CONVERSION IN REFORM HALAKHAH

was therefore an absolute requirement. Rabbi Emil G. Hirsch , the radical reformer , traced the matter historically and concluded that the rite had no meaning for us in his century.

We should note that more basic issues were not discussed at all by any of these leaders. The matter was not resolved until the third rabbinic conference held in New York in 1892. A resolution offered by Isaac Mayer Wise stated that a rabbi along with two associates could admit a convert without any accompanying ritual; this was adopted by a vote of twenty-five to five!’ At the discussion immediately following, it was suggested that some statistics on conversion be kept and it was so ordered,'? but this was never carried out.

Within the same Yearbook a statement by Samuel Hirsch , who could not be present a year earlier, was read into the record. It also opposed the requirement of circumcision. The committee then expanded the discussion to include tevilah and continued with

a long discussion of both matters in the rabbinic literature. The arguments were primarily concerned with a refutation of Schwab's analysis of the rabbinic texts; he had favored retention of the requirement.

The committee concluded that no initiatory rites were Biblical. Later, after they had been established, they became "customary" but not absolutely required.

This lengthy debate over circumcision for those born as Jews and of converts which stretched over a period of almost fifty years may seem strange. However, we should see it as a boundary issue through which Reform was to define itself. Other matters like the language of prayer, specific prayers, the second day of Yom Tov, etc., had a long developmental history. They had been added to Judaism and could be deleted. Circumcision, which began in the days of Abraham , was an ultimate boundary issue. Furthermore, as

120