CONVERSION IN REFORM HALAKHAH

The entire matter of circumcision for proselytes was discussed in detail at the second meeting of the Central Conference of American Rabbis held in 1891, in Baltimore . A lengthy report was provided by Rabbi Aaron Hahn. He demonstrated that in the past milah had been a consistent requirement but he favored its abolition. A colleague, Rabbi Isaac Schwab, supported the opposite view and pointed out that this ritual had always been part of Judaism ; it should be continued. Any change should not be made under the guise of rabbinic precedent as there was none. He favored continuing this discussion and widened it to include everything connected with the admission of proselytes. As converts to Judaism were small in number; this was not a pressing issue.

Earlier in 1890, Rabbi Henry Berkowitz of Philadelphia had sent a circular letter which posed the question of circumcision for converts to many colleagues, both Reform and traditional, soliciting their written response. It is interesting that this ritual rather than the process of conversion or the desirability of converts or any other

issue connected with conversion was discussed at such length.

This seemed to have been a dramatic issue which aroused strong emotions and many felt compelled to respond. Let us see how they responded. Isaac Mayer Wise reaffirmed an earlier stance expressed in The American Israelite. He rejected the need for circumcision for proselytes, yet he stated that this was only a theoretical position. In practice he realized that remaining uncircumcised would make the life of the proselyte difficult and so he favored the rite for the sake of Jewish unity. Bernard Felsenthal agreed with Wise ’s conclusion, but utilized a different line of reasoning. He indicated both in his response, and in an earlier long article’ that he opposed milah as a requirement for proselytes unless it was done for the sake of the larger Jewish community. He felt that a rabbi could appropriately admit a convert, without