Q&A: Conversion
Conversion
Question
Hello!
I seem to remember that at the time you came out against Rabbi Druckman’s conversions and argued that there is no such thing as conversion without acceptance of the commandments, and it sounded from your words as though you held that this meant accepting to actually observe the commandments in practice (otherwise there would be no reason to protest those conversions). However, in one of your columns from about a year ago (maybe two), you clarified that in your view accepting the yoke of the commandments means with respect to obligation, reward, and punishment, and if so, it would דווקא seem that his conversions should be valid.
1. Have you changed your mind?
2. Do you really think there is actually a possible case where a person intends only to accept reward and punishment, but not to observe in practice? It seems simply bizarre to say: I’m going to keep behaving normally, and I’m interested in accepting horrific suffering in Gehenna for that….
In other words, is this only a conceptual Talmudic distinction, or are there cases where it has practical significance in reality?
Answer
Not at all. It was explained היטב in my article there. In a large portion of the conversions in that system, there was no acceptance of the commandments even in this minimal sense. By the way, it is not connected to reward and punishment. What I mean is that he understands that this obligates him. The punishment he would receive is an indication of that. And that answers your second question.
Discussion on Answer
That is a diagnostic question. I am speaking on the level of principle. If, in our assessment, he accepts the obligation even if he is not planning to observe, then it is a valid conversion.
What is the meaning of “understanding that this obligates me” if from the outset I am planning not to observe some of the commandments? Why not treat that as an indication that there is a flaw in the “acceptance of obligation”?