CONVERSION IN REFORM HALAKHAH

Conclusions

As we have read a summary of debates as well as some of the responsa, we must ask what was and is the justification for the changes which have been made. They are radical and represent a new view of conversion. Yet the Reform movement views them as strongly rooted in the past.

Let us begin with the debate on circumcision. There is, of course, no problem about the uncircumcised child of a Jewish mother. As long as the mother is Jewish , according to tradition, the child is Jewish whether circumcised or not. The obligation for the b'rit rests first on the father, then on the mother and finally a bet din may supervise the circumcision. When the child reaches maturity, the obligation then is his. The lack of circumcision would be considered a sin but did not disqualified that individual in any way as a Jew. In that debate the Reformers were completely in agreement with their more traditional counterparts.

However, when we turned to the matter of circumcision for proselytes, we see a division in the ranks of the Reform leaders which reflected the mood of the period. Some individuals felt that the rituals of Judaism were no longer significant. The intellectual content was of primary importance and the rituals represented an educational tool of a previous age.” This theoretical stand was used particularly with rituals of the rabbinic period, however, circumcision is Biblical and was mentioned in connection with Abraham and others.” It was therefore more difficult to eliminate circumcision for proselytes than some other rituals. In addition, some rabbis refused to consider its elimination for the sake of the unity of the Jewish people. A number of rabbis also felt that such an important decision should not be undertaken by individuals but only by all Reform rabbis together so that standards for conversion would be uniform.