SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA

accept a liberal conversion. They would consider our bet din invalid and would certainly feel that our converts would not have accepted the yoke of the commandments, the entire system of mitzvot.

As we view the rite of conversion from a Reform point of view, we should not that the Reform movement has placed its stress on careful instruction with more attention on intellectual rather than ritual requirements. The Central Conference of American Rabbis, in 1892, abolished the requirement of any ritual including circumcision. Most liberal rabbis, however, require circumcision in accordance with the opinion of Hillel (Shab. 135b). Converts are to be accepted after due instruction before"any officiating rabbi assisted by no less than two associates." There are, of course, definite limits to instruction in this instance, but some initial education can be undertaken.

Except in a cursory way, no discussion of tevilah has been undertaken by liberal Jewish authorities. The custom has fallen into disuse, but was never actually rejected. It is followed for niddah by only a small percentage even within the Orthodox community. The practice has been further hindered by endless Orthodox debates about the technical requirements of miqveh. A ritual immersion has, therefore, not been considered necessary for conversion in many Reform Jewish communities. There are, however, a number of cities in the United States and Canada in which tevilah has been encouraged or required for Reform conversion. In others it is optional.

We might conclude that if the custom possesses meaning for

the communities and for the prospective convert, it should be encouraged. This would make it more difficult for traditionalists to challenge liberal conversions, although Orthodox authorities wa never willingly accept anything we do as our basic premises differ

sharply.

161