CONVERSION
J. David Bleich, "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature",
Tradition 23/2 (1988), 88-95. ó The author reviews the problem
of permitting the use of a mikveh for non-orthodox conversion. He
would deny the use of such facilities for non-orthodox conversions. He further
asserts that this denial, despite opinion to the contrary, does not involve
institutional or denominational rivalries nor do the concerns raised by
orthodox authorities have as their intent the attenuation of fraternal bonds
which unite all Jews and make all Jews responsible for the spiritual and
material welfare of each other. (S.M.P.)
J. Simcha Cohen, "The Conversion of Children Born to Gentile
Mothers and Jewish Fathers", Tradition 22/4 (1987), 1-17. ó
The author proposes a frame of reference for halakhic dialogue on this vexed
subject. The elements of the matter set forth include the question of infant
conversion and zekhut, and the question of child converts in non-orthodox
homes. He suggests that orthodox Judaism should not dismiss children of
gentile mothers as beyond the pale but rather aggressively pursue halakhic
means to gain these children as traditionally observant Jews. (S.M.P.)
Dan Cohn-Sherbok, "The Paradox of Reform Conversion", JRJ
27/1 (l980), 83-85. - The author suggests revision of the Reform Jewish
conversion ceremony in order to eliminate the anomaly of a declaration of
religious belief in situations where the perspective convert does not profess
a belief in Deity. (S.M.P.)
Steven E. Foster, "The Community Rabbinic Conversion Board -
Denver Model", JRJ 3l/3 (1984), 25-32. - A study of a
Jewish inter-denominational conversion board which was an experiment in
halakhic conversion procedures bringing together rabbis from all
Jewish denominations. The experiment has been discontinued and the reasons
for its end are also studied in detail. (S.M.P.)
Walter Jacob, "Privacy of A Convert", Journal of Reform
Judaism 33/1 (1986), 87f. ó In a reform responsum the author
decides that it would not be offensive for a congregation to maintain a
registry of converts in the congregational library, but it should be placed
in the library in a manner that would not lend itself to the gratification
of idle curiosity. (S.M.P.)
Walter Jacob, "Return to Judaism of a Baptized Jewish girl",
Journal of Reform Judaism 33/4 (1986), 69f. ó In a reform
responsum the author considers the situation of a young woman, born of a
Jewish mother who practices Christianity. The young woman was baptized when
she was five. The Jewish father is Jewishly committed and wants the daughter
to be part of the congregation. After brief discussion of the return of
converts who left Judaism under duress and the return of converts who left
voluntarily, the author maintains that the young woman does not really fall
into either category. He therefore recommends a ceremony which impresses
the seriousness of a decision to be part of the Jewish community. (S.M.P.)
Robert N. Levine and David H. Ellenson, "Jewish Tradition, Contemporary
Sensibilities, and Halacha: A Responsum by Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman",
JRJ 30/1 (1983), 49-56. - The authors analyze Hoffmann's responsum
in respect to the Jewish status of a child born to a gentile mother and
a Jewish father, specifically whether a twelve year old boy of such parentage,
who had in fact been circumcised by a mohel at the age of eight days
required hatafat dam before conversion. Hoffman decided it was unnecessary.
(S.M.P.)
Robert Levine and David Ellenson, "Rabbi Z. H. Kalischer and
a Halachic Approach to Conversion", JRJ 28/3 (l981), 50-57.
- An analysis of a responsum in which a strictly observant rabbi permits
conversion to Judaism for the circumcised son of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish
mother. (S.M.P.)
S. Zevulun Leiberman, "A Sephardic Ban on Converts", Tradition
23/2 (1988) 22-25. ó The Syrian-Sephardic community in Brooklyn,
N.Y., following the earlier example of the Syrian-Sephardic community of
Argentina, declared a ban on accepting any converts. This ban was reaffirmed
in 1946, 1972, and 1984. The ban is based on the power of a community to
institute such proceedings; and it is, to the author's mind, a proof of
the power of a community to protect its heritage and tradition. The ban
excludes adopted children converted at birth. (S.M.P.)
J. Milgrom, "Religious Conversion and the Revolt Model for the
Formation of Israel", JBL 101 (1982), 169-176. - The author
challenges the view, implicit in the Mendenhall-Gottwald revolt model for
the formation of Israel, that religious conversion is either attested or
possible before the Second Temple period. He denies the new consensus that
the use of ger in P indicates proselyte and, hence, a full Israelite.
He follows Ibn Ezra (on Lev. 18:26) and Weinfeld that the ger
and Israelite are not equated because the ger is only obliged to
obey the laws that affect the purity of the congregation or the land. The
distinction in P does not exist in civil law (jus), which holds they
are of equal status, but in religious law (fas). There is a precise
legal distinction in P between the ger and the Israelite. The ger
may have worshipped Israel's God and was required to offer purification
offerings to the sanctuary, but there was no obligation to follow all the
religious prescriptions incumbent upon Israelites. He was neither an ezrah
nor part of the kahal but a ger. D.'s law of herem
and its law on intermarriage (Deut. 7:3; cf. Exod.
34:10; Josh. 23:12) presumes that Canaanites qua Canaanites were
present at least in the eighth century. D.'s law of the kahal is
a northern Israelite polemic against Judah, particularly against the Davidids.
Thus the assumption of the revolt model that Israel was formed by mass conversion
is unwarranted. Conversion of individuals is not attested until the post-exilic
age, and the phenomenon of mass conversion not until the Hasmoneans and
the advent of Christianity. (K.W.W.)
J. Nolland, "Uncircumcised Proselytes?", JSJ 12 (1981),
173-194. - N. examines the claim of McEleney that there was a significant
strand of Jewish thought in the first century, prior to Pharisaic dominance,
especially in the Hellenistic world, which allowed for the possibility of
a convert to Judaism being accepted without the need for circumcision. He
finds no evidence within first century Jewish writings (particularly, Philo:
Epictetus II, ix, 20f; Pes. 92a) to support such a claim.
(K.W.W.)
J. Schatzmiller, "Converts and Judaizers in the Early Fourteenth
Century", HTR 74 (1971), 63-77. - Inquisitors claimed that Jews
who temporarily converted to Christianity were readmitted to Judaism by
an immersion rite (tebila) designed to undo their baptism. But Rabbi
Ibn Idreth denied this was necessary. A document from Toulon about 1320
confirms the existence of this rite. It contains the confessions of the
Jew Salves Barbe before the inquisitor Bertrand de Cigoterio and describes
how he was first immersed in the sea and later in hot water. Ibn Idreth's
remarks should therefore be viewed not as denying the existence of the practice,
but its necessity. To affirm the necessity of a Jewish immersion would be
to admit the efficacy of baptism. (G.J.W.)
A. Shaaki, "Fraud as a Ground for Nullification of Halachic Conversion",
Bar Ilan Law Studies 3 (1984), 28-91.
Moshe Yeres, "Burial of Non-Halakhic Converts", Tradition
23/3 (1988), 60-74. ó The author reviews various opinions and
Pesakim on the subject and concludes that the question involves public
policy that can not be settled by the mere quotation of a prior Pesak.
He states that nothing less than full Halakhic conversion can achieve Jewish
status for a convert, yet true identification with the Jewish community
has been recognized as having some halakhic weight in some areas. (S.M.P.)
About
| Officers | Constitution
| Membership | Conferences
Publications | Abstracts
| Resources | Courses
| Links
View the framed
or non-framed version of this site
|