Transforming Identity: The Ritual Transition from Gentile to Jew – Structure and Meaning 9780826496720, 0826496725

Citation preview

Transforming Identity The Ritual Transition from Gentile to Jew - Structure and Meaning By

Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar

continuum

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Published by Continv,,rn The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038 www.continuumboob.com First published 2007

AD rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any fonn or by any n,cam, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any infonnation storage or rettieval system, without pc:r,.iissiqn in writing from the pubmhen. Copyright (C) Avi Sagi and Zvi Zobar 2007 British Ltl>rary Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset by Data Standards Ltd, Frome, Somerset, UK Printed on acid-&ee paper in G~t Britain by Biddies Ltd, King's Lynn, Nonolk ISBN-10: 0 8264-9671-7 (hardback) 0 8264-9672-5 (paperback) ISBN-13: 978---0-8264 9671-3 (hardback) 978---0-8264 9672--0 (paperback)

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

- - --- -

-

- · -

- - -

Table of Contents

1"'"'41,aion

1

Plltt I: 1lte proselyte's motivation as a factor in giyyur Jnt,oductu,n

5

7

1 1lte proselyte's motivation in Talmudit soun:rs

9

2 TIit proselyte's n,otivdtioft in post-Tohnudit soun:rs up to tltt sixtttnth anti#)' 19 J Tltt n,otn,atit,n for giyyur in motkm haldJehic sou,m: ""'1ptivist positions 37 4 Tltt motivation fa, giyyur in

"""'°" haldJehic soun:a: ,rjettumist

tnwfomldtionist positions

anti

74

P11tt H: 1lte giyyur ritual 105 1ntnNlt,aum 107 5 Giyyur as " VOUll • • tlOfffldtwt t'.Offllftitnttnt in T almu& litaatutt 108 6 Giyyur as a bodily ritual in Ta11a,dic litttatutt 116 1 TIit t:IIIIOnia,J fonnulation of tht ritual of giyyur 141 8 1lte Ytvamot panuligm in mediMval ""1alu,h 158 9 1lte ritual cf giyyur: asp«ts cf tht Dt,n4i Paradigm in medideval ha1aleJuut 177 10 Tltt tu-o paradigms of giyyur - .from tht Arba'ah Turiin to the Sh,ilban Arukh 196 11 Tltt lttmltno,titdJ amt,wmy rtgartling R4bbi Caro's position - and its signijiama 208 Plltt m: 11tt polyphonic rnanifff of aaepl4na of tht r.ommandmmts in halalehic li~rall« 219 1ntnNlt,aum 221 12 Acaptan« cf tM COMl as an obj«tM act 223 1J~cftltteofft as subjtaivt intent 233 14 Ex post f.acto

"""""''°" of giyyur 252

Plltt IV: '11te mu,,;,,, of giyyur lntrodwtion 267 15 Giyyur and ]Msh ulentity EJ;bliog,aplsy 297 hula 307

Digitized by

Google

265 2 68

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

•

I

Digitized by

Go gle

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Acknowledgements

Batya Stein prepared an Englim translation of our 1~ Hebrew book on giyyu,. Although we decided not to publish that book, some sections of Ms Stein's translation were helpful to us in our work on the current volume, and we are thankfiu for her efforts. Our peers at the Shalom Hartman Institute of Advanced Judaic Studies provided invaluable assistance and advice to us during our work on this book. Our ongoing dialogue with them ~nriched this work immensely. We would like to give special thanks to Professor Shlomo Naeh and Professor Adiel Schremer whose advice and insights with regard to Talmudic texts was impottaot and stin,11Jaring. Our work on the mue ofgiyyu, has extended over almost two decades. During all of these years, the encouragement and enthusiasm of David Haru,,an, founder and director of the Shalom Hartman Institute, have been of ttemendous importance to us. He is not only a philosopher with a bold religious vision ofJudaism, but also a personal friend to us both. We dedicate this book to David, with gratitude and love.

Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar Shalom H..itm..n Institute and Bar Dan University

Israel

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Introduction

The Bible recognizes the phenomenon of individuals or families residing outside of their kinship group's realm. The Bible kttt1s such an individual ger (pl. gerim). After Abraham left his country of birth and arrived in Canaan~ he and his descendants were gmm. 1 I .atcr on, when the Israelite tribes acquired a homeland of their own, the teim ger was employed in reference to persons originating in non-Israelite kinship groups, who resided within Israelite society. Israelites had manifold obligations towards such persons, although they were not members of the Israelite collective. 2 In rabbini,; literature, the same te1n1 - ger - was used to designate a Gentile who had chosen to become a Jew. The rabbis discuss the procedure enabling such tramfo11+1arion of identity, and call it giyyu,. Giyyu, is a sttuctured ritual process through which a Gentile becomes aJew. 3 This book is devoted to a study and analysis of that process, as it is disamed, defined and debated in rabbinic normative (halakhi,;) texts from earliest times until our day. Although many rabbinic texts focus on what may seem to be fo,,11al details, our assi,mption is that the ritual process of giyyur is not a merely formal procedure, but rather carries implicit meaning. Since giyyur bestows Jewish identity upon a fo1n1er non-Jew, it seems reaso11able to further assume that deciphering the giyyur process can provide a key to comprehending the meaning ofJewish identity, as understood by rabbinic Judaism. It is these two assumptions that guide us in reading the corpus of halakbic literature on giyyu,. Methodologically, we adopt a phenomenological approach: we read rabbinic texts and try to explicate their implicit layers of meaning. In keeping with that intetpretive approach, we recngni:ze the gap between the immediately apparent textual surface - the 'given' or in Husserlian terms 'the appearing' (Etsdteinen) - and the 'giveness', in H11sserlian tettt1s 'that which appean' (Etsdtffrulm) i.e. the transcendent tidos manifesting itself indirectly in the words of the text. 4 The transition from the given to the giveness is not achieved by Schleie1macbian divinarion5 but by thick description and detailed analysis of the first datum, since the giveness is not totally Uallscendent but implicit within the given. In our case, the given is the two-tho11saod year corpus of rabbinic sources relating to the process of giyyu,. Let us present the structure of this book in light of the above. Fourteen of the book's fifteen chapters focus on a close reading of rabbinic texts. In the first four chapters, we deal with texts that relate to the Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

2

Tronsfom,ing ldmtity proselyte's motivation: why she chose to opt for Jewishness. This provides an important opportunity to · auess the extent to which religious intentionality is a comentone of giyyu,. Chapters s through 11 analyse the giyyur ritual itsel£ Two main gms provide the &amework of baJakbic discourse on this mue. We refer to them as the Demai paradigm and the Y evamot paradigm, based on the lotus of their first appear.mce in cannnical rabbinic texts. The Desnai paradigm stresses the nc,rn,ative cognitive aspect of giyyur, while the Yevamot paradigm empbasi~ bodily ritual. Throughout these chapters, we atten1pt to explicate the meaning of these on and to track the complex relationship between them as reflected in halakbi These Gcooic sources determine that a proselyte's inappropriate motivation does not invalidate a giyyur. In addition, neither these sources nor other Geooic texts we have been able to locate require that the community should investigate the proselyte's motivations or retl.lin from accepting proselytes whose motivations are inappropriate. It seems, then, that the Gcooim hold the third approach we found in rabbinical literature, according to which a proselyte's motivations are irrelevant to giyyur.

Rabbi Issac Alfasi Rabbi Isaac .Al&si (R.if, c.1013-1103), who lived in Morocco and Spain at the end of the Gconic period, authored a major work summarizing Talmudic ba)akhah according to the Geonic tradition. In this work, entitled HilleJwt Ha-Rif, he shows no concern for the issue of the proselyte's motivations. Thus in his summary of chapters two and four of Yevamot, where he concentrates his discussions on giyyu,, Alhsi omits the Talmudic dispute concerning motivation that appears in Y evamot 2..,b. It seems reasonable to as.1ume that, in line with the Geonim cited above, he holds that a proselyte's motivations have no halakhic implications. To summarize, the prevalent view in the Geooic period follows the third approach we found in Talmudic sources: a person may be accepted for giyyur regardless of the nature of her motivations.

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

3I

Rabbi Jacob hen Asher was bom in Asbk~nazt probably in the town of Cologne, around the year 1270, lat.er moving to Spain where he composed his code A.rba'ah Turim. He states his position a follows: A man who 11nderwent giyyu, for the sake of a woman, as well a a woman who did so for the sake of a man ... and someone who underwent giyyu, for the sake of a royal table, as well as lion • 41 proselytes and dream proselytes - all are proselytes. Rabbi Ben Asher does not instruct the comm11nity to e:ramine the proselyte's motivations, nor does he state that the community must refi-ain from accepting proselytes whose motivations are known to be inappropriate. In other words, he endorses the third halakhic approach, which is espoused by the Geonim and by Rabbi Isaac AIGsi, stating that the proselyte's motivations are halakhically irrelevant.

The position of Rabbi Joseph Caro Rabbi Joseph Caro (Spain, 1488 - Safed, 1S7S) composed two major halakhic works, entitled &it Yosef and Shulhan A.ruleh. In these works, he sunu:n. · and codifies the halakhic tr-adition. Beit Yosef is written as a commentary and expansion of Rabbi Ben Asher's codex mentioned above, while the Shulhan A.rukh is written as an apodictic codex. These works became central to all subsequent ha)akhic deliberations; the Shulhan A.nueh became canoniud as the authoritative embodiment ofJewish law. For this reason, we devote a special disr.11ssion to his position at the concl11sion of this chapter. In the Beit Yosef, Rabbi Caro s11mmari2'rCS the views of the early authorities on the subject of accepting proselytes. He recognizes that Rabbi Jacob hen Asher does not insuuct the court to refhajn from accepting proselytes with problematic motivations. Disag, eeing with this position, Rabbi Caro writes: 'And concet11jng what Maimonides wrote, that we must be scrupulous udlll); proselytes seeking giyyur, I will write at the end of this section. ' 43 And indeed, toward the end of that section,43 Caro quotes ha)akhic authorities who disagr~e with Rabbi Ben Asher - Maimonides, the Tosafists, and Haggahot Mordelthai - and hold that, ab initio, the court should refrain from accepting proselytes whose motivations are known to be not 'for the sake of Heaven'. He also cites Maimonides, who claims that the court must initiate an investigation of the motivations of every potential proselyte. Caro's own view appears at the end of this pauage: 'We must therefore

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Motivation in post-Talmu& soun:n infer that everything is given to the discretion of the court. ' 44 Namely, the instruction to refrain from accepting proselytes with 'problematic' motivations is not an immutable directive, and the court is granted discretion to issue and accept such proselytes if it sees fit. Beca11se of Caro's special status in the following centuries, it is impo1tant to unden~nd the nature of the discretion Caro grants to the court; i.e. is it limited or broad discretion? 1. Limited discretion: According to this alternative, the court must refrain from accepting a candidate for giyyu, who, in its reckoning. will never progress beyond motivation that is not 'for the sake of Heaven'. The court may favourably consider accepting only someone whose present motivations are not 'for the sake of Heaven' but whom is expected ultimately to attain appropriate motivation. Thus, the court's discretion is limited only to considering if it seems that motivation 'for the sake of Heaven' will eventua11y be atuined. This interpretation of Rabbi Caro's position in &it Yosef is close to that of the Tosafists, which we analysed above. 2. Broad diSt:retion: According to this alter11ative, the very prohibition on the acceptance of a Gentile whose motivations are not 'for the sake of Heaven' is not absolute, and the coutt is allowed to disregard it if this is justified by the circumstances. This interpretation of the &it Yosefis close to the position of Maimonides in his Respo,au. In our opiniQn, a contextual reading of the &it Yosef indicates that Rabbi Caro holds to the fint alternative, since he justifies his position by reference to the Tosafists' view. If so, he holds that if a court considers that the proselyte's motivation will 'ultimately be for the sake of Heaven', it is allowed to accept him, despite the &ct that his current motivation does not meet this criterion. However, if the court considers that the present motivation will not undergo such change, the court may not accept such a person for giyyu,. In contrast, in the Shulhan Arulth,45 Caro quotes Maimonides' Code almost literally: When a person comes forth with the intention of becoming a proselyte, they should investigate: perchance he comes to enter the religion in order to gain money, or to q11alify for a position of authority, or out of fear. In the case of a man, they check i( perchance, he has cast his eyes upon an Israelite woman. In the case of a woman, they check if she has cast her eyes upon one of the youths of Israel. If no such motive is found in the~ they should be inforn1ed of the heavy weight of the yoke of the Torah, and how burdensome it is for vulgar folk to observe its precepts,

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

33

34

T,-fon,,mg Identity in order to induce then1 to withdraw. If they accept and do not withdraw, and it is evident that they come out of love, they should be accepted. But, if his motives were not invest,pt:ed ... but he was circumcised and immersed in the presence of three laymen, he is a proselyte even if it was known that he became a proselyte because of some ulterior motive. Here, Rabbi Joseph Caro seems to accept Maimonides' position in Mishneh Torah, according to which an official court should proceed with giyyur only if the Gentile is found to be motivated by religious considerations. In the absence of a religious motivation that ("an be ascertained at the time of giyyur, the official court is not granted even limited discretion and its hands are tied.46 This seems to contradict Caro's approach in the Beit Yosef, where the court is granted discretion. Caro's writing thus encompa~ two variants of the second approach with regard to the balakhic significance of a proselyte's motivation.

Summary Post-Tahnudic literature up to the Shullu,n Arulelt contains all three approaches we found in Talmudic literature regarding the halakhic implications of a proselyte's motivations. From the sixteenth century onwards, however, and following Rabbi Joseph Caro, two of these approaches are rejected and only the second one, claiming that the proselyte's motivation has no effect on the ex posto facto validity ofgiyyur but should affect the court's readiness to initiate giyyur proceeding,., remains. Nevertheless, the &ct that this is an ab initio directive rather than a condition for the validity of the giyyu, opens up important powbilities before subsequent generations of rabbis, operating in a post-emancipation reality. The spectrum of the halakbic approaches held by these rabbis with regard to proselytes' motivations will concer11 us in the next two chapters.

Notes 1

2 3 4

5 6 7

Scholars dis.-g,ec about the identity of the source's author. According to one view, the author is R. Samuel b. A2ron of Alsace, who lived in the second haJf of the fourteenth century. Yevamot 24b. This passage from Haggahot Mordekhai is printed in the Mo,dekhai on Y evamot, Vilna edn, after the letter kof. See Tosafot on Ycvamot 24b, s.v. Lo Birnei David. Sec above Chapter 1, pp. 12-13. See Chapter 4 below; pp. 112-14. Mainz, Germany, c. 1090 - c. 1 170.

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

~Votivation in post- T"'1mulit sown:a 8 Sefn "4-Ra'aban. Yevarnot, ch. 2. 9 See Chapter I above, 'The 6nt approach'. 10 R. B. Y. Scott, 11te Andwr Bible: Prwt,l,s and Ea:lauuta (New York. Doubleday, 1965), p. s1. This re2ding is accepted also by Rabbis Joseph, Moshe and David Kimhi in their commentaries on this verse. See F. Talmage, 1lre '-A' on Prwt,bs '!{&it J(jml,i (Hebrew) OerusaJem, ~ 1990), pp. 2s, 179, 352. And compare Genonidcs' commentary "".I«. 11 See B. L. Visotzky (ed.), Midrash Muhle (New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1990), p. 33. According to Visotzky, this work wa., redacted in the ninth century CE (Introduction, p. vii), i.e. in the Geonic period. 12 C£ Rashi's commentary to Proverbs, ad.I«. 13 Above, pp. 13. 14 The view of Hoggahot Mcmklthai (c£ above, p. 19-20) is thus similar to that of Rabbi Eliezer hen Nathan, on this point. IS Spain. I I 3S - Egypt, 1204. 16 Lm1'S '1j Forbidden lntarouae 13.14. Our translation diffi:rs significaotly &om the stmdard one which sufrcn here from many inaccuracies; c£ 11te C• tf .\faimonides: 1lre &ole of Holiness, tr.ms. Louis I. Rabinowitz and Philip Gromnan (New Haven /London, Yale University Pim, 1965). 17 Jbid., 14. I. 18 The tension between these two ~ . merely intimated in Maimonides, 19 20 21 22 23

24

2s

becomes explicit in modem halakhah, as we shall sec in subsequent chapters. Ibid., 13.16. to the Mishnah, ed. Y. K.afih Oen1sa),..~ Mossad haRav Kook, 1987), Nezikin, pp. 144-5. Our translation. Sec Yaakov Levingcr, HaR.ambam l«Filoscf u-1«-Poseq OerusaJe~ Mossad Bialik, 1989), pp. 88~. 1M''S cf Fo,biddm lntarouae 13.17. C£ our further analysis of this i.utlc in Chapter 8. Lae•IJ cf J(jngs and Wdt.S 8.10, our moslation. Lm11J tf Munk, and the Prrmvation cf Life 4.10-11, our translation, following the Shabbetai Frankel edition of Mishneh Torah, The &ok of Torts Qemsale11~ Bnci \..,WI'

Yosef, 1982). 26 lmus of Forbidden lnterroutse 13.15-17. This distinction between the obligation of

27 28

29 30

the official court to rc6:ain &om accepting people led by an ulterior motive and the posnbility that they could be accepted by an unofficial court, is the basis for a twentieth-century Responsum by Rabbi Menahem Kirschbaum (Iwpo,ua Menahan Meshiv, #42), who suggests directing persons interested in giyyur 'for ulterior motives' to a court of laymen. Maimonides, Iwponsa, ed. J. Blau Oerosalen1, Reuben Mass, 1986), #211. According to Halakha, if a Gentile slave was freed by his/her Israelite owner, this entailed the slave's giyyur. Sec above, Chapter 1, pp. I 1-12. On this enacttnent see Menachem Elon, Jewish L:nv: History, Sources, Principles (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1994), pp. 601-2.

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

3S

36

Tro,ujo,,,,mg Umtity 31 C£ Misboab Bcrakbot, 9-S· 32 Oo the inftlK°oce c:Atbis Rapo,uut oo modern rulin~ see Chapter 3 below. 33 Oo Yeva~ ~. s.11. lo B'ya,td °"'1i4. 3-4 See Y evamot 79a3S See Cbapter 6 below, pp. 132-3. 36 See Chapter I above, pp. 1,4-15. ·

37 Toscfot Y evarnot 2,41,, s.11. Lo B'y,,,d Davitl. 38 See Chapter 1, cspeciaDy at o. 21. 39 Yehudi Gaon (attrib.) Hailtltot Pesultot (HiDthot RL'u) Oerusale.11, 1951), p. 2. The author of HiUrhot RL'u, a Hebrew venion of luldltltot Prsuleot, is unknown. Rabbi Simeon K.ayyara (ninth century) stat.es a similar position in his work Halalthot Qdolot Oerusalem, 1972-1987), Vol. 2, p. 217. ,40 Quoted in Mordekbai Akiva Friedman, RD,.,; Nashim bt'Yuratl Oerusalem, Bialik Institute, 1986), p. 333. ,41 Tur Yorah De'ab, #268. ,42 Btit Yosef on Tu,, printed in standard edition cA ShulJum 'A.nJth, Yoreh De'ab #268, at the end of s.11. w-ein nuabin 'aldV. -43 S.11. e""'1 islt she-niffqff le-sh,un UM .

.. s.v. vt-tla tle-lui de-lo ltibl,,. 4S Yoreh De'ab, #268.12. ,46

It is worth noting that it is highly doubtful whether Rabbi Joseph Caro was acq11aintcd with Maimonides' Raponsu,,t #211, which (as we saw above) grants an official court authority to accept a candidate for giyyu, whose motivations are not 'for the sake of Heaven'. Maimonides' Raponsa were initially published in 1765 (See Maimonides' Raponsd, Blau edition, Vol. 3, p. 31), and only a few of them had been known before then. The specific Raponsu,,t we analysed above does not appear among the Maimonidcan Raponsa quoted by Caro (see R.aponsa, Blau edition, pp. 39-40). This consideration bolsters our hypothesis that in the Shulhan A.nJth, Caro, like Maimonides in the Mishndt Torah (but not in the Raponsum), does not grant official courts broad discretion (m the sense defined above). '

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

3

The motivation for giyyu, in modem sources: adaptivist positions

&.&.CULQ. _

.....

c

Introduction As we saw in the previous chapter, Rabbi Joseph Caro's position in the ShuUum Aruleh is that sincere religious motivation on the part of the Gentile candidate should be ascertained before initiating a procedure of giyyu,. The positing of religious motivation as a required condition posed no basic difficulty as long as society - both Gentile and Jewish - was traditionally religious. In those unusual cases in which it was considered advisable to accept individual candidates whose motivation was nonreligious, ad hoc solutions were found which did not entail any r.hange in the society's perception of itself as a religiously committed entity. In modetn times, especially since the early nineteenth century, processes of secularintion in both Gentile and Jewish societies generated two changes that posed a challenge to traditional criteria for giyyu,. On the one hand, major sectors ofJewish society no longer saw themselves as bound by the nor111s ofJewish tradition. On the other, developments in the legal and social nor,ns of civil society enabled the formation of mixed GentileJewish couples. Despite internal Jewish secu)arization, the great majority of Jews continued, at )east until quite recently, to stigtnatize mixed marriage. In some cases, these &ctors led to the Jewish partner's estrangement from Jewish society. In others, they motivated the couple to seek for the giyyu, of the Gentile partner. Since the Shulhan Arulth is accepted as a canonical text, it would be reasonable to expect that rabbis would reject virtually all such applications for giyyu,, since the candidates were motivated by ulterior motivations. While some rabbis indeed followed such a course, many others detc1t11ined that, given contemporary realities, ba)akhah enabled (or even required) the acceptance of such candidates. Thus, the actual course to be followed in such cases became the subject of intense halakhic debate. This debate was conducted through two mechanis1llS. The first mechanism is re-interpretation of the meaning of the phrase 'sake of Heaven'; the second mecbanis,11 is explicit employment of policy considerations. 1

Re-in~rpntadon: Until the modem era, central relevant terms such as 'for the sake of a man' or 'for the sake of Heaven' functioned in balakbic

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

literature to cha, kttaiu cfiffi:rmt types oi motivalion. However, baJakhic ugcs in pre-modern ri,11es mu :,ved these without prec:n-:ly de6oing their mcaoio~ :lW'lr the changes afkctiog the structure of society in modem ~ and in light oi the ioc I eased coa11plexity oi the re larion of potential prosclytn towards Jews and Judaiv11, the exact nvaning of these te1a,as became a decisive issue. It is th•,s not suap.ising that in the modern pui'1n when chancing upon a bird's nest: 'thou shalt not t2kc the mother with the young' (Dcut. 22.6). While Rabbi Schick's collected R.aponsa were published in 1905, the Rapo,uum under discussion is dated I 897 and was sent in reply to an inquiry by Rabbi Zvi Fischer who served as Rabbi of Wienet11. Four ycan after that date, Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner published an halakhic rmy tided 'Haqor Davar' (Munk.acz, 1901) dealing with giyyu, in cases of inter,,,aniagf'. On page 11a of bis rmy he makes an argument very similar to that of Rabbi Schick, employing identical phrases and quotations. Thus, be explains that it would be unreasonable to require the &ther to abandon his children iom his Gentile wife bearase 'What can the &ther do with regard to the children he &thercd? As Scripture says: ''as a &ther pities his children [so the Lord pities those who fear him)'' (P-a!ms 103, 13). Go and learn iom the prophet Hosea, as told of him in Tractate Pesabim 87a, who did not want to divorce his whoring wife and her bastard children, and God accepted his position . . . so how can we say to this man ''send away the mother and the young'' and only then repent? For, the state•••ent ''a child bom to you iom a Gentile is not called your son'' is valid as an (inexplicable, opaque] decree of Scripture, but Nature cannot be changed, and they arc his natunl sons - how can he abandon them and leave them?' It seems n-asonable to mume that Rabbi Glasner was acqt1ainted with Rabbi Schick's R.aponsurn (perhaps via Rabbi

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Motivation: ""4,ptwist positions Fisher). accepted his views, and incorporated then1 into his caay - albeit without citing his source. 4S See Hosea I . 46 Paabim 87b

47 lbid. 48 See Avi Sagi, J""'1is,n Bttufflt Religion - ' Morolity (Tel Aviv, HaKibbutz

49

so SI

s2 S3 S4 SS 56 S7

HaMevcbad, 1998), pp. 29-41 (Hebrew). Jerusale111, 18&r19s3. Rabbi Uzziel served as Chief Rabbi ofEretz Israel during tbe years 1939-19s3. Pisltei Uzziel B'sh'tlot Ht12'.oun, #61. Salonika, 1862 - Israel, 19ss. Pislto Uzzid B'sh'tlot HAZtman, #61. The source of this phrase is in Tractate Ban Karna 69a. And sec below, p. 78. Pislto Uzziel B'sh'dot Ht1Zmu,n, #61. Eretz Israel, Syria and Lebanon 1870-19,4.8. Cf. YeV2JDot 23a, Kiddushin 68b. Cited in: Rabbi Ovadia Hadayab, R.tsponu Ytisldl 'Avdi, III, Yoreh De'ab, #16. Indeed, Rabbi Ovadia Haday.a, head of the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court, •81 ecd with Rabbi Babbout's ntling. Sec 0. Hadayah, Yasldl 'Awli. Another authority who supports this position is Rabbi Meir Sirnha HaCohen ofDvinsk. Rcw,nting the ase ofa Jewish woman who is living with a Gentile and had a son by him, he supports allowing the ti'YY"' of this Gentile for a nwnber of reasons, among them: 'we fear for her and for the child, who is presendy a full Jew, and our interest is the cbild's wel&re ... and on these grounds it is obvious we should accept him [the Gentile &ther]' (Rapo,ud Or S.1n~ #32).

ss Germany, 18,4.3-1921. S9 This in our opinion is the best reading of the sinJation described in the original Raponsum, which is somewhat obscure. 6o Mddmetl Ldao'il, Part II, #83. With regard to a similar case, Rabbi Shmuel Glasner writes succinctly: 'We should permit his giyyu, in order to save ha children from pentition.' HAit« Daa,a, 11a. 61 Tti'""""°t Lftl, Part ID, #29. 62 A Jeading Rabbi in Jerl:r. (Tunisia), Rabbi HaCohen came to Israel in 19s8 and serv~ as a member of the Rabbinical Court in Tiberias until his death in 1966. For a full analysis of Rabbi HaCohen's position, see Zvi Zohar, 'An Israeli Sen,Jar Lifestyle as Fulfillment of the Qal,iN,l4,t Mitzvot Required for a Valid Giyy,,r. an analysis of Rabbi Moshe HaCohen's Position' in R. Horwitz tt. tiL (eds), Pftf,ssor ?«v Polle MffllOf'Ull Voluntt Oerusalcm, 200s), pp 333-s3. 63 Kdltt is a biblical punishmet1t signifying harsh heavenly sanction. See Enqdopetlui J,"'-4.. Vol IO, s.v. ~ pp. 788-9. 64 According to rabbinic tradition, certain acts by religious 7.ealots will not be

punished, even though a court would not formally condone such procedure and would indeed forbid it if consulted in advance. One such act is physical attaC"k upon Jews engaged in sexual activity with a Gentile partner. The paradigm of

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

71

6S 66

67

68

69 70 71 72 73

74 7S 76

n 78 79

8o 81 82

83 84 8

s

86

such behaviour is said to be Pinebas the priest, who attacked an Israelite leader copulating with a Moabite princess (c£ Numbc:11 2s.1-1s). Raponsa Vt-Halav Moshe, Yoreh De'ab #s1. As by halakhic schobn. C£ Rapo,tu Sbi M-Ltlsott, #31; and in Raponsa Slte'tiLd Yo '.as, Part I, Even ha-1-z.er #79, #So. Rabbi David lbn Abi Zimn (1479, ~in - IS73, Safed), Rlspmw, part IV, #1o8. lubbi Yitzhak Caro (Spa!n and Istanbul, fifteenth sixteenth centuries), in Raponsa &it Yosef, #1. Rabbi Ovadia Y osef (lsrad. twentieth-twenty-tint centuries), Rapo,tu YaW'o Owr, part VI, Even Ha'Ezer, #14. lubbi Moshe Hagiz Ocrusalcn~ 1672 -Lebanon, 17s1), Raponsa Slatei HaLehort, #31; Rabbi Yaakov Emden (Germany, 1697-1776), Raponsa Slre'U. Ya'onz, part I, #79; Rabbi Shmuel Landau (Central Europe, eigbtcent&-oineteenth centuries), in Rapo,tu Nodd B'Ythuda, second part, Yoreh De'ah. #74,; Rabbi Itzbak Henog (Poland, 1887 - Jerusalc~ 19s9), Raponsa Htilthol Yitz"'1lt, Even Ha'Eur, part I, #13. Mtldmetl ulto ~ Part Ill, #8. Poland, 1795-1874. lubbi KaJischer's Raponsum appears in the Rcspoma of Rabbi Azricl Hildesheimer, #229. See Yjmbak Gilat, PeNJca,1 b'Hishtalshelut naJrl4114 (Ramat Gan, 1992). The phrase we have rendered with a slash - 'and/so that' - is a translation of the Hebrew letter 'vav' ('). In thi, context, the letter has at least two poaiblc mcanin~~ {1) 'so that' refcn to a consequence of the previous cla11SC (2) ;ft 1M3'U~ I ,..,,) 'and' refers to a conjunction r,i:i"'Mn ,..,,). The,c possibilities are concretizcd in various English translations. Cf. Isai3h 6.13. Ge1n,any, 1820-1899. Responsa of lubbi Azriel Hildcsheimer, #229. lbul., #230. Sec Talmudic Entydopetlit, (Hebrew), Vol. 1 Oerusalcm, 1973), pp. 635-7. Hildcsheimcr, Responsa, #229. Klausenbcrg, 1856 - Jerusalem, 1924. Haqo, IJava, Ila. .lbul., I 1b. I.e. your oftspring. Pisltei Uzziel b'Shetlot haaman, #64. A figure of speech describing a situation in which a bucket of water drawn from the well &1k back down, and is being held by the very end of the rope. Rather then pulling jt up awiin one might say that it was not worth the effort, anc.i simply let go of the rope. In rabbinic parlance, this metaphor is used to dcscnoc a decision not to invest effort in rectifying a complex situation, but to 'let go' and allow the negative counc of events and their consequences to unfold. In the case at hand, this would mean rejecting the option fur gryyur of the Gentile wife and severing connection with the Jewish intennarried man. Namely, a child of a Jewish father by a Gentile woman is indeed the 'seed of

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

.Votiwtioft: ""'1ptivist positions

Israel'. Not.e that Rabbi Meoahe,11 Azariab da Fano sugguts the oppo1ite view (Raponsa rabbi Menahem Azatidla '4 Fano, #116). But Rabbi Uzziel was acquainted with this view, and argued against it in gieat detail_ See Mishpatei Uzziel, Vol. 1, Yoreh De'ah, 60. 87 Pisltd Uzziel, #65. 88 Ibitl. 89 Another source cited as a proof-text by Rabbi Uzzicl is K.iddt1sbin 78, which cites a Tannaiti.c debate with ~rd to the J11eaning of Eukicl's · ·on (#-22), that priuts rnay marry only worneo who are 'virgins of the seed of the house of Israel'. Accollting to Uzziel, all the rabbis participating in that debate ag, cc that 'male and fe,,,al~ children bom to a Jewish &ther and a Gentile mother arc caDed ''Israelite seed''•. However, this reading of the Talmud (1) seems implaUStole, and (2) docs not concur with cJamc interprietations requiring that the mother be Jewish, albeit not ofJewish ancestry. 90 See Ezra 9. 91 See Shaye Cohen, 1lse Btginnings cfJewishness (BerkeJey, University of California

Pres, 1999). 92 Kiddushin 68b. 93 The &ct that Rav Am was referring to th~ case of an Israelite man who married a Gentile woman is clear from the contin11ation of the Talmudic discumon; this is aJso the way that Rashi understood Rav Assi's view. 94 Yevarnot 17a. 95 Italy, thirteenth century. 96 Pisltd HIIRul. Volume 4, Tnctates Yeva111ot and Kethubot, Jerusalem, 1973, p. 25. Our en1phasis. 97 The words in brackets arc explicit in the text of the Mishnah found in the Baby]onian Talmud and implicit in the standard text of the Misbnah 98 A mmnzn is a Jew bom out of a forbidden union. Some rabbis hold that the oftSpring of any forbidden ,inion is a mamztr, others hold that only severely forbidden unions could produce a person ofsuch lowly status. See Yevamot 49a-b.

99 Pisltd Halwl, op.cit. 100 Ulaaine and Poland, 1586-1667. 101 Tum ZAhav on Shulhan 'Andth Even Ha'E7.er 16, §2, end of note B. 102 Gc11naoy, 1844-1910. Served as Chief Rabbi of Frankfurt and head of the community's Rabbinical Court from 1878 until his death. 103 Responsa Mattel, lui-uvi, #54. Rabbi Horowitz quotes the last sentence from the Rcsponsa Tuv Ta'am ~-Da'at, Yoreh Dt'ah #264. 104 See Tosafot on Eruvin 32b, s.v. ~-lo liavttl 'am lui-amz wura :zuw; Menahe111 HeMeiri, &it Ha&hi,a on Shabbat 43, s. v. shaggag ~-hidbile pat. 10s These views arc discussed in Chapter 4, below. 106 R.tsponsa Matteh lui-Levi, op.cit. 107 Head of the Rabbinical Court in the Frankfurt community until the Holocaust. 108 For Hoftir~ao's position see Raponsa Melamed Leho'il, Part II, #85. For Kinchbaum see R.tsponsa Mauihem Mtshiv, #42. For other rabbi,, compare Raponsa Mqim Hayyim, Part II, #108 and Raponsa Ahi'eztr, Part III, #26.

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

73

The motivation for giyyu, in modem sources: rejectionist and ttansformationist • • positions

&&CIWI.Q. _ _

c

In the previous chapter we began our amlysis of modem balakbic positions on the proselyte's motivation with a discussion of adaptivist views. In this chapter we continue our analysis, dealing first with rejectionist and then with transfo1111ationist positions.

The second mode: rejection The rejectionist position holds that the challenges of modernity should not be met by conciliation nor by compromise of halakbic standards. Most rabbis supporting this view realize that socio-religious change has occurred, and that a price will be paid by individual community members for the rabbis' rejection of adaptive attitudes. They hold that such a price is well worth paying for the maintenance of the 11ncompromised religious identity and standards of the comm11oity as a whole whether the Jewish community in general, or the more limited cornrn11nal ttamework whom they rr.gard. as relevant. In this section we discuss the views of balakbic authorities whose noncompromising attitude derives &om an understanding of ba)akbab as a deontological, closed system. On this view, a rabbi is committed to co11ect interpretation and application of ha)akbic texts, whatever the social consequences may be. The real-life consequence of this position is rejection of candidates for giyyur who are partneis ofJewish spouses. Rejectionist rabbis criticize both the re-interpretive moves and the policy considerations advocated by the adaptivists.

Countering re-interpretation In response to adaptivist re-intetpretive arguments, the rejectionists claim that it is simply not the case that if a miYed couple has already been living together, then the Gentile spouse's application for giyyur is 'for the sake of Heaven'. While such application may not stem from sexual frustration, it nevertheless derives from other equally ulterior motivations. As stated by •

Rabbi Meir Arik':

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

The opinion ... that since he [the Jew] already lives with her openly, then she lacks nothing, and the motivation for her application is not 'for the sake of a spouse' - cannot be relied upon. For it is reasonable, that her pacunour now wishes to live with her not in sin, but respect.ably; and this is what motivates her 2 to seek giyyur.

On this view, the adaptivist re-interpret.ation presents a f.alsc dichotomy in claiming that a Gentile can be motivated either by a wish to gain sexual possewon of a coveted Jew or 'for the sake of Heaven'. Rabbi Arik rejects this dichotomy and argues that other pWbilities exist, such as motivation for social and fami1ia1 reasons. Ostensibly, such considerations are neither 'for the sake of Heaven' nor 'for the sake of a spouse'. However, Rabbi Arik refuses to permit giyyu, based on such motivation. This is either because he thinks that 'for the sake of a spouse' signifies not only sexual need but a1so a wide range of considerations stemming from the couple's relationship, or because he thinks that pure motivation 'for the sake of Heaven' is a si~ qua non for the periniuihility of giyyur. As presented by Rabbi Arik, the rejectionist position is fully aware of the psycho-sociological complexities characteristic of partners in a mixed marriage. In light of this awareness, he insists on what he sees as the original ba]akbic nor~ of not accepting Gentiles unless 'no ulterior motive was found'. Another expression of a rejectinnist position based on an interpreti'7e move is found in the writings of Rabbi Isaac Dov HaLevi Bamberger3 who writes concerning the giyyu, of a Gentile woman married to a Jew: The argument advanced ... to prove that her motivation for seeking giyyu, is 'for the sake of Heaven', on the ground that since they have already contracted civil marriage there is nothing to prevent their co-habitation, is invalid. For it is certain that since he is a Jew, he does not want this (situation to continue] - either for his own sake, or for that of his family. How then can we be confident about their motivation?! Rather, the fact that they contracted civil marriage before turning to the ha)akhic court strengthens the suspicion that they lack sincere intent.4 Like Arik, Bamberger also points out that analytically and empirically there is more than one alternative to motivation based on sexual need. Thus, lack of such motivation does not mean that sincere religious motivation exists: the woman may be motivated to seek giyyu, to relieve psychological pressure on her Jewish spouse. s In the case at hand, lack of sincere religious motivation is also supported by the fact that the couple married in a civil

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

ceremony without even attempting to first arrange for giyyw. It follows that the e,ristence of sincere religious motivation cannot be proven by via negatiwi. Rather, as B writes: 'Unles.1 we have full (positive] con£11,,ation [of religious motivation), it is obvious rbat any 11nr.et1..ioty should lead us to be stringent (and not accept her). t6 Indeed, Bamberger goes further than requiring positive confi, 11,ation of religious motivation before initiating giyyu,. As we saw in the previous chapters, the- mainstieam haJakhiUif>CCtive of our methodological position, such search for an l#teXt is intcustii1g but ultimat.cly irrelevant. We are not seeking to examine the gencology of the Tahnudic t.ext. We take a synchronic approach, tryi,Jg to the logic and significance of each source per sc. Yevamot 46b. This position is not found in the parallel disa1sci9n in the Palestinian Talmud (Kiddushin ch. 3.12). We here ag, '"C with Bialoblocki, 'The Attitude of Judaism towards Proselytes', page 52. Cf. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966). PT, Avodah Zarah, S-ISPT, Kiddushin, 3. I 2. The Hebrew word miltveb in the biblical text signifies 'hope': God is c by the prophet as Israel's hope. However, in rabbinic Hebrew, milevth means a pool of water for ritual purification. Rabbi Akiva's powerful Midrash rests on this dual meaning. Mishnah, Tnctate Yoma. 8.9. This is extensively analysed in Zvi Zohar, 'Miqve Israel HaShean', AJS Rmtw, XIX, 2 (1994), 1-23 (Hebrew pagination). Central Europe, 1579-16s4. Rabbi Yorn Tov Lipp1J1an Heller, Tosefd Yom Tov, Yoma 8.9, s.v. lif,tei mi _,,, mit4harin. We arc aware of the sometimes heated debate between scholars as to the function and meaning of proselyte immersion: is it for purification from Gentile impurity

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

139 or for regeneration as a Jew (Cf. S c ~ Who was a Ja,,?, p. 26)? According to the opinion of Rabbi Joshua in the teXt under analysis, he sec.ms to ltlca mother eleo1ent. that of entering under the W'U9 of the Slselutindh. 47 David Weiss Halivni, Sotum and Traditions, p. S4, n. 4. 48 Cf. ShayeJ.D. Cohen, TM Btgi,uti,,fs ofJewislmas, Chapter 9.

49 1"ul., pp. 268~3. so Mircea Eliade, Pattmu in Compa,otiw Religims (New York, Meridian Books, 1963), p. 188. See also pp. 194~. SI Yevamot 47h. s2 Y evamot 22a and parallels. We discuss this more fully in the last chapter of this

book. SJ The proselyte is thus similar in certain ways to a person born to a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish &tber. While mcmbenhip in the Jewish collective is matrilineal, inte,11al affiliation within the collective is patrilineal. Lacking a Jewish male pedigree, the proselyte is not a member in any internal affiliation, i.e. he is not a Priest. a Levite, or a pedigreed Israelite. S4 Poland, 1820-1893. 5S Gen. 14.13. 56 Ncdarim 32a. 57 Gen. 34.30. 58 This ~port is cited in: Aharon Shlomo Ellberg. 'A Declaration by The Ga'on of Kutna Rabbi Yehoshuale of blmcd memory', HaKemn, 3, Ellul 5716 (1956), 14-s. 59 Israel, 1924-1998, Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv. 6o Rabbi Hayyim David HaLevi, 'Aseh uldui RJw (Tel Aviv, 1979) Vol. 3, ,rponsum 29, pp. 13r is not coPtingent on his observing a Jewish way of life upon reaching adulthood.71 For Ritba, then, circumcision and immersion, not acceptance of the coltlDWldments, are the necessary elements ofgiyyur. Hence, a minQr who was circumcised and immersed is fully Jewish, without any further requirements either before or after reaching adulthood. For the same reason, lack of notification about the commandments is not an impediment to the giyyu, of an adult Gentile. In the following chapter, we will discuss an alte.r 11ative position that was adopted in the twelfth century by some Tosafist scholars, according to whom acceptance of commandments is a discrete stage of the giyyu, ritual at which a court must be present. Subsequently this view was adopted by Rabbi lshbili's predecessozs, Nahmanides and Rashba. Ritba himself seems to have also initially agreed with this view. 72 However, in maturity he became convinced of the superiority of the clas1ical ~ as we saw in his words cited above. To s,ummaJru·~, in this chapter we surveyed the writinp of several leading mediaeval authorities over a period of more than half a millennium. These scholars continue the paradigm of Yevamot that regards giyyu, as a ritual performed upon the physis, the necessary elements of which are circumcision and immenion.

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

YtlldfflOt in ntediMval ~

From the eleventh century onwards, a major centre of halakbic creativity emerges in north-western Europe, the area known in Hebrew as Ashlunaz_ As we noted above (§4), several scholars in this milieu hold the Yevamot paradigm. However, other scholars develop a new approach, attributing greater significance to cognitive aspects in the course of the giyyu, process, and thus closer to (but not identical with) the Demai paradig1n. Subsequently, this new position spread to other centtes ofJewish culture. The following chapter is devoted to an analysis and interpretation of this significant ba)akhic development.

Notes 1

On Rabbi Kayyara and his work, sec the editor's introduction in Vol. 3 of Halalthot Gedolot, Naphtali Zvi Hildcsheimer (ed.) Oerusalcm, Mekizc Nirdamim, 1972-1987).

2 S. Kayyara, Halalehot Gedolot, Vol. 1, p. 217.

3 Sec Chapter 6 above.

• S. Kayyara, Halalehot Gtdolot, Vol. 1, p. 216. S See B. M. Lewin (ed.), Otza, Ha-Gaonim, Vol. 7, Tractate Yevamot Oen1sal1;111 1936), pp. I 10--1 I. 6 See Rabbi Jacob hen Asher, Tu, Yorch De'ah, 268. 7 Dcut. 21.12-13. 8 See Y evamot 48 a-b, and compare Sifre Deuteronomy, Eliczer Aryeh Finkelstein (ed.) (New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969), p. 2-45. 9 Not: another religion. 10 Nahmanidcs, Ull'8ffltl'"4 on the Torah {trans. and ed. Charles. B. Chavel) (New York, Shiloh Publishing Ho11sc, 1976), Deuteronomy 21.12. pp. 2-48-51. We have slightly einended Chavel's translation in accordance with the Hebrew original. 11 One of the most important French balakbisu (Narbonne) at the beginning of the eleventh century, in the generation preceding Rashi. 12 N11m. 8.7. 13 The acronym of Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, France, 1040--1105. 14 Rashi, Numbers 8.17, s.v. 'vt-he'eviru t11'ar. 15 C£ N11m, 8.16-19. 16 Sec, for instmcc, Num. 12.12. 17 Lev. 14. 18 Poland, 1561-1640. 19 Rabbi Joel Sirkes, Commentary &yyit Hadash to Tu, Yoreh De'ah, 268, s.v. 'umdh slu-leat4V w-gaiz maziei". 20 Halakbic literature includes additional instances of shaving ceremonies, which function in similar ways for repentant apostates. Sec, for instance, I. Israel, Taumat lw-Dtshen (rel Aviv, 1974), Part 1, #86; S. b. M. HaCohen, Siftei 0,1,m in ShuDu,n A.rulth (standard edition), Yoreh Dc'ah, 268.7; Y. W. Katz. Derisha u-

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

I 73

Prislto in .A,6o'a r .., (standard edition), Yorch Dc'ah, 267c; Y. Raisher, Rqo,&Sd Sltt:M1t Yo'_, (Lvov, Flekker, 1861), Put 3, #90; H. Y. D ~ RGpOIUII Yos,fO,,tt,S (Livomo, 1798), #4s; Y. Y. Wem, RGpOIUII Mi""'1t Yszhak Ocrusalem. 1978-1988), Put 2, #lo; B. Stern, Rapo,,sa be-Tstl "4-Holelrm4'a Oerusalem 1990), Put 4, #39. 21 Poland, 1621-1663. 22 C( Siftei Cohm on SlnJla4n 'Arulth Yorch De'ah, 268, s.v. vt-yesh omrim shey'goleoh. 23 This text is cited in Monlekhai Akiva Friedman, Rjl,ui Nashim be-Yasrael (Bialik lmtitute/ Tel Aviv Univcnity Ptcss, 1916), p. 337. ~

Jer. 16.19.

lS Frittlt••an. Rjbt,; Naslrim be-Yasr«l, p. 338 . .26 S. Kayyan. ll4Wtlu,t Qdolot, Vol. 1, p. 218. 27 Ibid., p. 217. 28 Ibid., p.221.

29 At note 19 ff. 30 A position identical to that of lubbi Kayyayra is held also by the anonymous author of HiUdu,t ~'u, a Hebrew version of Halakhot Prsukot written by Rabbi Ychudai Gaon, who died c.761. 31 North Africa and Spain, 1013-1103. 32 Y. Al&si, Hilltlwt R.aa, Alfas, ed. Nis.un Sachs OerusaJem, Mossad HaRav Kook, 1969), Vol. 2, 22. 3 3 Y. Alf.m, Hillehot Rilll Alfas., Vol. 1, 141. 34 Yevamot 45b. Sec our disctmion of this issue in Chapter 6 above p. 133tf. 3S Y. Affiui, Hilltlu,t Rav A!fas, Vol. 2, 22. 36 Y evamot 46b. 37 Laws of Fo,biddtn lnterr:outse 13. s 38 Y. Alfasi, Hilltlwt Rilll Alfas, Vol. 2, 23. Sec above, Chapter 7, p. 152-4. 39 Sec above, Chapter 2, pp. 23-9. 40 Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 13 .4. 41 Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 13.14-18. 42 Cf. for Samson, Judges 14; for Solomon, 1 Kin~ r 1. 43 Yevamot 76a. 44 The intervening clauses provide the evidence required to substantiate the answer. 45 Bava Kama 4oa, 113b. 46 Dcut. 22. 3. 47 Another commandment that applies to a proselyte is the prohibition against insulting him or verbally denigrating him [onaat dwarim). In his &fer luiMitzvot (Book of Commandments) Maimonides explains that this prohibition applies only to for111er Gentiles who can be characterized as multazim/ multazam l'ilShari'a. (For the original Arabic see Maimonides (trans. and ed. Joseph Kafih), &fer Hamitzvot, Arabic Original and Hebrew Translation Oerusalem, Mossad HaRav Kook, 1971), Negative Commandment .255, p. 30.2). Most translations render the Arabic term cited above as 'accepted the Torah upon themselves'. However, the phrase is in the present tense, and a more accurate rendering would be: 'obligated by/ to the

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

YtvdfflOt

48

49

so 51

S2 53

54

55 56 57

58

S9 6o

in ,nediMvdl h""'1tJuah

law'. In other words, Maimonides is refeating to the cunent condition of the person, not to some act pafunned in the past. Since a proeelyte is under such obligation (having undergone a valid procedure of giyyt,,), other Jews are obligat.ed to relate appropriately to him. The thrust of tins text in the Boole of C "° is thus compatil>le with Maimooida' position here in Mislmdt Torah. Yevamot 47h. Following Lev. t 3.2, Maimonides inktptets the word sapaJu,t in the original text as rcfer,ing to a type of leprosy. Cf. Num. t 1 .34. Cf. Sifei (ed. Hayyim Shaul Horowitz) Oerusalem, 1966), B'Ha'alotkha, 28. Cf Mishnah Ycvamot 2.8 - 'if he married he oeed not divorce'. Ibid., I 3. 16. This interpretation of Maimonides' position was accepted by subsequent scholars. One example is Rabbi Shlomo hen Adtet (RaSHbA) - cf. Hiddushei RAshba (Jerusalem, 1975) on Yevam.ot, novcllae on Yevamot 79a s.a,. miyyad Nitvasfa. Another significant example is Rabbi Ben-Zion Uzzicl who writes: And it is the law (that they are full proselytes], but Scripture regarded them as pagans remaining in their state of prohibition, bea 11se it is known that they only became Jewish for an ulterior purpose and that the giyyur was not in acordance with the policy of the court. Rather, Solomon had then1 undergo giyyur and married ther11, and Samson had the111 undergo giyyur and married the1n. Hence, although even in such a case they are legally proselytes for the purpose of allowing them to preserve their marriage, Scripture regarded them as remaining in their state of prohibition (Pisleei Uzziel Oerusale111, Mos.ud haRav Kook, 1977), pp. 358-9). This immersion must be perfurmed before three: 'If a proselyte was circumcised but not imm~ or vice-versa, he is not a proselyte, until he both circumcises and immerses. The immersion requires the presence of three ... ' ( 14M'S of Forbidden 1ntaanme 13.6). In clear reference to the discussion in Yevamot 45b ('Rabbi Hiyya's slave'), Maimonides rules (§9) that someone who immersed without a court being present is not a proselyte. Cf. Yevamot 47b and our discussion in Chapter 7, above. J. Sirkes, &yyit Hada.sh to Tur Yorrh Dtah 268, s.a,. 'w-ltol iniyanav'. One of the greatest rabbis of Eastern Europe in the second half of the eighteenth century; died Konig,berg 1807. Raponsa Beit Meir Oerusale111, Machon Yerushalayyim, 1976), #12. See also Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook, Responsa Da'at Cohen Oerusalem, Mossad HaRav Kook, 1900), #153; Rabbi Ben-Zion Hai Uzziel, Pisleei Uzziel, #61; Rabbi Isaac He1zog, 'She'eilah biDvar Gerut', in S. Y. Zevin and Z. Wahrhaftig (e« [non-] acccrcancc of the conu-1aoo1,■a1u hiodrn, be (the proaelyte] is cer1ai.:■ly required to accept .,a the C01••·••and1•-ems' {H. 0. Grodzincki,. -'· {noce 18), §4). S e e ~ " T""""""9 Vol I, s.v. ...... H. 0. GlcdzE-nn, ilu. {noce 18), §4. Ct: the 6nt four rbarcas of this work. See C.bapcer I above. H. 0. Groctrioski, ilu. (oocr 18), §3. Galicia 189s - Zurich 1976. M. Y. Bttiscb, Rapo,,si, HdlNt Y.-'olew (Jerusalem. 19s1), Pan 1, #13. llu., t,. For our analysis of Breiscb's policy on tbis · ~. sec Chapter• above pp. 79-83. 1871-1943. Rabbi of Kovno from 1912 until his death. A. D. C. Shapin, Rapo,,si, Da,o, Amalrar,, Oerusalew. Mesamh~ Lev, 199CJ), Vol 3, #28, §2. H. 0. Grodnmn, Rapo,u4 Ahi'un. ibid. (note 19), t,. A. D. C. Shapin, Rapo,,si, Daw Vol 3, #28, §3. Brisk, 1886 - Jen•sa!cm. 1976. Chief Rabbi of lsnel 60,11 1964. Rabbi lmr Ychuda Unte1111an, 'Hilkbot Gaut ve-Derckh BilSUan (Laws of Giyyur and the Manner of their Application)', No'""'7 14' (1971), 1-9, p. S- With repnl to the refereoce to Tr:actatc Shabbat, see our analysis and discussion in Chapter 6 above.

A.,,...,

36 Poland 1888 - Jerusalem l9S937 Rabbi Isaac HaLevi Herzog. Rapo,w, Hdlduil Yitzlwle Ocrusalc1n, 1961), Even

l-laEur, 1, #u,. 38 Ibul. 39 Ibid. ,.o The category of~ ga is e111ploycd also by Rabbi Hayyim Ozer Grodriosky {Raponsd .Ahi'tZa 3, #26) and by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Rapo,w, .(p,t Moshe, New York, 1982, Yorch De'ah 3, #1o6). However, they regard this as an interim condition that will be resolved within a brief period of time. In con~ Rabbi • HCff.08 e1nploys this te1111 to denote a pc1111aoent · • 41 Lithuania, 1878 - lsnel, l9S3.p Rabbi Av1aba111 hajah Karclitz, 1-ldZon lsh on Yorch De'ah Ocrusalem, 1941), I 19: .2.

43 Rabbi Karclitz is the tint to apply such criteria to the realm ofgiyy,,,. However, it should be noted that the idea that consistent pufonnancc of Torah docs not suffice to charactemc a pcnon as fully Jewish already existed in Hungarian UltraOrthodox circles in the mid-nineteenth century. Thus, Rabbi Moshe Shick writes that it is perfectly posu"ble that a Jew fuDy Qbscrvcs the Sabbath and yet is an apostate because 'he docs so out of his own volition, either bcca11se he is used

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Aaitpt4na IIS subjeaivt intmt to doing so and he follows the custom of his &thers, or beca,,se it is pleasant for

him to observe'. Shick also states that the only mode of observance that is not apostasy is that which drives 6:om acknowledgement of 'the binding power of the Sioaiti.c vow' (Raponsa MJWll'am Sindt, Muokac, 1881, Orab Hayyim. #281). For an analysis of this position see Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar, Circles cfJewish ldentit) (Hebrew) (Tel-Aviv, HaKibbutz baMeuchad Prcu, 2000), pp. 161-9.

1

4-4 Bnei B~ Ohel Yosef: 1982. 4.S These include: Rabbi Shmuel HaLevi Womer, Rabbi lsa2c Ya'akov Wem (head of the Ultra-Orthodox court ofJerusalem) and other members of the court, and Rabbi Benjamin Yehoshua Zilber. 46 Y. b. Z. Brand, Briti Yitzhalt (Bnci Brak, Ohel Yosef: 1982), p. 17. 47 Mishndr Torah, Hillehot M'lalthi,n (L4WS tf l(j,,,s) 8.11. 48 Y. b. Z. Brand, Briti Yitzhale, p. 18. See aJso Shmuel Eliezer Stem, Gerut lteHilJthatah (Bnei Be~ Mayyim Hayyim Institute. 1998), p. 21. 49. Ibid., pp. 75-6. so Ibid., p. 85. 51 Compare the analysis and critique by Rabbi Yo'ezer Ariel, 'Bittul Gerut leMafrc'ah' [Retroactive Annulment of GifY1"1, Tthumin 20 (2000), 261-79, especially at p. 271. 52 As we noted above (p. 243) Rabbis Shapira and Unterman explicitly state that even absent acceptance of the commandments (in the sense that these rabbis hold to be cuticct), gi'yyur cannot be invalidated ex post focto, .SJ Rabbi Herzog did not publish his own Raponsa. Rather, they were collected and edited posthumously by others.

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

2 5I

1.. Ex post facto annulment of giyyur

The Shullu,n Anuleh writes that the acceptan,:e of the commandments is ao event that should take place in the presence of three, during the ceremony ofgiyyu,. In the previous chapter, we analysed the development within modern Ultra-Orthodox baJakbab of a novel view. On this view, the event that must take place at the rime of giyyur is an inte111aJ one: acceptance of the coinrnantbnents mean, internal subjective commitment at the time ofgiyyur to practice all the commandments. This definition gave rise to an epistemological problem that bad not existc:d when acceptance was defined as a performative act: the event had to occur in the presence of three, but how could a court ascertain the occurrence of a completely internal subjective intent intent? Rabbi Grodrinski attempted to solve the problem by noting its limited scope: in general, he pointed out, halakhahh assumes correlation between the proselyte's declaration of commitment to praxis, and her inter,,al intent. Thus, pMUIfa any proselyte who makes such a declaration is considered to have the approptiifte interr•al intent. Only in specific cases might this general rule be suspended, by the principle of confirmed presumption. This principle should be applied by the court only when clear dmonance is apparent between the proselyte's life-context at the time and her declaration of commitment. However, even those twentieth-century balakhic authorities who raised the possibility of a giyyur being invalidated due to an assumption regarding the absence of internal commitment to observance, tended to focus on the policy implications for a court reviewing the suitability of a candidate who has applied for giyyu,. I.e., they sought to deter a court from accepting such candidates, atg1Jing that the ceremony might well be non-effective due to the lack of appropriate commitment. It was exttemely rare even for rabbis of this school to invalidate a proselyte 1 who bad already ,,ndergone giyyu,. Indeed, this is not swprising. for as Me-nachem Finkelstein points out, ex post f«to invalidation of giyyur 'is in contradiction to the basic principle of the finality of giyyur once the proselyte has ''immersed and come up'' '.2 However, in the latter part of the twentieth century, a revolutionary development took place. Several rabbis developed an innovative method to overcome the hypothetical character of the evaluation of the proselyte's inner intent. They argue that the proselyte's inner intent at the time ofgiyyur

of,,,,_..

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Annubnmt ofgiyyur

is reflected in her subsequent actual praxis. If after giyyu, she does not observe the commandments, this serves as unimpeachable proof with reg,irti to her original (defective) intent. Available evidence indicates that the first rabbi to publish this position is Rabbi Yitzchak Brand, who writes: It is obvious . . . that in cases where there is indication that she does not will to accept the commandments, then, due to lack of acceptance the giyyur is totally annulled. This shall become cl~r over the course of time: if she subsequently &ils to observe the commandments, she is considered an absolute Gentile. 3 While Brand's book was published with the approbation of important Ultra-Orthodox authorities,• his radical innovation does not seem to have had any public effect. However, such effect was achieved by a certain Rabbi Gedalya Axelrod, who in the early 198os was a member of a rabbinical court in the city of Haifa. We devote the ren1ainder of this chapter to an account of the bold reforn1 he has led in the realm of giyyu,. At the beginning of I 98 3, Rabbi Axelrod addressed a balakhic query to Rabbi Y osef Shalom Elyashiv, one of the leading authorities of UltraOrthodox 'Lithuanian' society in Israel 5 Rabbi Axelrod writes: It is known to me, that there are many persons who underwent a procedure of giyyu, (ma'aseh ge,ut) in the Holy Land, by an Orthodox rabbi, but had no intent whatsoever to accept upon themselves the yoke of Torah and commandments. It is clear that their declaration made in the presence of the rabbi overseeing the giyyur that they accept upon themselves to observe, to perfurm and to uphold [the commandments) was merely lip-service. Is it the duty of a rabbi registering them for marriage to investigate and to interrogate the proselyte who applies for marriage with a (born] Jew or Jew~, if they indeed intended to accept upon them.selves Torah and commandments?6 Rabbi Elyashiv responds as follows: It is very simple, that there is no (valid) giyyu, without acceptance of Torah and commandments. And if the proselyte has no intention to really become a Jew, to take shelter under the wings of the Shekhinah to observe the Sabbath without transgression and to uphold the covenant, and his only objective is to attain his material goals and to 6.1161 his desires, the giyyu, lacks all validity . . . and since . .,. according to your question - many of the proselytes are of this type, there is a duty incumbent upon the

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

253

rabbi regicering the marnal" to investigate and to int.e11ogate bcfi>re ht- issues a mama&" pa1,1it for tbe111. So that Gentiles will not mix in with the Holy Seed ...7 Rabbi Axelrod presents to Rabbi Elyashiv a (.ettain picture of reality, according to which (lax) Orthodox rabbis accept for giyyu, persons who dec)a~ that they co11unit the11aselves to observe the commandments but in &ct have no intention whatsoever to do so. He mt.es that this ttate of affiairs is 'known to him', and proposes a plan of action: placing the responsibility for the validation of these proselytes' Jewishnen upon the marriage registrars. According to the precise phrasing of the questi~n, what the registrars should check is whether the proselyte had the proper inter11aJ positive intention - commitn1ent to observe the commandment - at the time of giyyu,. Rabbi Elyashiv takes no position with regard to '&cts on the ground'. His Responsum is phrased as a reply to the state of affairs posited by Axelrod. He states that if indeed a proselyte was totally lacking in subjective religious intent at the time of6'11•r and was motivated only by ulterior objectives, he is not a Jew. ~,1miog the co11ectness of the &cts reported by Rabbi Axelrod, Rabbi Elyashiv deter,r•ines that it is indeed incumbent upon the marriage registrars to investigate, before allowing such persons to register for marriage with born Jews. As opposed to what Rabbi Axelrod suggested, what Rabbi Elyashiv rules is that the registrars must check ifat the time ofgiyyur there had existed external circwmtmces that indicated intemal negativt intent of the proselyte invalidating her declared commitment to praxis (i.e. whether there were sufficient grounds for a 'presumed aMumption' at the time of giyyur, or.gating the validity of the acceptance of commandments). Rabbi Elyashiv's ruling is thus still within the conceptual fiamework proposed by Rabbis Grodzinsky et al., and he thus does not accept the more radical 'Protestant' innovation proposed by Axelrod, who seeks to require positive validation of the proselyte's intent. As we shall see further on in this chapter, Rabbi Axelrod returns to this mue more explicitly in the mid- 19905. Nevertheless, the historical significance of Rabbi Elyashiv's n1ling is tremendous. From earliest times, the men1bers of the court of giyyu, were entrusted with the function of guardians of the threshold ofJewishn~: only if they accepted a Gentile as a worthy c.aodidate could he undergo giyyur. However, if in the court's judgement the Gentile was indeed worthy, and he underwent a proc~ of giyyu, under their auspices, he had it1evocably crossed the threshold into Jewishn~ and had become a Jew once and for all. Rabbi Axelrod casts aspersion upon the rabbis of Israel. He claims that they had betrayed in the task entrusted to them, and &iled to prevent the

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Annulmmt ofgiyyu, infilttation of Gentiles into the Jewish ranks- Therefore, a new line of defence was required. This line would be manned by the marriage r1:gisttan, who would deny the pos.v.bility of marria~ to insincere proselytes. Rabbi Elyashiv does not specify how the registrars were to check if the proselytes' intention had been invalid at the time of giyyur. A reasonable inte,pretation would be that the registni- might employ the principle of 'con£• med presumption', i.e. check the conditions obtaining at the time of the original giyyur, when the proselyte had accepted the commandments. One thing is clear· Rabbi Elyashiv does not propose that the criterion for deu:r11iining such insincerity could be (non) observance of the norms of balakhahh at the time of regi1tration for · . Rabbi Axelrod then embarked upon a public campaign, in the course ot which written declarations were signed by several very prominent UltraOrthodox authorities, including one signed by Rabbis Elazar Menahem Shach, Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Y aakov Israel Kanievsky,8 another signed by Rabbi Isaac Y aakov Weiss. head of the Ultra-Orthodox Edah Haredit rabbinical court in Jenisalem and all the other members of that court, 9 and a third signed by Rabbis Shmuel Womer, Shlomo Zilhetstein, 10 Nissim Karelitz and Natan Gestatner. Significantly, while all of these authorities accept Axelrod's novel suggestion that the registrars should be required to investigate the validity of the giyyur of proselytes seeking to marry, they specify that the way to do this is by checking what happened at the time of the original gi71"r, i.e. if during the original procedure the proselyte had lacked a sincere commitn1ent to observe the commandments. Like Rabbi Elyashiv, they too do not propose that the registrar could dete111iine anything relevant by checking (non-) observance of the norms of balakbab at the time of registration for marriage. 11 However, Rabbi Axelrod composed a halakhic trearise in which he takes a crucial step beyond previous positions. He argues that the criterion for registering a proselyte for marriage should be observance of a balakhic lifestyle at the time of registration. If a proselyte came to register for marriage but did not seem to be observing the commandments, the registrar should interpret this as reflecting lack of sincere commitrnent at the time of giyyur. If so, the certificate of giyyur in the (so-called) proselyte's possession bad been obtained fraudulently, and he should not be considered a Jew. In this treatise, Rabbi Axelrod claims that ex post facto invalidation of giyyur when the proselyte failed to lead a halakhic lifestyle is explicitly supported by the entire hal.akhic tradition, including the Talmud, Maimonides, the Arba'ah Turim, and the Shulhan Arukh. As we noted above, this was not the position even of the most prominent Ultra-Orthodox authorities, with whom Axelod was originally in contact. However, Rabbi Axelrod found three lesser rabbis who 4

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

2 SS

2 56

Tra,aefon,,i,tg 1'atlily supported his novel position: Rabbis Joel Kloft, Shlomo Tench and Shlomo Sbi11tsbon Karelitz. •a Rabbi Kloft wrote to Axelrod three weeks after Elyashiv's XI!. , that since the great Rabbi Elyashiv bas ruled on the matt.er, it is im~rative to follow bis guidance. According to Kloft the upshot is that 'the t'WstW' should investigate if the proselyte fully and completely observes the Torah of Israel, and if he is not observant, he is a complete Gentile'. 13 On Is November 1983, Rabbis T eneh and Karelitz concurred. K.arelitz writes: 'It is our duty to investigate and find out if indeed this proselyte who comes before the registrar is a real proselyte and observes what he promised at the time of the giyyu,. ' 14 Teneh agrees and writes that since Rabbi Elyashiv has ruled on the matter, it is incumbent upon the marria~ regisants 'to check at the time of registration if the proselyte w~ still righteous and obscIVaDt of Torah and cornmandments'. 15 Quite unlike Rabbi Elyashiv himself, these three rabbis focus on the proselyte's behaviour at the rime of regi,aarion for m · as the crucial · t of his Jewishness. Rabbi Axelrod convinced two other rabbinical judges to fo101 an 'action committee' with him, and on 31 August 1983 16 they sent out copies of the acarise to all the tna1'mgc registrars in Israel. The pwpose of the action committee was to enlist the registrars as guardians of the threshold of the Jewish people, i.e. even if the 'proselyte' had 'fooled' a rabbinical court into enabling him to undergo giyyu,, his intent to join the Jewish people would be thwarted by his inability to marry a Jewish spouse. Subsequently, the committee conducted a campaign to force the Chief Rabbinate of Israel to disqualify all certificates of giyyu, that bad been issued to proselytes who &iled to follow a balakhic lifestyle after undergoing giyyur. They convinced one hundred and eighty rabbis to s.ign a manifesto phrased as follows: We the undersigned, rabbis and rabbinical court judges in Israel, request you to examine the lifestyle of hundreds and hundreds of proselytes in the kibbutzim, in the cities and elsewhere, and to ascertain if they observe the commandments - or if they received certificates of giyyu, through deceit and their giyyu, is &Jse-17 The logical ground of Axelrod's innovatio~ as supported by the three rabbis' letten and this manifesto, is the existence of a dichotomy between two possibilities: either the proselyte observes the commandments at the present time, or his giyyur is dete11t1ined to be retroactively invalid and he is not Jewish. This does not accord with the Y evamot paradigm, according to which 18 'Once he has immened and come up, .he is like a Jew in every respcct.' It docs not accord with the Demai paradig111, according to which 'A proselyte

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Annulmmt ofgiyyu, who took upon hitmelf all matters of Torah, and is suspected [of nonobservance] with regard to one matt.er, even with regard to the entire Torah - behold, he is like an Israelite apostate', 19 i.e. a Jew nevertheless. It does not even accord with the positions of Rabbis Grodzinski a.al., who raise the possibility of invalidating a giyyur only on the basis of a 'confi am~ presumption' with regard to the proselyte's mind-set at the moment of gi17"r itself. In brief, Rabbi Axelrod has initiated a transformational ha1akbic change. While an individual rabbi may come up with a novel interpretation purely as the result of an intellectual speculation, the willingness of many rabbis to support such an innovation may indicate that beyond ha1akhic reasoning per se, additional considerations have an effect. Close reading of Axelrod's treatise reveals at least some of these factors. He writes that in the past, giyyu, had been in the hands of the regular rabbinic courts that could be relied upon to accept only worthy candidates. However, 'in recent years, with the establishment of the preparatory schools (ulpanim) for giyyu,, and the removal of a large number ofgiyyu, processes from the jurisdiction of the [regular] rabbinic courts',l,O the situation had taken a tum for the worse: And the judges of the [regular] rabbinical courts had warned of this praxis in their conventions in 1979, 1980, 1982, 1983. And they had unanimously decided to tum to those responsible for giytur in Israel, calling upon them ensure that giyyu, would be performed only in the regular rabbinical courts . . . and that the giytur of soldiers be perfo1111ed not by the Israeli Defence Forces' 21 rabbinate but transfe11ed to the jurisdiction of the regular courts. Clearly, a central concern expressed in this text is that of jurisdiction. A matter previously under the monopoly of the regular rabbinic courts had been transfe11ed to the jurisdiction of 'special' courts established for that purpose. What this text fails to mention is that the 'special' courts were established in response to the perception that the regular courts were rejecting most candidates for giyyur. The regular courts were predominantly staffed by Ultra-Orthodox rabbis, while the 'special' courts were staffed by relatively moderate Orthodox rabbis. The arnpaign of the rabbinical judges was thus a campaign to preset vc the hegemony of the Ultra-Orthodox 22

vision of the meaning ofJewish existence. Since Israeli Jaw atuibutes legal validity to certificates of giyyur mued on the basis ofgiyyur ceremonies perfo1n1~ by the special rabbinical courts, the marriage registrars are required by Jaw to accept these certificates as evidence of Jewishness, and to register the bearers of such documents for marriage with a Jewish· partner. This creates a conflict between the novel view of Axelod a.al. invalidating the proces.,es ofgiyyu, that resulted in the

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

257

is.1Uing of those 1,.e,ai6&;ates, and the legal obligatiom of the registrars. Rabbi Axelrod addresses this problen1 directly, and writes: When there is a conflict between [Israeli] law and balakhah, the rabbi acting as marriage registrar is obligated by balakbah and not by law, and he is obligated by halakbah to refer the beatt.r of the certificate to the [regt,lar] rabbinic co~ and not to allow him to marry before clarification of bis status•.iJ Five yean after Rabbi Axelrod initiated bis novel move, Rabbi She'ary ashuv Cohen, chief rabbi and chief rabbini~ judge of Hai& (where Axelrod served as a rabbinical judge)~ attests that: It is quite common in rabbinical courts, that proselytes who under went gi-yyur according to halakbab under the auspices of rabbinical courts and outstanding expert rabbis, are interrogated later on by rabbinical judges to check if they are actually observant of the commandments. Some of them admit to the judges that currently they are not observant, and it sometimes happens that the court casts retroactive doubt upon the validity of the gi-yyur and refuses to confirm that they are Jewish even if for a brief period after their giyyur they observed the commandments and only later 'reverted [to a non-observant lifestyle]'.~ Rabbi She'ar-Y asbuv Cohen argues that this position is balakhically .mcuttect, ,.-, . since: It is wrong to check the observance of a proselyte who underwent proper gi-yyur under the auspices of a court and accepted the commandments upon himself. Ifhe later, God forbid, reverted [to secular behaviour], it is wrong to say that bis later behaviour reflects upon his earlier state and that bis original acceptance of commandments was not for the sake of heaven, because there is a presumption that a court of scholars does not allow a flawed result to occur_.is It is thus ~1ear that the rabbinic courts - at least those in Hai& - were oper;1ting against the expre~ ruling of the city's chief rabbi. This itself demonstrates how quickly Axelrod's innovation had been accepted by bis peers. With the p-mage of time, Rabbi Axelrod's position became even more exueme. His original fo11nulation was that the marriage registrars are 'required' to validate the certificates of giyyu, on the basis of the proselyte's current religious praxis. However, in 1995 he published a 'Responsum' in the official organ of the Israeli Rabbinical Courts. 26 This Responsum is a rehash '

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Annulmmt cfgiyyu, of the contents ofhis 1983 booklet, with several changes. One major change is that he now postulates that marriage registrars are forbidden by ba)akbab to arrange any marriage for a proselyte, without first validating the giyyur on the basis both of current religious observance and of religious observance during the period immediately following the giyyur ceremony. The &.ct that the proselyte presents to the reg'SCt-;tr a certificate of giyyur signed by the official Chief (Orthodox] Rabbinate of Israel is .ittelevant for the purpose of detetmining her eu11ent status: The certificate of giyyur is not considered by ha)akbab as a certificate ofJewishness, but only as a c.ertificate affirming that the bearer underwent circumcision and immersion in the presence of a court. But s/he nevertheless falls under the law that s/he 'should be regarded with reservation until his righteousness becomes apparent.'27 In the past, writes Axelrod, the presumption was that a person who underwent the process of giyyur would observe commandments, since the entire Jewish society was observant. However: All the Responsa that we quoted above, and others that we did not cite, indicate that in our times the presumption is that the intention of those seeking to undergo giyyur is, to mislead the court when they say that they will observe the commandments, while in their heart they are &r from such intent . .. and the court has no pe1111iAAion to allow those seeking giyyur to fool them.2 8 This paragraph contains two signifit;ant statements. One is that the general assumption with regard to all candidates for giyyur should be that they are cheats. This is diamet1ically opposed to the entire halakhic tradition, including even the views of Ultra-Orthodox rabbis from Grodzinsky to Elyashiv, who all assume that a proselyte's declaration is sincere unless proven otherwise. An attitude such as that expressed by Rabbi Axelrod is characteristic of individuals or groups who feel threatened by other groups with regard to their innetmost identity, and therefore respond by stigmatiution of those who 'threaten' them. The second significant statement by Axelrod is that the court has no discretion regarding candidates who are willing to profess commit111ent to religious praxis but may be misleading the court (as indeed all do): all such candidates must be totally refused access to giyyur. 29 Rabbi Axelrod's novel analysis leads him to issue unprecedented halakhic guidelines with regard to certificates of giyyur. · The [balakhic.] consequence of our discussion is that the following

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

259

260

Tranefon,,i,,g bltnlily wording must be added to certificat.es ofgiyyur. a. This certificate is valid only if its bearer observes Torah and comrnand111ena. b. The validity of this cer•i6cate is limited to [a cettaio] period of tim~ and must be renewed once a year.JO Accon:ling to this proposal by Axelrod, not only can giyyu, be retroactively disqualified. but it automatically becomes invalid if it is not renewed or if the 'proselyte' f.ails to maintain fully observant Orthodox lifestyle. Thus, only a person who was bom to a Jewish mother is irrevocably Jewish. All others are on eternal probation, and their Jewishness is always completely col.'lringent. This new c1eature - 'contingent Jew' - was never even imagined by the authon of the Demai paradig,11, let alone the authors of Tractate Y evamot who stress that even if the proselyte reverts to pagan behaviour immediately after immersion 'he is like a Jew in every respect'. Rabbinic authorities in Israel have not officially adopted this suggestion of Axelrod tk jurt. However, the ever-present possibility that a rabbinic court might retroactively cast aspersion upon a giyyu, that happened many years earlier means that the finality of any specific act of giyyu, is tk Joao eternally contingent. One result of this new mindset is that tracking the proselyte's religious behaviour after the gfyyur is regarded as meritorious. In 1997, the regional rabbinical court of Jerusalem composed a document attesting to the wc,1thjn~ of a person deeply involved in the teaching and acceptance of candidates for giyyu,. Inta aUa, they write: He is well known to us as righteous and honest, clean-handed and pure of heart, who faithfully performs his holy task . . . and also continues to track the proselytes' behaviour even after they undergo giyyu,, to verify that they continue to observe Torah and 31 commandments. In February 2005 the Knesset Committee on Aliyah. Absorption and the Diaspora was as,ured that for fifteen years there had been no case of retroactive ann11lment ofgiyyur. 33 However the &cts are othet\viSC- Thus, in 2002 a special rabbinic court for matters ofgiyyu, ruled that because of nonobservance after becoming a proselyte, the giyyu, of a certain Mrs X: 33 Is annulled because of doubt. We therefore rule that her status is that of 'indeterminate proselyte'. The halakhic implication of this ruling is that Mrs X is forbidden to marry a Jew unless she undergoes a new process ofgiyyu, and this should be made known to the marriage registrars. Similarly, she is forbidden to marry a Gentile. 3"

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

AltlaUlllfflt ofgiyyur

On this view, continuous perfo1n1ance of balakhah after the giyyu, ceremony is a sine qua non for the Jewishness of the proselyte. Lack of perfo101ance at any subsequent time can be construed as undern1ining the validity of the giyyu,. Should this occur the person may find herself in a much inferior position to where she was before: neither Jew nor Gentile, she is forbidden to contract marriage with any human being. In a later oflical document, composed by Rabbi A vraham Attiyah of the Ashdod Rabbinical Court, the Jewishness of a woman proselyte was completely annulled, based on her admittance that she bad not observed balakbab with regard to Sbabbat and &mily purity. After her giyyu,, she bad been married to a Jewish man in an Orthodox Jewish ceremony. However, Rabbi Attiyah stated that since it was now clear that she bad never been a Jewess, her marriage bad never been valid and no divorce was required to teto1inate it. In addition, he declared that the children born to the couple were non-Jews. 35 Developments such as those described in the present chapter and in the one before it demonstrate, that far from being a static and inert system, Ultra-Orthodox Halakbah has undergone tremedous change since the late nineteenth century, change that has dramatically accelerated since the 198os. In the historical perspective it may be said that within this particular mileu, basic aspects of halakhah regarding giyyu, have been totally refotmed.

Notes I

l

J 4

5

6

for examples of such invalidation sec M. Feinstein, Raponsa Ig,ot Moshe (New Yo~ 1959) Yoreh De'ah 1, 157; Menahem Mendel Panet, Raponsa Avnd Tzedele (Brooklyn, 2001), 27. Menachem Finkelstein, Proselytism: Halalehah and Practice (Hebrew) (Ramat Gan, Bar Dan University ~ . 1994), p. 328. Y. b. Z. Br.and, Briti Yitzhalt (Bnei Brak, 1982), p. 26. Sec above, Chapter 13, n. 39. Rabbi Elyashiv was born in Jerusalem 1910, served as a judge in the ISI2eli rabbinic court systCJ11 until 1974, and since 2002 has been regarded as the leader of the Ultra-Orthodox 'Lithuanian' public in Israel. for a brief online biography and overview sec http://he.wikipedia.org/wilri/%07%99%0"'95%1>7%A1% D1)6A3_%1>7%A9 DT)(,QC 5%07"9D_%0"'9o%0"'9C%07%99% 07%A9"°7%99%07'(,c)1 Rabbi Axelrod's query, dated 7 Adar 57•3 (20 February 1983), is quoted by Rabbi Elyashiv in his Raponsum dated Adar (27 February) of the same year. A photocopy of this Raponsum is appended to a booklet entitled 7lte Halalehic Value of A Certificate'!{ Giyyu, (Te'udat HaGiyyu, be-Mivluin HaHalaltha). This booklet W2S edited by three rabbis, H. Pardcs, A. Atlas and G. Axelrod, and was

I•

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

26 I

cim1lated to Israeli nbbinic marriage rrgisttaa1 on 2.4, Ellul S743 (2 ~1111,r,r

7 8 9 JO

11 12

1983). A copy of this booklet may be found in the Israeli National hoary, call 1111mber S286A.is44,. Rabbi Elyasbiv's Rapo,uu,,t was reprinted (with Rabbi Axelrod's naDM" deleted) in the anonymous book 1ltt Sc«,,"4I of tM Ftwgcd Giyya,ri,,t (Slu,'..,,;fdl lua-~ ltd-Mauyy~), The World Committee of Rabbis fur Matters of Giyy,,, Oerusalem, 1989), p. 230. The deletion ofAxelrod's name in this and other documents cited in this book lend credence to the :mumption that he is the anonymous author. In 199s Rabbi Axelrod published a voh1me of his collected Rapo,u4 under the title Migddl Tzofo,t (Hai&, sclfpublished), and in sections 29-31 therein printed much of the above material. .lbul. The final sentence is a dear allusion to Ezra 9:2. Cf. 1ltt Sam""1 of tM fi¥d ~ . p. 223. These nbbis signed on rs Sivan S744 (IS June 1984). Rabbi Elyasbiv also sigP~ this document. .lbuJ., p. 222 . ll,ul., p. 225 . Cf. above, note 6. Rabbi Kloft was head of a nbbinical court in Hai&, Rabbi Tench headed a court in T cl Aviv, and Rabbi Karelitt Wid a veteran j u • from an important rabbinic

&mily. 13 1JtL St""""1 of tM Forged Giyya,ri,,t, p. 23 I. 14 ll,ul., p. 232.

IS Ibid., p. 233. 16 The letter is dated 22 EDu1 5743. However, the photocopy of the document sent

17

18 19 20

21

22

23

24

out to the rabbis is slightly unclear and it might be 24 Ellul, i.e. 2 September. The letter is included in Axelrod, 1lre H""'1elric Value. Photocopies of the signed manifesto are reproduced in ~ &4n"4I of 1M Forged Giyya,ri,,t, p. 237 ff: The manifato is dated January 1985. Yevamot 47h. Ibid. 2.4 (p. 69). Our tr.msJation. Axelrod, 1lae Hauuthic Valut, p . 6. He refers here to the establishment by Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Chief Rabbi of lsrae~ of schools for the teaching ofJvdaism to future proselytes and of special rabbinical courts fur giyy,,,, under the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate. These: schools and courts, first otablished in the 197()5, were considered by Ultra-Orthodox rabbis to be following lax standards. .lbul., p. 6. Explicit across-the-board attack upon the validity of all cases ofgiyyu, conducted by the special courts for giyyu, may be found in later writin~ by Axclod. See fur example, Axclod, 'BeDinei Gerut', in Shurat ltd-Dilt (The Letter of tM ~ . Vol 7 Oerusalem, Sha'ar ha-M.ishpat Institute ofthe Directorate ofRabbinical Courts, 2002), p. 445-78; Axelrod; Rcsponsa M;,tL,1 Tzofu,, Vol 3 (Hai&, 5767/2006), Responsum 39. See also below, note 34. Ibid., (note 20) p. 7. Rabbi She'ar-Yashuv Cohen,' Ger she-Hazar le-Suro ve-Eino Shomer Mitzvot' [A Proselyte who Retracted and who does not Observe the Commandments), Torah She-B'al-Pth 29 (1988), 33-43, p. 33.

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Annulment ofgiyyur 25 Ibid., p. 43. 26 Rabbi Gedalya Axelrod, 'Observance of Commandments as a Condition for

(Valid] Giyy,d (Hebrew), in Shurat ha•Din ("IM Letta of the L4W), Vol. 3 Oerusalem, Sha'a, lul-Mishpat Institute of the Directorate of Rabbinical Courts, 1995), pp. 175--90. 27 Ibid., p. 189. The last sentence refen to Maimonides' Mishndt Torah, lau,s of Forbidden lnten:ourst, 13.17. However, the original meaning of Maimonides' proviso is quite different from the meaning attributed to it by Axelrod as no

28 29 30 31

32

33 34

35

disqualification of giyyu, is implied by this phrase (see Chapter 8 above). In addition, Maimonides applies this proviso only to proselytes who were not informed at all about the commandments and who underwent giyyur in an unofficial ad hoc court of laymen. Axelrod applies it to all proselytes, aero§ the board. Ibid., I 89--90. Thus, the court must be stricker than was God Himself; cf. the Midrash cited in Chapter 12, pp. 224-6. Ibid., p. 190. Official document of the official Israeli regjonal rabbinic court of Jen1sale111, dated 23 Adar Aleph 5757 (2 March 1997), signed by Rabbis Ezra B;itzri, Shlomo Fisher and Zalman Nehe111iah Goldberg - all prominent halakhic authorities. A photocopy of this document is reproduced in Filttziah Shel Giyyurim oh 'A.liW. [Fictitious Giyyu, or LJbtq, Jen1sal,..m, 1997 (no author, no publisher given). A copy of this publication is in the collection of Bar Dan University library. See the declaration by Rabbi Moshe Klein of the National Authority for Giyyu, th in the transcript of the committee's 2COt. If a &ther and son both ,,oderwent giyyu,. the son does not inherit 19 &om his &th~ upon the latter's death Wbil~ according to balakbab the testimony of relatives is not acceptable in court, pctsons who were related prior to giyyu, may testify in court on behalf of each other. 21>

The radical implications of these laws can hardly be overempbasi?ed, for they subvert the most basic foundations of social order and of morality by upsetting &mily ties ostensibly grounded in biological reality. Clearly on this view, giyyu, is a reconfiguration ofhurnao reality, which negates biological kinship in &vour of an acquired kinship identity presented as a new birth. .1.i Post-Talmudic sources tttaiin this perception of giyyu, as a quasibiological event. Thus, for instan'=e, in thirteenth-century Spain we find the following text: Question: Is it possible to grant a lnan with interest to a Jew who has lei the &ith? Infotm me of your view on this. Answer: In a ~ , Nahmaoides noted tbat it is per11utted to lend money with interest to an apostate Jew ... But if he dies, he (his corpse] does indeed defile the surrounding space, since his betrothal is valid, his divorce is valid, and his wife is forbidden to others until he divorces her. And even if a proselyte reverts to his prior ways, the law regards him as one of the seed of Israel, as we find in Y evamot.2.2

This concise l'U!:. states that the norms the Torah prescribes for the relationships between Jews can be divided into two types: the first type includes norms that cease to apply if the penon forsakes Judaisr11 fur another religion. Norms of the second type are not cootiogent on behaviour and, therefore, are never abrogated_ These nornis reflect a Jew's non-co11tiogent menibership in the Jewish collective. All such nornis, e.g. betrothal, divorce, and the defilement caused by the dead7 share a common denominator in that they refer to the physical identity of the member of the collective. The states that the same rule applies to a proselyte and to a Jew by birth with regard to both types of obligations, because the proselyte is considered as the seed of Israel. Another mediaeval sage who explicates a similar perception ofgiyyu, as

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Giyyur and Jewish idmtily

birth is Rabbi Israel Isserlein. 23 In his tteatise Temmat ha-Deshen,24 Isserlein discusses forbidden sexual relationships and mentions a well-known ba)akbic law whereby if a married woman had an adulterous relationship and thereafter was widowed, she may not marry the man with whom she conducted that illicit relationship. He rules that a similar prohibition applies if a man had an (illicit) 25 sexual relationship with his wife's unmarried sister and then 'his wife died'. Isserlein proceeds to state that this rule does not apply if a Oewish) married woman had sexual relationships with a Gentile, and she was then widowed and the Gentile became a Jew. He writes that in such a case the woman would be allowed to marry the proselyte even ifshe had intercourse with him when he was a Gentile. He explains this distinction as follows: We should differentiate the case of the wife's sister from that of the Gentile proselyte. Concerning the wife's sister, it is appropriate that she should be forbidden to her lover even 'if his wife died'. Concerning the Gentile, however, it is inappropriate to say so [that a Jewess is forbidden to marry her erstwhile Gentile lover], because after he undergoes giyyur, he is a different physis.~ According to Isserlein, if the Jewess and the proselyte decide to marry, she is not marrying the same man with whom she previously had intercourse and, consequently, there are no grounds for forbidding the marriage. This is thus a highly realistic characterization of giyyur as birth, not as a metaphor of spiritual transfonnation but as a new physical identity. Taking a realistic approach to giyyur as birth, Rabbi Eliezer W aldenberg27 proposes that giyyur can be viewed as a process analogous to biological birth in several significant dimensions: 'One who bas been circumcised and bas not immersed could be defined as similar to a foetus about to be born. ,.ia As we shall see below, this analysis ofgiyyur as a proce~ of birth enables Waldenberg to solve a practicaJ balakbic question and rule that, just as one desecrates the Sabbath to save the life of an unborn foetus, so should one desecrate the Sabbath to save a person whose life is endangered in the midst of the giyyur process, having been circumcised but not immersed. Indeed, Waldenberg reflects a prevalent approach in halakhic literature, holding that the stages in the halakhic giyyur ceremony represent a process of transition, which begins with the detachment from a previous identity and ends with birth into a new identity. We develop this issue in the following sectton. •

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

273

Giyyur as transition from one idmtity to another & we have seen in the course of this book, the procedure of giyyu, comprises (according to the Y cvamot paradigm) two rituals~ · · ·on and immersion. All authorities ~g; ee that immersion is the decisive stage of becoming a Jew. This presumption 11nderlics not only the explanations given to immc,sion itself but also the explanations given to the previous suges of the proce~. Our analysis will therefore open with a disc11mon of the meaning of immersion within the giyyu, ceremony.

Immersion in the giyyur ceremony According to the Y cvamot paradigr11, immersion is the decisive ritual that aansfo111is a Gentile into a Jew: 'Once he has immersed and come up, he is like a Jew in every respect.' The Talmud (Yevamot ,47b) explains the Baraita as meaning that even if a proselyte later relapses into his non-Jewish ways, his Judaism cannot be revoked. In Chapter 6, we discuMcd Talmudic understanding of immersion for giyyu,. We noted, 19 that in the context of giyyu, immersion is a mimetic act, symbolizing entry 'under the ~ of shelthiMh'. Based upon analysis of Rabbi Joshua's stress on immersion, we wrote that on this view immersion is the ritual exprasion of a female paradigm, basic to the giyyur of both women and men. We also suggested that en1ergencc of this new paradigm should be understood as Jinked to another transfo,m..ation that occurred in rabbinic culture during late antiquity: the switch from a patrilincal to a matrilineal deter 1nination of membership in the Jewish collective. In post-Talmudic literature, from the Geonim onward, we find explicit reference to the meaning of immersion. In a Geonic , the author e1plains why a repentant apostate is not required to immerse, as opposed to a proselyte who is indeed so required: He [an apostate Jew seeking to repent] is not a proselyte, who is required to immerse. A proselyte (immerses] to elevate him from Gentilehood, because his conception and birth were not in holiness. Whereas in this case, he [the repentant apostate] is a child of Israel. whose conception and birth were in holiness, and he docs not need imme1sion. 30 Identification of immersion as birth is the implicit ground of the text's argument; immersion is po1ttayed as changing the identity that was detennined by the proselyte's biological birth, and as characterizing him as 'conceived and born in holiness'. A striking instance of identification of proselyte immersion with birth

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Giyyur and Jewish ulmtity

as a Jew is provided by the highly regarded fust printed edition of Maimonides' Mishnda Torah:3 1 A. proselyte who enters the Congregation of Israel (Kehal Yr.sraeO is first required to be circumcised [before immersion). But ifbe was circumcised while still a Gentile, he should undergo Covenantal blood-letting on the eighth day after his giyyur. Similarly, a Oewish] infant who was born circumcised should undergo Covenantal blood-letting on the eighth day. 3a

This source relates to the case of a Gentile applying for giyyur. Maimonides states that he must undergo circumcision before entering the Jewish community. However, if when he applied for giyyur his foreskin had already been surgically removed in a non-halakhic context, he skips the stage of circumcision and becomes a Jew through immersion. Now according to this source, he is a new-born Jew. A.s such, his status is similar to that of an infant newly born to a Jewish mother who at birth was without a foreskin: he is required to undergo covenantal blood-letting on the eighth day after birth. This determination with regard to a foreskin-less proselyte thw wumes that a proselyte's birth qua Jew is effected by immersion. 33 Explicit characterization of immersion as the phase of 'birth' in the giyyur ritual was stressed in mode1n times by Rabbi Gedalya Felder, 34 who writes: 'Through immersion he becomes a new creature, as a newborn child; as one whose body has been renewed, he will also be renewed in his actions. ' 35 This interpretation of the meaning of immersion for giyyur places it in a different category from that of other immersions found in balakhic literature, whose function is purificatory. We here disagrP.C with Gedalyiah A.Ion who rejects this differentiation and holds that the immersion of proselytes was intended to purify them from the impurity ascribed by rabbinic tradition to all Gentiles. He argues as follows: It is not specifically stated in the teaching of the Tannaim that this immersion [for giyyur) serves to purify the proselyte from his Gentile uncleanness, and they derived this ha1akhah by analogy with Israel's entry into the Divine Covenant in the Wilde1n~. However, it was not the analogy that brought about this immersion, but the practice and the halakhah that caused the analogy to be made and ritual immersion ... to be ascribed to the early fathers of the nation for the purpose of their entering the covenant. Since it is unlikely that the immersion of the proselytes was primarily similar to the baptism of repentance ofJohn the Baptist

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

275

276

Trans.fon,1ifff lthtity or that mentioned in the Sibylline Oracles, a symbolic act for sanctifying the spirit, or a token of the acceptan~e of a new religion, after the manner of baptism among Christiam, we can only interpret this lustration according to its simple signific.ance, namely: that like all other balakhic immersions its purpose is also to purify the proselyte from unC"leanness~ to wit, the defilement due to Gentile status. 36

Analysis of this paragraph reveals that Alon finds no rabbinic source stating that proselyte immersion is purificatory. Alon clearly states why he decides to attribute to the rabbis who institute immeision a reason that they ignore: were he to accept what the rabbis themselves say on the matter, their views would be too similar to Christianity for Alon to stomach. However, Alon's position seems to us totally unconvincing. Firstly, because the rabbis themselves make no mention of purification in the context of giyyur - although nothing prevented them from doing so, had they thought it relevant. Secondly, purity in rabbinic Judaism is always cor,tingent: all pure persons or objects are susceptible to ritual contamination. If a proselyte's immersion is purificatory, his subsequent purity will always be contingent - as will be his Jewishness. But such contingency is expressly rejected by all rabbinic sources, as we have seen. Thirdly, the a priori avewon of Alon to any pomble similarity between proselyte immersion and baptism as practised by othen living in the £int-century Land of Israel is methodologically untenable. Indeed, John the Baptist was not a Christian, but a Jew. A more reasonable assumption would be that his views were affected by understandin~ of immersion prevalent in Jewish circles at that time. Moreover, many Christian scholan hold that Christian baptism derived, at least to a significant degree, from the Jewish giyyur ritual, and not vice vena. 37 Finally, Alon totally ignores the identification ofgiyyu, as birth, so basic in halakhic sources. On these gro•inds, the perception of the immersion for giyyur as different in purpose from all other immersions appears definitely preferable. Although the laws of immersion are the same for purification and for giyyu,, the purpose of the proselyte's immersion is not to extricate him from impurity. In~eed, in this context it should be noted that R ashi, the great traditional interpreter of the Talmud, expressly states with regard to a proselyte that 'his immersion is not because of impurity and purity, as are other immenions'. 38 The characteriqtion of immersion as birth into Jewishness also explains, inter alia, the determination by classic ha)akhic sources that the court's presence is required during immersion and not during circumci-

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Giyyur and Jewish identity

sion39• Since the court represents the Jewish people who the proselyte is joining by this new birth, the birth should take place under their auspices. As we summed up in Chapter 6, immersion existed in the culturalreligious code ofJudaism in late antiquity as a symbol for acq11iring purity and holiness, and for coming into the presence of God. However, it was the resonance of immersion with the universal human symbolism of birth that enabled it to become the central symbolic element of giyyur once Jewish membership became matrilineal. Thus, a former Gentile who immerses in water for the sake ofgiyyu, is transfor1ned and recreated. Emerging from the .waters of mikveh, he is newly-born, as an infant emerging from a mother's womb - a Jewish mother's womb.

Circumcision in the giyyur ceremony If immersion effects the proselyte's re-birth, what is the eidos of circumcision in the process of turning a person born as a Gentile into a person born as a Jew? Some sages explain circumcision as initiating the transition from Gentilehood to Judaism, perceiving it as the proselyte's detachment from his Gentile identity. As Rabbi David ibn Abi Zimra (Radbaz)40 writes, the effect of circumcision is that the proselyte 'has been detached from the collective of the heathens (klal akum)'.41 According to Radbaz, circumcision separates the candidate for giyyur from his primordial ties to the non-Jewish collective. As a result, his Gentile identity no longer exists. The realization that circumcision is the stage of separation from the proselyte's previous identity entails the conclusion that the sequence of the giyyur ceremony - first circumcision and Jater immersion - is meaningful. Separation from Gentilehood must come first, and only then is entrance into a new identity possible, by means of immersion. Is this perception shared by ha)akhic authorities? Early Ashkenazi tradition holds that the sequence is crucial; therefore changes in this order hinder giyyur. In his haJakhic handbook Klalei Milah, ~ Gershom hen Jacob • wntes: [H]e is never considered a proselyte until he is circumcised and has immersed: circumcision first, followed by immersion. Once, in Mainz, a proselyte immersed and was then circumcised, and all the sages of Mainz required another immersion, as we hold that 43 · ·""""· · ·on must be first. This source testifies to haJakhic praxis in twelfth-century Asbkenaz. The view that if circumcision did not precede immersion the giyyur is invalid was also accepted in Provence, as reflected in the following report with regard to the rabbis of Lunel:

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

277

First · · ·on and then immetkon, but vice-vena - not. He should inm.etse after the · am · ·on. And this was what was indeed req11ined in the event in Ll1nel, as we heard from Abba Mari and his colleagues, of bles.,ed memory, who demanded [of a proselyte who had unn1et~ and then circumcised] that he immerse [again) after circwrtcision.... Moving from Ashk,-naz and Provence to Spain, we find an interesting couuoveny surro11nding this issue, in the course of which basic principles gover,,ing the relationship between circumcision and immersion are explicated. Nahmanides holds that while, ab initio, circumcision should indeed precede giyyu,, neveithdcs:

if he first immersed and was circumcised later he is a proselyte, regardless of whether the sequence was circumcision and immetsion, or immersion and circumcision.45 Nahrnanides' disciples, however, disagree with their teacher's view on this question. Thus, his disciple Rabbi Shlomo ben Adret (Rashba) writes: I bold, however, that circumcision must precede immersion (and if not] - this is a hindrance [to the validity of a giyyu,i .... (S]ince immersion contaim the core ofgiyyu,, involving exit from Gentile impurity and entrance into the sanctity of Israel, it should come at the end. 46 R ashba's argument is based on the view that immersion is the crucial ritual constituting giyyu,. Circumcision is merely a precondition to immersion but a neccs.ury one. Rashba proceeds to draw an analogy between the sequence of stages in the giyyu, ceremony and the order of ritual acts enabling Jews to use tableware purchased second-hand from a Gentile. Just as the tableware should first be scalded in boiling water and then imm~ so in giyyu,, circumcision must precede immersion. Rashba thus compares the Gentile's circumcision to the scalding activity, which eradicates all traces of non-kosher food from the tableware and returns it to a 'neutral' state. Only then can immersion make it fit for use with kosher food. The analogy to giyyu,, then, is that circumcision removes the Gentile aspect of the proselyte's identity and places him in a 'neutral' state. Only then can immersion bestow upon him 'the sanctity of Israel'. Notwithstanding this argument, Rashba does not categorically deny Nahmanides' position, and admits that a gir,ur in which immersion preceded circumcision might be valid ex post facto. However, his colleague Rabbi Aaron Halevi,47 who was also a disciple of Nahrnanides, rules

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Giyyur and Jewish iJenlity unequivocally that 'if immersion preceded circumcision, he [the proselyte] must immerse again'.~ Rabbi Y omtov Ishbili (Ritba), a disciple of both Rashba and Halevi, supports Halevi and writes: •

When he is uncircumcised, immersion is not efficacious. Rather he is as a person who immerses while holding an impure creature in his hand. As proof, consider that if one buys from idolaters utensils that must be immersed and scalded in boiling water, the scalding comes first. And although regarding these utensils the procedure is efficacious even if immersion was perfo1111ed first, here it is different, since the impurity of the foreskin is absolute impurity.•9 According to this approach, the foreskin itself is such a distinctive symbol of a Gentile identity that without its removal it is impossible to enter Jewish identity. This analysis thus shows that despite the similarity between the proselyte's circumcision and the circumcision of a Jewish newborn, they differ in principle because the latter is a Jew even without circumcision, and his circumcision is meant to symbolize his entrance into the covenant of Abraham. By contrast, the proselyte's circumcision is intended to detach him from his Gentile identity. 50 Another perspective on circumcision as the first stage in progression from Gentilehood to Jew is suggested by Rabbi Yitzhak Rabinovitch. 51 He agrees that giyyur is a process that must begin with circumcision. He explains that removal of the foreskin separa~ the proselyte from the general category of Gentile, and includes him in 'the holiness of the seed of Abraham', the state that the entire people of Israel were in before the Sinaitic Theophany: The reason that we require circumcision of a proselyte is that our fore&thers made the transition from 'Noachides' to the holiness of Israel in stages. First, they acquired the holiness of the seed of Abraham [by circumcision], and from that holiness they later reached the holiness of Israel [by immersion] ... he is required to circumcise before becoming a Jew, so as to be in the state of holiness that Israel was in before the Sioaitic Theophany. 51

On this view, circumcision of a proselyte is not merely removal of an obstacle to becoming a Jew, but effects entry into a special category of persons, 'the seed of Abraham'. However, not all those who are of the seed of Abraham participate in the Sinaitic covenant. After circumcision, the proselyte has progressed in his transition from Gentile to Jew, but not yet reached his goal. As we shall see in the following section, the status of a

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

279

proselyte who is ·

but did not yet immerse is c special interim 1tate, betwixt and between Gentile and Jew.

•

From circumcision to immersion - an interim stage The Baraita in Yevamot 47 posits a time lapse between circumcision and immersion, as required for healing after circumcision: 'Once he has healed, we immerse him immediately.' If circumcision is the detachment from Gentile identity and immersion is the entrance into Jewish identity, an obvious question is how to define the proselyte's identity during the time between circumcision and immersion. It seems clear that at this stage, the proselyte is no longer a 'Gentile', since he has already been · ..u. but he is not a Jew either since he has not yet immersed. This is.me is addrmed in several balakhic sources. When asked to define the status of a proselyte who was been circumcised but not yet immersed, Rabbi David ibn Abi Zimn (Radbaz) 53 writes: Rf!g,arding his participation in alJ matters of holiness, and whether we consider his betrothal as valid, it is obvious he is not as a Jew in any way ... rather, he has been drtached from the collective of the heathens (klal 'akum) ... but he has not yet entered the Jewish collective (klal Yisrae~, until he immerses. 54 According to Radbaz, circ.,mcision separates the candidate for giyyu, from his primordial ties to the non-Jewish collective. As a result, his Gentile identity no longer exists - but he has n9t attained Jewish identity. Rather he is in a liminal ~tate, betwixt and between. ss The status of a proselyte during the period between circumcision and immersion was at the focus of a heated debate in nineteenth-century Jerusalem. In 1848, a Gentile originating from Morocco was accepted for giyyur by the Ashkenazi Rabbinic Court of Jerusalem and circumcised for the purpose ofgiyyu,. The following Shabbat, while the proselyte was still healing from the circumcision, one of the court's members, Rabbi Asher Lemel, info11ned him that since he was still a Gentile he was forbidden to observe Shabbat. 56 Rabbi Lemel ruled that the proselyte was obligated to desecrate the Shabbat, and forced him to write - an act whose perfo1n1ance on Shabbat is forbidden by balakhah. All the Sephardic and Asbkenazic rabbis of Jerusalem were incensed by Lcmel's behaviour, and wanted to censure him. Rabbi Joseph Schwartz wrote a detailed Responsum arguing that a proselyte in such an interim state should be regarded balakbically as in a double bind. He is forbidden to perfo1n1 acts that a Jew is forbidden to perfo1n1. However, Jews must continue to regard him as a Gentile ,intil after his immersion. 57

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Giyyur and fewish u/mtity

Rabbi Lemel refused to concede his mistake, and sought the support of a leading European ba)akhic authority, Rabbi Jacob Ftt)inger. s• Lemel explained that the person in question was forbidden to observe Shabbat:

(because] 'he is not a proselyte - until he both circumcises and immerses' (Yevamot 46a) ... and as long as he has not immersed he is not a proselyte, and he is still a Noahide ... Why, then, is he released from the commandment [incumbent upon Noahides] 'day and night [they] shall not cease' (Gen. 8.22) 59 that is incumbent upon him?6° Lemel did not acknowledge an interim state: sinc;e not yet a Jew, the circumcised person was still a Gentile. In his Responsum, Ettlinger writes that in all places where proselytes were accepted, they were never instructed to desecrate the Shabbath after circumcision. Lemel's argument seemed valid at fust sight, but:

On further scrutiny, however, I reali:zed that the law supports the custom. Logic actually appears to indicate it would be unreasonable to do otherwise, given that the proselyte's circumcision is 61 called berit (covenant] •• • and the Sabbath is also called a 'covenant' (Shabbat 132)- how, then, can we say that, after he has entered one covenant, he should be obligated to transgress the other covenant that the Holy One, Blessed-be-He, contracted with the people of Israel, who abide by his commandments? Therefore, in my humble opinion, it appears that, although he has not become a full-fledged member of the people of Israel until he immerses, nevertheless, once he entered the covenant of circumcision he was separated from the 'Noahides' ... Hence, also this person who was circumcised but not yet immersed is like one who entered the covenant, and is thereby separate from the other nations, and therefore he is no longer bound by the commandment to the Noahides 'day and night [they] shall not cease.'IU Like R.adbaz, Etdinger also rules that a proselyte who was circumcised but not yet immersed is in an interim situation, different from the status of a 63 'Noahide' but not identical to the stabls of a Jew. A similar situation is disamed by Rabbi Shalom Moshe Hai Gaguin:64 two Christian men from Aleppo came to Jerusalem in order to become proselytes. Should they observe Shabbat during the period between circumcision and immersion? Rabbi Gaguin ansv.-eis, basing himself on the Responsum of Radbaz, that they were neither Gentiles nor Jews and therefore:

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

28 I

If they did not observe Sbabbat, we are not required to punish them, for they have not yet entered the Jewish collective (K"'1 Yur«I). However, if they did observe Sbabbat, it is clear and simple that we should not punish them, for they have exited the Gentile collective from the moment they circumcised and 65 accepted the commandments. Schwartz, Ettlingcr and Gaguin recognize that a person who was circumcised but did not yet immerse is in a liminal state. He is clearly difkrent from Gentiles, but not a Jew. Each rabbi atte111pt$ to c....... the nature of this unusual interim situation. Rabbi Schwartz rules that he is both Gentile and Jew. From his own perspective, he has become detached from his Gentile identity, and thus is forbidden to transgress the rules of halakbab. From the perspective of the Jewish community, he is not a Jew and therefore all prohibitions that they apply to Gentiles apply also to him. The liminal stage is thus one of halakbic over-dete1n1ination. Gaguin holds a diameuically opposite view. Since this penon is neither Gentile nor Jew, he is not obligated by any set of nv1111s.

The three stages of the giyyur proass A complete characterization of all stages of the giyyu, process, fully aware of it as a transition from one identity to another and clearly identifying an interim stage, appears in the writin~ of Rabbi Joseph Engel:

66

For a person to become a proselyte, two acts are required: ren1oval of Gentilehood, and reception ofJewishness. And there is an interim reality between these two, as the Talmud writes (Sanhedrin 58b): 'He has been detached from the collective of the heathens (ltlal 'altum), but he has not yet entered the Jewish collective (ltlal Yis,ael).' And this is the significance of the circumcision and immersion of a proselyte, namely, the detachment of the foreskin removes Gentilehood, and the immersion bestows Jewishness.US does not and cannot apply to women proselytes. It should be noted in tlm context, that in Chapter 8 (pp. 159--62) we ctitomed at length an aspa::t of the giyyu,rituaJ that was current from Geonic times until the fourteenth century, i.e. the shaving of the proselyte's hair and the paring of the prosclytc'f nails. & we explained in that chapter, the ritual of shaving the proselyte'j body should be as detachment from a prcviuus reality that is descn"bed as a wality of 'de2tb'. This shaving, prescribed for the leper .md included in the purification of the Levites and in giyyu,, strongly rcsc1i1bles the meaning of · · · n in giyyu, as we- analysed it above - dttacbmama: &om a pttVious ncptive identity as a preparation for entering a new holy existence. The study of halakhic sources thus shows that the.TC is a ritual parallel to the proselyte's · · · n - shaving bodily hair (and paring the nails)- In some of the sources, this parallel pertains to both women and men. Yet, this ritual is more deeply rooted in ff!prd to fe111a~ proaelyta, since it dnws fnn:n the biblical model of the beautiful captive, as Cildained in rabbinical literature and in Nabmanules' commentary. HaJakhic tradition, then, prcxnts a model of fen,alll! giyyu, parallel to the basic structure of t from a previous identity and entrance into a new one. In male giyyu,, this structure is actualized through circumcision, followed by immenion; in fu111al,,. giyyu,, through shaving the head (and paring the nails), followed by immersion. Since the male giyyu, ceremony is the paradig,11, however, it is not surprising that the female parallel was not

T...,_

Digitized .by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Giyyur and Jewish idmtity preserved to a similar extent in halakhic tradition. Hence, circumcision is indeed a necessary condition of male giyyur, but this is not the case concerning the shaving of a woman proselyte's hair_ 51 Rabbi and Rosh Yeshiva of Ponovezh (Lith11ania), d. 1919. 52 Yitzhak Ya'akov Rabinowitz, aleher Yitzluik Oerusalem, Machon Yerushalayyim, 1990), section 31, p. 136. 53 Spain, Egypt and Safed, 1479--1573. 54 Radbaz (David ibn abi Zimra), Rnponsa .RJulbdz, Part 3, #479 (917). 5S We elaborate upon this below. 56 There is a Talmudic dictum that 'A Gentile who observes the Shabbat is liable for death' (Sanhedrin 58b). 57 Hebrew: Yah lo humm yis,ael vt-lwmrn goi. See Rabbi Joseph Schwmz, DMm Joseph Oerusalern. Israel Bak, 1861), Vol. 3, #24. 58 Gennany, 1798-1871. 59 In Sanhedrin 58b, this verse is midrashically applied to the ongoing activities of Gentiles and interpreted as obligating them not to cease from their toil. 6o Lemel's position is quoted in Rabbi Ettlinger's Responsuffl to him. C( Y. Ettlinger, Responsa Binyan Zion Oen1sal-em, D'var Yerushalayyim, 1989), Vol. 1, #91 . 61 C£ Shabbat 137b. 62 Y . F.ttlinger, Responsa Binyan non Vol. 1, #91. 63 It is neverthel~ worth noting that in his view, circumcision is not m~y a rer11oval of Gentilehood, as appcan from the Radbaz commentary, but also includes a positive dimension of 'covenant', which is not identical to the covenant of Torah and commandments between God and Israel. 64 Jerusalem, d. 1883. 65 Shalom Moshe Hai Gaguin, Samah Nefesh Oerusalem, Levi, 1903), 14b. 66 Poland, 1859--1920. 67 Rabbi Joseph Engel, Hosen Yosef (New York, Feldheim, 1945), p. 34. 68 Rabbi Joseph Engel, Beth Otsdr, Part 2 (Pieterkov, Kronenberg & Rosengarten, 19()8), p. 19. 69 Sanhedrin 65b. 70 Ibid. 71 Engel succinctly repeats this analysis in Gilyionei lui-Shas Oen1saJ,.m, HaMossad Lc'Iddud Limudei HaTorah, 1997), Y cvamot 46a, s.v. ein ga ad she-yunol vt-

yitbol. E. Y. Waldenberg, Responsa Tsits Eliuer, Part 10, #28. Mishnah Pcsahim 8.8, and parallels. See nn. 11-13, above. See: A. van Gennep, The Rita of Pass~ (Chicago, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961); Victor Turner, DrllffUU, Fields and Metaphors, Sy,nbolic Action in H"""'1I Society (Ithaca, Cornell University Pres, 1974); Mircea Eliade, Rites and Symbols of Initiation: The Mysteries of B;,th and R.tbirda (New York, Harper and Row, 1975). 76 Citations are from the passage by Engel quoted above.

72 73 74 75

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

295

n 78 79 8o 81 82

83

84 8s

86

Tim ctifF.e,enu. however. might be a tiiga1i6caot chao the previous one. given de! the court may be considered a representative of the cnti~ Jewish people (c.£ Chapter 9). See. tor example. Bnchot 31b. Spam. tbieremth century. B. Asbkma'ri. ShitMt MdNhtsd, Ned?rim 1,a. Salonika. 1soo - Safcxl, 1s8o. M. b. J. Mitrani. Rapo,tso lu,..MJll,it Oermale~ 1974), Part 1, #337. 1~199s (lsnel). Rabbi Sa,,J ~ 'Ger shc-Niqpyyer ke-Katao ~Nolad: Tokboo uMuvano', Torola slte-b'Al Pt ~ (1988), 22 8, pp. 2s--6. Rabbi Goren (191.,....1994) w Chief Rabbi oflsnel dl,ring the years 1973-1983. Rabbi Sblomo Goren. 'Am:pbnce of a Prmelyte Who Rejects Meanbcnhip in the Jewish People' (Kef,,o b'Aln Yasnatl le-'bsyona Giyyt,,). SI,.,. b'Sluma (1983), 149-S6, p. ISO. See also Rabbi Eliyahu Babbi-Doron, Rapo,tso 8usyu,n Av 1912). part 1. #22. Cf. Maimonides, . , , lua-Ratbom (Epistles of Maimonides), Y. ShiJat, ed., Oerusale111, 1987), Vol. 1, p. 214. See Shlomo bco Abrabahm Adcret, Rapo,tso ltd-Riultbo otttiln,tetl to Nalrmattides Oerusale1n, 1990), #288, stating tbat the source of the obligation 1Y?g.arding obaervaoce of the Torah is 'majority acceptance'. For a detailed discussion of this issue sec Rabbi Jwhb 'Ayasb, Rapo,tso Btdt YeluuWt (Livomo, 1746), Hoshcn Misbpat, I. Aud COIDF3!"C Rabbi Hann Hinchensohn, El,I,. Divrti "4Brit, Part I 19~). pp. 73-s, part 2 Ocrusalem, 1928) pp 120-2. And see the analysis of Hincbemobn's position by David Zobar, ]twislt in o Modem Wotltl: R""6i Hayyi,n Hindrotsoltn tllld his ottitude towanls Motlanity (Hebrew) (fel Aviv and Jerusalem, Sbalnm Hartman Institute, ~3), pp.

acrusa1em,

87

88

aerusa1~

169-76. 89 Shvu'ot 39L 90 Compare Rabbi Joseph Dov Solovcitchik, 'Kol Dodi Dofck', in Bernard H.

ROICDberg and Fred Heuman, 11uologicdl and Halalthic Rejleaions on tM Hol«d,,st (New Jersey, Ktav, 1992), pp. 81-9. 91 See Chaptcn 3 and 4 above. 92 See Chapter 4 above.

93 For an analysis of this position see Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar, Citda tf]twisl, Identity (Hebrew) (Tel-Aviv, Hakihbutz haMeuchad Pless, .2000), pp. 161-9. And compare the implicatiom of the fioal clause of the Zoharic position (above, note 16) · Rabbi Jaffe's explanation of giyyu,.

Digitized

by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Bibliography

Primary sources Introductory note Any mention in the text or bibliography concerning the Mishnah, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud, Midrash Rabba, Mishneh Torah (Maimonides), Tur, and Shulluin An,kh refers to the standard editions. The English translation is ours.

Bible and commentaries Tanalth. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society: 1985. The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, online text at Electtonic text center, University of Virginia Libraiy: http:/ /etext.vir-gioia.edu/rsv.browse. html The Holy Bible Translated from the LAtin Yul.gate online at: http:/ /www. catholicfirst.com/bibledrv.cfin previously found at http://www.cybercomm.net/~dcon/drbible.html The Holy Scriptures, Fisch, H. (1977, ed.). Jerusalem: Koren. New English Translation, online at www.netbible.com Paton, L.B. (1908/1992), A Critical and Exegetical Commmta,y on the Book of Esther. New York: C. Scribner. Scott, R . B. Y. (1965), The Anchor Bible: Provt,bs and Falesiastes. New York: Doubleday.

Talmudic literature Avot deRabbi Natluin, Solomon Shechter (ed.). New York: 1967. Babylonian Talmud, Schottenstein edition. New York: Mesorclh Publications: 1999. Gerim, Higger, M. (ed.). New York: 1930. Melthilta deRabbi Ishmael, Horovitz, H. S. and Rabin, Y. A. (eds).JenJsaJem; Shalen1: 1960.

Mekhilta deR.abbi Shimon Ba, Yoluii, Epstein, Y. N. and Melamed, E.T. (eds). Jerusalem: M'Jr;tt.ei Nirdamim: 1955. Midrash Mishle, B. L. Visotzky (ed.). New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1990. Midrash Tanhuma, S. Buber (ed.). Jerusalem: Eshknl: 1972.

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

y, E. A. Finkelstein (ed.). New York: Jewish Theological

Sife

Seoaioary: 1969. Sif,a, H. S. Horowitz, (ed.). Jerusalem. 1966. TM T""'""' widt varu,nt rtMlings, Tr«l4te Ytvam0t (II), A. Lw (ed.). Loudon: Jostitute for the Complete Israeli Talmud: 1996. TM Toseft4, J. Neumer (tr.ans.). London: Peabody and Hendrickson: 2002. Toseftt,, S. Liebe1n1;1n (ed.). New York: 1955-1988. Toseft4, Zuckermandcl, M. S. (ed). Jerusalen1: Wahmrm Books: 1970.

Post-Talmudic literature Abraham son of Maimonides (1938), Rapo,ut,. Jerusalem. AJC»i, Y. (1969, S. Nis,ant ed.), ffiUthot Rav A.lfas. Je.n1salen1: Momd HaRav Kook. Ab,aham Min HaHar (2000, A. Arieli, ed.), ~ Omtmenta,y '!_( R4bbi A.brdMffl Min HJJHar on T,""4U Ytvamot. Jerusalem. Arik, M. (1978), R.esponsa Imm Yoshtr. Jerusalem.. Asbkeoari. B. b. A. (1989), Sltitt4 Mequbetzet. Bnei Braq.

&bkenari. B. (1973), Shil4lt Mdtubaset. Jerusale111. Axelrod, G. (1975), 'Observance of Commandments as a Condition for (Valid] Giyyu,' (Hebrew), in Shurat Jui-Din(~ Letta of the Ldw), Vol 3, Jerusalem: SluJ'ar lui-Mishpat (Institute of the Directorate of Rabbioical Courts), pp. 175-90. ---1(1989), ~ Halalthic Val~ of A Cntifa4te of Giyyu, (Tt'ud4t HdGiyyur bt-Mivlu,n HaHal4Jehd) (Hebrew). JerusalenL --(1995), Migdal Tzofim. Hai&_ 'Ayasb, J. (1746), Rnponsa &th Ydiu"4h. Livomo. Azulai, H. Y. D. (1798), R.esponsa Yosef Omns. Livomo. Baavad, D. M. M. (1931), Rapo,ut, Havatseld lui-SluJmn. Bilgorai: Kronenberg. Bakshi-Doron, E. (1982), Rnponsa Binyan Av. Jerusalem. Bamberger, I. D. H. (1965), Rapo,ut, Yad HALtvi. Jet1!saliem. Ben Shimon, R. A. (1908), Ntlw Mitsrayim. Alexaodria: Farag Hayyim Mizrahi. Ben Mattiyahu, B. (1959), Tesluwot Binydfflin ~'tv. Jerusal~m. Berdugo, R. (1891), Rapo,ut, Mishpatim Yesluaim. Cracow. Blau, M. Y. H. (1986, ed.), Sltit4t lui-lGulmonim k - ~ t Ytvamot. New York: Blau. Brand, Y. b. Z. (1982), Briti Yitzhale. Bnei Brak: Ohel Yoscf. Breisc~ M. Y. (1951), Rapo,ut, Hdltat Ya'akov. Jerusale111: Mahazikei HaDat. Caro, Y., &it Yosef, printed in ctaodard edition of A.rl,a'ah Turim.

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Bibliography --(1960), R.esponsa &it Yosef. Jerusalem. Cohen, S.-Y. (1988), 'Ger she-Hazar le-Suro ve-Eino Shomer Mitzvot' (A Proselyte Who Retracted and Does not Observe the Commandments), Torah She-B'al-Pth 29, 33 43. Da Fano, M.A. (1963), R.esponsa RAbbi MetUJhem Azariah da Fano.Jerusalen1. David ibn abi Zimra (Radbaz) (1972), Responsa Rmlbaz. Jerusalem. Deutch, E. (1909), R.esponsa P'ri luaSadeh, Part II. Faes. DiTrani, I. (1973), Pisltei haR.id on Tr«tates Yevamot and Ketubot. Jerusalem: Yad haRav Herzog. Duran, S. b. Z. (1891), Responsa Taslabez. Lemberg: SaJant.. Duran, S. b. S. (1968), .Responsa.Jen1saJem: P'er. Eidelberg, M. D. b. Y. (1922), R.esponsa Hazon 14-Mo'td. Bialistok: Mirski. Eliashar, J. S. (1892), Yisa lsh. Jerusalem. Eliezer bar Nat.an (1958), Sefer lua-RA'aban. New York. ---4(1984), Sefer Ravan. Jerusalem: W ~hall. Eliyahu hen Hayyim (1960), Responsa of R.aNaH. Jerusalem. Emden, Y. b. T. (1971), Responsa Sht'eilat Ya'avets, Parts 1-11. Jerusalen1. Engel, J. (1908), Beth Otsar. Pieterkov: Kronenberg & Rosengarten. ---c(l 945), Hosen Yosef. New York: Feldheim. ---c(1997), Gilyionei lua-Sluu. Jerusale111: HaMos.,ad Le'Iddud Limndei HaTorah. Epstein, H. F. (1914/1941), R.esponsa Teshuva Sh'kima. Vol. 1: Piotrikow; Vol. 2: St Lo,,is. Ettlinger, Y. (1989), R.esponsa Binyan·Zion.Jerusa1em: D'var Yerushalayyim. Feinstein, M. (1959), Ig,ot Moshe, Yoreh De'ah, Part I. New York. Felder, G. (1964), Responsa Sht'tildt Yeshunm. New York. Fiktziah Shel Giyyurim oh 'Alilah [Fictitious Giyyur or LJbeq. Jen1sal~m: 1997 (no author, no publisher given). A copy of this publication is in the collection of Bar Dan University librvy. Fink, J. (1971), :Judaism and Giyyu; (Hebrew), Noam, 14, 10-21. FTank, Z. P. (1962), R.esponsa HM Zvi. Jerusalem. Gaguin, S. M. H. (1903), Samah Nefesh. Jerusalem: Levi. Gershom b. Y. HaGozer, Dinti Milan uPri'ah veGerim, inJ. Glassberg (ed.), Zilthron Btrit LaRishonim. Cracow: Fisher: 1892. G~berg, J. (1892, ed.), althron &rit LaRishonim. Cracow. Glasner, M. S. (1901), Haqor Davar. Munkacz. Goren, S. (1983), 'Acceptance of a Proselyte Who Rejects Me11ibership in the Jewish People' (Kefi,a b'Am Yurael k-Inyanei Gi~, Sh4lt4 b'Shana, 149-56. Greenwald, M. b. A. (1991), Respons11 ~n,gat HaBossem. New York: Greenwald. Grodzinski, H. 0. (1939), Responsa Ahi'ezer, Part III. Vilna: Garber.

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

299

300

B;~wrplsy

Grunfeld, S. (1931), Rapon.u, MAH.RS,,,,,. Part I, Yoreh De'ah. Vrmov. Hacohen, M. S. (1981), Rapon.u, Olu Saaeah. Jerusale111. HaCohen, M. (1968), Raponsd Vt-Heshiv Moshe. Jerusalem. Hadayah, 0. (1935), Yasltil AMli, Part II. Jerusalem. Hagiz, M. b. Y. Y. (1970), Rapon.u, Shtd lui-Lelron. Jerus2Jen1. Hagiz, Y. b. S., Hdldleltot .Knannot. Jerusale,n. Hakohen, S. b. M., Ntqudot Halttuef, printed in standard edition of Shulhan Arulth. - - , Sifei Cohm, printed in ctaodard edition of ShuDu,n Arulth. HaLevi, D., Tm,i ZAluw, printed in ctandard edition of Shulluin Arukh. HaLevi, H. D. (1979-1989), 'Asda LtltJu, R.Jw. Tel Aviv. HaMeiri, M. b. S. (1962-1978, Dickr11an Edition), &it HaBeluro. Jerusalem. HanJn, E. (1897), Rapon.u, Ta 'olumot Lev. Alnandria. llexzug, I. H. (1960-1972), Raponsd Hdltlu,l YitzW. Jerusalem. - - , 'She'eilah biDvar Gerut', in S. Y. Zevin and Z. Warhafiig (eds), Mozltem (RJ,bbi llt,rzog MtfflOf'ial Volutne). Jerusalen1: Heikhal Shlomo: 1962. Hildeshcimer, A. (1969-1976), Teshuvot Riibbi Amel. Tel Aviv. Hirschensohn, H. (1926/1928), Eleh Divm lurBnt, Part I/Part II. Jerusalem. Ht•ffi•ian. D. Z. (1927), Rapon.u, Melamed Ltho'il, Part II. Frankfurt. Horowitz, M. ha-L. (1933), Rapon.u, Matuh ha-Levi, Part II. Frankfurt. Ishbili, Y. T. (Ha-Ritba) (1982, M. Golcktein, ed.), Huldushti ha-Ritba kMaselthet Knubot. Jerusale111: Moaad HaRav Kook. --t(1985, A. Dinin, ed.), Hiddu.shti ha-Ritba k-Mastlehtt Kuldushin. JerusaJ~: Mossad HaRav Kook. --(1992, R. A. Yefhen, ed.), Huldushti ha-Ritba k-Mastlthet Ytvam0t. Jerusalrm: Mossad HaRav Kook. --(1992), Hiddushti ha-Ritba. Jerusalem. Israeli, S. (1966), 'Amud HaYtmini. Tel Aviv: Moreshet. --t(1988), 'Ger she-Nitgayyer ke-Katan she-Nolad: Tokhoo uMuvano', Torah she-b'Al Pe, 29, 22-8. werlein, I. (1958), TauttUJt ha-Dahm, Pesakim u-Khtavim. Tel Aviv: Steiner. Isserles, M., Darlehti Moshe HaK.atsar~ printed in the standard edition of

A"'4'ala Turim. Jaft'e, M. (1968), Levush ~taet Zlhdv. Jerusalrm. Karelitz, A. I. (1954 1957), Hozon Isla. Jerusalem. Katz. Y. W., Derislu, u-Prisha, printed in andard edition of ArlM'ah Tunm. Kayyara, S. (1972-1987, N. Z. Hildesheimer, ed.), HaWehot Qdolot. Jerusalem; Mr-kiu Nirdamim. Kirschbaum, M. (1934/1939), Rapon.u, Mmahtm Meshiv, Vo1s. I and II. Lublin/Frankfurt.

Digitized by

Google

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Bibliography Kluger S. (1860), Rnponsa Tuv Ta'am vt-Da'at (1st edition). Lemberg. --1(1979), R.esponsa Tuv Ta'am vt-Da'at (3rd edition). Bnei Brak. Kook, A. Y. h.C. (1960), R.esponsa Da'at Cohm. JerusaJm,.; Mossad HaRav Kook. Landau, Y ., Dagul me-Revavah, printed in standard edition of Shulhan Arulth. --1(1969), Noda B'Yehuda. Jerusa1em: Shiloh. Lewin, B. M. (1928-1943, ed.), Otza, Ha-Gaonim. Jerusal~m/Hai&. Lipschitz, S. Z. (1922/1968), R.esponsa Henulat Shelomo. Warsaw: Yahadut/ Jerusalem. Maimonides, M., Mishneh Torah. Facsimile edition, Rome: 1480; Jerusalem:

1955. --1(1965, trans. I. L. Rabinowitz and P. Gros.vnao), The Codt of Maimonides: The Book of Holiness. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. --(1971, trans. and ed. Y. Kafih), &for Hamitzvot, Arabic Origin4l and Hebrew Translation. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook. --(1982, ed. S. Frankel), Mishneh Torah, The Boole of Torts. Jerusalen1: Bnei Yosef. --(1986, ed. J. Blau), Rnpo,ua. Jen1sal~m: Reuben Mass. --(1987, ed. Y. Kafih), Commentary to the Mishnah. Jerusal~m: Mossad HaRav Kook. --(1987, Y. Shilat, ed.), lgge,ot ha-RJunbam. Jerusalem. --1(1998, trans. S. Pines), The Guide of the Perplexed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Matalon, S. (1967), Responsa Avotlat Hashem. Jerusalem. Meir beo Baruch (Maharani of Rotheoburg) (1985), Tosefot Maharam oo Yevamot. New York. Mesas, J. (1968), Otza, ha-Mikhtavim. Jen1salem. - (1985), Rt$p0nsa Mayim Hayyim, Part 2. JerusalenL Meshulam hen Moshe (1965, ed. A Hafuta), Sefer ha-Hash'4mah on Tractak Yevamot. Tel Aviv: Y eshivat HaR.ambam uBeit Y ose£ Mitrani, M. b. J. (1974), Rnpo,ua ha-Mabit. Jerusalem. Mizrahi, E. (.itttib., 1705), Rnponsa Mayim Ammukim. Salonika. Moda'i H. (1692), Sha'arei Tzedele, Tshuvot ha-Geonim. Salonika. Moshe of Couey (1547), Sefer Mitzvot Qulol. Venice. --(1961), Sefer Mitzvot Qulol. JerusalP.111.: Monron. Nahmanides M. (1964), Hiddushim al haShas. Jerusalem: Or Olam. --1(1964), Hitldushim al haShas. Jen1salem: Or Olam. --1(1976, trans. and ed. C. B. Chavel), Commentary on the Torah. New York: Shiloh Publishing House. Ouziel, b. Z. (1977), Pisltei Ouziel. Jen1salem: M