t a and bbi » of
our role ion 1to ble.
tion on
sion
but tled with 947
sues with bout stion e six or it itate
lards vith
a specific curriculum arose.” The Union of American Hebrew Congregations’ Commission on Outreach published such manuals in the 1980s.
We can see from formal responsa and the halakhic correspondence that every effort to be inclusive was made. A child, who according to the 1947 document cited above might not be considered Jewish until Confirmation, would actually be considered Jewish upon enrollment in the Religious School; in other words, the intent of a Jewish education was sufficient.® Similarly an effort was made to permit conversion through cantors or lay people in isolated communities where conversion would otherwise be difficult.’ This was not the preferred way, but b’diavad it was acceptable and lhat-hilah possible.
It, of course, became necessary to fight against Orthodox aspersions,”> but this never became the subject of a formal responsum.
In the period of heavy Russian Jewish immigration from 1980 onward, numerous questions about the Jewish status of the immigrants arose. We again did our best to be inclusive and to welcome these individuals who had suffered persecution even when their status was uncertain? As individuals from ethnic communities considered conversion, a variety of special questions were raised.”
It is interesting to note that after a long period of questions which dealt primarily with more theoretical matters and status, ritual questions again became significant in the 1980's, so questions about the use of a migveh and the ritual of immersion were raised for the first time in this century.” Some have expressed desire to create a public conversion ceremony and the positive and negative aspects of this were discussed.”
123