Proclaiming
Love the Stranger and your Kin:
Issues Regarding Giyyur/Geirut (Converts, Conver=
sion)
and Kiruv (Outreach)
Last Update: Av 5769 (August 2009)
Elimelech David Yosef Pereira
Introduction
&nbs= p; Regarding matters of conversion and outreach, there are growing trends in hashkafa (weltanschauung, worldview) and halakha that are perhaps not explicitly cle= ar to those who, on the one hand, claim they are not in any way harming anothe= r. On the other hand they are justify= ing their actions based on some traditional sources, but without consideration = to the dignity of those involved, truly examining their motives, or in accepti= ng the other [competing] solid traditional sources.[1] While these laws are “univer= sally known,” source citations and sevarah (logical reasoning) must both be employed in order to make clear the issues so that we can all readily exami= ne ourselves in these matters and thus lovingly bring people [back] into our midst.= [2] Regarding issues of conversion, pl= ease 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 ser= ve 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 t= hat 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 spec= ial 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, chari= ty) 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 h= ara (“evil speech”) are considered tantamount to bloodguilt, a seri= ous 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 deman= ds 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 foreign= er, orphan, and widow – that is, they are considered the downtrodden, mee= k, 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/ved= avar 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 conve= rt, 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!&nbs= p; 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 le= vels 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
&nbs= p; 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.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> 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 Yisr= ael)= [17]. Specific lengths of study, chargin= g 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 con= vert to have a full understanding[18] of all the commandments of Torah are not requisite. In addition to the prior enumerate= d 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&=
#8221;
even without sin (Ecc 7:20) and this is alluded to in many other sources, b=
oth
in Scripture and throughout the sages.&nbs=
p;
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 t=
hese
same theological supporters are also those who enforce such strictness &
humrot upon converts (e.g., their interpretation of what it means when conv=
erts
bring “evil to Israel” and they say that conversions will no lo=
nger
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 repente=
d of
it by morning[21])!
In accordance with the prin= ciple 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 t= heir full observance, learning about, or even full acceptance of halakha!= [24] In order to reach out to someone t= o 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 poten= tial 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 co= ax= [28] (draw near, not coerce[29]) them however will be held accountable.[30] Indeed, Torah’s laws on sacr= ifices 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 (sacrifi= ce); 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 i= n more depth in the later sections.
On the basis of the princip= al of kavna, we rule stringently in regards to Torah laws and leniently in regard= s to rabbinic laws and rulings (safek derabbanan lekulah). The prescriptions in Torah relatin= g 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, resid= ence, and binding of the convert to the people of Israel (historically, conversio= ns 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 con= sider such a far-reaching leniency for practical, sociological, & other reaso= ns 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 re= ady 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 tha= t when there is a doubt as to a bracha for instance, that bracha should not be recited. Even in regards to t= he 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 p= rocess would not only be superfluous, but goes against the very core of the princi= ples by which we base our obligations upon.&nbs= p; 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 th= eir allegiance to the Jewish people (“certificate of return” and le= tter 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 ful= l 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 inde= ed we are instructed to refrain from too much doubt.[38] Chazakah, rov, and miggo here inde= ed 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 perso= n wished to lie, they could have advanced a better cause and simply refrained from speaking of any safek. Furthe= r, their demonstration to accept the halakha and their knowledge of Jewish law= s, rituals, and hashkafa would suffice – even if it was not complete = 211; 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 lea= rn and participate as members of the Jewish community. As discussed prior, this is the fi= rst 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 authoriti= es see fit. It should be clear t= hen 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 f= ind out their level of knowledge and resources. It is still incumbent upon us to t= est their sincerity, their drive, and their commitment. Testing them, like by setting up challenges, is still integral – even for the meek as this will hopefu= lly inspire confidence and humble assertiveness (each candidate is different and thus differences need to be understood and practical steps must be taken in= to account by local authorities rather than central authorities; not only is t= he 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 diffi= cult 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 questi= onable 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 m= arry (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&#= 8221; two communities. They may be = unable to offer (based not on halakha as is argued here, but on the harshness of t= he community who claims they are “only upholding halakha”) hospita= lity 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) t= hen 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 digni= ty, must be treated as an individual.[39]
Those with safeks may be be=
tter
advised to do research or appear before a beit din to present their case be=
fore
undergoing a conversion; as has been previously discussed, it is more prude=
nt
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 J=
ewish,
the action, blessings, and time spent were in vain, caused undue vexation f=
or
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 &=
amp;
beyond is prudent, our traditions not only call that wisdom into question b=
ut
also demonstrate superfluous actions are not virtues, but error towards
brazenness and impudence; if it is not obligatory, one is prohibited from s=
uch
an action[41]. One must also however take =
into
consideration the community and change in attitudes towards religion in gen=
eral
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 bir=
th
or conversion, these considerations should be taken into account. Probing a person though based on r=
ace,
appearance, surname, or even lack of knowledge are usually not appropriate =
ways
to distinguish Jews; rather this can be unintentional prejudice or even dis=
crimination. The same standards (“one Tor=
ah”)
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 JudaismR=
17;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 Je=
wish
and are now members of another religion, namely Christianity despite what t=
hey
themselves call it; we cannot accept their misguided heresies, but to reject
the person is as though we have accepted their heresies – that is, th=
at
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, stri=
ctness
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). Just like the consideration=
s for
those of questionable halakhic status, the same response can be given to th=
ose
of patrilineal decent who want to be fully accepted members of the
kehillah. While there is prec=
edent
in our ancient traditions for such at least potential validity, this is not
commonly accepted today nor the halakhic norm – though arguably it wi=
ll
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 c=
hange
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 prude=
nt
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 principl=
e of
kavna whereas patrilineality is not considered valid is a rabbinic injuncti=
on;
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 a=
re
unclear, though speculations abound, as to why the rabbis changed Jewish st=
atus
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 t=
he
Jewish religious sects at the time, but before Rabbinic Judaism committed to
matrilineality in the 2nd century CE). There are many arguments of specul=
ation
as to why this is the case, but they go beyond the scope of this article. 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 d=
in? In certain cases where the prosely=
te 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 w=
here
the convert or beit din did not fully accept the commandments, even then ag=
ain
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 la=
ws=
[52]
was not requisite). Rather th=
an
extricate them from the fold and from klal Yisrael – to whom they, li=
ke
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 vie=
w them
as Jews during anti-Semitic persecution?&n=
bsp;
Are not martyrs, even soldiers who are not shomer Shabbat, considere=
d 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 Je=
ws,
regardless of affiliation or even conversion; their life too would be in
danger. Further, to posit tha=
t 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.&n=
bsp;
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 si=
ncerely
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 unt=
il
they reach some great height and the family finally chooses to accept
them. Imagine a child being a=
dopted
only to be told that they are not really part of the family, but have to pr=
ove
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 t=
hey
choose to leave our family? T=
he
character of G-d and our forbearers does not represent this strict-harshnes=
s,
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 h=
eaven
(Torah min ha’shamayim) as we know; it is in how we interact with oth=
ers
[middoth tovoth[55]] an=
d 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 f=
eel
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 hu=
manity
and individuality, their concerns, their doubts, their fears, their loves,
their talents & resources, all that makes each person unique is lost si=
ght
when the goal is to bring them into our way of thinking and behavior, or in=
deed
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 mann=
ers
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 su=
pport
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 &am=
p;
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 f=
or
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]).
&nbs=
p; 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 le=
vel 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 princip=
le
of chazakah.[61] If each time a “secular̶=
1; 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 saf=
ek)
we would not be able to “trust” that they know enough to consid=
er
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 stat=
us
being called into question then would require others to treat them as outsi=
ders
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 l̵=
7;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, rath=
er
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!). &nbs=
p; Aside
from the arrogance of such practices which are abhorrent to HaShem our Crea=
tor,
this practice – which is not, unfortunately, uncommon – only se=
rves
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 s=
ame,
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 rul=
ed
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 deter=
mine
status (and worse yet, that the majority not even have a voice – sile=
nced
by the elitist appeal to “divine authority and unchanging tradition&#=
8221;
– as the minority have determined). &nbs=
p; 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 mo=
re
involved than today where professionals and rabbis exclude them as they are
“not knowledgeable enough.”&nb=
sp;
To exclude the laity would also serve to validate the source
historical-source critics who argue that this has always been normative, wh=
ile
the Torah spoke only in idyllic and utopian terms. The Sanhedrin for instance could n=
ot
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 abu=
se of
power and elitism while incorporating and unifying the people. Indeed, historically, as the leade=
rship
excluded the laity from their decisions and rulings so did factions increase
and disputes regarding halakha emerge; the &nbs=
p; 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 tod=
ay
that any sort of attempt at unity in kelal Yisrael would result in assimila=
tion
and a sacrifice of principles and morality is clearly misguided. Even the Israelites could be repri=
manded
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 abduc=
ting
young maidens since the women of their tribe were blotted out! HaShem is clear that emissaries ar=
e not
the only dutiful way we have to bring sinners back into the fold. Shall we make a similar mistake to=
day
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 giv=
ing
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 h=
owever
requires putting ourselves in their shoes, understanding their arguments, a=
nd
relating & empathizing with their situations. The universal nature of humanity i=
s such
that we can all relate to one another; often our communication, our judgmen=
ts
& feelings about ourselves (which impact how we view others as R. Nachm=
an
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 wick=
ed;
rather, humility demands that we may in fact be in the wrong even when we f=
eel
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 dou=
bt
(dan l'chaf z'chut) is a virtue in our tradition for this and other many
reasons. &nbs=
p; The
presumptions we have influence our judgments of others and the requisites t=
hat
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 anoth=
er
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 un=
ity
that is not predicated on compromise, but based on civility, pluralistic
learning or exchanges, a sincere drive to seek truth & peace, and tradi=
tion
grounded with reasoning & humility.[73] Conclusion &nbs=
p; Indeed,
as HaShem points out to us repeatedly in the Prophets that our behavior tow=
ards
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 numer=
ous
references, is adamantly clear that those who practice even the most string=
ent
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 T=
orah,
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 HaShemR=
17;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 thr=
ough
our service to HaShem’s creation and the creatures therein; this is o=
ne
way we can achieve greater Jewish unity.[76] Indeed, it is the relationships be=
tween
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 no=
t 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. Thi=
s too
must be our mission and becoming a more unified people is integral and inde=
ed
makes us powerful emissaries of light to the nations.=
[78] The mission begins with each of our
souls.=
[79] &nbs=
p; Finding
unity by loving & respecting G-d, humanity, and all of creation is cent=
ral
to our entire purpose as Jews; it is the foundation of
[1] See =
for
example: Isi Leibler, “Jewish Religious Extremism: A Threat to the Fu=
ture
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 200= 9.
Rabbi Dr. Marc Angel, “The Conv= ersion 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 Jewis=
h: 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, “M= an, G-d, and Torah: ‘Not Yet’ Jews by Choice,” 15 May 200= 4.
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] = 220;Conversion Crisis – Part 3,” 19 Nov 2007.
Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, “What is Conversion?” 23 June 2008.&nb= sp;
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 Prosel= yte 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, “Th= ou Shalt Not Oppress the Ger”
[4] That= is, it is in humility that the sources and arguments presented herein be examin= ed 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] Midr= ash 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 dut= y 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] Ram= ban 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] Hag= igah 5, Y Kiddushin 65b; c.f. Yalkut Shimeoni to 213
[12] Sed= er Eliyahu Rabbah 29
[13] Exo 22:20-22, BT Arachin (Erechin) 15b; c.f. commentary Soncino Chumash and Liv= ing 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, “Orthodox= y and Diversity,” 2006. <= /p>
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 Melam= ed, “Laws Relating to Converts.”
[18] Yev= amot 46b
[19] C.f= ., Sanhedrin 44a, Khemdah Genuzah, 15a, R. Abraham de Aboab in Deber Shemuel, = No. 45(S. 18c f.).
[20] Alt= hough 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 1= 9a. Also, c.f., Psalms 50 & 51.
[22] Rab=
bi
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://yu=
ssel.blogspot.com/2005/04/heresy-of-chabad.html). The other dangerous component is t=
he
idea of special or limited revelation as this is how cults and all other pa=
gan
religions began. As the Exodu=
s is a
sign of the ultimate Redemption, so too will it be revealed nationally to <=
st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on">
[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,̶= 1; Harmony Publishers, 2007.
[24] Sha= bbat 31a (for instance, one convert did not even accept the Oral Torah, yet he w= as 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 incumben= t; 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 de= tails 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 t= he other foundations upon with Torah was given – our obligations to crea= te peace, unity, repentance, and refinement in the kehillah).
[27] Hil= chot Mamrim 3:3
[28] c.f. Hos 2:16
[29] On rebuke/tocheicha: Lev 19:17-18, Maimonides Misheh Torah 6:6-8, Midrash Gene= sis 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 M= odel for Delivering Criticism” and Martin Buber, “Early Hassidic Masters” regarding the Baal Shem Tov and Rabbi Jacob Joseph. Also see Rabbi Alan Yuter who quot= es 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, Z= eph 3:11-13.
[32] Additionally, HaShem comforts those who seek to join themselves, for exampl= e in Isa 56:3-8.
[33] Mis= hnah Zebahim 5:5
[34] c.f. the responsa and writings of R. Joseph Karo, R. She’adya ben Maimon i= bn Danan (Khemdah Genuzah 15b), R. Aaron Soloveitchik (esp. his letter regardi= ng 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.&n= bsp; Also see, Maimonides (Iggeret Ha-Shemad). For a more detailed compilation: D= avid Ramirez, “Key Legal Responsa on Iberian Anusim (14th to 20= th c.).”
[35] Rab= bi 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 rab= bi. 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” (She= muel de Medina, Responsa, Even ha-Ezer, no 112). Also see for more on issues such a= s 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] She= mot 14:10-16
[41] Cha= zon 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, “Ea= rly 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, th=
eir
meeting all the requirements of moschiach as revealed nationally to
[47] Thi= s 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 Religio= us 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] She= mot 22:26
[55] Whi= ch is the purpose of Torah and halakha; they are not means unto themselves, bu= t 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] = 220;Chayei Sarah”. Also see, R. Soloveitchik, “Historical and Individual Mourning,”
[58] Rab= bi David Aaron, “The Divine W= ants You to Be Happy,”
[59] Ras= hi 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 (tradi= tional 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 dividi= ng ourselves regarding kashrut would be damaging to the kehillah.
[64] Isa= 57:1ff; Isa 65:3-6
[65] Job 38:1ff.
[66] Eve=
n in
our morning daily prayers we long for and remember the officiating Cohen,
Levite at their post, and
[67] Yev= amot 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 re= verse decisions made previously if they rule to side with a previous minority opi= nion 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!
[69] = 220;E Unibus Plurum”
[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, “Ot= her People’s Shoes”.
[72] The= se teachings likely derive from Prov 27:19.&n= bsp; For a broader and deeper discussion, see Rabbi Levi Cooper’s Article, “Judging Favorably.”
[73] Rab= bi Aryeh Rubin, “Toward a Kinder, Gentler, More Tolerant and Flexible Orthodoxy.”
[74] Rab= bi Simon Jacobson, “Unity in Three Dimensions.”
[75] Rab= bi Eliyahu Koffman, “Ac= hrei/Kedoshim,” and Rabbi Dovid Rosenfield, “All Me= n 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] Rab=
bi
Marc Angel, “Teaching
the Wholeness of the Jewish People,” and Rabbi
[82] Hin= ey ma-tov u’manayim shevet achim gam yachad…(“how pleasant i= t 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 metapho= r in his writings and addresses. F= or 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= .