Are all present-day conversions to Judaism inherently incomplete?
There are three requirements in Judaism that all potential converts must submit to for a complete and proper conversion, that is one that would enable them to become Jews in every respect:
- Circumcision (for men)
- Immersion in a ritual bath for both men and women
- Offering a certain sacrifice (in the Temple)
Some may be surprised to learn that the last prerequisite listed (that is sacrifice) is in fact a halachically necessary part of the conversion process. Of course, as everyone knows, in the absence of the Temple neither Jews not converts are authorized to offer up sacrifices at this time. And yet, our sages have not exempted any convert from this essential requirement. Are all modern conversions to Judaism therefore incomplete by nature and are all converts not yet full Jews until this important omission is taken care of (and by implications, are all converts to Judaism, in essence, still in the process of conversion)?
In the last week’s parsha, Shelach, we read a verse from which, among other places in scripture, our sages have derived this very requirement:
When a convert (ger) comes to live with you, or among you throughout the generations, and he offers up a fire-offering of pleasant aroma to G-d, he should sacrifice it just as you do. (Numbers 15:14)
In the post-sacrifice/post-Temple era our sages have wrestled with the implication of the above requirement for all of the would be converts. The stakes were and are high, of course. One such sage, Rambam, one of Judaism’s most influential philosophers and Torah scholars whose halachic opinions are greatly respected, has concluded that while the sacrifice portion of conversion may be permitted to be deferred until the Temple is rebuilt, its absence in the meantime means that all converts are not yet fully Jewish:
The Jewish people entered into the covenant [with G-d] through three things: circumcision, ritual immersion, and offering a sacrifice… So, too, at any later point when a non-Jew wishes to enter into the covenant… as the verse states, “just as it is for you, so shall it be for the convert” (v. 15) – just as you [entered the covenant] with circumcision, immersion and offering a sacrifice, likewise he is required to carry out circumcision, to immerse in a mikvah and to bring a sacrifice….
If a convert underwent a circumcision and immersion, but did not yet bring a sacrifice… the absence of a sacrifice holds him back from becoming a complete convert… like other authentic Jews… He is not permitted to eat from sacrifices, as he has not yet become like other authentic Jews (Rambam, Laws of Individuals Requiring Atonement 1:2).
A commentary on the works of Rambam, Tzafnas Pane’ach al HaRambam, tries to moderate Rambam’s conclusions by stating the following:
Only with respect to sacrifices we say he is not yet a complete convert, but in other matters he is considered a Jew in every respect. Therefore, in the current era, he loses nothing by failing to bring a sacrifice. ( Tzafnas Pane’ach al HaRambam 69a)
However, the Toras Manachem, as found in the Gutnick Edition of Chumash, in turn questions the conclusions of Tzafnas Pane’ach with these counterpoints:
However, this statement of Tzafnas Pane’ach is difficult to accept, as it seems to slight the status of the convert in the current era. How can we accept that every convert to Judaism since the Temple was destroyed has a certain deficiency, that he is not considered a Jew in every respect.
One solution would be to argue that the failure to bring a sacrifice in the current era does not affect the validity of the convert in any way whatsoever. Rather than being a personal deficiency it is a mere technicality that, in order to bring sacrifices, the convert’s own initial sacrifice must be brought first.
However, this answer is untenable, since Rambam writes explicitly that “the absence of the sacrifice holds him back from becoming a complete convert, therefore his is not permitted to eat from the sacrifices,” i.e. that the absence of a sacrifice holds back the completion of the conversion process. Thus, it seems that the deficiency is indeed personal.
The key to solving our problem lies in Rambam’s phrase, “the absence of the sacrifice holds him back from becoming a complete convert.”
It is not the case that the convert’s offering of a sacrifice actively completes the process of becoming Jewish. Rather, the emphasis is entirely negative, that the failure to bring a sacrifice prevents him from becoming Jewish…
The active entry into the covenant is achieved by circumcision and immersion. However, if the convert would fail to bring a sacrifice it would prevent him from becoming Jewish.
From this we can glean that the agonizing questions of validity, or, as I demonstrated above, at least of completeness of conversions to Judaism in the post-sacrifice/post-Temple era is a tough question for all Jews to wrestle with, and even more so for all the potential and current converts themselves.
If the inability (as opposed to any unwillingness) of a would-be convert to offer a sacrifice at the Temple results in the Gentile not being “fully converted” (can you be partially converted?) to Judaism, can the same logic be applied to Jews relative to their inability to offer the various Temple sacrifices commanded in the Torah?
I understand that prayers and acts of charity can be considered substitutes for the sacrifices as long as the Temple does not exist. Can not this “substitution” also be applied to the convert?
If none of this is acceptable, then men and women have been converting to Judaism in vain for the past 2000 years or so and they have not been Jewish, even though they have made a commitment to the Jewish people, lived Jewish lifestyles, been a part of the Jewish community, raised their children to be Jews, and died believing they were Jewish.
This certainly puts a “wet blanket” over anyone considering conversion since, based on the Rambam, their efforts and even their dreams may be useless.
“This certainly puts a “wet blanket” over anyone considering conversion since, based on the Rambam, their efforts and even their dreams may be useless.”
May be instead of being totally “useless”, there’s a delay, with the full Jewish status (that is actually becoming what Rambam terms “authentic Jews”) of all potential converts incomplete until such a time when they are finally able to complete all of the stipulated requirements. But if a convert is not yet fully Jewish now (according to Rambam and others) because of this one deficiency, it certainly has some implications for everyone involved here and now – can these “incomplete” converts even be considered “Jews” or are they still “G-d fearers”?
can these “incomplete” converts even be considered “Jews” or are they still “G-d fearers”?
That was my next question. Also, all of the converts who died over the last 2000 years died as “incomplete” Jews, at least according to Rambam. What is their status before God since, being dead, they can’t offer sacrifices once the Temple is rebuilt? What is their status in the World to Come?
I asked a question before and maybe there is no answer, but can a person be an “incomplete Jew”? Isn’t it a matter of either you’re Jewish or not? I know that some people who have one Jewish and one Gentile parent call themselves “half-Jews”, but there really is no such a thing. Either your mother was Jewish and therefore you’re Jewish, or not.
Another thought is that, suppose your mother (or grandmother, or greatgrandmother or…) was a convert and then she gave birth to you. If she’s not Jewish, guess what? You aren’t either. If a woman converted to Judaism 1000 years ago and then had children (who had children who had children who had…), all of that woman’s descendents, who probably fully considered themselves Jewish, aren’t. The conclusion is that there may be a lot fewer Jews on earth today than we realize, if you consider all of the “Jewish” people who have a convert in their lineage during the past 20 centuries.
“Another thought is that, suppose your mother (or grandmother, or greatgrandmother or…) was a convert and then she gave birth to you. If she’s not Jewish, guess what? You aren’t either. If a woman converted to Judaism 1000 years ago and then had children (who had children who had children who had…), all of that woman’s descendents, who probably fully considered themselves Jewish, aren’t. ”
James, I am sure that there are a lot of people walking around who think they are Jews but are not. Look, Samaritans thought that they too were Israelites and even called Jacob their father (in fact, recent DNA tests done on their descendants confirm that many of them have a Cohen gene!) – but Yeshua called them “foreigners”. Why? This tells me that perceived Jewish self-identity does not always equal halachic reality. Also, many of our sages taught that if a person is known as a Jew but has certain aspects of his behavior that are “un-Jewish” (e.g. “unkind”), then there may be a good reason to question whether he is descended from Jews and has a Jewish neshama to begin with! Also, in Judaism, there’s indeed such a thing as an improperly done conversion – which makes it invalid and probably affects all subsequent generations. In the end, I have to believe G-d will sort things out and will separate all foreigners from Israel as in the days of Ezra. Not in a racist way – some foreigners WILL join Israel and will live in the Land – but simply to identify who is indeed a halachic Jew and who is not. Nehemiah 13:3 is a good example of that, especially when it came to restoring Israel after an exile.
The problem here is that Scripture never put up these three conditions, in fact there is no ritual of conversion ever mentioned in Scriptures. Note Gene uses “three requirements of JUdaism,” not “three requirements in Scriptures”…..
Dan, the Jewish faith (Judaism) and all Jewish life in general has never been “sola-scriptura” – that’s Lutheran Protestant innovation and its never been really true even for them either – every Protestant denominations interprets the scripture in its own ways, sometimes polar opposites of others. It’s all about interpretation. I believe that Torah teaches that Jewish authorities have a G-d-given right to interpret Jewish scriptures and impose their halachic interpretations on other Jews (and anyone who desired to join the Jewish people). But it’s still based on Torah.
That’s what Yeshua himself taught. In fact, many of Yeshua and the apostles own interpretations seemingly defy the original context of the verses they quote. For example, in 1 Corinthians 9:9 Paul teaches that believers must financially provide for clergy because Torah teaches “Don’t muzzle an ox while it is threshing.” as found in Deuteronomy 25:4, with Paul adding “Is it for oxen that God is concerned?”. How “sola-scriptura” is that???
Judaism always bases its most important halachic understandings and practices on Torah – its foundation. In the same vein the conversion itself is derived from Torah. The so called “Christian” conversion was itself most likely based on the preexisting Jewish one (circumcision of the heart, baptism/immersion, sacrifice – Yeshua).
In the end, I have to believe G-d will sort things out and will separate all foreigners from Israel as in the days of Ezra. Not in a racist way – some foreigners WILL join Israel and will live in the Land – but simply to identify who is indeed a halachic Jew and who is not. Nehemiah 13:3 is a good example of that, especially when it came to restoring Israel after an exile.
At first, I thought this could run both ways, but it doesn’t work. The foreigners (in this case, those people who believed they were Jews for generations if not centuries but who had a convert in the family 1000 years ago) will be expelled from Israel, while those who are Jewish but not identified as such will be allowed to enter Israel. Then I realized that, if we use the same standard (your Mom’s Jewishness going back in an unbroken line to Jacob or at least to when the Temple existed), then even if you have some Jewish ancestors way back when, that doesn’t make you Jewish.
On a purely visceral level, I don’t know if I completely go along with that. Should a family who has been living a Jewish lifestyle in good faith and who have truly believed they were Jewish be summarily “dismissed” from Israel because of what amounts to a “technicality”? You said yourself that if a person is known as a Jew but has certain aspects of his behavior that are “un-Jewish” (e.g. “unkind”), then there may be a good reason to question whether he is descended from Jews and has a Jewish neshama to begin with. If a Jewish family has a convert in their history, making them “technically” non-Jewish but behaves with a Jewish neshama, what does that mean?
Another way of looking at it is that (with all due respect to the Rambam) the person who has converted but not been able to offer the sacrifices (given the fact that no Jew has been able to offer sacrifices since the destruction of the Second Temple) is still considered Jewish because they are operating under the same limitations (no Temple) as every born-Jew.
“Should a family who has been living a Jewish lifestyle in good faith and who have truly believed they were Jewish be summarily “dismissed” from Israel because of what amounts to a “technicality”?”
How about the following hypothetical? A Gentile “Messianic One-Law” family moves into a Jewish community, thought of as Jewish but never gets officially converted or circumcised, only observes their so called “Biblical Judaism” – and keeps their secret well. They have grandkids, etc. These grandkids, by pure happenstance, happen to marry grandkids of another Gentile family (they were attracted to each other’s similar “nordic” features, I suppose). Again, these grandkids are never told of their secret and think themselves as Jews and every way. They have children of their own (great-grandchildren of the two originally Gentile families), all the while still living in a Jewish community. Naturally, they think they are “Jewish”. What should happen to them – should they still be accepted as Israelites on humanitarian grounds or should they be separated from the community of Israel as imposters?
Also, what of whole communities (say, Mormons) who think of themselves as Israelites or the thousands of Two-House-rs with imagined Israelite ancestries who are raising their kids with the same delusion?
Let’s try a different hypothetical story.
You discover that, 500 years ago, your great-great-great whatever grandmother converted to Judaism. The highest Rabbinical authorities you consult all agree with Rambam that, since she could not perform the appropriate Temple sacrifices, her conversion was incomplete, meaning that neither she nor any of her descendents, including you, are considered Jewish.
I’m not talking about Gentile wannabes or Mormons, I’m talking about this happening to Jewish families just like yours and every other Jew you worship with in your local shul. Is this still a delusion, or is this something that could throw Jewish families and communities into confusion?
I’m not drawing this example to be difficult but to illustrate how hard it would be for any Jewish family to hear and accept such a judgment.
“The highest Rabbinical authorities you consult all agree with Rambam that, since she could not perform the appropriate Temple sacrifices, her conversion was incomplete, meaning that neither she nor any of her descendents, including you, are considered Jewish.”
Well, James – I sure am glad I am not the one making these hard decisions! However, on a lesser scale there are issues like these that arise in rabbinic courts ALL OF THE TIME, where the Jewishness of a person is in doubt, sometimes even of those with no Gentile ancestors at all but who lack proper documentation (especially in cases of approval of the marriage union by especially picky ultra-Orthodox courts). Various halachic steps may be taken to rectify this.
I think in the future (way in the future, say Messianic Kingdom) one whose conversion is incomplete or whose Jewish ancestry is proven beyond doubt as non-existent (and I think by that time all doubt would be easy to disperse – just consult the priests will Urim & Thummin) will be able to either complete the conversion process (by offering a sacrifice) or simply choose to revert back to whatever nation their ancestors came from, considering they would be under no halachic obligation to remain bound to Torah and to the Jewish people until they complete the final step (it’s not like many people want to be Jews – in fact, only an infinitesimally small number of people do). It would be quite similar to Naomi’s OTHER daughter in law, Orpah, who returned to her people after living with Jews for a while.
Just my thoughts. I do find Rambam’ and others’ opinions and conclusions on this subject fascinating – this is a very important bit of information that is VERY rarely if ever brought up in the post-sacrifice era. It seems that many things in Judaism had to be adjusted ad hoc since the sacrificial practice ceased and the Temple system was brought down.
Well, James – I sure am glad I am not the one making these hard decisions!
That’s what I’m trying to illustrate. It’s one thing to discuss these matters in abstract, but another thing entirely when you talk about the impact on real, living human beings. I’m sure I’d make a pretty lousy judge on a Beit Din (even if I were Jewish) because I can’t see this as just a matter of black-and-white.
I did read a commentary on Menachos 103 the other day that I thought applied, since it dealt with declaring a lamb Korban Pesach in an age without the Temple in Jerusalem:
There was once a young man who had a baby lamb in his flock and one day he declared to his uncle regarding this lamb, “This is my Korban Pesach.” When the local head of the beis din heard about this he was stunned. When he later interviewed the young man it was evident that the child knew nothing about matters of sanctity and his declaration was not serious. Nevertheless, due to the potential severity involved the head of the beis din decided that he would consult with Chasam Sofer about the matter1. His analysis began with our Mishnah which teaches that if a person vows to bring a korban in a manner which it is not normally brought, e.g. to offer a mincha made from barley, he is exempt from having to bring a korban. The reason is that “he did not donate in the manner of those who donate.” The Gemara in Peachim (53b) teaches further that according to R’ Shimon when one vows to bring an animal as a korban nowadays the animal does not become sanctified since this is also not considered to be the way that people vow to bring korbanos, since people do not bring korbanos without the Beis HaMikdash. For this reason, explains Chok Yaakov, Rambam does not mention the prohibition against declaring nowadays “this meat is for Pesach” lest one think that the declarer sanctified the meat since Rambam rules in accordance with R’ Shimon and such a declaration is not binding.
Chasam Sofer asserts that only objects sanctified for Beis HaMikdash upkeep do not take effect in our times but items that could be brought as korbanos do become sanctified if one makes an explicit vow in that regard since Rambam rules that korbanos could, theoretically, could be brought even without a Beis HaMikdash. Therefore, when the young man declared that the lamb would be his Korban Pesach the declaration should sanctify the lamb. Accordingly, Chasam Sofer ruled that the young man must request that his vow be annulled.
If a lamb can be sanctified as Korban, even without the Temple, can we say that a person who has converted to Judaism can be a “righteous convert” without the existence of a Temple, too?
Yes, I know I’m shooting from the hip, but I’m not going to be able to bend my mind and thought processes in this direction unless I take a few, stumbling, “first steps”.
James, I think the key to your quoted story is this:
“Chasam Sofer ruled that the young man must request that his vow be annulled.”
So, no go – he MUST cancel the process. This is because it was not appropriate for him to sanctify anything in the absence of the possibility of actually sacrificing the lamb in the first place (and we read that he didn’t even know what he was doing nor was even serious about it – quite unlike a convert). So, it may be the same with converts today – theoretically they COULD initiate a conversion (as this young boy also could “sanctify” the lamb), but because they can’t go all the way (since there’s no sacrifice practiced today), their conversion is not complete.
I know. I saw that. But what the heck. It was worth a shot. Besides, I need the practice in reading Rabbinic rulings and developing commentaries around them.
Guess all converts to Judaism past and present are s*rewed. Alas.
“Guess all converts to Judaism past and present are s*rewed. Alas.”
James – not screwed, just “incomplete”. Also, what about those Gentiles who convert to Judaism from Christianity and apostatize from Yeshua in the process – which is probably MOST of them today and in the last 2K years (think about it, are they not “screwed” either way, that is to willingly deny the Master for the sake of conversion!)? I wonder what does G-d think of them and whether their conversion – even the incomplete one – is valid in His eyes?
Gene , how about the gentile that converts the rabbinic way then finds out about the Moshiach Yeshua, would that be considered his sacrifice to complete his conversion?
Ruben, there’s only one way to convert to Judaism – it’s the rabbinic way. However, I do not know if halachically the sacrifice of Yeshua is the same as the specific sacrifice required for conversion to become a Jew.
In any case, our sages do consider a convert a Jew in all respects but THAT one and converts are allowed to marry other Jews (except a cohen). If they are allowed to marry Jews, I would say it’s safe to say that our rabbis had the confidence that a convert would be able to complete his/her conversion in the World to Come. Many things will be finalized and completed in the World to Come, including even our very relationship to the Messiah. So, conversion to Judaism is just one of those things.
James – not screwed, just “incomplete”. Also, what about those Gentiles who convert to Judaism from Christianity and apostatize from Yeshua in the process – which is probably MOST of them today and in the last 2K years (think about it, are they not “screwed” either way, that is to willingly deny the Master for the sake of conversion!)? I wonder what does G-d think of them and whether their conversion – even the incomplete one – is valid in His eyes?
Funny you should put it that way. I’ve been reading an advance copy of the new “Galatians” book written by FFOZ’s Lancaster (which I’ll review when I’m finished). There’s a great deal said in the book on this issue. I’ll let you know how it turns out.
Was it specific on the type of sacrifice to be offered?
Yeshua says faith is credited as righteousness, as well as the Rabbis as that’s the only way you can take part in the age to come (according to the Rabbis). Once again I suppose I find the three practices completely useless without faith in the promises of Gd. This speaks to the heart of what Paul was trying to overcome with the gentiles for so long. For example, if you are a convert and you seek to do these three things yet you don’t believe in the promises of Gd, they’re useless. Should it be that a convert who has no faith in the age to come would be resurrected over a non-convert who had faith every day of his life? Of course not, and it appears the Rabbis agreed.
“Was it specific on the type of sacrifice to be offered?”
Brian, yes, it was a blood offering [atonement] sacrifice of an animal that was brought to the Temple by the convert. The blood was sprinkled on the altar by the priest.
“Should it be that a convert who has no faith in the age to come would be resurrected over a non-convert who had faith every day of his life? Of course not, and it appears the Rabbis agreed.”
I don’t think the issue is faith or resurrection here – just conversion.
Interestingly, Rashi’s opinion was that in the absence of the Temple a convert should SET ASIDE the money meant to purchase the prescribed sacrifice (to be ready when the Temple is rebuilt). On the other hand, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai at Yavneh – who lived centuries before Rashi and immediately after destruction of the Temple set out to make “new rules” to deal with its absence – ruled that he shouldn’t do that in case the money that was pledged to the sacrifice may be accidentally spent on something else instead.
Well it’s interesting indeed that the atonement sacrifice was the requirement. I suppose that’s what the book of Hebrews is all about now that I think of it…
“I don’t think the issue is faith or resurrection here – just conversion. ”
What was conversion for if not for redemption purposes? Was it simply righteousness via mitzvot?
Both of those interpretations are interesting. Where would the money be collected for the sacrifice? If it wasn’t collected, people would’ve kept money their whole lives in vain?
Both of those interpretations are interesting. Where would the money be collected for the sacrifice? If it wasn’t collected, people would’ve kept money their whole lives in vain?
Who says it would have been in vain? I suppose the money could be kept in trust (no pun intended) until the time the Temple is rebuilt. I don’t know what was supposed to happen to the funds if the person died before the Temple was reconstructed, but we’re all waiting for the Messiah to come at any time, no matter how far in the future it may be. The money for the sacrifice, like waiting for the Messiah, is an act of faith and hope.
I recently heard a class on YU Torah on the issue of taking mikvahs before the conversion was complete. He said in the class that if a person is lacking certain requirements for conversion due to reasons beyond his control that the conversion is seen as valid he gave two examples.
1. A man lacking a penis.
Conversion requires brit millah, or if the man is already circumcised that a drop of blood be taken. However what if the man through various means/trauma doesn’t have one? Because it something his control he is deemed worthy.
2. Fetus.
According to the Halachic opinion (Shulchan Aruch, Rambam etc) a pregnant woman who converts, converts herself and the fetus inside her even though the fetus does not come into contact with the water. This may also be because the fetus is consider one with the woman’s body.
I would say based on these criteria that because the Temple is destroyed and bringing a sacrifice is something completely outside of potential coverts control, that it not be viewed as something that would bar a coverts full rights as a Jew. provide he/she committed to live the life of an observant Jew and his recognized by his/her community.
“However what if the man through various means/trauma doesn’t have one? Because it something his control he is deemed worthy.”
Jeremiah, it has been my understanding that those who are missing genitals historically have not been allowed to convert / join the congregation of Israel when the Temple stood (per Deuteronomy 23:1) Can anyone point to a halachic opinion to the contrary?
“This may also be because the fetus is consider one with the woman’s body.”
This situation is different – the fetus follows mother’s neshamah until the baby is born.
“I would say based on these criteria that because the Temple is destroyed and bringing a sacrifice is something completely outside of potential coverts control, that it not be viewed as something that would bar a coverts full rights as a Jew. ”
And it’s NOT an impediment to joining the Jewish community because the Jewish community has adjusted halachically to the post-sacrifice/post Temple reality by allowing the sacrifice to be deferred until later time (but not by eliminating it completely as a requirement). So, while according to Rambam the conversion process indeed has not been fully completed because one last requirement is yet to be fulfilled (and few authorities seem to disagree with that) , this fact alone doesn’t prevent the convert from full participation in the Jewish life in the meantime (according to other rabbinical opinions) and be considered a Jew for minyan and marriage purposes.
Gene,
The one requirement for conversion to Judaism that you neglected to mention is acceptance of the entire Jewish tradition from Sinai, without any exceptions.
Even if a would-be convert went SCUBA diving for 24 hours straight in a ritual dunk and then burned all the wildlife in Africa on an altar, that could never overcome his rejection of the First Commandment (“have no other gods before Me…”) and the person would remain a gentile.
So we should be mindful of the fact that no one who worships Jesus is eligible for conversion to Judaism.
Flem P. Hlegm (a.k.a. Anonymous FakeYid) – have you not read Psalm 118:22: “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is the L-RD’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes.” You knew Messiah once when you attended your church, but chose to reject him. Israel will gladly embrace her Messiah when he returns and all Israel will be saved – but what will happen to you, the betrayer from the nations to whom the Messiah of the Jews had extended his hand of pity and mercy only to have you turn around and spit on him? I shudder to think of your fate.
“Jeremiah, it has been my understanding that those who are missing genitals historically have not been allowed to convert / join the congregation of Israel when the Temple stood (per Deuteronomy 23:1) Can anyone point to a halachic opinion to the contrary?”
I could be wrong about this, I’m just going of what I heard from the lecture.
And it’s NOT an impediment to joining the Jewish community because the Jewish community has adjusted halachically to the post-sacrifice/post Temple reality by allowing the sacrifice to be deferred until later time (but not by eliminating it completely as a requirement). So, while according to Rambam the conversion process indeed has not been fully completed because one last requirement is yet to be fulfilled (and few authorities seem to disagree with that) , this fact alone doesn’t prevent the convert from full participation in the Jewish life in the meantime (according to other rabbinical opinions) and be considered a Jew for minyan and marriage purposes.
OK I can agree with that.
Gene,
You wrote “I shudder to think of your fate”.
That’s a common missionary refrain. Of course, just like the eternal lake of Jew-burning fire that missionaries are so gosh-darn giddy about, Jesus wasn’t mentioned at all in the Hebrew scriptures. On the other hand, the opening salvo of the Ten Commandments crystallized the inadvisability of worshiping the likes of Jesus.
So I guess we’ll just have to shudder for one another, me with my Bible and you with your “testament” of Paul’s dream. Best of luck to you! :-)
“lake of fire [is not] mentioned at all in the Hebrew scriptures…”
What, are you reverting to your sola-scriptura Protestant days again? Did you not claim to believe in the traditions of Jewish sages?
“There are five kinds of fire in Gehenna: a fire that eats and drinks, one that drinks but does not eat, one that neither eats nor drinks, and a fire that eats fire. In Gehenna there are coals as big as mountains, coals as small as hills, coals the size of Salt Sea, and coals no larger than big boulders. Also in Gehenna are rivers of pitch and sulfur flowing in boiling suds, continuously boiling and boiling.
The decree upon a wicked man: angels of destruction push him down on his face, and other angels received him from them and shove him forward toward the fire of Gehenna, which opens its mouth and swallows him… a river of fire which flows forth from under the throne of glory comes down upon them and continues from world’s end to world’s end.” ( Massekhet Gehinnom, BhM 1:147-49)
Gene,
I wrote that the “lake of fire” was not in the Hebrew Bible, to which you replied with a hefty quotation from a non-Biblical source. I’ll pocket your admission that I was right, and that Christians, who by and large not only reject but disdain the rabbinical writings, have concocted an entire after-life scheme that is completely faithless to the Hebrew scriptures.
I noted that you cut short your quotation from the Rabbis, since it doesn’t include the part about the lake of fire being reserved for those Jews who fail to accept Jesus as their lord and savior…or, maybe you couldn’t find that part in there. Don’t feel bad, I couldn’t find it either.
“I wrote that the “lake of fire” was not in the Hebrew Bible, to which you replied with a hefty quotation from a non-Biblical source.”
So, you are rejecting rabbinic sources now as ” non-Biblical” and “concocted”? I knew that your fresh-out-of-church-but-now-I-hate-Jesus mindset is hard to shake off.
“entire after-life scheme that is completely faithless to the Hebrew scriptures.”
That shows how much you know, but what is more grievous is that you are claiming that the Jewish sages just made stuff up about sinners ending up in the fires of hell and they are an unacceptable source for doctrine on the matter, when in fact both our sages and Yeshua himself were firmly rooted in the Tanakh:
““And many of those that sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.”(Dan. 12:2) “…those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.” (Isaiah 66:24)
Oh, and another rabbinic quote for you on fires of hell for good measure:
“Hell is a place of fire where sinners are punished after they die. Certain classes of people who deny religion receive eternal punishment there” (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 3:5-6 – from Torah.org)
“lake of fire being reserved for those Jews who fail to accept Jesus as their lord and savior”
Apostle Shaul wrote that “All Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26) – quite a contrast to your perverted understanding about the fate of the Jewish people.
I should have kept up with the comments here. I’m trying to read them now and my eyes are watering. Early on, James asked, “If the inability (as opposed to any unwillingness) of a would-be convert to offer a sacrifice at the Temple results in the Gentile not being “fully converted” (can you be partially converted?) to Judaism, can the same logic be applied to Jews relative to their inability to offer the various Temple sacrifices commanded in the Torah?”
Don’t we already know the answer? In the wake of the Hurban, the sages determined that in the absence of the sacrifices, Jews were still obligated to keep them. Essentially, they may engage in the study of the sacrifices as a substitute for the sacrifices they cannot make (Menohot 110a and elsewhere). The same logic must apply to converts.
(Forgive me if this has been mentioned above.)
Here are a few excerpts from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
God accepts the broken-hearted as a sacrifice (Ps. li. 19; Pes. 158b).
The precept concerning the daily offering is given twice (Ex. xxix. 38-42; Num. xxviii. 1-8), from which repetition is deduced that he who studies these verses is regarded as having offered the sacrifices (Pes. 60b; Lev. R. vii. 3). The same thought is based on “the torah of the sin-offering” and “the torah of the trespassoffering” (Lev. vi. 18, vii. 7; Men. 110a, b).
The reading of the “Shema’” and the “Tefillah” and the wearing of “tefillin” are equivalent to the building of the altar (Ber. 15a; comp. Ber. 14b; Midr. Teh. to Ps. i. 2).
Prayer in the synagogue is tantamount to offering a pure oblation (Isa. lxvi. 20; Yer. Ber. 8d).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=35&letter=S#186
“Essentially, they may engage in the study of the sacrifices as a substitute for the sacrifices they cannot make (Menohot 110a and elsewhere). The same logic must apply to converts.”
Carl, yes, agreed – that’s definitely the logic here. Rambam, being literalistic in his interpretive approach to Written and Oral Torah (and he’s almost unique in this regard among the greatest rabbinic sages and philosophers), deduced that the sacrifice part of conversion was still required and is only postponed until later time. Most sages accepted the substitution of sacrifice with prayer and contrition as valid (at least in the present time).
That said, even the current halachic substituting of the sacrifices with JUST prayer and contrition (although one could argue that these additional two elements were ALWAYS the required and even prerequisite elements necessary to make any sacrifice actually acceptable to G-d) is still generally viewed as merely a temporary if vital patch until the Temple is rebuilt and sacrifices once again renew. And all devout Jews look forward to that.
Agreed, of course.
Sorry I am late here.
So what conversion ritual do you adhere to, Gene, Orthodox? Reform? Conservative? reconstructionist? Since according to you Scriptures don’t have a say here, any one of them will suffice, no? And if we are at it already, why not take Yeshua’s word “purging all food” and start eating pork?
“So what conversion ritual do you adhere to, Gene, Orthodox? Reform? Conservative? reconstructionist? Since according to you Scriptures don’t have a say here, any one of them will suffice, no?’
Any conversion to Judaism must uphold Torah and must be done in accordance to traditional halachah.
“And if we are at it already, why not take Yeshua’s word “purging all food” and start eating pork?”
Yeshua never said that.
Who decides, you?
Dan, how grievous is the tone of your comments and inquisitorial questions.Don’t you think that genuine dialog with mutual respect would be better? .
Carl,
I replied to Gene’s comment from June 20th. If you follow the conversation you will see that I am not out to offend anyone, I am only after the truth.
“Who decides, you?”
A particular Jewish community a convert wishes to join.
So let me understand. Derek decided to join and convert by the MJRC, so he thereforew Jewish only according to them, nut not any other Jewish community including the UMJC where he is a member in good standing and the hack with Scriptures……Some standards……
Dan, why bring up Derek every time we talk conversions? He’s an adult who appears to be fully aware of all of the implications of his decision, including knowing who accepts him as a Jewish convert and who doesn’t. Instead, we can talk about conversions in general, not one done by any particular authority (e.g. MJRC) for any one convert.
One Law folks like you themselves practice conversions to “Judaism” (if one can call it that), without calling it that. This manifests itself in the fact that the OL “converts” think of themselves as Israelites and as practicing “Judaism”. Oddly enough they do so by forgoing any meaningful community relationship with Jewish people.
Dan, MJRC conversions are done just the way others are, though we’re pretty rigorous in the way we prepare candidates. Like all branches of Judaism, we have standards that are particular to our community while having much in common with standards of other branches of Judaism. Would you like some recommended reading on the subject?
Gene,
This is just plain ignorance on your part. You can take Moishe the Reforem, Yankel the Orthodox, Itzhak the conservative, just like Derek they are converted according to THEIR denomination’s Halacha and are not accepted by other denominations. And since there is no mention of conversion in Scriptures you have no legs to stand on.
You bringing the OL into each discussion just show your ignorance for that group since the main point with OL halacha is that everyone remains in their calling, unlike the Dereks of this world.
Carl,
Then why are MJRC conversion not accepted by any other branch of Judaism including the Messisnic UMJC? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess…..
This is why I will always hold the written Torah above any other form, and in the written Torah conversion is not mentioned.
Dan,
As I said, I’d be happy to refer you to some sources about conversion to give you a broader framework to understand these things. Without that framework, we’ll simply be talking past each other.
That said, the distinction between us is clear: you accept only the written Torah (as you understand it), while we accept it in the context of Messianic Jewish tradition. If you’re interested in what I mean by “Messianic Jewish tradition.” I’d be happy to discuss it with you offline.
Carl,
I will be very happy to discuss the topic with you, you will find my e-mail address at the end of the post. But you will have to explain to me, as positive as the MJRC view of conversion is why then it is rejected by any other Jewish denomination including Messianics. Is the end result that with conversion one becomes a better Jew in MJRC then another converted Jew in any other denomination? You see, when men starts diluting the word of God it end up being worth bobkes, let alone that the written word of God has no mention of conversio to begin with.
My e-mail address: rabdan@cox.net
That logic is ultimately self-destructive… if all conversions, therefore converts and their descendants such as jewish mothers, have had their processes incomplete… it follows that unless a genealogical book of racial purity can be established tracing someone as having 0% zero converted ancestors… therefore it follows that … the whole jewish people is potentially and ultimately incompletely jewish…
“That logic is ultimately self-destructive… if all conversions, therefore converts and their descendants such as jewish mothers, have had their processes incomplete… it follows that unless a genealogical book of racial purity can be established tracing someone as having 0% zero converted ancestors… therefore it follows that … the whole jewish people is potentially and ultimately incompletely jewish…”
No need to worry about that, Aryeora. First of all, only a very tiny percentage of modern Jews today can be said to have descended from POST-TEMPLE (specifically) converts. This is because the bulk of the last significant batch of conversions took place in the first century of Roman Empire, i.e. when the Temple still stood (therefore these converts could still have fulfilled all of the requirements pertaining to conversion)..
Once Jerusalem was sacked and the Temple destroyed, and after countless Jews had been slaughtered, enslaved or spread throughout the Empire by the Romans, few non-Jews wanted to associate with “rebellious” Jews and Judaism has “lost” in the eyes of many. Conversions to Judaism were no longer in vogue and dropped dramatically. This became ESPECIALLY so when Christianity started to become more and more popular (competing for converts) and later also more antagonistic toward Jews. Constantine effectively outlawed conversions to Judaism in 315 CE. A short time later, in 339. Constantius Chlorus went on to forbid intermarriage between Jews and Christian women (going so far as dissolving existing marriages!). During the subsequent centuries conversions to Judaism were virtually non-existent in Christian Europe (with whole Jewish communities placed at pain of collective punishment should Jewish authorities convert any Gentile/Christian to Judaism) . Likewise, during the rise of Islam, in the Ottoman Empire, Muslims were not allowed to convert to other religions, nor could non-Muslims attempt to convert Muslims (still very much the case today). At most, post-Temple conversions, when they did occur, occurred in tiny numbers and contributed very little to the overall number of Jews alive today.
That is to say that ethnic Jews have nothing to worry about when it comes to their status as Jews. Besides all that, genetic studies again and again show very little post-first-century gene inflow from non-Jews into the general Jewish populations around the world over the last two millennia, solidifying my case even further.
“Racial purity” is not a Jewish concept, Aryeora. You’ll have a hard time finding reference to that in any Jewish text, since it’s not something Judaism values or is concerned with at all.
The faces you’ll see in the North American synagogue I frequent are mostly white, but there are some black, Asian, Indian and Persian complexions in the mix Which ones are converts, or the children of converts…who can say? What we can say is that no one cares about it. Only those outside of the religious Jewish community worry about racial purity; perhaps that’s one reason it was specifically non-Jews who introduced genocide to the world. Anyone born to an authentically Jewish mother or authentically converted to Judaism–and, by authentically, I mean to the satisfaction of the religious Jewish community–is as pure a Jew as they come, regardless of race. Every Jew is 100% Jewish in the eyes of the Bible, whether native or naturalized; the notion of a half-Jew, quarter-Jew, etc. is a reflection of gentile views on nationality and have no bearing on or relevance to Jewishness. By the same token, anyone who goes through an illegitimate conversion process, one that lacks the explicit imprimatur of the religious Jewish community’s accepted organizational leadership, and any child of a mother who underwent such a process, is 100% gentile, even if they accept the beliefs of Judaism and even if their father was a pious rabbi descended from a long line of authentically Jewish pious rabbis.