What Does It Take to Become a Jew? Conversion for Ulterior Motives

By the very nature of things, the process of conversion begins with the decision of a non-Jewish person to convert. This process begins as a personal one, a matter of the soul, which drives a person to choose to convert. Are a person’s motives important? Are there motives which are illegitimate? In this lesson, we will examine a critical Talmudic debate on this subject; note how the Talmudic debate is codified in the halacha and then survey a variety of opinions on the subject in the response literature.

(Responsa is the English name for what is known in Hebrew as שאלות ותשובות – Questions and Answers – the legal literature of the sages throughout ages, where sages were asked questions and responded with answers. This type of Jewish legal literature corresponds to case law in general legal literature.)

I say, we will survey the subject because the literature on this particular question is vast. I will bring some representative answers to give us some perspective.

Before we get started, I want to introduce the problem. If religious belief concerns itself with pure and loyal thoughts and attachment, then the very idea of converting for motives other than attachment to the pure belief would seem problematic. This is the problem that the sages had to (and have to) contend with. The Talmudic discussion, beginning with the Mishnah is a colorful one. I am now going to ask you to study this sugya (Talmudic argument) which can be found separately in Hebrew, English which questions for guidance.

The Mishnah, there talks of someone who converted for who there were rumors that he cohabited with said woman. The marriage, according to the Mishnah, is prohibited on account of the rumors. The Talmud, commenting on this Mishnah, debated whether someone can convert where ulterior motives are suspected. The Talmud presents two schools of thought: the first that of Rabbi Nehemiah who asserts that conversions in such circumstances should be prohibited; the other opinion is that of Rav who holds that such conversions while prohibited before the fact would be acceptable after the fact.

Discussion Questions

1. Speculate on the ideological rationale behind R’ Nehemiah’s position? Rav’s position? What is the modern relevance of these two positions? Whose position do you side with and why?
2. Should a legal tradition have לכתחילה and בדיעבד positions? Do they serve an important purpose or not?
3. Regarding the Mishnah and the Talmud’s explanation for the psak (the halachic decision) in the Mishnah (step 6), what rumor is the Talmud worried about? How conscious of the significance of rumor as a legal entity should a religious legal tradition be?

Maimonides, when he codifies the results of this sugya, does so as follows (Mishnah Torah Laws of Forbidden Relationships 13:14-16):

I first want to say a word or two above Rambam’s historiography. Yes, he imposes upon the biblical stories rabbinic sensibilities which are anachronistic. He simply cannot imagine a reality in biblical times which did not adhere to how the rabbis saw the rabbinic tradition. With that said, let’s get down to business.

Questions

1. What legal conclusions does Rambam draw from the Talmudic discussion that we just learned?
2. Whose opinion from the Talmud does he adopt?
3. Does he adopt a before the fact or after the fact position?
4. What do you think Rambam would decide if a case of conversion for the sake of marriage would come before him?

Now that we have seen Rambam in action, our first teshuva on the subject will be a case which was brought before him (Maimionides Responsa 211):

Rambam’s teshuva is perhaps the most important lenient opinion. It is radical!

• Summarize for yourself the issues in the question that is asked.

1. The first is the issue of “yefat toar” – the captive woman talked about in Deuteronomy 21:10-14. The questioner wants to identify the slave woman with the “yefat toar”. Rambam immediately rejects the application of this concept to the question at hand.
2. The more important issue here is how this case impacts on the Mishnah and Talmud that we have studied in this lesson. Should this slave woman be removed from her owner’s house? Or should she be converted and married to her master?

The Rambam’s answer is fascinating. He realizes that he is “breaking the law” in what he is advocating.

• If he advocates converting the woman, what in the Mishnah and Talmud that we have studied together in this lesson has he transgressed?

Rambam gives three reasons to justify his action:

1. Takanat Hashavim – an enactment to help the penitent.
2. Better to eat the gravy than to eat the forbidden fat itself.
3. One must abrogate the law in order to save the law.

1. Takanat Hashavim, also called Takanat Hamareish orinally refers to a case where someone has stolen a roof beam and built it into their house. Normally when someone has stolen something, they are obligated to return the stolen item. In the case of the beam, the normal person would never destroy his or her house to return the beam. In order to encourage the penitent, the rabbis decreed that in such a case the person could compensate monetarily. In our case, since the person would be unlikely under these circumstances to give in and remove the woman from his house, Rambam decided to act in a way which would encourage the person to fix the situation he was in.
2. In the tractate Yoma, it discusses the case where a person (a pregnant woman) has a dangerous craving to eat something forbidden. (They thought cravings as this sort were medically dangerous.) Their advice was that it was better to try to feed the person the gravy rather than the forbidden substance itself. Hopefully this would do the trick. In our case, Rambam is asserting that it is better to convert the woman and for the man to marry her than for him to cohabit with a non-Jewish woman.
3. This is Rambam’s most explosive reason. The Talmud takes a verse from Psalms which according to its plain meaning means: ‘It is a time to act for the Lord, for they have violated your teaching’ and reinterpreted it to mean: “It is a time to abrogate Your law in order to protect your teaching”. From this interpretation the rabbis understood that there will be times that in order to save the law, one must break the law. This is very radical. Rambam is using it to break the ruling in the Talmud in order to convert the woman and allow her to marry the man.

Questions to Ponder

1. Compare Rambam’s rulings in his legislative work, the Mishnah Torah (above) to his ruling in the in his teshuva.
2. The Rambam’s teshuva represents the lenient school regarding the question of conversion for ulterior motives. What makes it lenient?
3. What are the virtues of his teshuva? What are its disadvantages?
4. What drives his response? Is it policy driving halacha or halacha driving policy?

Video Summary