Read on Twitter
Okay, I'm not going to continue driving engagement for Ryan the Goyrax any further, but I AM going to address his challenging of the validity of non-Orthodox conversions, and why he's just flat wrong.
Ryan likes to say that he's just using "halacha" to challenge Jewish
authenticity, and presenting the "mainstream" view of who is authentically Jewish that Jews have always used. What he means is that only Orthodox conversions are halachically valid. This is not true.
authenticity, and presenting the "mainstream" view of who is authentically Jewish that Jews have always used. What he means is that only Orthodox conversions are halachically valid. This is not true.
If you want to cite halacha, there are three main sources - the Talmud, Maimonides, and the Shulchan Aruch. None of those call for anything more than immersion, circumcision (or a drop of blood) for people with penises, and approval by three Jews. That's it. That's the halacha.
Yevamot 47a-b is the primary source in the Talmud regarding conversion. That's where we get the turning away - it says that when one comes seeking to convert, we are to ask if they know that Jews are persecuted. If they say yes and still want in, they're accepted immediately.
It doesn't say anything about turning away three times. It doesn't say anything about challenging their sincerity. It says they're accepted as a proselyte *immediately*. Then we are supposed to instruct them in "some of the minor and some of the major" mitzvot.
Not ALL of the mitzvot. Not EVERY detail of living as a Jew. Just some. In fact, the Talmud is explicit about *not* "overwhelm[ing] him with threats" or being "exacting with him" about the details of the mitzvot.
If the proselyte accepts the general principles of the mitzvot, and that as a Jew they're a responsibility, then the circumcision and immersion are put immediately under way, 3 Torah scholars watch, and when they emerge from immersion they are "like a born Jew in every sense".
The notion that a halachically valid conversion requires dissuasion, extensive education, a long waiting period, proof of willingness to follow every mitzvah - none of that is halachically required. In fact, some of it arguably contradicts halacha.
In Yevamot 24b, Rabbi Nehemiah suggests that someone with ulterior motives - specifically someone who wants to convert in order to marry a Jew - is not a proper proselyte. But the Talmud says the halacha is with Rav - they are valid proselytes.
So there is no "pure intentions" caveat to a valid conversion. Yevamot 24b makes this case bediavad, but it's been ruled in the past to apply ab initio as well. That fits well with the famous story about the three proselytes with Shammai and Hillel in Shabbat 31a.
That's the one where Shammai turns away proselytes, but Hillel accepts them - the halacha is with Hillel. One of the proselytes wants to convert in order to be high priest, certainly not a pure intention. Hillel converts him anyway.
Hillel also converts the proselyte who wants the whole Torah read on one foot, reinforcing that extensive, exhaustive study *before* conversion isn't necessary.
Neither Rambam, nor the Shulchan Aruch add significantly to what is detailed in Yevamot. They add some specifics about teaching the unity of God and observance of Shabbat, but not a requirement for exhaustive instruction or long waiting periods to prove earnestness.
Rambam *does* say that proselytes should be examined to see if they have ulterior motives, but also in the same passage (Issurei Biah 13:15-17) says that a proselyte that was not examined for ulterior motives, even a proselyte who was not informed of the mitzvot, is still a Jew.
So the additions Rambam adds are instructional, not halachic, according to Maimonides himself. He is explicit that even if it turns out the proselyte DID have ulterior motives, even if they never adhere to the mitzvot, they're a Jew from the minute they leave the mikveh
Rambam also writes that in the times of David and Solomon, when there was immediate material benefit to being Jewish, proselytes were not accepted by the official batei din, as all proselytes were suspected of ulterior motives.
Nevertheless, there were many proselytes converted in those times by ad hoc batei din of lay people - just ordinary Jews. And Maimonides states that these conversions are halachically valid. So the credentials of the beit din aren't an issue for halachic validity.
Ryan wants to insist that he's just applying halacha, that by denying the Jewishness of non-Orthodox Jews, especially non-Orthodox converts, he's following the law Jews made for ourselves. But that's not what he's doing.
The law we made for ourselves says that a person who underwent the mechanics of conversion under the approval of three Jews is as Jewish as any other Jew, full stop, without exceptions. Even if you think they shouldn't be. Even if you think they're not living Jewish the right way
Under Jewish law they can marry a Jew, their property is returned to them, their children are Jewish. That's the halacha, no matter what additional stringencies are added by sub-communities of Jews, and no matter what a gentile thinks about it.
