[Avodah] Geirut

[Chana Luntz]

RTK writes:

> Obviously I think my husband was right halachically and as a 
> matter of policy, but I am wondering whether, in R'n CL's 
> mind, those parents were actually right halachically.  Does 
> she think that my husband should have done such a conversion? 

No.

>  Had he done so, would this young woman actually be 
> halachically Jewish?

No, even according to the most lenient opinions.  As far as I can make
out, there are two different forms of lenient position out there, but
this person seems to have failed both of these tests. 

  The young couple went to the C rabbi, 
> and he performed the conversion and the marriage.  Our shul 
> lost what could have been a very fine atheist pork-eating 
> Jewish family, well-educated and affluent.  Was that the 
> wrong decision?  If I understand what RCL has been saying, 
> the failure to accept KOM would not invalidate a conversion.  
> But what about the fact that the young woman really didn't 
> care whether she was a Jew or not -- had no special desire to 
> be a Jew?  Just wanted to marry her guy and please her 
> in-laws?  Would that invalidate the conversion?

As I understand it there are two lenient positions out there (different
from each other) which are based on a different understanding of KOM
from that of Bechoros 30b:

A) the person does not have to accept each and every mitzvah (as per
Bechoros 30b) it is enough that they accept certain fundamentals.  What
these are is  a bit unclear, but it is hard to see an atheist who
rejects absolutely everything falling within this category.

B) the person does not have to demonstrate a fidelity to mitzvos, only a
desire to join the Jewish people and become a Jew, but this woman does
not fall within this category either.

Plus there is a third - that goes like this:

C) While the majority opinion, as encompassed in the Shulchan Aruch, is
that some form of KOM is required for adults - and whatever that means,
it would seem that this woman could not fall with any definition of it,
not even A) or B) above, which are the most lenient there are, there are
rishonic positions that hold that no KOM is required at all, only mila
and tevila.  And we know that in a sha'as hadchak, we can rely on
minority opinions.  The catestrophic loss of the majority of world Jewry
to intermarriage constitutes such a sha'as hadchak and therefore, in
order to stem the tide, and at least keep the children Jewish for at
least a generation or two more (by which time Moshiach may have come, or
the kiruv professionals may have reached them) one therefore should
perform the conversion and rely on the minority positions.

Now, while theoretically I can understand the halachic basis for such an
argument, I can't see anybody then going on to say that this is the kind
of decision (ie the solution to the current crisis, if crisis indeed it
is), being to rely on minority opinions and to perform the conversion as
the kind of decision to be made independently by a local Rav in
Chatanooga.  It is the sort of decision that *maybe* the gadol hador
could make.  But, no disrespect to your husband, but I am afraid I
suspect your husband does not fall within that category.

I personally, I confess, don't buy argument C) at all, certainly not in
the case of intermarriage within Chutz L'Aretz.  That, I confess,
probably stems from my tendency to prefer quality over quantity (an
argument I have had with the odd Lubavitcher over the years).  I fully
recognise that there are two sides to that debate, but that tends me
against any argument that a) the loss of significant numbers of
completely noncommitted Jews into the general population in Chutz
L'Aretz is quite the crisis that some people make it out to be; and b)
having a few more dubious Jews achieves anything at all.  If anything, I
think taking such approach will lead to a dilution of quality, and at
most a temporary respite.  And if anything I think this will militate
against quality.  People often take the easy way out unless it is made
impossible, and only then are prepared to contemplate doing more (even
though they are often glad that they have been made to do so after the
event).

However, there is a variant of argument C) in play in the context of the
Israeli situation - and I confess, while I am not sure if it is correct,
I can see a lot more to it than I can to the argument in relation to
Chutz L'Aretz intermarriage.  Firstly, in the case within Israel, I can
see the risk that within a few generations, we just may not be able to
work out who is a Jew at all, if these people are not converted (far
less true in the Chutz L'Aretz case, as people who do not convert much
more rarely go undercover - it happens, as Lakewood can tell you, but
much less so).  Secondly, in most cases in Israel, I believe that one of
A) or B) applies even without needing to go to a form of C) - so you are
only relying on C) as a bolstering argument.  And, of course, a variant
of C) does appear to have been articulated by Rav Goren, Rav Uzziel, Rav
Berkowitz and others along with their other arguments.

But this is all just me personally, what I think is more critical is to
understand all of opinions within the debate, and to understand that
matters are not nearly as clear cut and straightforward as one might
think.

> --Toby Katz

Regards

Chana