TEXTS AND PRINCIPLES
UNDERLYING
“A PROPOSAL FOR PURIFYING ALL JEWS
(AND INCIDENTALLY, IF THERE HAPPEN TO BE
ANY PATRILINEAL JEWS,
WE WILL INCLUDE THEM
AS A MATTER OF COURSE)”
by Rabbi Len Levin
UNDERLYING
“A PROPOSAL FOR PURIFYING ALL JEWS
(AND INCIDENTALLY, IF THERE HAPPEN TO BE
ANY PATRILINEAL JEWS,
WE WILL INCLUDE THEM
AS A MATTER OF COURSE)”
by Rabbi Len Levin
On Sunday, March 11, in the program taking place 2:00 – 6:00 p.m., at the Academy for Jewish Religion (6301 Riverdale Avenue, Riverdale, NY) I will make a proposal addressing the amelioration of the status of patrilineal Jews in the general Jewish community. The proposal will be based on principles of Jewish law contained in the following texts. If you have any guesses as to the proposal, based on the texts and the associated principles, you are welcome to communicate them in your comments!
Text #1: Yevamot 13b-14a
- Even though the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai differed—the one would forbid what the other permitted, the one would disqualify what the other qualified—the School of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the School of Hillel, or the School of Hillel from the School of Shammai.
Principle: In a pluralistic vision of the larger Jewish community, there can be different jurisdictions with different standards and procedures as to what effectively constitutes changes in personal status. Insofar as possible without violating basic principles, Group A should recognize the actions of Group B as valid, even though the standards and procedures of Group A and Group B differ in the matter in question.
Text #2: Yevamot 47a-b
- The Rabbis taught: If a prospective convert comes to be converted in this age, they say to him: “What motivated you, that you came to convert? Do you not know that Israel in this time is persecuted, oppressed, downtrodden and harassed, and subject to constant hardships?” If he says, “I know, and I am unworthy of acceptance,” they accept him immediately. They inform him of some of the minor mitzvot and some of the major mitzvot, and they inform him of the obligations of donating the gleanings, the forgotten sheaves, the corner of the field, and the poorman’s tithe. They inform him of the sanctions for the mitzvot in such terms: “You should know that before considering conversion, if you ate forbidden fat, you were not punished with excision; if you profaned the Sabbath, you were not punished with stoning. But now if you convert, if you eat forbidden fat, you are punished with excision; if you profane the Sabbath, you are punished with stoning.” Just as they inform him of the punishment for mitzvot, so they inform him of the reward, in these terms: “Know that the World to Come is only for the righteous. In the current time, Israel cannot receive either abundance of good or excessive retribution.” They do not tell him too much, nor are they too exacting. If he accepts, they circumcise him immediately. If there are adhesions that prevent complete circumcision, they go back and circumcise him again. When he is healed, they immerse him immediately. Two scholars stand over him and inform him some of the minor mitzvot and some of the major mitzvot. When he has immersed and ascended, he is Jewish in all respects.
Principles:
1. Conversion to Judaism includes three required elements: receiving commandments, circumcision (in the case of males), and immersion.
2. The standard of “receiving commandments” is moderate: ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות.
Argument: The paradigmatic case of a “patrilineal Jew” seeking acceptance by the larger Jewish community is of one born of one Jewish parent, who has received an elementary Jewish education and undergone Bar Mitzvah or Bat Mitzvah; and if male, has been circumcised and this circumcision (however performed) was accepted in his local community as fulfilling the requirement of male circumcision as a Jew. I will argue that by virtue of these givens, this candidate has fulfilled the requirements of “receiving commandments” and “circumcision,” and is lacking only “immersion.”
Text #3: Yevamot 46a.
- Our rabbis taught: If a prospective convert has been circumcised but not immersed, Rabbi Eliezer said: He is a valid convert. For we find in the case of the patriarchs, that they were circumcised but not immersed. If a prospect has immersed but not been circumcised, Rabbi Joshua says: He is a valid convert. For we find in the case of the matriarchs, that they immersed but were not circumcised. But the sages say: He is not a valid convert unless he has undergone both circumcision and immersion.
Principle: Even though our normative practice from classic rabbinic times onward has been to require acceptance of the commandments, circumcision and immersion as criteria for conversion, we should recognize that this practice has emerged in historical times, and that there are precedents for waiving any of these requirements if circumstances should warrant it.
Text #4: Yevamot 45b
- A slave of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ammi immersed a gentile woman in order to make her his wife. Rav Yosef said: I can rule that she and her daughter are both kosher (i.e., Jewish). Herself—following [the method of] Rav Assi. For Rav Assi said (in a parallel case): “Did she not immerse for her menstrual impurity?” Her daughter—[by the rule that] if a gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the baby is Jewish.
- [What case of Rav Assi are we talking about? The following:] There was a man who was called “the son of the Aramean woman.” Rav Assi objected: “Did she not immerse for her menstrual impurity?” There was another man who was called “the son of the Aramean.” Rabbi Joshua ben Levi objected: “Did he not immerse [to be purified from] his seminal emission?”
Text #5: Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268.3
- a. All matters of conversion, whether informing the prospective convert of the mitzvot in order to receive them, whether circumcision or immersion, should be in the presence of three qualified to judge, and in the daytime (see Tosafot and Rabbenu Asher on Yevamot 47b).
- b. Nevertheless, this standard addresses what one should do in the first place. But after the fact, if one circumcised or immersed only in the presence of two (or if some of the judges were relatives—according to Mordecai) or at night, or even if one immersed not for the purpose of conversion but (in the case of a man) to cleanse from seminal impurity or (in the case of a woman) for menstrual impurity, the prospect is considered a valid convert and may marry a Jew.
- c. However, the acceptance of mitzvot is mandatory and must be done during the daytime with three.
- d. Alfasi and Maimonides rule that if one immersed or was circumcised before only two, or at night, this is an impediment and such a person would be forbidden to marry a Jewish woman; even so, if he went ahead and married a Jewish woman and had a child, one does not disqualify him retroactively.
Principle (from b): After the fact, the requirement of immersion for conversion is fulfilled if a person immersed in a Jewish context to perform an act intended as conformity to Jewish practice.
Principle (from d): After the fact, if a questionable conversion resulted in progeny, who have been accepted into the Jewish community, one does not disqualify it.
Text 6: Yevamot 47a (middle):
- “And you shall judge justly between a man and his kinsman and his ger (understood as convert).” (Deuteronomy 1:16) Rabbi Yehudah deduced from this that if a prospective convert was converted before a court, this is a valid conversion, but if he just converted himself, this is not a valid conversion.
- There was the case of one man who came before Rabbi Yehudah and said to him, “I converted myself [without witnesses or a rabbinic court].” Rabbi Yehudah said to him, “Do you have witnesses [to that effect]?” He replied: “No.” Rabbi Yehudah asked him, “Do you have children?” He replied: “Yes.” Rabbi Yehudah ruled: “Your testimony would be reliable enough to disqualify just yourself, but it is not reliable to disqualify your children.”
Principle: Once children have been born of parents who were accepted as Jewish either presumptively or by conversion, and the presumption or conversion of the parent is challenged for whatever reason (for instance, because of improper procedure), the Jewish status of the children cannot be reversed. (Compare previous: SA YD 268.3.d)
Text 7: Maimonides Hilkhot Issurei Bi’ah 13:9
- A female convert whom we saw conforming always to Jewish practice—for instance, who immersed for her menstrual impurity and separated out the priestly due from her dough, and the like—and similarly a male convert who conformed to Jewish practice, immersing for his seminal impurity and performing all the mitzvot—these are to be presumed as valid converts, even though there are no witnesses who testify as to before whom they were converted. Nevertheless, if one came to intermarry with Jews, one should not marry them until they bring witnesses or immerse before us, inasmuch as they are presumed to be gentiles.
Principle: Conformity to Jewish practice counts as a factor in favor of presuming the validity of one’s Jewish status, even in the absence of evidence concerning the circumstances of their conversion (if any).
NOTE: One can argue that the strictness of Maimonides’ conclusion (that one should not intermarry with those of unknown origin and status “until they bring witnesses or immerse before us”) has the force of lekhatḥilah, since once one has gone ahead and married and had children, the existence of the children is an argument for overriding whatever doubts one had concerning the validity of an irregularly performed conversion.
Text 8: Sanhedrin 32a-b
- Rabbi Hanina said: The Torah applied the rules of judicial inquiry and cross-examination equally to civil and capital cases, as it says: “You shall have one judgment.” Why, then, did they say that in civil cases judicial inquiry and cross-examination are not required? In order not to close the door before borrowers. But will you say, on that account, if the judge made a judicial error, he should not be held liable? All the more so, that you should not close the door before borrowers.
Principle: נעילת דלת. The letter of certain requirements is relaxed to remove an obstacle that would deter a person from a desirable course of action. In the Sanhedrin example, the requirement of strict cross-examination was relaxed in civil cases, in order not to deter people from engaging in business transactions such as lending. In the present example, I recommend relaxing the be-di’avad provision of the principle recognizing casual immersion as valid for conversion, in order not to deter candidates for recognition as Jews who would be put off (as was Jessica Fishman, and as were others) by a demand that they convert to Judaism, when they already regard themselves as Jewish.
