 |
| Rabbi Adam Mintz |
(The) conversion of active homosexuals is not a problem, explaining that even though Halacha requires that a convert accept the Mitzvos in their entirety, a person whom the beis din knows is violating the Torah and plans.
Although, I am not an expert on Geirus, I do know a thing or two about the requirements as discussed in the Gemarah. These include circumcision (for a man); immersion in a Kosher Mikvah; and acceptance of all the Mitzvos of the Torah.
The Gemarah continues - after making a sincere declaration to that effect, the potential convert is then taught some basics (such as Shabbos
and Kashrus) and they can convert immediately. Thereafter they should keep
learning what the Halachos are and observe them as they learn them. The Gemarah then goes
on to say, that even if the convert changes his mind and immediately after conversion decides to purposely violate Halacha,he nonetheless remains a Jew – albeit a sinning Jew.
The problem we face today along these lines is how to judge sincerity. In a rather well known Teshuva (responsa) by R’ Moshe Feinstein - he had declared that we see what follows the conversion. If for example the ‘convert’ celebrates the conversion by going to McDonald’s and having a cheeseburger, there is no better proof than that - that they were not sincere. That conversion is not valid.
What becomes clear from this is that sincerity in keeping the Mitzvos is mandatory for a conversion to be legitimate.
Therefore, Rabbi Mintz’s claim that a practicing homosexual’s commitment to observance only means that they accept it in theory but not in practice is not very convincing. To say the least. I therefore agree with Rabbi Gordimer who said:
(The) Project Ruth Orthodox Conversion Program, and that their extraordinarily objectionable endeavors constitute colossal ziyuf ha-Torah (distortion of the Torah) and are bound to irreparably harm the people they purport to help.
In response to Rabbi Gordimer, Rabbi Michael Broyde argued that we should allow for conversion courts with differing and perhaps lower standards. Let them be accepted by the standards of that community and worry about communities that reject them later. And if need be they can go through a second conversion to the higher standards then - to fit in there. Rabbi Gordimer rejects this as well with the following explanation:
If one undergoes a subpar or questionable conversion, that individual’s descendants will forever bear the consequences. As I wrote in my original article, there are countless cases of heartbreak and tears related by community rabbis whose congregants or their relatives have discovered that their Jewish status, and that of their progeny, is now in jeopardy, due to a questionable or problematic conversion.
He is of course right
about that. The idea of being accepted here but not there is not acceptance. It is confusion on steroids and ridiculous I therefore agree that conversions should have uniform standards. And that acceptance
of full observance is indeed mandatory.
But here is the problem I have. What exactly does ‘highest standards’ mean? In many cases there is no universal agreement on what that constitutes. To cite one example (and there are many) the Eruv comes to mind. An Eruv is an imaginary Halachic ‘wall’ that turns a quasi public domain into a private domain – allowing one to carry there on Shabbos. Doing so without an Eruv is a serious Halachic violation. There are many Jews that rely on Poskim that may permit a certain Eruv. While there are other Poskim who invalidate that Eruv – making carrying within it a serious violation of Halacha in their view
The obvious question is - should deliberate use of this Eruv invalidate the conversion since not everyone accepts its Halachic viability?
This is where I think we need to make clear about what ‘highest standards’ means. I would change it to universal standard. Which should allows the most lenient acceptable standard of Halacha be the standard by which converts be required to observe. As long as there are reliable Poskim that allow for that lenient standard, that should be the base. If a convert wants to be stricter, that is up to them. But the standard must be the most lenient one.
The idea of rejecting a convert because he uses an Eruv that not every Posek accepts should not be an impediment to conversion. And yet I have heard horror stories about rabbis that invalidated a conversion of someone who did not follow his stricter interpretation of a particular Halacha. And that should should never be allowed to happen.
My two cents.
