AMBIVALENCE IN PROSELYTISM
Apparently, Herzog's basically negative position on conversion for the sake of marriage did not change. He did, however, permit conversion and marriage under certain circumstances, finding other halakhic precedents to justify his decisions. However, he found it necessary to qualify his lenient decisions with the same caveat he sent to the Swiss rabbis.
This was not just a chance action on his part. In December 1948, the Chief Rabbi wrote another lenient responsum in which he permitted the conversion of gentile women married to Jews "not for the sake of Heaven, but for aliyah to the Land of Israel." After finding halakhic bases for granting their request, Herzog once again appended an almost identical admonition about the severe dangers of accepting proselytes.*
Perhaps, one key to Herzog’s ambivalent approach is in the identity of his questioners. The extremely Orthodox Aggudat Harabanim of Switzerland was seeking the Chief Rabbi's imprimatur and support of their holy war against conversion. Herzog was more than willing to repeat his declaration of dissociation from accepting proselytes. A rabbinic decisor may not always be an impartial judge, but rather an advocate who wishes to help colleagues involved in halakhic polemics. Responsa frequently involves
advocacy.
In the cases of the anonymous convert of Palestine, who wished to marry a Jew, and the women who wanted to convert so they could come on aliyah, Herzog gave permissive responsa. In these cases he also gave the answers that the women and their rabbinic questioners wished to hear. Even though he was compelled to repeat his reservations about the halakhic validity of conversion, he could nonetheless find alternate justification in the
95