CCAR RESPONSA
Contemporary American Reform Responsa
44. The Miqveh and Reform
Converts
QUESTION: Has liberal Judaism taken a position of the use of
a miqveh as part of the conversion ceremony to Judaism? Should this ancient custom be
reintroduced? (Simon Levy, Harrow-on-the Hill, England)ANSWER: The traditional
requirements for conversion are clear (Yeb. 46, 47; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268;
Yad Hil. Issurei Biah 15); a court of three is necessary. Prospective converts must be
warned that they are joining a persecuted community and that many new obligations will be
placed upon them. They were then to bring a sacrifice in the days when the Temple stood, take a
ritual bath, and in the case of males, be circumcised. To this day the requirements of a bet
din, tevilah and berit remain for traditional Jews. The sources are clear on the
requirements, but considerable discussion about them exists in the Talmud. For example,
R. Eliezer stated that if a prospective male convert was circumcised or took a ritual bath, he was
considered a proselyte. R. Joshua insisted on both and his point of view was adopted (Yeb. 46b);
Hillel and Shammai disagreed about a prospective male convert who was already circumcised;
Bet Shammai insisted that blood must be drawn for him, while Bet Hillel stated
that one may simply accept that circumcision without drawing blood (Shab. 135a). The rabbinic
authorities decided in favor of Bet Shammai (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268.1;
Yad Hil. Issurei Biah 14.5). Clearly there were differences of opinion about steps
necessary for the ritual of conversion in ancient times. These may reflect historic competition
with Christianity, persecution, etc., in the early centuries of our era. The Talmudic
discussions insist that the convert must join Judaism without any ulterior motives, and if such are
present, the conversion is void (Yeb. 24b). Of course this opinion applies only prospectively, not
retrospectively and bediavad they were accepted. Some authorities were more lenient in
regard to ulterior motives, so Hillel (Shab. 31a) readily accepted a convert who stated that he
wished eventually to become a high priest. R. Hiya accepted a woman who wanted to marry one
of his student.s (Men. 44a). In modern times, although most Orthodox authorities would reject
converts who seek to join us for the sake of marriage, some would accept them in order to avoid
the conversion by Reform rabbis (Mendel Kirshbaum, Menahim Meshiv #9), because civil
marriage has preceded or because the couple is living together (Yoreh Deah 85). Similar
arguments have been advanced by Meshullam Kutner in Uketorah Yaasu, Mosheh
Feinstein (Igrot Mosheh, Even Haezer Vol. 1, #27). However, the greatest number of
Orthodox authorities have rejected these arguments (Joseph Saul Nathenson, Jacob Ettlinger,
Yehiel Weinberg). Their rejection was based upon ulterior motivation and the likelihood that they
would not accept all the commandments especially as they are not generally observed in the
modern Jewish community and probably not kept by the Jewish partner (Isaac Herzog,
Hekhal Yizhoq, Even Haezer Vol. 1, #20; Meir Arak, Imrei Yosher, Vol. 1, #176;
Abraham Kook, Da’at Kohen #154; Mosheh Feinstein, Igrot Mosheh Yoreh Deah,
Vol. 1, #157, 160; Even Haezer III, #4). I have quoted all of these modern Orthodox
authorities to show that our future path in this matter should not be based on the false
assumption of bringing greater unity to the Jewish community. The Orthodox would, in any case,
not accept a liberal conversion; they would consider our bet din invalid and would
certainly feel that our converts have not accepted the yoke of the commandments. As
we view the rite of conversion from a Reform point of view, we should note that the Reform
movement has stressed careful instruction with more attention to intellectual rather than ritual
requirements . The Central Conference of American Rabbis, in 1892, abolished the requirement
of any ritual including circumcision. Most liberal rabbis, however, require circumcision or accept
the existing circumcision in accordance with the opinion of Hillel (Shab. 135b). Converts were to
be accepted after due instruction before “any officiating rabbi assisted by no less than two
associates.” Except in a cursory way, no discussion of tevilah has been
undertaken by liberal Jewish authorities. The custom has fallen into disuse, but was never
actually rejected by liberal Judaism. Ritual immersion has completely ceased to be practiced for
nidah and is followed only by a small percentage within the Orthodox community. The
practice has further been hindered by endless Orthodox debates about the technical
requirements of the miqveh. A ritual immersion has, therefore, not been considered
necessary for conversion among most Reform Jewish communities. There are, however, a
number of cities in the United States and Canada in which tevilah has been encouraged
or required for Reform conversions. We might conclude that if the custom possesses
meaning for the community and for the prospective convert, it should be encouraged. This would
make it more difficult for traditionalists to challenge liberal conversions, although Orthodox
authorities will never willingly accept anything we do as our basic premises differ
sharply.December 1977
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.