Q&A: Acceptance of Torah and Commandments in Conversion: Definition or Condition?
Acceptance of Torah and Commandments in Conversion: Definition or Condition?
Question
In the “Conceptual Analysis” series.
(This is a good time to say yasher koach to whoever uploaded the content to Spotify.)
You raised the question why the Shulchan Arukh did not mention acceptance of Torah and commandments as a condition for conversion.
You answered: that accepting Torah and commandments is the definition of the matter, not merely one of its characteristics. Therefore there is no need to write it explicitly. It is the essence of the matter.
I have difficulty with this explanation, if only because of the very nature of the Shulchan Arukh as a book of Jewish law.
Your definition is correct, and therefore in dictionary-style wording it would indeed be redundant to add acceptance of Torah and commandments in addition to the term conversion.
However, acceptance of Torah and commandments is the essence of the matter, but it is also a condition. In practice, if he does not accept it upon himself, he is not a convert.
And if that is so, then the Shulchan Arukh, as a book that teaches practical Jewish law, should have included this point, insofar as it is a binding condition.
To say that it was unnecessary for the Shulchan Arukh to spell it out because it is the essence of the matter is like saying the Shulchan Arukh would not need to write how one takes the lulav, because taking the lulav is the essence of the commandment and therefore there is no need to write it.
It is true that the point of conversion is to accept Torah and commandments. But since acceptance of Torah and commandments is also a ritual with rules,
for example: if he accepts Torah and commandments upon himself but only outwardly, for appearances’ sake, in order to marry, there is discussion whether this counts as a valid conversion.
The Shulchan Arukh should have written and stated this condition.
Answer
You are conflating acceptance of the commandments in his heart (the motivation for the conversion) with a statement by the convert that he accepts the commandments as part of the ritual. Regarding the second part, it says: “They inform him of some of the commandments.” It is not clear that he must explicitly say that he accepts them. But it is clear that one must ascertain that in his heart he accepts them, and that this is what led him to come convert. Without that, there is no conversion here. This is like not having to check whether a buyer actually intends to buy, even though without that there is no acquisition. That also does not appear in the Shulchan Arukh.
Discussion on Answer
Why doesn’t it write that one must check whether the buyer really wants to buy?
The phenomenon of people converting for self-interested reasons is contemporary, because of the benefits the state gives. Conversion for the sake of marriage is an old phenomenon, but there the acceptance of commandments was genuine, except that it was done for the sake of marrying.
You don’t need to check it out, because that’s impossible.
But you do need to inform him that this is the process.
This is a halakhic practice, and an integral one.
I’m taking inspiration from today’s reality:
the biggest challenge with those coming to convert is acceptance of Torah and commandments, and their sincerity. Many come in order to marry a Jew or receive citizenship.
This detail, where he accepts it upon himself, is practical.
Whether in the sense that nowadays he goes through a process of learning the religion, though I’m not sure that is actually the Jewish law,
or in the sense that we work to bring him to that realization.
One would have expected the Shulchan Arukh to write this as a binding practical requirement.