Volume 60 Number 04
Produced: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 06:29:28 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
A conversion criterion (5)
[Gershon Dubin Lisa Liel David Ziants Ira L. Jacobson Martin Stern]
Another Tazria/Metzora query
[Martin Stern]
Mohel driving to brit on Shabbat (7)
[Gershon Dubin Sammy Finkelman Tal S. Benschar Yaakov Shachter Batya Medad Rabbi Meir Wise Martin Stern]
Q on Megilla reading
[Art Werschulz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Fri, Apr 8,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: A conversion criterion
Susan Kane wrote (MJ 60#03):
> Why seek ways to keep people out of the Jewish community? Because they may
> drive on shabbat? There are no good Jews who drive on shabbat?
If an American citizen burns the flag in Times Square, he remains an American
citizen. If a foreigner who is applying for citizenship burns the flag, do we
consider that no obstacle to naturalization? There are rules for joining a
country club, is the faith and community of 3000 years not entitled to at least
the same?
> Our ancestors who came to America and who went to early minyanim on shabbat
> because they needed to work the rest of the day - were not good Jews? They
> raised many of the people on this board and many upstanding members of frum
> shuls. Would it have been better for them to have not been born Jews because
> they were not able to keep shabbat fully?
Yes; that is the consensus of traditional Jewish thought on the issue. Better
to be a non-Jew without mitzvos than a Jew who violates the mitzvos.
<Gershongershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Fri, Apr 8,2011 at 06:01 PM
Subject: A conversion criterion
Susan Kane <suekane@...> wrote (MJ 60#03):
> You forget that the main reason for conversion in these times is
> intermarriage - which will go forward in most cases outside the frum
> world whether conversion is accepted or not. This was not at all true
> in earlier times.
That's a good enough reason right there not to accept such
converts. We give lip service to not accepting converts for that
reason, but we should take more care to rule it out. The purpose of
conversion is that a person is truly drawn to Judaism and truly
committed. Someone who converts because of marriage can't be assumed
to fit this profile at all.
> Obstacles to conversion create hatred and animosity between Jews and
> particularly among non-observant Jews whose spouses are rejected. Those Jews
> will be completely lost to the Jewish community and will never take on more
> mitzvot.
And? We aren't a race. And people make their own choices. It's a
tragedy if a Jew leaves the fold, but it's one of his own
making. For us to create a Jew, essentially, when we have no
reasonable conviction that they're going to keep the mitzvot is
simply irresponsible.
This reminds me a lot of the rationale the Conservative movement uses
for driving to synagogue on Shabbat. We don't permit things that are
wrong just because we're worried that someone else might otherwise do
something unfortunate.
> In contrast, we know that converts, particularly outside of Orthodoxy, are
> almost always more observant than the people they marry and the
> communities into which they convert. There is a reason they are called gerim
> tsadikim - it is because most of the people who join the Jewish people are
> indeed tsadikim.
Wow. I mean, I know people who fit that description, but if you
think "almost always" is even remotely accurate, you may need to get
out more. And I think it's even less true of the quicky converts in Israel.
> So on the one hand, you can rule stringently and create rifts in the Jewish
> people while driving away born Jews who are already tenuously committed.
> You will lose that Jew and his/her descendants.
And? If the intermarried Jew is male, it's a tragedy that his line
won't continue, but it's a tragedy that ends with him. If the
intermarried Jew is female, the children might become frum, just like
any other non-religious Jew. I don't see why we should further
endanger ourselves to prevent that. The harm vastly outweighs the benefit.
> On the other hand, you can rule leniently, which is allowed by
> halacha, and keep two people within the Jewish community where the
> convert is likely to influence the Jew towards greater observance.
> And you will have their children raised in a Jewish home, after which
> anything is possible.
Ah, well, you see, the issue of whether it's allowed by halakha isn't
so cut and dried. Or we wouldn't be having this conversation,
right? There are those who say that it isn't.
> I think that people forget how many mitzvot non-Orthodox people can
> and will do: Shabbat, kashrut, and taharat hamishpacha are not the only
> mitzvot in the Torah nor are they the defining lines between real Jews and
> everyone else.
They aren't defining lines between "real Jews and everyone else", but
they are certainly significant. I mean, yes, being a good person
means you're going to be fulfilling mitzvot automatically in most
cases. But you don't have to be Jewish to do that. Believe it or
not, there are some really great non-Jews out there.
> Think of all the mitzvot the convert is likely to keep, not the ones they are
> likely to break. Think of the importance of keeping the Jewish partner's
> children in the Jewish community.
Why? If the prospective convert is the mother, why on earth would we
care about keeping their children in the Jewish community? I mean,
"keep" isn't even the right word, because they aren't in the
community in the first place.
> I believe it is a serious mistake to be strict in this matter. In Israel, the
> standards for conversion and the corruption in the conversion system have
> created nothing but hatred for the haredim and even the State among some
> sectors.
I don't think we should throw away principles because people who
oppose them will otherwise hate us. I mean, if that was a Jewish
value, we would have disappeared millenia ago.
> The legal requirements for a halachic conversion are fairly minimal. Why seek
> ways to keep people out of the Jewish community? Because they may drive on
> shabbat? There are no good Jews who drive on shabbat?
That's correct. There are Jews who drive on Shabbat who are good
people. There are good Jews who drive on Shabbat when halakha
requires it. But no, there are no good Jews who drive on
Shabbat. Being a habitual Shabbat desecrator is against
Judaism. And again, it harms everyone and everything. It's a Very Bad Thing.
> Our ancestors who came to America and who went to early minyanim on shabbat
> because they needed to work the rest of the day - were not good Jews?
Our ancestors who came to America and didn't work on Shabbat despite
the hardships were good Jews. The others may have been good people,
and most of them probably were. But to call them good
Jews? Particularly in the context of their Shabbat desecration?
> They raised many of the people on this board and many upstanding
> members of frum shuls.
Ah. I know an amazingly large number of upstanding members of frum
shuls who are seriously good Jews and who first learned about Judaism
through Camp Ramah, run by the Conservative movement. That does not
and never will mean that the Conservative movement is a good
thing. It means that Hashem can use anything at all for His purposes.
> Would it have been better for them to have not been born Jews because
> they were not able to keep shabbat fully?
How is that relevant? They *were* born Jews. We're talking about
making Jews out of adults who have no real intention of being observant.
> What about all the good which converts will do as Jews and the kavod they may
> bring to the Jewish people? What about their positive influence on their
> Jewish spouse?
What about it?
> Jews are liable to G-d for failure to keep the mitzvot. As long as
> the potential convert understands and accepts this, the rest is between
> him/her and G-d.
Not so long as we bear the responsibility of allowing him to convert.
> Being lenient may or may not result in more mitzvot broken than mitzvot
> performed. Being strict will definitely drive existing Jews away from Judaism.
Everyone is responsible for his own decisions and actions. I've
heard people argue that criminals aren't really to blame because of
how they were raised. But there were also people who were raised the
same way and didn't become criminals. To say that being correct will
"drive existing Jews away from Judaism" is not only false, but is a
very dangerous way of looking at things. Those who leave because
their goyische partner can't convert... well, that's a small loss.
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Sat, Apr 9,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: A conversion criterion
Susan Kane <suekane@...> in (MJ 60#03) based her arguments on this
premise of hers:
> Obstacles to conversion create hatred and animosity between Jews and
> particularly among non-observant Jews whose spouses are rejected.
she continues:
> In contrast, we know that converts, particularly outside of Orthodoxy,
> are almost always more observant than the people they marry and the
> communities into ...
The point is that any "conversion" outside of Torah (aka orthodox)
framework is simply not a valid conversion according to any Torah
perspective on conversion.
The issues of arguments these days is between the more lenient opinions
and the stricter opinions within halacha (that is of course orthodox). By
lenient, I mean accept a convert who made a shorter track by virtue of the fact
he is already joining Am Yisrael/serving in the army etc. and it is enough in
ensuring that he knows and is going to commit to the basics of Jewish practice.
This is acceptable (as far as I know) to the Rabbanim who are are more Dati
Le'umi but not acceptable to Chareidim.
Chareidim, being less bureaucratic, can sometimes give even a shorter
track than the Rabbanut for a potential ger, but that is only done for
those who are already practising Torah (except lighting a match on
Shabbat - as they are not yet Jewish) in the fullest way and just look
forward to becoming Jewish. Sometimes such a person (or family) might
have done a "conservative" effort only to discover that it is not within
the framework of Torah practice as recognised by any Rabbanut or Bet Din.
Chag kasher v'same'ach
David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Sun, Apr 10,2011 at 03:01 AM
Subject: A conversion criterion
Susan Kane (MJ 60#03) stated:
> There is a reason they are called gerim tsadikim - it is because
> most of the people who join the Jewish people are indeed tsadikim.
Not exactly. True converts are called gerei tzedeq, which is
something else entirely.
And further, as far as I know, no poseq (authorative halachic decisor - MOD)
today regards those who have undergone Reform "conversion" as a ger tzedeq. Rav
Ovadia Yosef said that we can use them as Shabbos goyim.
> I think that people forget how many mitzvot non-Orthodox people can
> and will do.
Yes, but they probably also kept those mitzvot when they regarded
themselves as non-Jews. Think murder and ever min hahai, for example.
> Our ancestors who came to America and who went to early minyanim on
> shabbat because they needed to work the rest of the day - were not good Jews?
Whether or not we agree, they considered it a matter of piku'ah
nefesh. If they hadn't worked on Shabbat, their families would have
died of starvation R"L. Good Jews? I'm not sure that this is for us
to decide, but in any case, their situation cannot be compared to the
non-Jews who seek the easy road to becoming Jews.
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Apr 10,2011 at 06:01 AM
Subject: A conversion criterion
Susan Kane <suekane@...> wrote (MJ 60#03):
> Obstacles to conversion create hatred and animosity between Jews and
> particularly among non-observant Jews whose spouses are rejected.
It should be made clear that, as far as halachah is concerned, no marriage
can exist between a Jew and a non-Jew. Perhaps the word 'spouse' should be
replaced by 'cohabitee in a relationship treated as marriage by civil law".
> Those Jews will be completely lost to the Jewish community and will never take
> on more mitzvot.
In most cases, they are probably already lost.
> So on the one hand, you can rule stringently and create rifts in the Jewish
> people while driving away born Jews who are already tenuously committed.
The existence of the Reform and Conservative movements with their deviant
attitudes to halachah have already created the rift. Why should we accept
their decisions when they run contrary to halachah?
> You will lose that Jew and his/her descendants.
This is only where a male Jew consorts with a female non-Jew (admittedly the
majority of cases). When it is the other way round, her children remain
Jews.
> In Israel, the standards for conversion and the corruption in the conversion
> system have created nothing but hatred for the haredim and even the State
> among some sectors.
This is news to me. We in the UK get people coming back from Israel with
official Israeli conversions who would never have been accepted here because
their observance of mitsvot is so highly deficient. But I doubt that that is
the sort of corruption Sue means.
> Jews are liable to G-d for failure to keep the mitzvot. As long as the
> potential convert understands and accepts this, the rest is between him/her
> and G-d.
A sociological survey of 'converts' published in the recent book Megillat
Gerut published by Reuven Maas showed that the vast majority had no
intention of keeping mitsvot but realised that they had to put on a show of
doing so in order to 'graduate'. Since there are definite advantages in
being Jewish in Israel, they persevere but drop virtually everything once
they receive their 'conversion certificate'. It is doubtful whether converts
should be accepted at all in situations where Jews have the upper hand, as in
Israel today, but, if one is lenient, one should at the very least expect a
genuine commitment to full mitsvah observance.
> Being lenient may or may not result in more mitzvot broken than mitzvot
> performed.
Better they should remain non-Jews who do not have such obligations than
Jewish sinners.
> Being strict will definitely drive existing Jews away from Judaism.
Probably most such Jews would be horrified if their 'spouse' actually took
Judaism seriously and expected them also to become fully observant. I know
of several cases where the convert terminated the relationship because of
this. They will have driven themselves away from Judaism already.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Apr 10,2011 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Another Tazria/Metzora query
It struck me on Shabbat that the korbanot (sacrifices) brought by the zav
and zavah (those suffering from pathological genital discharges) are
identical to those brought by yoledet dalah (a poor woman after childbirth): two
doves or two pigeons. Can anyone suggest why wealthy zavim/zavot are not
expected to bring a more substantial offering like a wealthy yoledet?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Fri, Apr 8,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Mohel driving to brit on Shabbat
Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...> wrote (MJ 60#03):
>I'm looking for sources that permit a Shabbat brit to be delayed if
> the mohel would otherwise have to drive (on Shabbat).
Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna in Shabbos permits any melacha leading up to the
bris, including burning coals to make the steel to make the knife for the bris.
The other rabbis, who dispute him and according to whom the halacha is, say
only directly performing the bris is permitted. Thus, in the case you suggest,
carrying the knife through the streets to get it to the baby (or vice versa) is
specifically not permitted according to those rabbis (and the halacha); same
would apply to driving to the bris.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Fri, Apr 8,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Mohel driving to brit on Shabbat
What about this situation: Suppose the mohel is not informed about the
need for a bris until Shabbos, or very very late on a Friday??
I think the halakhic question might be answered differently in such a case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tal S. Benschar <tbenschar@...>
Date: Fri, Apr 8,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Mohel driving to brit on Shabbat
Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...> wrote (MJ 60#03):
> I'm looking for sources that permit a Shabbat brit to be delayed if the mohel
> would otherwise have to drive (on Shabbat)."
Well, we hold like the Chachamim against R. Eliezer that Machshirei Milah are
not docheh Shabbos. So driving on Shabbos for a bris is forbidden.
If the mohel won't stay over for Shabbos, then you simply have a situation where
there is no available mohel, at least until Sunday. (Suppose you are far away
and there is simply no mohel available for another week.) So you have an oness
situation. Most mohalim are very dedicated and will go far out of their way to
stay somewhere on Shabbos so as to be able to perform a bris.
Not really clear what the question is
Tal S. Benschar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yaakov Shachter <jay@...>
Date: Fri, Apr 8,2011 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Mohel driving to brit on Shabbat
Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...> wrote (MJ 60#03):
> I'm looking for sources that permit a Shabbat brit to be delayed if
> the mohel would otherwise have to drive (on Shabbat).
>
The mohel is just the agent of the father or slaveowner. It's the
father or slaveowner who has the obligation to perform the
circumcision, not the mohel, and the obligation is to perform the
circumcision, preferably, on the day prescribed by halakha. If you
can't get someone else to circumcise your son when he is 7 days old
(i.e., on his 8th day of life), then you circumcise him yourself.
Of course, you have to do so in a way that doesn't subject him to
sepsis, but you have a week to prepare for that, so that's not an
excuse.
I moved to Chicago around the time that Aguda were very loudly
patting themselves on the back for having worked out a deal with the
local gravediggers that they would dig graves on Sunday. For a while
after I moved here, I kept on getting letters in the mail telling me
how splendid Aguda was because thanks to them we now had Sunday
burials. It didn't make me think well of Aguda, but it did make me
think ill of the Jews who lived in this town before I moved here.
We have an obligation to bury our dead as soon as possible, consistent
with the honor due to the dead. If you can't get someone else to dig
the grave, then your duty is to dig the grave yourself. Halakha
allows you to postpone the burial, but only to promote the honor of
the dead, not because you don't want to break a sweat digging a grave,
and not because you lack the courage to upset organized labor.
Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sat, Apr 9,2011 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Mohel driving to brit on Shabbat
Ari Trachtenberg (MJ 60#03) asked:
> I'm looking for sources that permit a Shabbat brit to be delayed if
> the mohel would otherwise have to drive (on Shabbat).
What kosher Torah qualified mohel would drive on Shabbat?
There's a common psak, sorry I can't give you chapter/verse that a
Shabbat brit should be delayed to Sunday if it would involve chillul
Shabbat by close relatives. I recently heard this from a rabbi who gave
a shiur. There are many complicated logistics, like the equipment which
sometimes can't be carried.
Batya
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rabbi Meir Wise <Meirhwise@...>
Date: Sat, Apr 9,2011 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Mohel driving to brit on Shabbat
In reply to Ari Trachtenberg's question about a mechalel shabbes
"mohel" - can there be a clearer example of "mitzvah habaah be'aveira"
than this? would you steal a lulav?
The source is the Remo to Yoreh Deah 264:1 who states that a mechalel
shabbes should not do milah at all!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Apr 10,2011 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Mohel driving to brit on Shabbat
Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...> wrote (MJ 60#03):
> I'm looking for sources that permit a Shabbat brit to be delayed if
> the mohel would otherwise have to drive (on Shabbat).
If the mohel cannot get to the brit, he obviously cannot perform it. It is
the same whether this is because he cannot walk that far or there is some
physical barrier preventing him from getting there.
Most mohalim make every effort to find accommodation within walking distance so
that they can perform the mitsvah. Any that would consider driving are probably
disqualified anyway.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Date: Fri, Apr 8,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Q on Megilla reading
Lisa Liel <lisa@...> writes (MJ 60#03):
> J Wiesen <wiesen@...> wrote (MJ 60#02):
>> A minyan is required to say the bracha after the megilla reading.
>> Why does that bracha require a minyan and not the brachot before the
>> megilla reading?
> Is this the case? Is there a source for that?
See the ReMA's gloss at the end of Shulhan Aruch, Orah Hayyim 692:1, as well as
Mishnah Berurah thereon.
Art Werschulz
207 Stoughton Avenue, Cranford NJ 07016-2838
(908) 272-1146
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 60 Issue 4