SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA

today. Yet this doubt as to motive of the candidate occurred in the case of Hillel and in the case of Rabbi Hiya(Shabbat 31a and Menahot 44a). In one case the proselyte wanted to become high priest some day and in the other, the proselyte wanted to marry a Jew. Yet in both cases the candidates were accepted, and the explanation is give(see Tosfot to Yevamot 24b, s.v."Lo") that they were accepted because these two scholars were confident of their judgment that these two proselytes would be sincere proselytes despite their present motives. In fact, Joseph Caro , in his Bet Yosef to the Tur(Yoreh Deah 268) uses a guiding phrase:"It all depends upon the judgement of the court"(hakol lefi re’ut bet din). So the Shulhan Arukh itself(268:12) says that if a man has been circumcised and bathed, then he is a full proselyte, even though there is ground to believe that he converts for the sake of marriage.

We may conclude that in Orthodox law the order of importance is, first, the ritual circumcision and bathing; second, the question of sincerity; and third, and least important, instruction.

With us in the Reform movement, we have made a clear-cut change. We have declared that the ritual(circumcision and ritual bath) will not be binding upon us. We have made the question of sincerity important, but have declared(see Conference Report on "Mixed Marriage and Inter-Marriage," page 8) that the desire of the couple to marry is not to be considered proof of the insincerity of the conversion, but perhaps the very reverse. We have placed our main emphasis on the instruction.

ion comes to us which confronted Orthodox law: How much or how little of the process 15

Now the same quest

indispensable? Or whether, under special circumstances, the candidate can be converted before the usual course is finished, on condition that the course be continued after marriage, either ja the rabbi or with another. The answer must be given in light o

187