The Divide: Jewish missionary activity targeting non-Jews

Are You People For Real? wrote:

Is this blog for real?

You have just given a wonderful present to Chosen People Ministries & Jews for Jesus.

They will gladly go after the mixed married Jews and their spouses.

Do you ghetto Jews ever come out of your shells? Do you have any clue to what is transpiring in the real world?
85% of Jews are assimilated.
60% are intermarried.

Are those so-called frum Jews whom are against reaching out to the intermarried on the payroll of Jews for Jesus, cause they're certainly acting on their behalf?

I can see David Brickner, Moishe Rosen, Mitch Glaser, David Chernoff, Jay Sekulow and their ilk having a field day with this nonsense.
===================


The issue of quality versus quantity has come up before. Perhaps it is time to confront it head on since those who go for quantity seem to have no clue of halacha or the meaning of a community committed to observing halacha. Nor do they seem to have any understanding - or concern - of the social consequences of an open door policy on the Jewish community. Furthermore they assume that the ultimate value is to save or produce as many Jews as possible no matter what the cost. Is there in fact any such imperative?

What are the consequences - both positive and negative - of focusing on maximizing the number of Jews through conversion. Why has it apparently never been done in Jewish history?

Before anyone jumps up and down saying "you ignoramus don't you know anything!" - let me just cite two major academic experts on the matter. It is universally agreed that there is simply no explicit evidence that missionary activity was ever an accepted practice by the Jewish community. All "evidence" for missionary activity is simply conjecture which I don't find very convincing. I will go into detail in the next post. Anyone who has halachic or sociological data relevant to this issue is invited to post it.

Prof. Martin Goodman(Journal of Jewish Studies 40:2 1989 page 181): "In sum, despite the hints outlined above that some rabbis assumed the desirability of a proselytizing mission, such a notion does not appear to have been explicitly formulated in any rabbinic text and did not ever become a general rabbinic doctrine. It remained the common assumption that the normal impulse to conversion would be and should be that of the prospective proselyte. Thus, for example, it is reported at Sifre Deut. 354 that the sight of Israel worshiping at the Temple will eventually lead the nations to wish to convert en masse. It is on the gentiles that the onus rests, for in the last days they risk punishment for failing to become proselytes as they could have done (Lev. R. 2:9); but it is worth noting that in the parallel version at Pes. R. 35.161a, in the name of R. Hanina b. Papa, the reproach to the gentiles is only their failure to forsake idolatry…"

[See also excerpts from his book Mission and Conversion 1995]
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xarYn9mxxXAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR12&dq=martin+goodman&ots=SRHzKt6lWA&sig=2R0wFNjJ_ehnevCz4NmmpjkbEPs#PPP1,M1



Prof. Louis Feldman(Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World 1996 - page 293): "However, although there is, in truth, no single item of conclusive evidence [for Jewish missionary activity] as we shall see, the cumulative evidence - both demographic and literary - for such an activity is considerable."

[In my view the many diverse types of evidence which Prof. Feldman cites which when taken one by one is not convincing - when combined together doesn't prove the point either. They are at most suggestive of a hypothesis which still needs more convincing evidence to be accepted as valid.]

Eternal Jewish Family - controversy on Beliefnet

The awareness of the problems associated with EJF is spreading. There is a currently a discussion of some of these issues on beliefnet. I do not necessarily endorse what they say - but I think it will be of interest to those who read this blog.

http://community.beliefnet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9776

This is one of the postings that appeared yesterday in the discussion

removed by request from poster

Spirituality - innate differences between gerim and born Jews.

Mei Shiloach[1](Chagiga 3a): Rava explained Shir HaShirim (7:2): “How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince’s daughter!” He said that this is referring to the daughter of Avraham who was the beginning of gerim. The issue is that we find great things concerning a ger which are not inherent in a born Jew. That is because a ger voluntarily converted out of love of G‑d. He came from amongst the nations to find refuge in the shadow of the wings of the Shechina even though his origin has no holiness. That is because holiness is something which is ingrained in a person from his youth by his father and mother and this produces great things which are not inherent in a ger. However when a born Jew strives to learn to act out of love and to add to his understanding and desire to serve G‑d it gives him both accomplishments. In other words he has the ingrained holiness from his parents and also he has the acquired voluntary initiative of heart [that is found in gerim]. Towards obtaining the second accomplishment there is the mitzva of pilgrimage to Yerushalayim three times a year which serves to work against the mechanical observance of mitzvos. When a born Jew has acquired this voluntary initiative he is also described as the “daughter of the prince” i.e., the daughter of Avraham who was the beginning of gerim. In other words the ger is characterized by his initiative of breaking out of habitual conduct and this voluntary activity was epitomized by Avraham. However today all gerim [ both converts and those Jews who break out of a habituated lifestyle] are aware of the idea of what to strive for because they see the example of holy Jews. In contrast Avraham who was the beginning of gerim lived when the entire world were idolators. Nevertheless he broke out of this existence even though he didn’t know where the rejection of idolatry would take him. He called out “Who created the world?” until G‑d revealed Himself to him. This is also the issue here concerning the verse “Beautiful are your feet in sandals…” In other words when Jews make the pilgrimage to Yerushalayim they also are breaking their patterns of life and display renewed vigor in their spiritual strivings. This mitzva of pilgrimage is not an isolated commandment but demonstrates the principle of the renewal of spirituality by changing the patterns of life and attaining a new perspective on doing all mitzvos according to G‑d’s will. This idea was also manifest at Mt. Sinai when the Jews said “na’aseh v’nishma” (we will do and then understand). In other words first they will act and accept the obligation to do the mitzvos in simple compliance. However they did not intend to remain on the level of mechanical action and that is why they said “nishma” (we will understanding). That meant they intended to come to understand the essence and meaning of the mitzvos and the significance that G‑d saw in commanding each mitzva…

---

[1] מי השילוח (חגיגה ג. פרק ראשון): דרש רבא מאי דכתיב [שיר השירים ז:ב] מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים בת נדיב. בתו של אברהם אבינו שהי' תחילה לגרים, הענין בזה כי בגר נמצא יקרות גדול מאי שאין בישראל, כי הגר עושה בנדיבות ובאהבת לבו לפי שבא מבין האומות להתחסה בצל כנפי השכינה אך בשורש אין בו קדושה כי הקדושה המורגלת באדם מנעוריו ומשורשת בו מאביו ואמו בזה נמצא ג"כ יקרית גדול וזה לא נמצא בגר, אך כאשר נפש מישראל ישתדל ללמוד לעשות באהבה ולהוסיף הבנה וחשק לעבודת הש"י לזה יש השני מעלות ביחד שהוא מורגל ומקודש בקדושת האבות וגם מוסיף נדיבות לבו, ולזה היא מצות עליות רגלים שלא ישתקעו בהרגל מצות אנשים מלומדה ואז יקראו ישראל בת נדיב בתו של אברהם אבינו שהי' תחילה לגרים היינו שהגר הוא מבורר בזה שמנדברת לבו יוצא מההרגל וליותר הי' הדבר הזה מבורר אצל א"א ע"ה כי עתה לכל הגרים אף שיוצאים מהרגלם מ"מ יש להם תפיסה למה הם נכנסין לפי שרואים את ישראל מקודשין, אבל א"א ע"ה שהי' תחלה לגרים שהיו כל העולם עובדי ע"ז והוא יצא מן הכלל אף שלא ידע עוד במה שהוא בוחר וחושק, והי' צועק מי ברא אלה עד שנגלה אליו הש"י, וכן הענין כאן מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים כו' היינו בשעה שעולים לרגל ג"כ יוצאים מהרגלם ובתשוקה חדשה ילכו וכל דבר שיצא מן הכלל ללמד לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא כו' היינו שלאו דוקא רק במצוה הזו הולכים לעשות בחשק חדש ולא מההרגל רק בכל המצו' רוצים בהתבוננות חדשות כפי רצון ה' בכל עת ואינם עושים בהרגל, וזהו שאמרו במעמד הר סיני נעשה ונשמע היינו בתחחלה נעשה היינו שאנו מקבלים עלינו לעשות ולקיים מצותיך בתמימות אבל לא לעמוד רק בהמעשה היינו אח"כ נשמע היינו נרצה להבין השורש וכמה רצון יגיע להש"י בכל מעשינו...

We are in exile to gather the sparks of holiness from the nations

Pesachim[1](87b): R’ Eleazar said that G‑d only exiled Israel amongst the nations so that converts would join the Jewish people. This is alluded to in Hoshea (2:25): “And I will sow her unto Me in the land.” Obviously no one sows unless he expects to harvest much more than he sowed. R’ Yochanon deduced it from [the second part of] Hoshea (2:25): “And I will have mercy upon her who had not obtained mercy [and I will say to them who were not My people, you are My people – Rashi].

---

[1] פסחים (פז:): ואמר רבי אלעזר: לא הגלה הקדוש ברוך הוא את ישראל לבין האומות אלא כדי שיתוספו עליהם גרים, שנאמר (הושע ב:כה) וזרעתיה לי בארץ. כלום אדם זורע סאה - אלא להכניס כמה כורין. ורבי יוחנן אמר מהכא: (הושע ב:כה) ורחמתי את לא רחמה.

Maharsha[1](Pesachim 87b): Jews were not sent into exile except so converts could join the Jewish people - Because if it were merely a punishment then it would be possible to punish them in another way. Therefore it must be in order that converts could join. In other words exile serves to publicize the Jewish faith amongst the nations.

---

[1] מהרש"א (פסחים פז:): לא הגלה כו'. דאי משום עונש חטאם אפשר היה לו לעונשם בדברים אחרים אלא כדי שיתוספו עליהם גרים דהיינו לפרסם האמונה גם בשאר עובדי כוכבים...

Orchos Tzadikim[1](Shaar 23 – Truth): Our exile has been excessively prolonged due to our many sins. Therefore Jews should detach themselves from the nonsense of the world and to hold on to the signature of G‑d which is truth. In addition they should sanctify themselves even concerning that which is permitted to them (Yevamos 20a). They should not lie either to another Jew or to a non‑Jew nor should they deceive them in any manner. Tzefaniah (3:13) states, “The remnant of Israel should not do wrong and not speak falsely nor should any deception come from their mouths.” Pesachim (87b) cites Hoshea (2:25) that the Jews will be sown throughout the world. The gemora notes that one does not sow seeds unless there is expectation to harvest much more than was sown. It concludes that G‑d sent the Jews into exile only in order to have converts attached to them. However only as long as the Jews deal honestly with the non‑Jews will the non‑Jews be attracted to them

---

[1] ארחות צדיקים (השער כ"ג - שער האמת): עתה שהאריכה הגלות בעוונותינו הרבים יותר מדאי יש לישראל להיבדל מהבלי העולם ולאחוז בחותמו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שהוא אמת, ולקדש עצמם אף במותר להם (יבמות כ א), ולא לשקר לא לישראל ולא לגוי, ולא להטעותם בשום ענין, שנאמר (צפניה ג:יג): "שארית ישראל לא יעשו עולה ולא ידברו כזב ולא ימצא בפיהם לשון תרמית". ועוד כתיב (הושע ב:כה): "וזרעתיה לי בארץ", (פסחים פז:): כלום אדם זורע סאה אלא להכניס כמה כורים - כך לא הגלה הקדוש ברוך הוא את ישראל לבין האומות אלא כדי שיתווספו עליהם גרים. וכל זמן שהם מתנהגים עמהם בלא מרמה, ידבקו בהם:

Rav Tzadok[1](Pri Tzadik – Parshas Parah #3): … This that it says in Pesachim (87b) that G‑d exiled Israel only in order to have converts join them.. This is explained [Arizal] that it doesn’t mean actual converts but rather the gathering of sparks of kedusha and vitality which are found amongst the nations. These sparks are extracted from the nations by means of Jewish exile….

---

[1] רב צדוק (פרי צדיק פרשת פרה - אות ג): ...מה שאמרו (פסחים פז:) לא הגלה הקב"ה את ישראל כו', אלא כדי שיתוספו עליהם גרים ופירשו ז"ל שאין המכוון על גרים ממש רק על ניצוצין קדישין וחיות שיש באומות בסוד ואתה מחיה את כולם וזה מוציאים על ידי הגליות...

R' Tropper - proselytizing non-Jewish spouse is necessary for Jewish spouse to be observant

Rabbi Leib Tropper gave an interview recently which is published in the current edition #838 of Mishpacha (Hebrew) – January 17, 2008 pages (62-63). The following is my translation of part of the article.

“In working with kiruv organizations I discovered the shocking reality. Those who were trying to become more observant and wanted with all their heart and power to become fully observant - unexpectedly revealed to us the frighting truth – that they were married to a non-Jewish woman. Consequently if they wanted to live according to the halacha they would obviously be required to leave their non‑Jewish wife and to break up the family. Many were not able to take such a drastic step and continued living their lives as before. In other words they continued living as an intermarried couple and obviously their children were not Jewish. The gedolei hador paskened for us to proselytize and convert the non-Jewish spouse in order to facilitate the Jewish spouse to live as a fully observant Jew. In other words if those who were intermarried knew that they would have a problem [with being married to a non-Jew] after becoming observant they would not be interested in becoming observant. At Eternal Jewish Family we prepare these non-Jewish spouses for conversion. We monitor their progress in understanding the process of observing Torah and mitzvos. We teach them the path of Judaism. As a result of conducting these conversion courses we discovered an astonishing thing. During their studies these non-Jewish spouses become so involved with the course until they truly accepted upon themselves the yoke of Torah and mitzvos - out of their genuine knowledge of Judaism. Consequently it is only when we see that they are ready that we send them to be tested by a beis din for conversion. It is important to note that we do not decide if they are to be converted or not. Following the guidance of gedolim, we have not set up new courts of our own. We simply send those who have been prepared for conversion to existing courts and only those courts which have been recognized by the gedolim.

Proselytizing is problematic III - Obligation to convert is on ger - not beis din

Yevamos[1](48b): R’ Chanaiah son of Rabban Gamliel said: Why are converts in the present time oppressed and suffering? It is because they hadn’t fulfilled the Seven Mitzvos of Noach [before conversion - Rashi]. R’ Yose disagreed noting that one who converts is like a new born child [and thus is not punished for his past – Rashi]. So then why are they suffering? It is because they are not as knowledgeable of the details of mitzva observance as are those who are born Jewish. Abba Chanan said in the name of R’ Eleazar that they suffer because they do not do mitzvos out of love but from fear [of divine punishment – Rashi]. Other’s say because they delayed their conversion. R’ Abahu or R’ Chanina said what verse supports this understanding? Ruth (2:12) praised Ruth, “You came [quickly and didn’t delay - Rashi] to take refuge under His wings.”

Maharal[2](Yevamos 48b): Why are converts in the present time oppressed and suffering?… Because they delay their conversion. It seems that the proof is the verse [Ruth 2:12] saying that she came under His wings and that there is reward for this. If so it is logical that there is also punishment for not coming. If conversion was only joining the Jewish people then there would not be punishment in not joining as soon as possible. Why should he have to join because merely joining the Jewish people is not required to be done or punishable if not done. However since conversion is receiving refuge under the wings of the Shechina since he is coming now - he should have come before - because up until now he was far from G‑d. Therefore there is punishment for his delay and there is no need of proof except that for the fact that there is reward for his coming under the wings of the Shechina. From this you can deduce that there is a sin when he doesn’t come as soon as possible since he is now converting...

Mishneh Halachos[3](16:92): Is it a mitzva to accept converts?… In the sefer Knesses Yechezkeil (#59) the question is raised whether beis din has a mitzva to accept converts? A certain talmid chachom is quoted as citing Yevamos (47b): “If the non-Jew accepts all the obligations he is immediately circumcised because mitzvos are not to be delayed.” He asks what is this mitzva? Where are we commanded to accept converts? The author of Knesses Yechezkeil brings a dispute amongst poskim was to whether beis din has a mitzva to convert gerim. He notes that the Raavad(Baalei HaNefesh Shaar Hatevila) states that beis din is commanded to convert gerim and that this mitzva is based on the fact that Avraham made converts. Bereishis (12:5): The soul that they made in Charan” is understood by our Sages as saying that Avraham converted the men and Sarah converted the women. That is why the beracha is “and commanded us.” This is also the view of the Rashbatz in Zohar HaRakiya (#28) who learns the mitzva from the gemora in Yevamos (47b) which was previously cited. The author of Knesses Yechezkeil notes that there in no basis for in the Raavad that there is a mitzva to accept converts but cites the Sifre concerning the mitzva of loving G‑d which seem to be similar to the Raavad… I have additional questions. 1) If in fact this mitzva is learned from the mitzva of loving G‑d it shold be included in that mitzva which is one of the constant mitzvos. See Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvos #3) where he in fact cites the Sifre that it means to be like Avraham who brought people to recognize G‑d… However the Rambam does not in fact state that love of G‑d means to convert non‑Jews to Judaism. 2) We don’t learn the obligation of any mitzvos from what happened prior to the Giving of the Torah as is explicity stated in the Rambam (Commentary to Mishna Chullin 7:6) and other places. Even the mitzva of mila or gid hanasha that we observe is not because Avraham or Yaakov and his sons were commanded to keep them but only because the mitzvos received from Moshe. That is the only reason why we say a beracha “Who has sanctified us with His mitzvos and commanded us concerning the mitzvos.” There is no mention anywhere of the name Avraham. This is also true for the mitzva of mila. However there is in fact an additional beracha of “brining him into the covenant of Avraham” but this is for the covevenant not for the mitzva of mila. The bris and the mila are two separate things… Also concerning the view of the Zohar HaRakia (#28) that Yevamos (47b) indicates that accepting converts is a mitzva for the beis din because it says “one should not delay the mitzva.” In my humble opinion I would offer an alternative understanding. The mitzva referred to in the gemora is not the mitzva for beis din to convert the ger but rather there is a mitzva for the ger to be converted and he shouldn’t delay the conversion. In such a case we have a mitzva not to delay him and thereby causing a delay in his mitzva of conversion. Granted that this is not a mitzva obliging us to convert him but we can say that since he is not able to convert himself it is necessary to assist him in his conversion. Since it requires a court of 3 judges and he wants to convert and not delay the conversion we are commanded to assist him so that he doesn’t delay his mitzva – however this is not a commandment on the beis din itself. There is proof for this is from Yevamos (48b which asks why are converts today suffer. The view of others is because they delayed coming under the wings of the Shechina. Ruth (2:12) is cited that G-d gave full reward since Ruth came as soon as possible to convert… Thus we see that a convert who converted as soon as possible is praiseworthy. This would also explain why beis din should not delay the conversion. However it doesn’t show that the beis din is comanded to convert.

---

[1] יבמות (מח:): תניא, רבי חנניא בנו של רבן גמליאל אומר: מפני מה גרים בזמן הזה מעונין, ויסורין באין עליהן? מפני שלא קיימו שבע מצות בני נח; רבי יוסי אומר: גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי, אלא מפני מה מעונין? לפי שאין בקיאין בדקדוקי מצות כישראל; אבא חנן אומר משום ר' אלעזר: לפי שאין עושין מאהבה אלא מיראה; אחרים אומרים: מפני ששהו עצמם להכנס תחת כנפי השכינה. אמר ר' אבהו, ואיתימא ר' חנינא: מאי קראה? (רות ב:יב) ישלם ה' פעלך ותהי משכורתך שלמה מעם ה' אלהי ישראל אשר באת לחסות תחת כנפיו.

[2] מהר"ל (חידושי אגדות - יבמות מח:): תניא ר' חנניה בנו של ר"ג אומר מפני מה גרים בזמן הזה מעונים וכו': ששהו עצמם מלבא תחת כנפי שכינה וכו'. נראה לומר דהכי מייתי ראייה, מדכתב אשר באת לחסות תחת כנפיו ועל זה הוא השכר, וא"כ ממילא יש עונש שלא בא עד הנה. שאם לא היה עניין הגר רק שמתחבר לישראל, אין בזה עונש מה שלא בא כבר, כי למה היה [לו] לבא כי אף עתה אין כאן חיוב ואין כאן עונש, אבל כיון שהגר הוא בא לחסות תחת כנפי שכינה, ולפי מה שבא עתה א"כ היה לו לבא כבר והיה עד עתה רחוק מן הש"י, ולפיכך יש עונש, ואין צריך להביא ראייה רק שיש שכר על שהוא בא לחסות תחת כנפי השכינה ומזה אתה שומע שיש כאן חטא אשר לא בא כבר כיון שעתה בא להתגייר…

[3] משנה הלכות (טז:צב): אי יש מצוה לקבל גרים -אחדשכת"ר בידידות נאמנה וכו'. בספרו כנסת יחזקאל נפל גורלי בהא שמעתתא (בסי' נ"ט) אם יש מצוה על ב"ד ישראל לקבל גרים, והביא שם קושית ת"ח א' הא דאמרינן בגמ' (יבמות מז:) קיבל מלין אותו מיד משום דשהויי מצוה לא משהינן, ותמה איזה מצוה יש בכך והיכן צונו לקבל גרים, ומעכ"ג שליט"א הביא מחלוקת הפוסקים אי איכא מצוה על הב"ד לגייר גרים, דעת רבינו הגדול הראב"ד בספר בעלי הנפש סוף שער הטבילה דב"ד נצטוו לגייר את הגרים והוא מצוה וסמכה אהא דאברהם אבינו ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן [בראשית יב:ה], אברהם גייר אנשים ושרה מגיירת נשים, ולכן מברכין וצונו, וכן דעת הרשב"ץ בזוהר הרקיע על המצות אות כ"ח ויליף לה מהא דשהויי מצוה לא משהינן, ומע"כ בחכמתו הקשה להראב"ד דאין שם רמז שיש מצוה לקבל גרים, וציין לספרי ואתחנן על הפסוק ואהבת את ה' אלקיך אהבהו על כל הבריות ואמרו שם כלשון הראב"ד ז"ל. ויפה העיר מאד.

אלא מלבד מה שהקשה מעכ"ת הוספתי להקשות חדא דא"כ הו"ל לחשבו במצות אהבת ה' שהוא מן המצות התמידיות, ועיין רמב"ם בספר המצוות מצוה ג' הוא שצונו באהבתו, והביא לשון ספרי ואהבת וגו' אהבהו על הבריות כאברהם אביך שנאמר [בראשית יב:ה] ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן וכו', אבל לא זכר כלל שזה ענין גם לגייר עכו"ם, והשנית שהרי כל המצוות כולן שאנו מקיימין אין למדין מקודם מ"ת כמ"ש הרמב"ם (פיה"מ חולין ז:ו) ועוד, ואפילו מצות מילה או גיד הנשה שאנו מקיימין אינו בשביל שנצטווה בזה א"א או יעקב אבינו ובניו אחריו אלא מפי קבלת משה רבינו, ולכן אנו מברכין אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על מצות ולא נזכר בשום מקום שם אברהם, וגם בברכת מילה לא מברכין רק על במצותיו וכו' אלא שתקנו עוד ברכה להכניסו וזה בבריתו של אברהם אבינו ולא במילתו והם שני דברים והארכתי בזה במקום אחר...

גם מ"ש בזהר הרקיע סקכ"ח דמגמ' יבמות הנ"ל ילפינן מצות קבלת גרים לב"ד משום דאשהויי מצוה לא משהינן ומשמע דמצוה היא, ולפענ"ד לולי דמסתפינא יש לומר דהאי מצוה דלא משהינן הוא המצוה על הגר שרוצה להתגייר ואינו רוצה להשהות עצמו מלהתגייר. הנה בכה"ג מצוה עלינו שלא להשהותו ולעשותו משהה מצוה שלו, והגם שאין זה מצוה עלינו לגיירו נוכל לומר כיון דלא יכול בעצמו להתגייר צריכין לסייעו בגיורו. דבעי שלשה והוא רוצה להתגייר ולא להשהות אנן נצטוינו לעוזרו שלא ישהה מצותו אבל אין זה ציוו על הב"ד....

ויש להביא ראיה לזה מגמ' [יבמות מח:] שם בסמוך מפני מה גרים בזמן הזה מעונין אחרים אומרים מפני ששהו עצמם להכנס תחת כנפי השכינה אמר ר' אבוהו ואי תימא ר' חנינא מאי קראה, ישלם ה' פעלך ותהי משכורתך שלמה מעם ה' אלקי ישראל אשר באת לחסות וגו', ופרש"י אשר באת, שמיהרת ולא איחרת ע"כ. וא"כ גר הממהר להתגייר הוא משובח, ולכן י"ל דזה הכוונה שהויי מצוה לא משהינן ולכן צריך לגיירו מיד, אבל אין ראי' דהוא מצות הב"ד לגייר.

Spirituality of convert is often greater than a born Jew

Kiddushin[1](70b): Converts are as deleterious to the Jewish people as a scab…

Tosfos[2](Kiddushin 70b): Converts are as deleterious—Rashi explains because they are ignorant of the mitzvos and thus cause misfortune by their lack of observing the Jewish laws and that they set a bad example for other Jews. … Others explain that they are a source of trouble to the Jewish people because G‑d repeated the prohibition of not upsetting converts 24 times and it is impossible not to transgress this serious prohibition. … Another explanation is that converts are in fact more knowledgeable in mitzvos and are more scrupulous in observing them than Jews from birth. This contrast causes G‑d to punish the Jews from birth when they are not properly observant… Another explanation is that they cause problems by being assimilated amongst the Jewish people and the Divine presence only rests on families that have a pedigree…

Rabbeinu Bachye[3](Shemos 24:5): This that our Sages say that “converts are as deleterious to the Jewish people as scabs” is not to be understood as an insult to converts but rather as an insult to Jews from birth. In other words since G‑d knows how much the converts have sacrificed by leaving their families and birthplace in order to cling to Him—it sets makes the Jews from birth look bad when they don’t serve G‑d whole heartedly. This is stated in a medrash …

Tanchuma[4](Lech Lecha #6): Converts are more beloved to G‑d than the Jews who stood at Mt Sinai. The reason is that those who stood at Mt. Sinai would not have accepted the Torah if it hadn’t been for the awesome spectacle of the thunder, lightning, the great wind and the sound of shofars. In contrast, the converts saw none of this and still came to cling to G‑d and accepted the Torah…

Converts are more beloved to G‑d because they willing accepted Judaism

Tanchuma[5](Lech Lecha 6): Reish Lakish said that non‑Jews who convert are more beloved to G‑d than those Jews who stood at Mt. Sinai. That is because the Jews would not have accepted the Torah except that they saw the astounding events at Sinai. In contrast these converts who did not see any miracles nevertheless came to be close to G‑d and to accept upon themselves the yoke of the kingdom of heaven – there is nothing more beloved.

---

[1] קידושין (ע:): אמר רבי חלבו קשים גרים לישראל כספחת שנאמר ונלוה הגר עליהם ונספחו על בית יעקב כתיב הכא ונספחו וכתיב התם לשאת ולספחת

[2] תוספות (קידושין ע:): קשים גרים - פי' בקונטרס לפי שאינם בקיאים במצות ומביאים פורענות ועוד שמלמדים את ישראל ממעשיהם וכו' וי"מ לפי שכל ישראל ערבין זה בזה ולאו מילתא היא דהא לא נתערבו בשביל הגרים כשקבלו התורה כדאמרינן בסוטה (לז:) נמצא לכל אחד מישראל שש מאות אלף וג' אלפים [ותק"ן בריתות] שכולן נתערבו זה בזה אלמא לא נתערבו מן הגרים שהרי הרבה ערב רב עלה אתם ויש מפרשים דקשין גרים לישראל כספחת לפי שהזהיר הקב"ה עליהם בכ"ד מקומות שלא להונות אותם ואי אפשר שלא יצערום ויש מפרשים לפי שע"י הגרים ישראל בגלות כדאמר (פסחים דף פז:) מפני מה ישראל מפוזרים בכל ארצות

[3] רבינו בחיי (שמות כד:ה): ומה שאמרו רז"ל קשים גרים לישראל אין זה נאמר לגנאי הגרים אלא לגנאי ישראל, כלומר כיון שהקב"ה רואה מחשבתם שעזבו משפחתם וארץ מולדתם ובאו להדבק בשכינה הנה הם מחייבין את ישראל כשאין עובדים להקב"ה בלבב שלם:

וכן מצינו במדרש אמר ריש לקיש גדולים גרים בזמן הזה יותר מישראל כשעמדו על הר סיני, שהם ראו את הקולות ואת הלפידים ואת קול השופר והנפלאות הגדולות והנוראות והגרים לא ראו מדבר זה כלום ובאים בצר ובמצוק להסתופף תחת כנפי השכינה:

[4] מדרש תנחומא (לך לך פרק ו): ... א"ל ר"ש בן לקיש חביב הגר לפני הקב"ה מן אותן אוכלוסין שעמדו על הר סיני למה שכל אותן אוכלוסין אלולי שראו הקולות והלפידים וברקים וההרים רועשים וקול שופרות לא קבלו עליהם מלכות שמים וזה לא ראה אחד מכולם ובא ומשלים עצמו להקב"ה וקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים...

[5] תנחומא (פרשת לך לך סימן ו) אמר ריש לקיש חביב הוא הגר שנתגייר, מישראל בעמידתן על הר סיני, למה לפי שאילולי שראו קולות וברקים וההרים רועשים וקול שופרות, לא היו מקבלים את התורה, וזה שלא ראה אחד מהם, בא והשלים עצמו להקב"ה, וקיבל עליו מלכות שמים, יש לך חביב מזה.

Proselytizing is problematic II - Yevamos 109b

Yevamos (109b): R’ Yitzchok said what is the meaning of Mishlei (11:15): He that is a surety for a stranger will suffer for it? That means evil upon evil comes to those who accept converts... That those who accept converts bring evil upon themselves is learned from R’ Chelbo who said: Converts are as difficult for Israel as a sore on the skin.

---

[1] יבמות (קט:): דא"ר יצחק, מאי דכתיב: (משלי יא:טו) רע ירוע כי ערב זר? רעה אחר רעה תבא למקבלי גרים, ... מקבלי גרים - כר' חלבו, דאמר ר' חלבו: קשים גרים לישראל כספחת בעור.

Tosfos[1] (Yevamos 109b): Evil upon evil comes to those who accept converts – The Ri explained that that is only when the non‑Jews are proselytized to convert or they are accepted prematurely before they are ready. However if they themselves strongly want to convert we should accept them. The reason that they should be accepted is that we find that Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov were punished because they didn’t accept Timna when she came to convert and so instead she went and became Esav’s son Eliphaz ’s concubine (pilegesh). Their offspring was Amalek who embittered the life of Israel as we see in Sanhedrin (99b). Yeshoshua also accepted Rachav the Zona. Naomi accepted Ruth the Moabite. We also see in Shabbos (31a) that Hillel converted someone who came to him and said, “convert on the condition that I serve as high priest” and another one who said, “convert me on the condition that you teach me the entire Torah.” Even though these people were obviously not fully committed to convert nevertheless Hillel know that eventually they would be proper converts as indeed happened.

---

[1] תוספות (יבמות קט:): רעה אחר רעה תבא למקבלי גרים - אמר ר"י דהיינו היכא שמשיאין אותן להתגייר או שמקבלין אותן מיד אבל אם הן מתאמצין להתגייר יש לנו לקבלם שהרי מצינו שנענשו אברהם יצחק ויעקב שלא קבלו לתמנע שבאתה להתגייר והלכה והיתה פלגש לאליפז בן עשו ונפק מינה עמלק דצערינהו לישראל כדאמרינן בהגדת חלק (סנהדרין צט:) וגם יהושע קבל רחב הזונה ונעמה ורות המואביה ובריש פרק במה מדליקין (שבת לא.) שגייר הלל אותו שאמר גיירני על מנת שתשימני כ"ג ואותו דעל מנת שתלמדני כל התורה כולה ואע"פ שלא היו מתאמצין להתגייר יודע היה הלל בהן שסופם להיות גרים גמורים כמו שעשה לבסוף.

Proselytizing is problematic I - Aruch HaShulchan

Aruch HaShulchan[1](Yoreh Deah 268:6): One should not try to actively encourage any non-Jew to convert. In fact we should discourage conversion as we see in Yevamos (47a): When a non-Jew comes to us and requests that he be converted we say to him, “What is the reason that you want to convert? Don’t you know that the Jews in our times are persecuted and oppressed, despised, harassed and overcome by afflictions?” If he is dissuaded by this then we don’t stop him from going away. However if he says, “I know this and nevertheless I am not worthy to join the Jewish people,” he is to be accepted immediately. He is to be instructed in some of the minor and some of the major mitzvos. If he changes his mind and decides not to convert then let him change his mind because converts are as problematic for the Jewish people as a skin disease. If he persists than he is to be taught the sin of neglecting Gleanings, the Forgotten Sheaf, the Corner and the Poor Man's Tithe. (This was done in Israel at the time when these mitzvos were practiced so that he should know about them and not say that the poor people who come to take the grain are thieves. However in modern times these are not relevant. That is why they are not mentioned in the Tur or the Shulchan Aruch.) He is also to be instructed concerning some of the punishments for transgressing mitzvos. He is told, “That before becoming a Jew if you eat forbidden fats you will not be punished by kares. If you profane Shabbos you will not be punished by stoning. However now if you eat forbidden fat you will be punished by kares. If you profane Shabbos you will be stoned.” At this point, however, this should not be done a lot or in great detail. In other words he should not be frightened a lot with the negative consequences of becoming a Jew because that will of necessity cause him not to become Jewish. He is not deliberately frightened away at this point because he has come to seek refuge under the wings of the Shechina.

---

[1] ערוך השולחן (יורה דעה רסח:ו): אין להסית שום גוי לגייר את עצמו ואדרבא כך אמרו חז"ל ביבמות [מז.] כשבא עכו"ם לנו ומבקש שיגיירוהו אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר אי אתה יודע שישראל בזמה"ז דווים סחופים ומטולטלים ויסורים באים עליהם ואם ילך לו ילך לו ואם אומר יודע אני ואיני כדאי להתחבר עמהם מקבלין אותו מיד ומודיעים אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות ואם חוזר בו יחזור בו דקשים גרים לישראל כספחת [שם] ומודיעים אותו עון לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני וזה היה בא"י בעת שנהגו מצות אלו כדי שידע מזה ולא יאמר על העניים הבאים ליטול גזלנים הם ובזמה"ז לא שייך זה ולכן לא הזכירו זה בטור וש"ע ומודיעין אותו מקצת עונשין של מצות שאומרים לו קודם שבאת למדה זו אכלת חלב אי אתה ענוש כרת חללת שבת אי אתה חייב סקילה ועכשיו אם תאכל חלב תחייב כרת אם תחלל שבת תחייב סקילה ואין מרבין עליו ואין מדקדקין עליו כלומר שלא יאיימו עליו הרבה דא"כ יהיה מוכרח לפרוש והרי זה בא לחסות תחת כנפי השכינה:

The Emperor has no clothes - Eternal Jewish Family & Daas Torah

A very strange thing has happened. Despite my many postings and requests for one simple thing - the halachic guidelines of Eternal Jewish - EJF has produced nothing. This leads to the rather unfortunate conclusion that there is in fact no halachic justification for their specific program of proselytization. As the wise lawyer said, "If you have evidence you produce the evidence, otherwise you yell and scream and pound the table."

Conversion is a great problem today. Whether we are talking about intermarried couples or the children of intermarried couples or even ordinary conversion. The way this issue is handled strongly influences the nature of the Jewish people for future generations. However we are not dealing with Torah prohibitions but rather rabbinic laws and social policy issues. EJF claims to be relying on the halachic rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein. In fact Rav Moshe does permit conversion of intermarried spouses. In other words even if the motivation is not for the sake of heaven but rather to stay in the marriage - as long as they agree to keep all the mitzvos they are good gerim bedieved. At the same time he says he himself has nothing to do with conversion. He advised those who wanted to convert the spouse to find some other rabbi who is willing to do it. He refuses because of the very poor success rate for these conversions and wants nothing to do with the whole enterprise of conversion. Rav Chaim Ozer states a similar position. They are both acknowledging that it is permissible to convert these spouses - but by and large it is just producing non-observant converts. Thus EJF seems to be following the narrow technical rulings of Rav Moshe and Rav Chaim Ozer - but not their Daas Torah.

This makes their activities even stranger since they have spared no expense to show that they are following the guidance of gedolei Torah. However, they have produced no evidence that in fact the gedolim are supporting their specific program. I have cited a letter from Rav Efrati - that Rav Eliashiv's standard response as to how to deal with intermarried couples is to shun them - except in the case where they and their community thinks that they are in fact Jewish. Where is the letter from Rav Eliashiv that he approves of proselytizing intermarried couples? Where is the letter from Rav Dovid or Rav Reuven Feinstein that their father approved of the policies of EJF?

Some have claimed that the mere association of many of our gedolim with EJF shows that they support its policies - even though they have not explicity stated it. I had the opportunity recently to speak with a talmid muvhok of one of the star speakers at the recent Washington convention of EJF. I asked him why his rebbe went. He replied, "When my rebbe returned from the convention he said it was shtus v'hevel." I asked so why did he go? The answer was that his yeshiva needed the money.

If EJF's goal is simply to raise the standard of geirus - that is great. But then why is there a need for all their conventions and the millions they spend to convince non-Jews to convert? How many times do you need to say "we want to raise the standards". Where are their guidelines. What are their recommendations dealing with non-Jews entering kiruv programs or into yeshivos in the hope that they will convert? What does it mean that they produced a handbook of these guidelines but as Rabbi Tropper informed me they "withdrew it from circulation 2 years ago because some things weren't clear."

I am still waiting to hear their reply.

Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski zt"l - conversion of intermarried couples is very problematic II

Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski (Achiezer 3:26):

Question: You asked regarding a non‑Jewish woman who was married to a Jew by a civil marriage in America. Now she came to you and wants to be converted. You thought that perhaps there is a basis to be lenient because if he is not accepted by a good beis din with tevila and acceptance of mitzvos she will go to the beis din of the Reform movement. Then she will convert not according to the halacha. However you note that Rav Posen was inclined to be strict in this matter since the conversion is only for the sake of marriage and ever after conversion she will not observe halacha and therefore it is not correct to be involved in this type of conversion.

…….

Answer:

6) As for the halacha, it would seem obvious that a good beis din should not accept her as a convert since her motivation is clearly for the sake of marriage and therefore even after marriage she is prohibited to him…This that you are concerned that she will go to the Reform, it is in fact a genuine concern since the Reform movement does not do conversion according to the halacha. It is stated in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 268:3) that the acceptance of mitzvos is necessary…and according to the understanding of the Reform movement the acceptance would be accepting some but not all the mitzvos and would be invalid. Nevertheless we should not be concerned with this possibility. A valid beis din should only deal with circumstances which are presented by the poskim. Furthermore we can not permit even a small prohibition in order to save another from a larger prohibtion…. And if the conversion is done she will definitely not observe the laws of niddah and mikveh and this will lead to kares….

7) I was asked a number of times after the Revolution concerning a non‑Jew who is married to a Jew by civil marriage and now she wants to convert and be married with chupah and kiddushin because they want to raise their children according to Judaism. And they also assert that if the beis din does not convert them the Jewish husband will convert to Christianity. Is it permitted lechatchila to convert her? I saw that Rav Shlomo Kluger permitted conversion in such a case even lechatchila…I found support for this view from the Rambam (Pe’er HaDor #132) concerning a young man who bought a slave and she lives in his house – is the court obligated to take her from his house….The Rambam replied that clearly from the Torah it is necessary to take her from his house… however in actuality she should either be taken out of the house or she should be freed and he should marry her even though this violates the halacha…He says it is better to minimize sin and permit repentance…that in essence this is an emergency situations… However the details of the Rambam’s case are not clear. Nevetheless it is clear that he is saying that in order to allow teshuva sometimes certain laws are ignored. … This seems to support the views of Rav Shlomo Kluger. Nevertheless the Rambam is apparently not dealing with conversion per se but rather with the problem of freeing a slave… In the case of conversion it would require that the beis din sin in order to help someone – which is not permissable. Nevertheless it would appear in this case that if she is not converted she will stay married to him anyway so therefore the conversion is not for the sake of marriage…It would therefore seem based on the evaluation of the beis din that there is a basis to be lenient in this case and to rely on the ruling of Rav Shlomo Kluger.

======================================================

However 22 years later Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski seems to have reversed his previous lenient views and now prohibits conversion for the sake of marriage even when the intermarried couple has children.

-===========================================================================================

Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski (Achiezer 3:28):

Concerning the common practice of converting women who are married to Jews - according to the straight halacha it is not corrrect to convert them. That is because they are converting for the sake of marriage. Therefore even after marriage she is prohibited to him as is clear from the Rashba (#1205). While previously I had written to be lenient in these cases and I based myself on the Rambam (Pe’er HaDor 132) and Rav Shlomo Kluger also paskened leniently in an actual case. Nevertheless the fact is that there is not genuine acceptance of mitzvos in these cases. It is quite obvious that their hearts are not with the Jewish people since they do not observe Shabbos or niddah and they eat unkosher food as I wrote in the previous letter. This problem has already been noted by by the Beis Yitzchok who concluded that a proper beis din would not be involved in this. And regarding the issue of governing the non‑Jewish children…However the writer is correct that a good beis din should not be involved in this type of conversion. Nevertheless I don’t see that it is proper that the rabbis of the generation should make an open protest against conversion. That is because in the eyes of the masses it would be viewed as a chilul HaShem to prevent the women to convert and in particular their children since according to the straight halacha it is possible to convert them.

Strategies against intermarriage I - Syrian Jews

Please read the following article from the New York Times by Zev Chafets

Money in New York

The Sy Empire

By ZEV CHAFETS

Published: October 14, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/magazine/14syrians-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"In school, though, the SY kids mixed with other children, not only J-Dubs but also gentiles. The gentiles posed the gravest concern. Friendships with them developed, love affairs sprouted. There were intermarriages. Some Christian partners even volunteered to convert to Judaism.

Enter the rabbis with their Edict, in 1935. They wanted to build an iron wall of self-separation around the community. They couldn’t do this the Hassidic way, dressing the men in costumes of ancient design, physically segregating women and making sure that children received nothing in the way of useful secular education. After all, the Syrian men couldn’t be expected to make money if they looked like figures from 18th-century Poland.

And so the rabbis turned to the heart of the matter: matrimony. Most American Jewish communities in those days (and many today) viewed intermarriage as a taboo. Conversion, however, was a loophole. The Edict intended to close that loophole. It proclaimed, “No male or female member of our community has the right to intermarry with non-Jews; this law covers conversion, which we consider to be fictitious and valueless.”

"drop dead!" vs. "you are not acting leshem shamayim"

Recently I was harshly criticized on this blog by two individuals. One told me to "drop dead!" while the other accused me of not acting "leshem shamayim". The question has been raised why I treated the one who told me to "drop dead!" with respect while I told the one who questioned my integrity that his views were stupid and nonsense? To understand my response one needs to understand a puzzling gemora in Berachos (33a), All those who are lacking in daas - it is prohibited to have mercy on them.

When I was a learning this gemora in yeshiva, I asked one of my rebbeim, "How could it be that a person lacking in knowledge should not be treated kindly. Isn't such a person in great need of mercy?" He replied that I misunderstood the term "daas." It doesn't mean intelligence or understanding. Daas means seichel. In other words a person who doesn't act in accord with his knowledge is said to be lacking in seichel or daas. It is not a question whether he has a high or low level of knowledge or intelligence but just whether he has integrated his knowledge into his behavior. Since the person has the ability to act better - we are not doing him a favor by letting him get by with acting on a lower level than he is capable of acting.

The critic who told me to "drop dead!" was in fact acting with great seichel - but he comes from a world where such harsh and coarse expressions are acceptable way of expressing one's views. From his cultural background his arguments were consistent - he viewed me as creating a spiritual holocaust and he communicated his passionate feelings in a way he felt was appropriate. He in fact is ignorant of the halacha and the critical importance of halachic analysis. His culture values independent free speech - not authority or scholarship. It values passionate expressions of one's feelings and concerns. So I responded respectfully - because he was in his own way being respectful to me. On the other hand the 2nd critic who questioned my integrity and motivation - he shares the same culture I do. However he is lacking in seichel. While acknowledging that I am raising a legitimate and appropriate question - he attacked me because I wasn't concerning myself with bigger problems that were beyond mine and his ablity to correct. That is simply a lack of seichel. He obviously was more concerned with pesonally attacking me than he was about the issue - since any improvement should be welcome.

I mention this because it has ramifications for the issue of kiruv and geirus. People who are being brought in to our community by both kiruv programs and through conversion - have a different culture with different values. Inevitably we will be influenced by them - and are being influenced by them - as they are being influenced by us. It is obviously encumbent on us to treat the newcomers with respect and dignity - but also to realize that the programs have long term consequences for our communities and families. Simply taking a bean counting approach - that we need to minimize the amount of sin in our brothers and sisters - often fails to adequate evaluate the consequences. As Rav Sternbuch has pointed out, running after those who have violated the prohibition of intermarriage conveys a major change in how serious intermarriage is seen. It should be an open discussion whether it is worth paying that price. Are we recovering lost souls at the expense of creating more lost souls? The whole picture needs to be discussed - and it is not. Where are the studies? Where are the statistics? What is the success rate of conversion - both where there is high standard of the acceptance of mitzvos and where there is a low standard. What consequences do these programs have on our communities and schools? All the anecdotal evidence being thrown around is of little value in helping make intelligent decisions for the future of the Jewish people.

Stupid assertion! - Only work on big problems

Daas Torah said...

Anonymous said...

to all the critics:

If you are so bothered by his proseltyzing (and there is for your criticism) how come we do not hear you critizing the real crminals; those who fool people to say the are converted and there is no kabbalat hamitzvot and they arE REAL GOYIM!amongst us by *your* rabbis! making money from these phoney conversions t support the eydems in kollel?! THis is the real crime; not the ones who make a cnversion According to shulchan oruch (tropper asks for kabbolas hamitzvot; they are gerim -and if go bad they are like yisroel mumor) the converts from your rabbis who do not ask for kabbolas hamitzvot are goyim gemurim. IF yu really think leshem shomayim i would hear you criticize and put ads on the JP with the names of the criminals.

================

The answer to your question is so obvious I am surprised you are asking it. The rabbis who are doing these things typically deny that they are doing that which you accuse them of doing. It is difficult to produce irrefutable legal evidence of these activities. In contrast what EJF does is being done openly with great publicity. They are proud of everything they do. I am simply asking for the halachic basis for that which they acknowledge they are doing.

Furthermore, what nonsensical arguments you are making. I am dealing with issues that are readily solvable. Why should I tackle problems that are way beyond my resources? Why aren't you taking care of them. I have no obligation to solve all the problems in the world - even if they are much greater than the ones I am involved in.

Why are you so foolish in saying I shouldn't be raising legitimate concerns - especially since you acknowledge that they are legitimate.

You are bravely making anonymous pronouncements on an insignificant blog - why don't you stand up and do something?

There is a famous parable of the Chofets Chaim. A ship traveling in the Pacific stopped at an uninhabited island to take on fresh water. The passengers were allows to wander along the beach for a short time but were warned to return to the boats when they heard the warning bells. One of the passengers stumbled on a treasure chest half buried in the sand - it was full of money and jewels. He was filling his pockets when he heard the warning bells. He quickly emptied his pockets of all that he had collected saying - "if I can't get it all I am not taking any."

This is your attitude. I shouldn't waste my time helping improve the system if I can't correct the whole mess.

Where are the brave souls to help the Jewish people in this time of dire need ? Instead I hear from cowards who "courageously" condemn me for asking a legitimate question but don't have the guts to publicly work against the rot that is in the system.