18, Maimonides Misheh Torah 6:6-8, Midrash Genesis Rabbah 54:1, BT Shabbat 54b, Yevamot 65b, R. Moshe Hayim Luzzato Mesillat Yesharim 23. Reaching “across the aisle” to draw others near is the synthesis of kiruv and tocheicha (rather than abrogating the duty by decrying differences in values & practices); c.f. Rebbe Aharon Leib of Primishlan, “Love Making as a Model for Delivering Criticism” and Martin Buber, “Early Hassidic Masters” regarding the Baal Shem Tov and Rabbi Jacob Joseph. Also see Rabbi Alan Yuter who quotes R. Soloveitchik, “Say No to Religious Coercion.”
[30] Eze 33:8-9, SBT Shabbat 54b
[31] Hos 5:15; 14:2ff, Eze 33:14-16, Zeph 3:11-13.
[32] Additionally, HaShem comforts those who seek to join themselves, for example in Isa 56:3-8.
[33] Mishnah Zebahim 5:5
[34] c.f. the responsa and writings of R. Joseph Karo, R. She’adya ben Maimon ibn Danan (Khemdah Genuzah 15b), R. Aaron Soloveitchik (esp. his letter regarding anusim dated 1 Nisan 5754; a copy can be found in the annals of Tradition magazine for example), R. Jacob Ibn Habib, R. Sadaya Ibn Danan, R. Benjamin Seeb, and Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 119. Also see, Maimonides (Iggeret Ha-Shemad). For a more detailed compilation: David Ramirez, “Key Legal Responsa on Iberian Anusim (14th to 20th c.).”
[35] Rabbi David A Kunin, “Welcoming Back the Anusim: A Halakhic Teshuva.” c.f. Rabbi Albert Plotkin and Rabbi Abraham Deleon Cohen.
[36] For instance, Rabbi Shmemuel de Medina adjudicated over an issue where a rabbi of converso parentage was suspected of not having had a truly Jewish mother and thus, would not be Jewish himself nor allowed to serve as the community rabbi. R. de Medina responded that he had the accepted status of being Jewish and quoted various sages that we assume conversos parents were halakhically Jewish. He stated, “it is fitting to punish the troublemaker since one who spreads slander is a fool” (Shemuel de Medina, Responsa, Even ha-Ezer, no 112). Also see for more on issues such as the conversos, R. Dr. Marc Angel, “Voices in Exile: A Study in Sephardic Intellectual History”, KTAV Sephardic House, 1991.
[37] c.f. Pirkei Avot 4:2
[38] Pesachim 9b, Kiddushin 76a-b. Skeptics abound today, as do conspiracy theorists and others who find causes to doubt even well-known facts; doubt is always readily available to us.
[39] It is a mitzvah that we not shame or embarrass others: Arakhin 16b, c.f. Lev 19:17 and Yad Deot 6:8.
[40] Shemot 14:10-16
[41] Chazon Ish ch. 2; c.f. Mitteler Rebbe
[42] One doesn’t for example add extra brachot to their prayers unduly, such as brachot for Rosh Hodesh on a day that is not Rosh Hodesh.
[44] C.f. “Dina’s Story,”
[45] The Holocaust in the Teachings of R. Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam. Also c.f., Martin Buber, “Early Hassidic Masters” regarding the Baal Shem Tov and Rabbi Jacob Joseph.
[46] Nor
will the moschiach be required to prove their patrilineality, but will be
judged based on their actions, thoughts, speech, and abilities (further, their
meeting all the requirements of moschiach as revealed nationally to
[47] This is not to suggest that patrilineality is valid in Orthodox halakha now. It does suggest that it would not be contradictory to the inviolable halakha, should the Jewish community find proper cause and justification.
[48] Baal
Haturim. Also, refer back to Isi
Leibler, “Jewish Religious Extremism: A Threat to the Future of the
Jewish People,”
[49] c.f., Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, “The Beth HaMidrash of Avraham Avinu: Tentative Thoughts Toward a Jewish Religious Renaissance.”
[50] It is circular reasoning if not intellectually dishonest of those who claim this to be the case, while they are the same groups who adopt “humrot” and extra strictures, claiming that this now is true halakha.
[51] c.f. Shabbat 31a
[52] Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 268:2; c.f. endnote 19.
[53] See for example Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits on this exact issue!
[54] Shemot 22:26
[55] Which is the purpose of Torah and halakha; they are not means unto themselves, but a means towards middoth tovoth. See endnote 26 for the sources.
[56] A primer regarding unity, and thus outreach: “Klal Yisrael, Tu B’Shevat, and Unity”
[57] “Chayei Sarah”. Also see, R. Soloveitchik, “Historical and Individual Mourning,”
[58] Rabbi David Aaron, “The Divine Wants You to Be Happy,”
[59] Rashi on Bereishith 12:5. Also c.f. Rabbi Dr. Cardozo, “Who is a Gavra Rabbah, a Great Man?”
[60] C.f., “Accepting Reality,” late middle of page.
[61] The burden of proof is on the accuser. C.f., Kirschenbaum, “Self-Incrimination in Jewish Law” 3-4.
[62] See, Rabbi Dr. Cardozo, “On the Permanent Preciousness of the Secular Jew”.
[63] In fact, R. Moshe of Coucy (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol) ruled in the 13th century that based on presumption, we are to drink and eat their food. Rabbi Jacob Reisher in 1719 (traditional Eastern European) ruled that we may not divide ourselves based on kashrut, but should be lenient with others. It doesn’t mean that we have to accept anything/nothing, but that dividing ourselves regarding kashrut would be damaging to the kehillah.
[64] Isa 57:1ff; Isa 65:3-6
[65] Job 38:1ff.
[66] Even in
our morning daily prayers we long for and remember the officiating Cohen,
Levite at their post, and
[67] Yevamot 14a
[68] As explained by Rabbi Berel Wein. Rashi on Shemot 23:2 also explains it is the incumbent duty of the minority or dissenting opinion to express their view fearlessly and for the majority to hear it and consider it carefully. Also see, Rabbi Alan Yuter, “The State of Jewish Polity: A Modern Orthodox Perspective”. The Sanhedrin for example could reverse decisions made previously if they rule to side with a previous minority opinion in that case; however to do this dissenting and minority opinions had to be transmitted to the later generations. This is why it is crucial and incumbent upon us not to silence dissenters!
[70] Isa 1:16-18; 58:1ff, Jer 22:3, Mic 6:8-9, Psa 82:3-4. c.f., Isa 65:1ff, Hos 12:3-5.
[71] As referenced by Rabbi Yitzhak Schwartz, “The War Effort.” Also see, “Other People’s Shoes”.
[72] These teachings likely derive from Prov 27:19. For a broader and deeper discussion, see Rabbi Levi Cooper’s Article, “Judging Favorably.”
[73] Rabbi Aryeh Rubin, “Toward a Kinder, Gentler, More Tolerant and Flexible Orthodoxy.”
[74] Rabbi Simon Jacobson, “Unity in Three Dimensions.”
[75] Rabbi Eliyahu Koffman, “Achrei/Kedoshim,” and Rabbi Dovid Rosenfield, “All Men Are Created Equal Part 2.”
[76] Alexander Kaye, “Are There Any Jews in Ghana?”
[77]c.f., JT Hagigah 1:7, 76c “better they forget me, but keep my commandments.” Also see R. Marc Angel’s shiur for Shabbat Chazon
[78] See Abraham Ibn Ezra on Exo 26:6 and Rashi on Exo 19:2; Hisvaadiyus 5743, Vol. 1, p. 48-50, 1486; Tanya ch. 32; Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 32, pp. 271-277
[79] See endnote 26
[80] Rav Meir Orlian, shlita, “Parshat Bo – Unity Through Sacrifice.”
[81] Rabbi
Marc Angel, “Teaching
the Wholeness of the Jewish People,” and Rabbi
[82] Hiney ma-tov u’manayim shevet achim gam yachad…(“how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity” or in contractual terms: tenants-in-common, joint owners)
[83] I allude here to Rabbi Dr. Cardozo’s use of Judaism as Symphony metaphor in his writings and addresses. For example, see “On Halacha as the Art of Amazement,” and “The Rabbi Slifkin Case Part 2”. Audio essays of Rabbi Cardozo can be found on this website as well here.