CARR 74-76

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.