15

Firstly, I am an ignorant gentile and am new to contributing to Stack Exchange, so I apologise in advance for any mistakes or missteps.

It is my understanding that a gentile who keeps certain mitzvot (eg keeping the Sabbath fully) is sinning. It is also my understanding that, from an orthodox perspective, a Reform or Conservative conversion is quite meaningless, as if nothing has happened. Am I right, therefore, in inferring that a Conservative (for example) convert who kept these mitzvot would be a sinning gentile?

Thank you.

Alexander
  • 151
  • 5
  • 7
    Your analysis seems quite plausible. – Double AA May 04 '15 at 22:05
  • 4
    (Also, my assumption is that most Conservative converts are not keeping shabbat fully since Conservative Judaism these days is relatively lax regarding Shabbat observance/laws.) – Loewian May 04 '15 at 22:40
  • This Rabbi--https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUWtj1qiFcM --quotes the Chatam Sofer who holds a that non-Jew can keep the Jewish Sabbath (Retreived from @Rosen's answer to this question http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/18995/can-a-gentile-go-to-synagogue-on-shabbat-and-what-is-forbidden-on-shabbat-for-a?rq=1). – Emet v'Shalom May 05 '15 at 01:45
  • @Emetv'Shalom thanks a lot for this new perspective. I googled the rabbi's name, and he seems to have a very sketchy reputation (it may be unclear whether he is actually a rabbi). Apologies if saying so is overstepping any bounds. Is what he says in the video okay? – Alexander May 05 '15 at 02:14
  • 3
    @Alexander You're instincts are accurate. He is a highly sketchy figure to say the least. I wouldn't rely on him for anything. – Double AA May 05 '15 at 04:43
  • 1
    I never heard of that Rabbi before watching the video, and after reading up about his views, I will now say that I do not endorse his radical movement or his radical views. I do not judge the man though, because I do not know his intent. – Emet v'Shalom May 06 '15 at 02:50

3 Answers3

2

Let me start by quoting Maimonides (Ty @Yishai) who is discussing an inadvertent transgression of a gentile of one of the Seven Noahide laws, which are punishable by human court. http://m.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1188355/jewish/Melachim-uMilchamot-Chapter-10.htm

"A gentile who inadvertently violates one of his commandments is exempt from all punishment with the exception of a person who kills inadvertently. In such an instance, the redeemer of the blood is not executed for slaying the killer, nor may the latter seek asylum in a city of refuge. However, the court will not execute him.

When does the above apply? When he inadvertently violates a command without sinful intention; for example a person who engages in relations with his colleague's wife under the impression that she is his own wife or unmarried.

If, however, one knew that she was his colleague's wife, but did not know that she was forbidden to him or it occurred to him that this act was permitted or one killed without knowing that it is forbidden to kill, he is considered close to having sinned intentionally and is executed. This is not considered as an inadvertent violation. For he should have learned the obligations incumbent upon him and did not."

In this interesting case you have presented, the gentile will be keeping the Sabbath by the type of accident which is not punishable, being that he kept the Sabbath under a false pretence of having converted, similar to "a person who engages in relations with his colleague's wife under the impression that she is his own wife or unmarried".

It should be noted that keeping the Sabbath is a heavenly offence not punishable by human courts, so this idea may not hold true.

One more idea found in commentaries dissection of Miamonides words in the aforementioned chapter, halcha #9 which would have an impact here is the following: Rambam writes "The general principle governing these matters is: They are not to be allowed to originate a new religion or create mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions. They may either become righteous converts and accept all the mitzvot or retain their statutes without adding or detracting from them".

Some of the commentaries take this idea very literally and therefore believe that the only prohibition is when the gentile is acting this way to create a Mitzvah. The Imrei Yosher points out that a gentile who wants to convert, but has not as of yet may actually keep the Sabbath, being that he is keeping it as future Jew, not as an inventor of something new. This however is not the common practice AFAIK. Future converts are told to desecrate the Sabbath until conversion. However, this is a valid opinion upon which one can probably rely when stuck in a situation.

As a matter of practical advice though, I would point to a similar but not analogous situation brought in the footnotes of the work Mitzvos Hashem, a work dedicated to laws concerning gentiles, page 460. A person who is questionably Jewish, such as a foundling, will have to act on the Sabbath in a way to keep it as a possible Jew, or desecrate it as a possible Non-Jew. There are a number of options based on various opinions.*

1) He should perform work in the contemporary sense, but not one that is based on the 39 forbidden acts. In accordance with the latter authorities who argue with Mishna Limelech chapter 10 of Hilchos Melachim halcha 2.

2) He should do one of the forbidden acts before evening of Friday and after nightfall Saturday. In accordance with Panim Yafos in Noach who says night follows day for gentiles.

3) He should wear tzitzis in a public domain which is allowed for a Jew but would be considered carrying for a NonJew in accordance with Chassam Soffer.

4) Or he suggests doing a half of a forbidden act, for 'amounts', shiurim, were given to Jews alone.

Any of these would seemingly alleviate the issue at hand, but it is not analogous as the orthodox would not consider an unorthodox conversion as even questionable.

*This particular issue is also addressed in Minchas Chinuch towards the end of mitzvah 32. The Shabsi Frenkel mafteach also brings sources for this on the aforementioned chapter in Maimonides.

user6591
  • 33,638
  • 2
  • 39
  • 81
0

Conservative Judaism is a movement that began in the 19th-20th centuries as an offshoot of the Reform movement that sought to overturn traditional Jewish practice and belief. It rejects what are generally considered to be the fundamental tenets of traditional (i.e. "Orthodox") Judaism (e.g. the 13 principles of faith of Maimonides). Therefore, the consensus of traditional Jewish authorities is that a conversion performed by a Conservative "bet din" is not a valid conversion in the eyes of halacha (traditional Jewish law) for any purpose. That said, it is hypothetically possible that if the 3 judges that formed the bet din kept halacha according to traditional ("Orthodox") standards including regarding ideological beliefs, and they, in turn, required the convert to accept all the mitzvot (again, according to halacha), there may well be grounds to consider the conversion valid even from an Orthodox perspective (implicit from Igrot Moshe Yoreh Deah 3:107; See however Igrot Moshe Even HaEzer 3:4 where Rav Moshe Feinstein says that a Conservative bet din is definitely invalid since the overwhelming majority of Conservative rabbis keep neither halachic practice nor beliefs and similarly Yoreh Deah 1:160; 2:128; 2:132). See also: http://www.halakhicconversion.org/downloads/Who%20is%20a%20Convert%20Essay.pdf

Additionally, Shabbat as kept by Conservatives is unlikely to meet the strict requirements of halacha either, so it's unlikely a Conservative convert actually keeps Shabbat according to the halacha. Additionally, it's disputed what is meant by the prohibitions for a non-Jew to keep Shabbat (or study non-practical Torah, for that matter, which I believe is the other exclusive Mitzvah). As usual when it comes to practical questions, this site's policy (and the policy of good practice in general) is "AYLOR".

(It is also perhaps worth noting that there is a famous quote of Maimonides that [originally Jewish] Christianity and Islam were created as a vehicle to expose the pagan/idolatrous nations to the teachings of the Torah. Considering that the newest Jewish movements are arguably themselves swiftly becoming Torah-oriented communities of righteous gentiles [in the sense that their conversions are not halachically valid and their intermarriage rates are very high], the same principle could be said to apply.)

Loewian
  • 17,746
  • 2
  • 29
  • 60
  • 2
    Didn't Conservative Judaism start trying to restore traditional Jewish practice and belief? – Double AA May 05 '15 at 14:22
  • @DoubleAA sounds correct. I believe that Reform came first as an attempt o "break away" from the strict halachic practices. which is why it is called "reform". As a result, the term "Orthodox" appeared to describe what they considered "strict". Conservative tried to "reform" the Reform. Now, as a I gather, Conservative is further reforming itself by trying to move closer to the Orthodox. Then, of course, you have Chareidi, and many current "Orthodox" are trying to become "Chareidi", so even THAT's "reforming". – DanF May 05 '15 at 15:34
  • @DoubleAA Some Jewish practice. I'm fairly certain Jewish beliefs (e.g. the Maimonidean 13 principles of faith that have generally been assumed to be essential to "Judaism") were never a particular concern. In any case, as I said, they were an offshoot of Reform, which, in turn, sought to "reform" "Judaism". (My understanding is that the OP is also asking about Reform and that he correctly surmises that there is no halachik distinction between the two since both are considered rejections of Torah law with all the halachic ramifications thereof. – Loewian May 05 '15 at 17:33
  • @DanF My understanding is that, if anything, mainstream Conservative has actually been moving to the left. (Reform itself has moved a bit to the right [e.g. regarding Israel and some rituals], so really the 2 movements are perhaps approaching reconciliation.) This has pehaps isolated their most traditionally-minded adherents who are being somewhat driven toward Orthodoxy. Also, the "Open-Orthodox" movement of Rabbi Avi Weiss, has ideas that are to the left of traditional Conservative, so that might mean in that sense the more traditional wing is "NeoOrthodox". – Loewian May 05 '15 at 17:46
  • @DanF I believe RSR Hirsch is quoted as saying that "orthodox" was originally a slur created by the Reform to equate observant Jews with the most primitive christian ideologies. – Loewian May 05 '15 at 17:48
  • @DanF (I refer to the new Charedi-Agudism as Antireform Reform.) – Loewian May 05 '15 at 17:50
  • 1
    loewian, your summary of the history of the Conservative movement is incomplete and unfair to the shomrei Torah umitzvot who were important participants in it. More to the point, it's unnecessary. If posekim consider Conservative conversions completely invalid, cite them and move on. If you want to explain the reasoning of those posekim, go ahead an quote that. No reason to write your own impression of imprecise reasoning based on not-completely-correct history. (CC @DoubleAA) – Isaac Moses May 05 '15 at 18:05
  • ... Your second point "it's unlikely a Conservative convert actually keeps Shabbat according to the halacha." may be true in a statistical sense, but is certainly not true of every Conservative convert, and is therefore a dangerous statement to make lekula. Finally, the statement " it's disputed what is meant by the prohibitions for a non-Jew to keep Shabbat" would be a great deal more valuable if it explained what the dispute is about and if it cited sources. – Isaac Moses May 05 '15 at 18:32
  • @IsaacMoses I'm sorry if you feel offended by my answer. There are/were certainly many Conservative Jews who are better people than many so-called "Orthodox", just as there are many even nobler Moslems and Christians. That said, the movement was founded on principles that are antithetical to the most fundamental assertions of traditional halacha and continues to hold such assertions to this day. (I would add that I believe the Seridei Eish had a Conservative (?) colleague he jokingly referred to as a chilul hashem because he was a good person.) – Loewian May 05 '15 at 20:04
  • @IsaacMoses Should I be presenting a complete history of Conservative Judaism in response to the OP's question? If shomrei torah u'mitzvot were a part of it, why is it unfair to point out that, from the perspective of traditional halacha Judaism, denying Torah Misinai renders a bet din invalid? – Loewian May 05 '15 at 20:04
  • @IsaacMoses If you know of a mainstream (or, honestly, even fringe) authority that argues (e.g. with Rav Moshe Feinstein) that Conservative conversions are valid (even just l'chumra) please let me know. I would be fascinated since I happen to have never heard of such a position (which isn't to say it doesn't exist; though I find it implausible.) – Loewian May 05 '15 at 20:09
  • @loewian, if you're going to make claims about the history and enduring nature of the movement, especially in a Halachic context, you should cite sources. You seem to now be implying that every Conservative beit din denies Torah Misinai. If this is so, it should be possible to demonstrate other than by assertion. If it is not so, then it is unfair to say or imply. – Isaac Moses May 05 '15 at 20:10
  • @loewian if you know of a mainstream authority (e.g. RM"F) who says that all Conservative conversions are invalid, please cite him in your answer. That's all I'm asking. FTR, my personal feelings have nothing to do with this. I just want your answer to be a) accurate on Halacha and any other factual point and b) demonstrably so. – Isaac Moses May 05 '15 at 20:12
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Loewian May 06 '15 at 03:00
-3

If the non-Jew swore off idolatry then he is not stam "goy"(see Hilchot Maachalot Assurot 11:8). It is forbidden for a stam "goy" to keep shabbat(see Hilchot Melachim 10:9) and some opinions even for the stam goy to rest on Shabbat. However, if he has given up idolatry then he is no longer a stam goy and then Hilchot Melachim 10:10 applies, in that he is a ben Noach and can rest on Shabbat. To actually fully keep Shabbat as a mitzvah like a Jew seems to be ok according to Rambam Hilchot 10:10, but other opinions differ. The key is if he is an idolator or not and if he's keeping Shabbat as a mitzvah or what.

In other words, a non-Jew should give up idolatry per the sheva mitzvot. He does not have to honor Shabbat, but should. He should not say he is commanded to keep it per Torah of Moshe as a ben Yisrael, but should just say he is honoring it or the like. HaShem repays measure for measure.

EhevuTov
  • 1,348
  • 8
  • 16
  • 1
    -1 As far as I can tell, this completely misrepresents the Rambam. – Yishai May 06 '15 at 00:00
  • But isn't the possible-convert in this case thinking he is "keep[ing] it per Torah of Moshe as a ben Yisrael"? – Double AA May 06 '15 at 01:10
  • @DoubleAA, I think it's a bit like Schrodinger's cat at that point if they haven't come before a beit din, and such a person is like someone from the gerim gerurim(gerim that are held with a level of suspicion). It's my opinion, as a ben Noach/nascent ger myself who lives in a community, goes to shul and "rests" on Shabbat, this is the perfectly natural and healthy state of the non-Jew in a Jewish community and lends the Jewish people to be the light to the nations and the sages of Torah. This is the stam ger toshav that will be accepted during the Yovel year, etc. – EhevuTov May 06 '15 at 01:35
  • @Yishai Krisos 9a on the non-Jew keeping Shabbat. Let me know if that misrepresents my view on the Rambam as well. – EhevuTov May 06 '15 at 01:35
  • @EhevuTov While your opinions might be marginally interesting to the casual observer, they are almost entirely irrelevant from the perspective of traditional Judaism and the Halachic process. Keeping Shabbat may be fun/nice/relaxing/pleasant, but it also may not be Muttar. – Double AA May 06 '15 at 01:40
  • @EhevuTov, I don't see anything there which supports what you wrote, and in any event the Rambam clearly paskens like the opinion (right on that page) there that there is no distinction between a ger toshev and any other non-Jew vis-a-vis Shabbos observance. – Yishai May 06 '15 at 02:47
  • 1
    I should point out that the Chasam Sofer (Chulin 31a) does read the Rambam as you present it here. However, he seems to rely on the standard girsa which puts halacha 9 as saying Akum, vs. 10 as saying Ben Noach. But the Mechon-Mamrei version, although it has the variance, says Goy with Halacha 9 (11 in their edition), but the reading is extremely forced, especially with the more likely version. CC @DoubleAA, just because you are here. – Yishai May 06 '15 at 19:07
  • 1
    Melachim 10:9 says that an aku"m may not get involved in Torah study or keep Shabbat. Melachim 10:10 says that a ben Noach may keep any of the other Mitzvot. How does that imply that the latter may keep Shabbat? It sounds like the opposite. – Isaac Moses May 06 '15 at 19:12
  • Why do you use the idiosyncratic term "stam 'goy'" instead of just saying "idol-worshipper," as the Rambam does, especially given that that's the distinction you're drawing? – Isaac Moses May 06 '15 at 19:15
  • A"KUM is as acronym introduced by editors. If you look in the yemenite versions, say in Mishneh Torah haShelem, it has "goy" instead of A"KUM. Rambam says that in Hilchot Maachalot Assurot 11:8 that whenever he says stam "goy", he's referring to the idolator. A ben Noach is not an idolator. Therefore, ben Noach is not stam "goy".

    If you were to use the edited versions that say A"KUM, it just helps prove my point, since idolators can't keep Shabbat; bnei Noach however, are not A"KUM. From this point, then I can argue that bnei Noach are not commanded, but not prevented from Shabbat either.

     – EhevuTov May 06 '15 at 19:32
  • @Yishai, thank you for the reference. I'll look that up. – EhevuTov May 06 '15 at 19:38
  • @EhevuTov, the problem I have with that reading is that he says the Goy has a choice - become Jewish or only keep the 7. I would submit that the reason for the distinction is simply that in 9 he is talking about any non-Jew, idolitor or not. In 10 he switches to a Ben Noach because anyone else has to keep the 7 first before they can start adding other Mitzvos - but Shabbos and learning Torah is excluded. This is especially compelling under the Mechon Mamre edition which splits 9 in half, thus our 10 is a continuation only of the statement "The general rule is ..." – Yishai May 06 '15 at 19:50
  • 2
    @IsaacMoses For better or worse, it's very hard to make meaningful diyukim in goy/akum/nokhri/min/etc. without very old manuscript basis. – Double AA May 07 '15 at 02:57