JPOST
For the first time since the expulsion of Spain’s Jews in 1492, a descendant of Marrano Jewry who immigrated to Israel and received rabbinic ordination will return to Spain to serve as a rabbi.
Rabbi Nissan Ben-Avraham, a resident of Shiloh and father of 12, has been appointed a new emissary to the Marrano (or Bnei Anusim) community of Spain.[...]
For the first time since the expulsion of Spain’s Jews in 1492, a descendant of Marrano Jewry who immigrated to Israel and received rabbinic ordination will return to Spain to serve as a rabbi.
Rabbi Nissan Ben-Avraham, a resident of Shiloh and father of 12, has been appointed a new emissary to the Marrano (or Bnei Anusim) community of Spain.[...]
Some observations:
ReplyDelete(1) It is now clearly a policy by Michael Freund and his Shavei Israel to pluck representative members from distant places, themselves usually full converts Halachically, give them “semicha” and send them back to their countries and communities of origin to engage in full-blown proselytization.
(2) Michael Freund and his Shavei Israel are acting arbitrarily and unilaterally by deciding to “reach out” to people who after more than five hundred years of apostasy, hundreds of years of life as Christians, and total intermarriage by each generation over and over again, makes it is impossible to know who comes from the anussim/Marranos/Conversos.
(3) It is alarming and frightening to read Michael Freund’s plans for Shavei Israel to proselytize to ‘Tens of thousands – and maybe even more “ not just in Spain, but it’s known that he envisions this for many places all over the world wherever Jews may have once lived, settled or passed through centuries and even millennia ago.
(4) Michael Freund and his Shavei Israel are creating these “convert rabbis” to engage in proselytization and start the work of full conversion, something which is not approved by normative Halachah that places restrictions on a rabbi who is himself a convert from helping with converting other gentiles.
(5) Shavei Israel is engaging in evangelical-style proselytization more common from Church groups. He goes way beyond what Chabad has gingerly tried with its “Noahide campaign” with its backdoor openings for gentiles to convert, and it far exceeds what Tropper and his EJF scheme were ever able to pull off. While Michael Freund is far more dangerous than Tropper, he is clean-cut and wears a nice kippa seruga and has the blessings of some echelons in the Israeli government which he has served officially, and Shavei Israel is allowed to trumpet its “successes” of bringing to Israel groups of gentiles with very nebulous claims to Jewish identity (American reform Jews would be no problem to identify as “Jewish” compared to doubtful the people Shavei Israel brings in) and preparing for an even more frightening potential flood to follow unless something is done to stop Michel Freund and his Shavei Israel from doing even more harm.
(4) Michael Freund and his Shavei Israel are creating these “convert rabbis” to engage in proselytization and start the work of full conversion, something which is not approved by normative Halachah that places restrictions on a rabbi who is himself a convert from helping with converting other gentiles
ReplyDelete::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: there is a question a ger tzedek may be part of a beit din.
and even with that issue there are differing opinions including that a ger tzedek is permitted to be on a beit din for other gereim,.
also apparent the restrictions on issue of convert rabbis isn't 100% clear if it is real issue in halacha lmaaseh for all legitimate viewpoints.
browse the hirhurim web site on the issues of female rabbis.there are extensive disscusions going on there, about what is a rabbi.
there was a cheif rabbi of amsterdam who was a ger tzedek.
you will find a link on hirhurim to that article as well
btw he is going there to teach and there is no prohibition of a ger tzedek teaching someone for the purpose of conversion.
'give them “semicha” and send them back to their countries and "
ReplyDelete::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;:;
You are asserting that this individual just received smicha now. for the singular purpose,of this mission.
Do you know when he recived smicha?
Many years ago as an audritor of a nursing home located in NY ,, Iwent into the kitchen at lunch time to find something to eat.
ReplyDeleteThe dietician offered me some of treif meat and I politly told I am a Orthodox Jew and I observe Jewish dietary laws.This was rather tall, natural blond hair blue eyes,,,I would never have thought she was Jewish,
She told me ok I know about kashrus i observe it as well.Needlrss to sat I was surprised,
then she told me the following sotry.That every Friuday nihgt her mother would go down into the basement of their suburban Long Island home and light candles in a special closeet.She woudl mumble words and wabe her hands.the words had no meanings.HEr mother taught her todo that as well as other things and explained to her that this was something speciall in their family that was always taught from motehr to daughter.Although, th emother said she didn't knwo why.
This woman tooka relgion course in university and moewhere along the line she elarend of the inquisytion and the conversos.And then the ancient family secret ended.Because of the passing of time she was made to study for conversion and had an offiicial Orthodox Jew.
there are towns and village so th eInerian pennisula where certain families to this day only marry within certain other families.the regular Catholics refer to them as the maranos although they are often practcing catholics.
the target population here is nothing like that of Tropper and his Rabbis.
I am not aware of a normative halacha vis vis situations like this,In fact what has been ruled normative by variouse Sfardic and Ashekenazic Cheif Rabbis of Israel specifcally support this world.
Some of the real issues here is who is a rabbi, who is daadt torah, my rabbi is bigger and betetr than your rabbi, andwhat is the nature and purpose of the state of Israel,
I have a feeling that a person you would consider a daat torah I would not consider And visa versa.
Rap, this is not proselytsation.
ReplyDeleteMarranos are Jewish communities who were converted by the spanish inquistion. Who are you, and what prophetic power do you have to say they are not Jews? Have you ever been to Spain?
As far as we are concerned, they are hostages, we have to secure their release. If some need halachic conversion, that is for a Bet Din to decide not for you. And it is also not for you to decide if this rabbi is Kosher. that is precisely the game that Tropper was playing, ie only he was Kosher or his cohorts.
And with the gretaest of respect to Eda haharedis, their sphere of influence is within the specific areas of Geula and mea Shearim. If there are any converts who wish to live in that community, it is not for a European or zionist rabbi to decide their eligiblity.
They have lived in fear of their lives for several hundred years.
I also come from a Marrano community from Iran. When they made aliyah, one Ashkenazi Rav did not recognize them as Jews. it therefore took a Sephardi Rav to do so.
Marranos are Jewish communities who were converted by the spanish inquistion. Who are you, and what prophetic power do you have to say they are not Jews
ReplyDeleteDT: We have covered this before. A descendant of anusim does not have a chazaka that they are Jews but rather that they a goyim. Therefore to try and convince them to convert is proselytization. This has nothing to do with prophesy.
They have lived in fear of their lives for several hundred years.
DT: who threatens their lives? Spanish government? Church? Neighbors?
We have covered this before. A descendant of anusim does not have a chazaka that they are Jews but rather that they a goyim
ReplyDelete--------------------------------
R' Soloveitchik once said that a Chazaka made by Chazal is an ontological truth - and cannot be changed. Even some of those "ontological truths" are nbo longer valid - eg the chazakah they made that there are no gay Jews - sadly this is not the case.
How can you make a chazaka that they are no longer Jews, when many of them only have married amongst themselves?
Noone is convincing them to convert. Many of them consider themselves Jewish.
Even with the Falashas had different views. Many considered them as not Jewish, whereas others, including the Ridbaz and Rav Kook said they are Jews or Bnei Dan.
DT: who threatens their lives? Spanish government? Church? Neighbors?
Yes, yes and yes. Perhaps only in the last century the Government has not persecuted them, and the Chruch is still very powerful there. But if they are goyim, then who cares ?
R' Soloveitchik once said that a Chazaka made by Chazal is an ontological truth - and cannot be changed. Even some of those "ontological truths" are nbo longer valid - eg the chazakah they made that there are no gay Jews - sadly this is not the case.
ReplyDelete=============
Rav Solveitichik never made such a global claim - except perhaps concerning the issue of whether women preferred to be married to anyone rather than remain alone.There is a tape of Rav Herschel Schacter that addresses the issue.
The poskim disagree with your assertion. There are times and places were it was recognized that homosexual behavior was significant.
========
In sum your claims are not true
Ahh - if you deny that r Soloveitchik didnt make the claim, then you have quoted a source which says he did.
ReplyDeleteIt was in that case of the Chazaka, that one of his coleagues claimed had changed - that R' Soloveitchick said a Chazof Chazal cannot be changed. He didn't limit it to this case. An ontological truth is by power of the Chazal, and not by the socila mores of that day being somehow everlasting.
Your arguments work against your own position and not mine.
Perhaps you didnt follow my argument:
Chazal made suchs a chazaka regarding seclusion of men together - that Jews are not gay.
I said this chazaka - with much sadness and shame - is not valid today.
So are all of chazal's chazakot ontological truths?
If you say poskim (who are post-shas) recognize that homosexuality does exist within Jewry, then they are agreeing with my assertion. They could only disagree with my assertion if they upheld that chazaka.
So yo seem to be utterly confused about what I am saying.
The Kal v'chomer is that if Chazal's chazakot are not absolute, then why should a post inquisition chazak be abolute?
So yo seem to be utterly confused about what I am saying.
ReplyDelete============
Eddie you make such blindingly sharp arguments that I simple don't know what you are talking about. So you are right you have succeeded in confusing me.
1) Rav Solveitchik did not say all chazakas found in Chazal can not be changed. So you are right I don't follow your argument to the contrary.
2) The fact that poskim talk about homosexuality as varying according to time and place means that they understood that in Chazal.
3) There is a difference between an observation of Chazal - which might be binding even though we don't observe that reality anymore and an observation of contemporary poskim when they say that the descendants of anusaim do not have a chazaka that they are Jews.
One type of chazaka might be axiomatic and the other is empirical.
so please repeat your arguments step by step. My puny mind doesn't handle arguments that skip steps.
RAP
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong,infact, the anusim document their family histories.
RAVS MORDECHAI ELIYAHU has written a teshuva on this.
He said that anyone especially males can document their histories showing an un broken line-they are to be circumsized in accordences with their jewish ancesters and immersed without it being a full conversion.
He said they are to be given a letter of return by the beth din.
Rabbi ARON SOLAVITCHIK Z'L also
wrote that in all things except for marriage they can be counted.
He said if they want to get married-they have to undergo geirut. l,chayim
In the story of the Rav:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/rav5
Further, the chazakot of Chazal are permanent ontological
principles, rooted in the human relationship with the Divine.
The Talmud, in Kiddushin 7a, says that such principles cannot be
uprooted.
R' Rakeffet adds: But this is not entirely true. R' Moshe
Feinstein fiddles with chazakot when dealing with the question of
civil marriage. R' Rakeffet sent a xerox of Tel Talpiyot dealing
with this to Rackman, Rackman sent it on to the Rav.
Fortunately, the Rav didn't bite Rakeffet's head off. Rakeffet
asked R' Aharon Lichtenstein why the Rav had made such a big
fuss. R' Lichtenstein replied that this chazaka is ontological,
it is rooted in creation.
If this is ontological, and it is has changed - ie today women do not necessarily marry, then the chazaka of gay Jews is also ontological, in that Adam awas created for Chava .
In any case, we agree that not all chazakas are absolute.
I brought this argument because you said there is a chazaka that marranos are no longer presumed to be Jewish.
But it cannot be said they are all non jewish (from a factual perspective). You see, in all probability , a majority of the community will have daughters. Those daughters will be halachicaly Jewish. Even if they are forced to intermarry, their offspring will also be Jewish. The next generation will also have daughters. Again the same principle applies.
Since the community still exists, then we have some mathematial certainty that a alrge number of them are still Jews from their maternal line.
The only way this can be disproven, is if all the women have migrated from the community, or that miraculously they did not have daughters, and only had sons - in which case they could only marry non jewish women.
l,chayim said...
ReplyDeleteRAP
You are wrong,infact, the anusim document their family histories.
RAVS MORDECHAI ELIYAHU has written a teshuva on this.
===========
Nope. He didn't write a teshuva but rather a letter stating this. Both his letter and that of R Aron Soleitchik are have been posted on this blog and I still don't know what they meant because they didn't explain anything.
these are the letters - both of them say that the descendants of anusim need to be converted to be considered Jews.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.beit-abravanel.com/Responses%20on%20the%20Anusim%20Matter.htm
Firslty, what is the difference between a letter and a teshuva?
ReplyDeleteA teshuva, as I understand it, is the answer to a she'elah, hence Sho'T. From the context of these "letters" it seems they are indeend answers or teshuvos, and in R' Eliyahu's case he writes "in response to your question"
Next, both of these make different halachic presumptions - or may i say chazakot - from that we dicussed earlier.
They say we must treat these comunities as Jews in every way, however, because of residual doubt or "chashash", they must undergo formal conversion if they wish to marry a Jew (who is firmly recognized as Jewish).
Such things could not be said if they were to be considered goyim through and through.
R' Eliyahu also praises the organisation for returning hte hearts of the sons to the way of their fathers. Considering this pasuk in the Torah is talking about End of Days - perhaps the Torah is suggesting the unthinkable? (ie patrilineal descent may have some part in the puzzle?)
Please dont suggest that I am making psak, just trying to understand the loshon of the torah.
http://www.beit-abravanel.com/Responses%20on%20the%20Anusim%20Matter.htm
ReplyDeleteActually I thought that Rav Eliyahu's letter was rather clear. Anusim must undergo full conversion, in accordance with the Shulchan Aruch.
The only thing that he says that seems to be different is that instead of getting a Teudat Gerut they should receive a Teudat L'shuv L'darkhei Avotav. This he doesn't explain. He seems to make a distinction between an Anus and a non-Jew with no known Jewish ancestory.
If I had to venture a guess, knowing Rav Eliyahu, I would say that he is going according to the words of the Zohar. The Zohar states that a non-Jew with no Jewish ancestory who comes to convert, is a Jewish soul essentially trapped in a non-Jewish body. Whereas a non-Jew with Jewish ancestors, according to the Zohar will have a strong desire to convert, because their remains with them a spark of holiness that desires to return to its ancestors.
However, he clearly states that they need a full conversion in agreement with the Shulchan Aruch.
Next, both of these make different halachic presumptions - or may i say chazakot - from that we dicussed earlier.
ReplyDeleteWhile a Chazak is a halachic presumtion, a halachic presumption is not by definition a chazaka. There is no Chazaka in the words of R' Eliyahu.
They say we must treat these comunities as Jews in every way, however, because of residual doubt or "chashash", they must undergo formal conversion if they wish to marry a Jew (who is firmly recognized as Jewish).
No R' Soloveitchik says this. R' Eliyahu says that we must allow them to convert according to the Shulchan Aruch. While the difference here may not seem big to you, in terms of halacha it is miles apart.
If Marranoes were to be considered Jewish, after 20 generations or more of being disconnected from any normative Jewish community with no Batei Din or Rabbis, they must all be considered mamzerim according to many Poskim.
ReplyDeleteIt is much less cruel to rule that a "Bnai Anusim" is a Gentile according to most.
Thank you for your post RaP.
I appreciate that fact that you are so articulate and that you take the time to write for this blog.
I have been writing about Michael Freund and Shalvei Israel's proselytizing for 15 years.
I am grateful that Shalvei Israel is finally receiving appropriate scrutiny from a respected Torah blog such as Daas Torah.
Thank you.
Mekubal
ReplyDeleteWhile a Chazak is a halachic presumtion, a halachic presumption is not by definition a chazaka. There is no Chazaka in the words of R' Eliyahu.
------------------------
I used the word presumption, and suggested it it translated as chazaka.
You obviously do not see the presumption in R' Eliyahu's teshuva, or you have not followed the discussion to know why it is important.
The word Chazaka was introduced by R' E when he said the marranos have a chazaka of being goyim. I followed this idiom - whether you disagree with the term or not.
Both R' Aron Soloveitchik and r Eliyahu make the opposite assertion or presumption from what R Eidensohn suggested - that they are goyim through and through.
R Eliyahu mentions that they are to be welcomed and praised for keeping mitzvot. If he considered them to be totally non Jewish, this would be proselytisation!
As i mentioned, he uses the term hashash - ie there is doubt or fear as to whether they have intermarried or not. Again, had he assumed they were goyim, this would not be a doubt, it would be a presumed certainty.
I accept that R Eliyahu doesnt say they are Jews in every way, but he does advocate their kiruv. Agian this is the opposite of what DT is suggesting - since they start with different presumptions.
R Eliyahu mentions that they are to be welcomed and praised for keeping mitzvot. If he considered them to be totally non Jewish, this would be proselytisation!
ReplyDeleteHe does not say that one should go out and bring them in to do mitzvot. He says specifically "there is reason to praise them for coming to keep all the mitvot of the revealed Torah." He is not abrogating the Chazaka of Anusim being non-Jews, instead he is saying that such a Chazaka is in place, and it is impossible to overturn it even for an individual because after 200 years no one can accurately check their ancestry.
While he may be a Zionist Rav, he is by no means a nationalist in the terms of Freund. The best way to view Rav Eliyahu is as a person with a foot in the Da'ati Leumi world and with a foot in the Chareidi world. It is simply impossible to co-opt his views, or this letter, to a nationalistic agenda without doing violence to his words.
Neither letter is addressed to the issue at hand. Both deal with Anusim who of their own accord wonder into a Beit Knesset and want to be considered a part of the Jewish people.
I accept that R Eliyahu doesnt say they are Jews in every way, but he does advocate their kiruv.
No he is not. He is writing a letter to a man who lives in Jerusalem who is helping Anusim who have come to Jerusalem integrate into Jewish and Israeli socieity. When an Anus moves to Israel to take up a Jewish lifestyle, helping them is no different then helping a person who has come of their own volition to convert.
Kiruv is going out to find people to draw near. A person who comes of their own accord, is not under that definition. That taken with the idea from the Zohar that there is an inner complusion of any true Anus to rejoin the Jewish people, gives rise to the letter of Rav Eliyahu that we have before us.
Make no mistake, Rav Eliyahu is one of the greatest living mekubalim, and the son of great mekubal. Thus, as is readily evident in all of his writing, his world-view his heavily influenced and guided by Kabbalah. While many(if not most) Modern Orthodox and rationalists will reject the authority of the Zohar as an 11th century forgery, to Rav Eliyahu it is divrei ChaZaL, and it thus defines his halachic process. When his letter is viewed in the light of what is written in the Zohar it makes peferct sense, that he is simultaneously upholding the Chazaka that Anusim are non-Jews and in need of conversion, but are "returnees" to Judaism as well.
Mekubal,
ReplyDeleteI fully appreciate the greatness of R ' Eliyahu, his illustrious background, and in your praise of him you forget to mention he is one of the greatest Sephardi rabbanim and we pray for his refuah shlemah.
We don't know the kabbalistic influence on this response of his, but they are your assumptions. As for the inlfuence of Kabbalaha on halacha, a fascinating topic, but I know little about it.
From the introduction of his letter, we can get some idea of the context of the question:
"First, I wish to praise your work on the matter of returning the hearts
of children to their parents, to the paths of Torah and piety."
This implies some kiruv work of the Lady who asked the question.
The chazakah which you suggest, that they are goyim, would not allow for such good work.
Since we are not allowed to teach goyim Torah, or mitzva observance.
It would also be interesting to know which Teshuva of Rabbi Solomon ben Simeon ben Duran
he refers to, whether it is regualr giur or a returning marrano.
Since you mention the debate on the Zohar and tarnish modern Orhtodox and Zionists with one brush, firstly, someof the greatest Kabablsits have been in the Zionsit world, including Rav Kook, the young R Elyashiv, and actually the GRa who started the aliyah movement to Eretz Yisrael.
The irony of this is that the very gaon, Rabbi Solomon ben
Simeon ben Duran, that is mentioned in this letter, was himself one of those who denied the Kabbalah, calling it Avoda Zara, and mocking how the kabbalsits pray to a different deity each day.
Fascinating:
ReplyDeleteThsi article mentions the lady who wrote to R' Eliyahu , and that she seeks out crypto Jews.
It mentions the Rashbash's formula for returning anussim, and give sa context to this particular teshuva in quesion:
http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~nachum/sch/sch/conversion.html
"While many(if not most) Modern Orthodox and rationalists will reject the authority of the Zohar as an 11th century forgery"
ReplyDeleteUhh.... 11th century? Not really. There are those who say it was written in the 1300's by Moshe De Leon, who "found" it in a cave supposedly. Others say it was by Rashbi, which would be a tannaic work.
As far as I understood rav Eliahu's letter, he encourages Shelomit levi's work.
ReplyDeleteSo why is there so much criticism?
If you want to criticise the political agenda of bringing anussim into the occupied territories, I can understand you.
But as far as I understand the Letter by rav Eliahu, outreach towards true beney anussim is OK...
No?
this is an article by Shulamit HaLevi, who wrote to R'Eliyahu
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~nachum/sch/sch/PAPERS/Tradition.txt
see especially :
Twenty thousand people identifying themselves as Jews cheered the
French revolutionary army when it entered northern Portugal in 1807,
but were ignored. Between 1808 and 1834, pogroms were carried out
against these "New Christians." Rabbi Israel Halevi, Chief Rabbi of
France, reported that a learned anous tried in vain in 1903 to get
Jewish officials' attention to the plight of his people.
In 1917, an engineer, Samuel Schwartz, "discovered" crypto-Jews in
Belmonte. After others investigated the communities in Belmonte and
elsewhere in Portugal, the issue of acceptance resurfaced, and was
dealt with by the rabbinate in Israel, Morocco and Great Britain.
In 1929, the Council of Sages of Agudath Israel all agreed that the
anousim of Spain and Portugal of today should be welcomed as Jews
"with open arms, so as to bring them back beneath the wings of the
Shekhina." R. Jacob Meir, chief Sephardi rabbi of Jerusalem, wrote to
Lisbon that the anousim are Jews and should be buried in a section of
the synagogue's cemetery. R. Jacob Niv concluded there is no
problem marrying anousim:
In 1929, R. Dr. David de Sola Pool, his wife Tamar, and their family,
were the first Americans to visit the new community. They brought
with them an old sefer torah believed to have reached the New World
with anousim, as a gift to the synagogue being dedicated in Oporto.
His congregation, Shearith Israel of New York, continued to support
the Portuguese community for many years. The chief rabbis of
Palestine and Britain, R. Zvi Judah Hakohen Kook and Rev. Joseph
Hertz, were also among the supporters of the new congregation. Had
Dr. Pool known of the anousim so close to his home, no doubt he would
have extended them his welcome and support.
The chief rabbi of Tel-Aviv, R. Haim David Halevy, after describing
his own many encounters with anousim in South America, wrote regarding
hypothetical problems of marriage and divorce: "There is no concern
regarding their return to Judaism. No doubt, should they desire to
return to Judaism, a clear halakhic solution will be found to permit
them [to marry other Jews]." His article concludes by quoting the
midrash:
Rabbi Judah, the son of Rabbi Simon, said: The nations of the world
will, in the future, bring presents to the King Messiah... They will
bring them themselves [the Jewish people] as presents.... Rabbi Aha
said: They will be brought with honor... as they had honored
[God's] name in the world.... If they were forgotten and against
their will became estranged, from them too I will take priests and
Levites, from the Gentiles whom they are bringing.
"both of them say that Beney Anussim need to be converted to be considered jews"
ReplyDeleteWell, the small distinction is between a Giur and Giur le chumra. Since Rav. Eliahu does not speak of a "giur certificate" but of a "certificate that the person wants to come back to the ways of his/her fathers" I suppose he deems it a Giur le chumra.
In my view, there is no obligation to send away a jew who claims back his roots.
Of course, it would not make sense to have a Giur le chumra before the person is familiarised with Torah u Mitzwoth and decides to take them upon him.
Unfortunately, you do not provide us with enough details about the exact structures and methods of this organisation.
Do you know how many people apply? Do you know how many people give up when they realise it is too difficult for them?
Do you know, among those who apply, how many are of matrilinear jewish descent and how many just feel affinities to judaism for other reasons?
Do you know what the organisation advises in case the jewish descent is not purely matrilinear?
Do you know what the organisation does in detail? Provide services to those interested or actively seek out cryptojews? Or do they seek out non-jews rather than cryptojews in order to force jewish religion upon them?
How many people come out of their own will, how many are actively recruited by this organisation?
What happens after the return to the root? How many stay religious orthodox, how many do not?
The way i see it is like this:
ReplyDeleteIf we say for sake of argument, there are 100,000 ,marranos in spain + portugal:
There could be anything between 10000 -40000 who ar still directly jewish from maternal line. Even if we say 10,000 are now 100% Jewish, but cannot identify which ones exactly.
Do we abandon them all? Or can we covnert all of them, in hope of saving 10 or 20% who are vadai Jews?
Well, in fact it could be anything between 0 and several millions (Anussim in pure matrilinear descent)
ReplyDeleteIn fact, we could take the number of Sefaradim in the strict sense of the term, i.e. descendents from Geirush sefarad as a reference. According to historians, there were about as many jews who left as jews who converted.
(And since judaism is transmitted through matrilinear descendence in both cases, intermarriage makes no difference. The only differences arise through
-the number of women converted to judaism
-the number of women coming to the group from other jewish communities
-differences in reproduction rates)
But unfortunately, the number of pure-bread matrilinear descendents of girush sefarad are also difficult to come by.
"A descendant of anusim does not have a chazaka that they are Jews but rather that they are goyim."
ReplyDeleteHere in the United States, religious coercion doesn't really exist, and we have families of Jews who have been unobservant for several generations. How many generations of lack of observance does it take for this chazaka to take hold? I ask this because I'm still a little confused by how this chazaka works. (I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek in asking this question, but I'm also being a little serious as well.)
We have debated both sides of this issue.
ReplyDeleteCertainly there is the uncertainty over intermarriage,which may have wiped out the maternal bloodline.
There are also several opinions that if they are not fully Jewish, they still have some Jewishness, and that they can undergo a full or symbolic conversion to come back .
In the Tenakh, there were periods when Am Yisrael were serving idolatry, and forgot the Torah, whic took place over several generations. Yet a righteous king or Propeht would arise, and stir them back to teshuva. What they did about intemaeriage is not always clear. In Ezra's time, some had married women of the 7 forbidden nations - and they were asked to divorce their wives - the wives were practicing idolatry and had influenced the husbands, many of whom were Cohanim and Leviim.
But a Jew does not become a non Jew if he lapses. he can always return.
Here is a question posted in a German-language forum on Giur:
ReplyDelete"Shalom,
I would like to do a Giur. I am of jewish descendence through my mother. Her great-granny, the mother of my Grandma, was jewish. But I have no documents. How can I prove that I am jewish according to halacha?"
What would you "daas torah", answer to such a question?
Forget about it and leave us alone?
here is the german original:
"Shalom
Ich möchte einen Gjur machen.Ich habe eine eine Jüdische Abstammung über meine Mutter.Deren Uroma,die Mutter meiner Oma also,war Jüdin.
Jedoch habe ich keinerlei Dokumente.
Wie ich kann ich es also belegen das ich nach der Halacha Jude bin?
question posted in a German-language forum on Giur:
ReplyDelete-------------------
there are 2 separate issues here
1) if he can prove maternal descent - if he can, then he doesnt need to do a giue (in my humble and unlearned opinion).
2) If he wants to do giur, then he has to speak to a Beth Din. If he is determined, he will be accepted.
ReplyDeleteWhat would you "daas torah", answer to such a question?
Actually since Germany has been so meticulous about keeping records there should be a document trail. Graveyards, birth and death records and so forth. That close of an ancestor is relatively easy to prove.
Once done, the person in question is Jewish.
"Once done, the person in question is Jewish."
ReplyDeleteAnd every selfrighteous "purity detector" will call the jewish status into question.
This is the experience I had with it over the past 25 years.