Conversion
peace!
I remember that at the time you came out against Rabbi Druckman’s conversion and claimed that there is no such thing as conversion without accepting the mitzvot, and it was heard from your words that you considered acceptance to mean actually fulfilling the mitzvot (otherwise there is nothing to say against these rabbis who convert). Indeed, in one of your columns from about a year (maybe two years ago) you clarified that in your opinion accepting the yoke of mitzvot means in terms of reward and punishment, and therefore his conversions should actually be valid.
1. Have you changed your mind?
2. Do you really think there is a point in which a person only intends reward and punishment and does not actually carry it out? It is simply delusional to say, “I will continue to behave normally and I am willing to receive hellish torment for it.”…
In other words, is this just an academic diagnosis or are there cases where this has a practical application in reality?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What does it mean to “understand that it obligates me” if I plan in advance not to fulfill some of the commandments? Why not treat this as an indication that there is a flaw in “accepting the obligation”?
This is a diagnostic question. I am speaking on a principled level. If in our assessment he accepts the commitment even if he does not plan to keep it, this is a kosher conversion.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
