So according to this, if a non-Jew comes before me and says, “I want to be Jewish because this is the true religion, but I know I won’t eat kosher,” is it permissible to convert him?

In principle yes, but it’s far from certain that it is desirable.

It doesn’t seem to me that such a convert is accepted as a convert in Heaven’s eyes.
Not in the sense of whether he has a share in the World to Come or things like that, because who knows. Certainly not me. What are the criteria for “getting in” there. But why would the Holy One, blessed be He, want from the outset for there to be more new Jews among the Jewish people who from the beginning draw a line and come with an attitude that they have no interest at all in fulfilling His will (of course it depends how far. A convert who keeps the bare maximum minimum of Jewish law, some kind of ordinary layman type, seems reasonably not to be going against God’s will even if he isn’t perfect. But a convert who converts and hugs and kisses and desecrates Sabbaths, and the only thing he changes in his lifestyle is just a few Sabbath and holiday candles, maybe kiddush, and prayers once in a while—it seems pretty reasonable to assume that a conversion like that is against the will of Heaven.) And if he is nevertheless a person who believes in the truth of the Torah but is simply too lazy to observe it even on the level of an ordinary layman, why not just remain a righteous non-Jew of the nations of the world and that’s it?

Aside from practical considerations like whom to marry and so on. But those are already matters for which solutions can be found.

That’s exactly the problem: where is the line? Obviously he won’t keep the entire Torah, so why would violating law A prevent him from converting while law B would not?

I answered, and I’ll say it again: there is no difference between the various laws. Read what I wrote.

Rabbi Michael,

Could you please give a concrete example of something a non-Jew might say for each of the following cases:
1. A case where it is forbidden to convert him
2. A case where it is permissible to convert him (even if not necessarily desirable)
3. A case in the gray area (where it is unclear whether it is permitted or forbidden)

Thank you.

1. It’s not forbidden, rather it is impossible to convert him: someone who does not accept the yoke of the commandments. He wants to convert on a purely national basis.
2. I wrote such a case above.
3. If it is unclear to you whether he does not accept the yoke of the commandments or merely won’t manage to keep them.

Thank you.

Regarding 2, I assume you were referring to “I want to be Jewish because this is the true religion, but I know I won’t eat kosher”?

If so, why is it permissible (even though not certainly desirable)? It sounds like he has firmly decided that he will not keep one law, even if in principle that law is true in his eyes. That sounds like he is not prepared to accept the yoke of the commandments, but is simply prepared to acknowledge the religious truth of Judaism (which any Noahide who observes the seven Noahide commandments as the word of God is doing anyway, no?)

I explained. If he accepts this upon himself and understands that it obligates him, that is not merely saying that Judaism is true. A non-Jew can say that Judaism is true, but he is still not obligated because he is a non-Jew. The one converting, by contrast, wants to take the obligation upon himself, except that he knows he won’t be able to live up to it.

Forgive me, Rabbi, but something is still unclear to me. If a non-Jew says, “I want to convert on condition that I will not observe / will not succeed in observing any law,” is it permitted to convert him?

The fact that he claims from the outset that he won’t live up to a certain law raises doubt about his true desire to convert.
Why say such a thing from the outset at all? Let him try and see—maybe he will live up to it? Isn’t there something here that at the very least undermines his desire to be bound by the commandments?
As opposed to, for example, a statement like: “I want to convert, but I think it will be difficult for me to observe law X.” There he recognizes the difficulty, but it implies that he will nevertheless try and wants to observe it.

Forgiven. I didn’t understand the question. Everything has been explained up to this point. What is the point of repeating the same thing again and again? Especially since I myself wrote that it is not proper to convert such a person, only that it is valid after the fact.

I’m asking how it is valid even after the fact. As I understand it, this indicates a lack of seriousness on that person’s part regarding his obligation to the commandments, and therefore undermines the validity of the conversion.
I’m probably missing something, and I’d be happy if you could clarify what it is.

You are probably missing the messages in which I explained this well.