
Conversion Conundrums
Rabbi Michael J. Broyde
Thank you to Rabbi Gordimer for his thoughtful article “Conversion Subversion.” While there is much of value to ponder in it, it is his closing statement that deserves careful consideration and unpacking because it has general application. He writes:
More than perhaps any other area of the Torah, geirus must be performed to exceptionally high standards and be unimpeachable. To do otherwise is to play with fire and to jeopardize the lives of countless well-meaning people who deserve better.
But, before I discuss it, I want to state a disclaimer: Rabbi Gordimer wrote in the context of a specific bet din and rabbi, and in the context of his well-known criticism of a sub-stream within Orthodoxy. I am not addressing these issues at all here. In this column, I do not want to provide tacit support for the bet din in question, nor do I want to join the critics; rather I do worry very much that Rabbi Gordimer’s views of the halachic issues will become normative. In the paragraph above of Rabbi Gordimer, he articulates a much more general principle of geirus halacha – that all conversions must be performed to exceptionally high standards and be unimpeachable, which has implications far beyond this specific matter. This is the idea I am commenting on.
This statement strikes me as incorrect on three levels. First, I think we have no such tradition that “geirus must be performed to exceptionally high standards and must be unimpeachable.” To be clear, geirus is not gittin, but rather is closer to marriage or more distantly to kashrut, in the sense that eminent rabbis with more lenient theories of geirus have long acted on them halacha lemaseh, leaving the Orthodox Jewish market with diverse standards of halachic conversion, as they have in marriage[1] and kashrut and indeed most areas – normal halacha is diverse: what is chillul shabbat to one posek is heter gamor to another, what is kosher to one, is trief to another. Everyone sees this as part of torah and mitzvot.
Second, “exceptionally high standards” may not always be what we should strive for in conversion. To the contrary, there are times when implementing such standards can have negative consequences for our community. This is particularly true when it comes to conversions. We have a long tradition – going as far back as the Rambam – that, when given the choice, we prefer a weaker [but valid] conversion to an intermarriage; the Maimonidean formulation (Teshuvot Rambam 211) of “מוטב שיאכל רוטב ולא שומן עצמו” tells us that in a bad situation, a non-ideal conversion [= רוטב] is better than an intermarriage.
Third, the expectation of exceptionally high standards is simply not the reality of religious life today in Israel. The data is clear: the overwhelming majority of conversions done by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate are at a standard below the high standard called for by Rabbi Gordimer.[2] What’s more, a feature of Israelis conversion discourse is that everyone impeaches everyone else’s conversion. Even Rav Ovadia Yosef’s conversions are impeached (by Rav Elyashiv).[3]
In short, exceptionally high standards were not the traditional minhag, have significant downsides and are not the contemporary practice in Israel. Rabbi Gordimer’s article prompts me to briefly elaborate on a few key points.
Differences in halachic standards among poskim are a fact of life in most areas, and even where they exist, they are a solvable issue. For instance in conversion, if posek X recognizes a conversion that posek Y does not, a second conversion can often resolve the matter if needed. It may be true that this process causes heartache, but the alternative — imposing “exceptionally high standards”—also creates hardship by excluding many with ties to the Jewish community who cannot meet such rigorous criteria. We all know such individuals, and they include those who (1) socially identify as Jewish, (2) participate in Jewish life, (3) marry within the community, and (4) serve in the IDF as Jews. In that sense, conversion has its own unique issues — kevod ha-briyot issues are a more significant factor in conversion than in kashrus, since the inability to convert when membership in the Jewish people is wanted (and maybe already culturally present) is a significant issue of dignity.
Moreover, a spectrum of conversion policies—similar to what we see with kashrut standards—is, frankly, already practiced in both Israel and America. No doubt, conversion occupies a distinct, somewhat liminal realm, making it particularly challenging. At first glance, one might assume that, like divorce, it concerns a core status issue requiring universal consensus. On closer inspection, however, it becomes evident that conversion is more akin to marriage: a person who converts under a legitimate but lenient halachic interpretation (which others might reject) may not be recognized as Jewish by everyone, but if the individuals ultimately find it important to obtain more universal acceptance “fixing” it tends to be relatively straightforward through another conversion.
Of course, idiosyncratic conversion standards can cause harm to the convert, especially as the Jewish community becomes more global and less localized. A convert whose status is valid in one place may not be recognized elsewhere. With frequent relocation, this can be problematic. Furthermore, low requirements can lead to heartbreak when individuals—often on the cusp of marriage—discover that not everyone (including maybe their prospective spouse) acknowledges their Jewish identity. This situation can be remedied, but the process itself can be painful. The pain goes both ways: imposing stringent standards can exclude many who wish to join the Jewish people (or socially already have), creating social complications for those who already identify as Jewish. Consider a person who is ready to undergo a conversion and has identified an eminent halachic authority prepared to validate the conversion with a lenient approach that isn’t universally accepted. Arguing that this conversion should not be permitted also brings great pain. Sometimes, poskim permitted less than ideal conversions.[4]
Transparency and integrity solves much of the potential anguish of diverse conversion standards – people will only knowingly opt for lower standards when (in the real world) they are unable or unwilling to achieve higher standards. They have decided that the ‘future heartache’ caused by the lower standards is less painful than an intermarriage or no marriage, since they cannot in fact be converted by a bet din that adheres to Rabbi Gordimer’s “exceptionally high standards.” This is a critical point: enforcing uniformly high standards leads to intermarriage, while transparently making more lenient options available solves that dilemma for those who recognize the conversion as valid.
Consider the kashrut model as a real life example of how a spectrum of policies successfully functions. The Chief Rabbinate of Israel oversees multiple standards, and America has several major kashrut agencies and countless minor one with diverse standards. This diversity empowers consumers to choose according to their preferences—whether chalav yisrael, glatt, or heter mechira and more: Many people do not, in the real world, eat in the homes of every person who claims to keep kosher. Similarly, conversion policies should accommodate diverse needs without compromising integrity.[5]
Integrity is not about the highest standards for everyone, but instead means honest and transparent standards so that everyone knows which criteria are employed where. (For example, the OU is certainly not lacking integrity because it certifies as kosher some dairy products that others consider prohibited to eat, since it is transparent and honest about its standards. Integrity and transparency is the solution more than higher standards.[6])
The truth is, conversions in both America and Israel have never been uniform —even those overseen by eminent Torah scholars such as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef— have sometimes been dismissed by others. There is no clear reason to expect this pattern to change, and I am not sure why any community led by a Torah giant would abandon its standards to adopt a higher or lower consensus standard. Each community ought to continue following the guidance of its own Torah luminaries.[7] That seems correct to me and represents what I believe to be the proper way standards are determined.
Let’s give this some context by examining a challenging and important example: What should the standards be for converting children? Conversion for adults requires kabbalat hamitzvot; without this acceptance, the conversion is widely viewed as invalid. For minors, however, no such obligation exists, as they lack the capacity (da’at) to accept mitzvot. Instead, the conversion is performed with the consent of a rabbinical court. But, when should a court grant its consent? Four different approaches exist, ranging from requiring that the child’s family be fully Orthodox to permitting the conversion of any child attending an Orthodox school (or even less), even if the mother is not halachically Jewish and the family is not observant.[8]
In this example, Rabbi Gordimer’s approach advocating that conversions should meet the highest standards would thus limit them to children of fully Orthodox parents. In contrast, I contend that all these approaches have strong support among poskim, and each community should determine its appropriate standard—without imposing an exceptionally high universal standard.[9]
Of course, I recognize that systems of uniformity and consensus have advantages in allowing people to move within community, confident that they will be accepted. The status quo in kashrus – a consensus adhered to by most with some deviation present on both ends — seems to be a wise model. Maybe this is the optimal approach for geirus as well? Like kashrus, we need to develop a consensus about what are the legitimate views reasonably present in the halachic community on conversion, and a spectrum of acceptable deviations that are part of the halachic tradition, albeit not always accepted by all poskim.
In short, I think that each community should continue following the guidance of its own Torah luminaries to determine the correct standard for geirus and there is no need for exceptionally high standards and unimpeachable geirus, just as there is no need for such in most areas of halacha.
Michael J. Broyde is a Professor of Law at Emory University and the Berman Projects Director at the Emory University Center for the Study of Law and Religion. His most recent book is entitled Jewish Law and the American Thanksgiving Celebration, and his most recent book on geirus is entitled “A Concise Code of Jewish Law for Converts.”
-
An early reader asked me for an example regarding marriage, so I provide. Consider whether a woman whose mother is Jewish and father not, may marry a kohein. ↑
-
See for example “When the State Winks: The Performance of Jewish Conversion in Israel.” There is much literature supporting the fact that most converts done through many Israeli Chief Rabbinate programs are not observant after conversion, and this is a source of great controversy in Israel. See also Netanel Fisher, “Israeli Halakha: The Chief Rabbinate’s Conversion-To-Judaism Policy 1948–2018” Modern Judaism – A Journal of Jewish Ideas and Experience, Volume 39, Issue 1, February 2019, Pages 61–92, https://doi.org/10.1093/mj/kjy018 and many more articles. See the next note also. ↑
-
See https://www.jpost.com/jewish-world/jewish-news/ovadia-yosef-declares-military-conversions-kosher and https://www.haaretz.com/2011-01-25/ty-article/haredi-rabbi-elyashiv-slams-ovadia-yosefs-approval-of-conversion-bill/0000017f-f0fc-d223-a97f-fdfd24a70000 for one such example where Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s conversion policies were attacked by Rabbi Elyashiv as having a low standard. Dozens of such examples can be shown. ↑
-
Consider, for example, Rabbi DZ Hoffmann’s teshuva in Melamed LeHoil 3 EH 8 permitting a women to convert given her intent to marry a kohein. Rabbi Hoffmann was the leading halachic authority in his time and place; and Rabbi Gordimer’s claim is that he should not have issued it since it would be challenged by others. The same can be said for Rabbi Feinstein approach to converting children, discussed below. ↑
-
For more on this, see my exchange with Rabbi Adlerstein at https://cross-currents.com/2015/08/30/free-market-judaism-and-conversion-standards/ ↑
-
For a nice recitation of this idea – transparency in conversion — see Rabbi Michael Whitman “Choosing a Conversion Program.” ↑
-
See for example, Rabbi Eliezer Melamed’s excellent new work Mesoret Hagiyur and Rabbi David Brofsky’s series on the VBM on conversion to see the spectrum. One reader wondered if עינוי הגרwas violated when a conversion that is valid to one posek is challenged by another; I do not think so: posek X thinks a person is a not Jewish even as posek Z think this person is Jewish — it cannot be that posek X is sinning by sharing his view of the halacha. ↑
Child Conversions II. Of course, even the proper standard for kabbalat hamitzvot for adult converts is in dispute, with a range of ideas, and this is beyond the scope of this piece. - Just for the record, I note that while I sometimes do sit on batai din for conversions, my own standards are that I will never sit on a bet din in which I do not fully expect that the adult convert will be completely shomer mitzvot from the conversion onward. For the conversion of children, I follow the first view of Rav Moshe in IM 4:26(3). See rule 5b of GPS Policies And Procedures. Conversions in America fit into one of four categories, not all of which are changing of a faith, even as all are a geirus. One category is of a person who is fully Orthodox, but is not Jewish kehalacha, since unbeknown to them they or their mother or grandmother did not convert kehalacha. Another category is a person who had an Orthodox conversion (or whose mother had such) at a lower standard, and now seeking a conversion upgrade that is more accepted. A third is a person of another faith who is seeking to change convert to Judaism. A fourth is a person of no faith who is seeking to convert for the sake of a marriage and is prepared to commit to a halachic standard for life and convert in order to marry.
In Kashrus, it’s a lot easier to allow some leeway or range of possibilities. Risks of long term outcomes comparable to illegitimate marriages producing mamzerim or actual non-Jews are not present.
Bob, It seems to me — as I noted — mamzerim are much more complex that non-Jews, since “gentile-ness” is “corrected” by conversion and “mamzer-ness” has no solution. Neither are exactly like kashrus, I agree, but correctable problems are different from uncorrectable ones. But, consider the diversity of views in the poskim on whether a child with a gentile father and a Jewish mother can marry a kohein. We permit such diversity.
Let’s not open the door to wholly unnecessary problems.
Don’t forget the issue of kohanim, though. That can’t be “corrected”.
Much worse is the problem of remarriages wo a get and the subsequent mamzerim-can’t be corrected. Gerus misafek not as big a problem.
Nachum, I discuss the kohein issue (in an article co-authored by the (much smarter than me, Rabbi Dr. Gidon Rothstein) entitled “Examining a Controversial Heter: A Woman Converted as an Infant Marrying a Kohen— The Novel Approach of Rabbi Ephraim Greenblatt (Rivevos Efraim)” at https://hakirah.org/Vol33Broyde.pdf around pages 189-190 discussing the view of Rav Moshe that a person who does not come from Orthodox stock, his kohein status is debatable. There are great poskim besides Rav Moshe in this view, including leading poskim now in America — see the article.
I did not understand Bob Miller’s comment. Maybe he can say more?
Avoidable errors cause damage before they’re corrected. Some damage persists.
Bob, Of course you are correct that “avoidable errors cause damage before they’re corrected”. But, the inability to convert when a conversion is needed and can be done also causes damage that is uncorrectable. You seem to be denying that. There is a balance here that poskim are very aware of and is very important. The standard Rabbi Gordimer proposes — that “geirus must be performed to exceptionally high standards and be unimpeachable” excludes even conversions done that most poskim agree is proper (since a conversion approved by most is impeachable by those who do not agree). Minimizing “damage” is important, but it is not accomplished in conversions by standards maximization. I am befuddled that you are looking at only one side of the scale.
I tend to side with Bob Miller’s discomfort with comparing geirus to kashrus, for the reasons he mentioned.
However, it seems to me that the laws of geirus were never as hard-coded and ‘eterna’l as classic halachic fields like Issur V’Heter and Hilchos Shabbos. I think they were traditionally much more era-dependent, going all the way back to Yisro and Rus etc. As such, despite the problems Rabbi Gordimer is concerned about, I really don’t think geirus is an area where we should be looking to be machmir.