The claim that there is an essential halachic difference between the national conversions and the conversions that will be conducted according to Minister Cahana’s reform – is out of touch with reality.
Much has been written lately, both by rabbis and by politicians, who oppose the conversion reform being legislated by Minister Matan Cahana. One can argue with many of their claims, and, as always, there are reasons to follow one line of thought and other reasons to follow another line of thought. However, there are two ideas that repeat themselves in the words of all of those who oppose this reform and these ideas are no less than slander. Sometimes these evil words are uttered with intent to cause harm while at other times they are uttered unknowingly, but in both cases these words are like sand being thrown into the eyes of others, blinding them from seeing the truth.
The first idea that is causing confusion is the slogan: “One conversion for one nation.” Those who write and speak this slogan misrepresent the current state of affairs regarding conversion. They speak as if the current national conversions, conducted by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, are recognized by all Jews. Is this the case? Does the Charedi world recognize national conversions, including both civilian conversions as well as military conversions? Is there one well-known Charedi rabbi who is willing to raise his voice and say that national conversions are halachically acceptable and therefore he has no objection that his children or other members of his community marry converts who went through a national conversion? Unfortunately, this question is a rhetorical question.
When we realize that the Charedi world does not accept national conversions, then we can reach the conclusion that even before the proposed conversion reform is implemented the state of Israel does not really have a conversion process that is accepted by all Jews. Perhaps this societal reality is not necessarily bad. As opposed to other marital disqualifications, there is no hindrance upon re-converting, according to more stringent standards, someone who converted in the past. This fact makes it clear that the slogan “One conversion for one nation” does not actually reflect the societal reality in Israel. Today, there are many Haredi communities in Israel that do not recognize the conversions conducted by the Israeli Rabbinate. In practice, these Haredi communities conduct themselves through “Books of Yichus”.
The Acceptance of Mitzvot is a Process
The second idea that is causing confusion is both more severe and more important. From my experience over the past years - as a board member of “Nativ” (the national conversion arrangement) and as a Dayan on the Beit Din of Giyur K’Halacha (established by Rabbi Nahum Rabinovitch and supported by Rabbi Yakov Meidan, Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, Rabbi David Stav, among others) - I am familiar with and I appreciate both the national rabbinical courts and the courts of “Giyur K’Halacha” upon which I sit. From this familiarity I can bear witness to the fact that there is no difference, regarding the level of acceptance of mitzvot after conversion, between those who convert through nationally recognized channels and those who convert through “Giyur K’Halacha”. Most of these converts respect the tradition and observe mitzvot at different levels. This fact, as will be explained below, does not undermine the validity of their conversion.
Moreover, relating to Minister Cahana’s reform as if it enables conversions without the acceptance of the commandments according to halacha, and as if the Beit Din converts non-Jews based only upon their military service – is severe slander that stems from absolute lies. There is no conversion without the acceptance of mitzvot.
It is true that there are disagreements between halachic authorities regarding the meaning of the term “acceptance of mitzvot.” Some authorities hold that in addition to the acceptance of mitzvot by he or she who converts, an acceptance that includes a full and honest understanding that he or she is committed to upholding all mitzvot, the Beit Din must also be firmly convinced that after the conversion the convert will uphold all mitzvot without exception. There are other authorities, Rishonim and Achronim no less important than the former authorities (this is the opinion that arises, for example, from the pshat of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch), that hold that the convert must honestly accepts upon himself all of the mitzvot, but at the stage of his conversion he is supposed to know only the main parts of the mitzvot. Chazal stated this position when saying that the convert must know “some of the easier mitzvot and some of the more difficult mitzvot”. This statement refers to the mitzvot that the convert begins to observe immediately upon converting, with the purpose, aspiration and hope that the convert’s journey will continue, and they will become integrated into a community that will assist them in continuing to learn more and proceed in the process of upholding all of the mitzvot.
The acceptance of mitzvot according to this approach is the beginning of a process in which the convert understands that he or she is obligated to uphold all of the commandments, but they begin with upholding only the central commandments - like shabbat and kashrut, among others. The continuation of the convert’s process depends greatly upon our willingness as a nation to find an adopting community for each and every convert, a community that will assist him or her in continuing their journey towards upholding more and more mitzvot. In the past, in countries abroad, many rabbinical authorities chose a stringent approach towards conversion in order to raise the wall between Jews and gentiles, and in this way prevent intermarriage and assimilation. Here, in Israel, the conditions of our life are a mirror image of what they were in Galut. Since the converts here are full citizens of Israel, who will marry into the nation of Israel in the near future, they who are more “stringent” and make conversion difficult are causing the proliferation of intermarriages and assimilation in the land of Israel.
It is because of this that many rabbinic authorities, and the chief rabbis of Israel in the past generation, chose the more lenient path regarding conversion. Conversions in Israel followed this path during the tenure of Rav Uziel, Rav Unterman, Rav Goren and Rav Ovadia Yosef. Rav Goren, for example, converted non-Jewish volunteers who studied in Ulpan on religious kibbutzim. Rav Goren did this while being fully aware of the fact that these volunteers intended to return to live on non-religious kibbutzim. (These volunteers were allowed to have a kosher kitchen on kibbutz during times when very few non-religious kibbutzim had kosher kitchens.) Rav Ovadia Yosef signed off on conversions conducted in the IDF when it was clear that most of the converts were not fully observant.
These historical facts make it clear that from a halachic perspective there is no real difference between most of the national conversions conducted by the chief rabbinate, and the conversions of “Giyur CaHalacha”, and the conversions that would be conducted by rabbis of cities (if Minister Cahana’s reform is implemented).
One Accomplishment Remains Out of Our Grasp
The real halachic disagreement, that is firm and valid, regards the conversion of minors. Here, two different halachic approaches can be found. One halachic approach holds that the conversion of a minor can be conducted only if both of his or her parents are Jews who observe all of the mitzvot and are committed to educating their child in the religious education system. Another halachic approach, no less important than the first, holds that ideally it is preferable that both parents be observant, but this is not a prerequisite for the conversion of the minor. The rabbinical courts of Giyur K’Halacha are active in the field of the conversion of minors, according to the teachings and practical guidance given to us by Rav Nahum Rabinovitch, who holds that today we are to abide by the latter, more lenient, halachic approach within the context of present-day Israel.
Why did Rav Rabinovich guide us in this manner?
From a Jewish perspective, the most important accomplishment of the state of Israel, in addition to its being a home for millions of Jews, is that currently Israel is the only place in the world where there is almost no assimilation. Even though about twenty percent of Israel’s citizens are not Jewish, marriages between Jews and non-Jews are rare. It is common knowledge within the Jewish world that in the diaspora the situation is very different. In exile, intermarriage and assimilation are a real pandemic.
Decades ago hundreds of thousands of our brethren make aliya from the former Soviet Union. These immigrants have Jewish ancestry but they were brutally separated from our Jewish traditions and because of these tragic circumstances they are not Jewish according to halacha. This demographic reality is forcing the Jewish-Israeli society to face a new and unprecedented historic challenge. It is important to understand that these people are good Israeli citizens who are fully involved in all aspects of society – in the army, in the economy, in the medical system, in academia, and in all other areas of Israeli life. In their own eyes they are Jewish and many of the Jewish-Israeli citizens look at them in this way. Naturally, most of them marry Jewish-Israeli citizens. In this way, intermarriage is beginning to enter the land of Israel through the front door, and one of the tremendous accomplishments of our country is beginning to crumble.
According to official records, each year 5000 children are born to non-Jewish mothers from the former Soviet Union. We can compare this number to the number of conversions conducted in Israel during a given year which reaches 2000 (some of whom are of Ethiopians). These statistics lead us to the conclusion that at the current pace of conversions the demographic challenge we are faced with worsens every year. The only realistic way in which we can deal with this issue in a serious manner is through converting minors in significant numbers. I think that the most important piece of Cahana’s conversion reform rests upon the establishment of rabbinical courts, lead by rabbis of cities who adopt this approach, that will focus on converting minors according to halacha in large numbers, in a way that can potentially minimize the demographic problem for future generations.
Here I turn towards my colleagues - rabbis identified with the Religious-Zionist movement who oppose these conversions. As scholars, I am sure that you know that this rabbinical approach rests upon strong halachic foundations. Even if you do not agree with this approach, I am sure that you do accept, in this case, the halacha that “after the fact all of them are converts”. (Some authorities, according to whom we do not rule, used this approach even with the conversion of adults without the acceptance of mitzvot.) So, what, in your opinions, is the better alternative? It is common knowledge that the thousands of non-Jewish families living in Israel will not bring their children to be converted if this conversion demands that they become fully religious overnight. This means that these children will grow up here as non-Jews and they will marry Jewish Israelis in the near future. Is it not preferable, even according to your own line of thought, that they become “converts after the fact” when they marry Israeli-Jews.
I want to turn towards rabbis identified with the Religious-Zionist movement, rabbis who are attentive to the needs of our times - If you do not accept the approach of Rav Rabinovich, I would expect you to offer other halachic solutions to one of Am Yisrael’s biggest problems today. It is true that the legal clause - allowing grandchildren of Jews to make aliya even if they are not connected to Judaism – should have been cancelled, and it is better that this be done late than never. But the current reality is such that these people live among us and are integrated into our society. Is this not the time to hear the still small voice that calls upon us to extend an outstretched arm towards those who have been separated from our heritage and bring them back to our nation and to our tradition? Is this not the time to bring them back home?
Originally published (in Hebrew): Makor Rishon, March 6th, 2022. Translation from the Hebrew: Dr. David Lester
