Fourth Revolution Are We Encouraging Non-Jews to Convert?
A somewhat theoretical discussion turns into a very practical one regarding the state of a non-Jew who wishes to convert prior to their actual conversion and proposes that the “point of Jewishness” that exists within them has halachic/legal significance. This conclusion sheds new light on the question many have asked: Is HaRav Ginsburgh’s Fourth
The full class, delivered on the 9 of Cheshvan 5785, was first published in Niflaot for Lech Lecha 5785.
Revolution in Torah Learning meant to promote conversion?
Who Determines What Reality Is?
Arguably, Torah grants a great deal of weight to human being’s relations with objects to determine their legal status. In that sense, Torah does not conform with a naïve objectivism about the world around us—objects do not exist fully and wholly independently from the human perception of those objects. On the other hand, we (the subjects) might treat certain objects as meaningless, but from the legal perspective, it is not always our prerogative to decide on what is significant and what is not. In that sense, Torah is also not fully humanistic. What is true about an “object” or cheftza (חֶפְצָא) is also true about the “subject” or gavra (גַּבְרָא)—Torah can render significance and reality to both through its mitzvot and prohibitions.
One of the legal principles that is based on this understanding is known as “its prohibited status renders it significant” ( אִסּוּרוֹ חוֹשְׁבו). One example of this is in regard to leftover dough in a trough. The Rambam rules34F³⁵ that throughout the year, the question whether dough is subordinate to a trough (and is considered part of a trough, and therefore cannot act as a barrier against impurity) or whether the leftover dough is considered separate from the trough (and thus does act as a barrier against impurity) depends on the owner’s intent. But on Pesach, the prohibition of chametz applies to the dough; the prohibition makes the dough significant and a barrier against impurity, even if the owner considers the dough subordinate in his mind. This principle has three variants: a prohibition makes it significant, impurity makes it significant, and a mitzvah makes it significant.³⁶
Regarding the significance imparted by a mitzvah, the Ba’al Shem Tov taught that the mitzvah, by its very commandment, connects the person commanded with God’s essence. The mitzvah is what gives those who are commanded their being. This is likened to a wise man who requests a simple man to do something for him. Through that request, he solidifies his connection with the simple man and gives him a sense of being and significance that he could not have achieved otherwise.³⁷
Thus, as much as the “object” needs to gain significance and standing through the commandments, this is even more pronounced regarding the “subject,” the person himself, whose normal state is one of “nothingness” (ayin), which needs to be confirmed. Indeed, on the verse “Look down from Your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel”³⁸ it is explained in Chasidut³⁹ that precisely when God looks upon reality “from heaven,” from the perspective of “Torah from heaven,”⁴⁰ something important and is blessed. It is the Torah that determines the significance of Israel who engage in Torah learning and fulfill its commandments.
A Torah of Loving-kindness
In abstraction, the Lubavitcher Rebbe explains,⁴¹ that the concept that significance is determined by Torah is not only in exceptional cases, but rather in relation to all of reality since, “all is considered as nothing before Him.”⁴² A created being has no existence at all relative to the Creator, and only the fact that the Torah relates to reality gives reality a state of being, also called yesh in Hebrew, or a cheftza. That is why the Sages explain that
Israel appears as
just before the Torah was given, “the earth feared and was calm,”⁴³ all of reality was shaky (with “fear”) until the Jewish people received the Torah on the sixth of Sivan, and only then did the world receive substantial reality (“and was calm”).⁴⁴
The Lubavticher Rebbe goes further and emphasizes that the dependence of reality on Torah is not a dependency on a person fulfilling the mitzvah in practice, but on the very fact that the Torah relates to something—obligates or prohibits it—which gives it reality. That is, the entire Torah—both in its mitzvot and in its prohibitions—is “a Torah of kindness”⁴⁵, a Torah through which God, who “delights in kindness,”⁴⁶ gives reality its being and turn it into a cheftza—an object.
In this kindness, there is also the power to bring close and elevate the existence of the yesh to holiness. A mitzvah brings close and elevates a spark in the way of drawing near, whereas a prohibition accomplishes the same effect by way of rejection: “the left rejects and the right draws near,”⁴⁷ but with regard to the Torah of kindness, both the rejection and the drawing near—both the prohibition and the mitzvah—are included in “the right draws near” and gives reality to being.
The Reality of the Days of the Omer
This mindset is applicable to certain well-known legal questions that have been discussed for centuries. One of them is whether a minor (a child before bar mitzvah) who came of age in the middle of the Counting of the Omer can continue to count with a blessing?
At first the Rebbe says that it appears that one who became obligated within the days of the counting cannot continue to count, because his initial counting, which is not considered a mitzvah from the Torah, did not create a “reality” of the days of the counting (and accordingly one cannot continue to say “today is such-and-such a number of days of the Omer,” indicating a cumulative continuity in the count).⁴⁸ But afterward the Rebbe says that since the reality (the cheftza) of the days is not determined by their actual counting by the gavra, the subject, but by the Torah commanding us to count the days, the opposite is true; the moment the Torah commands us to count the days, even if they were counted by one who is not obligated, they possess reality and one can continue to refer to their cumulative total and count them as such with a blessing.
Application for the Convert
However, the Lubavitcher Rebbe demonstrates less certainty regarding a convert who converted during the days of the Omer. Can he continue to count after his conversion?⁴⁹ Since “a convert who converted is like a newborn child,”⁵⁰ the reality of the days he counted before his conversion—even if they, in and of themselves, have become a reality—belongs to someone else. Furthermore, even if his mitzvot prior to conversion are credited in his name (in accordance with the opinion that children he had prior to conversion are considered his even after the conversion, for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzvah to have children⁵¹), it may be that this includes only cases in which Torah grants the reality of being even for a non-Jew, such as with respect to children; a convert’s offspring are attributed to him and he fulfills through them the mitzvah of inhabiting the Earth (known as shevet⁵²). But counting the days of the Omer before the conversion is not attributed to the convert in any way, and so the count before conversion will not combine with the convert’s new reality post-conversion.
Levels of Da’at
Since the continuity of the Torah-based reality surrounding conversion remains uncertain, let us apply the principle of the Fourth Revolution⁵³—spreading the holy Torah to all people, revealing the potential of non-Jews to be drawn to the light of truth as potential converts. We will argue that even a convert who converted during the days of the Omer can continue to count, because even before he converted his counting had a degree of significance from the Torah’s perspective, as we will explain.
We have already seen that the Torah gives the days of the counting—the objective part, the cheftza of the mitzvah—their reality. But to ensure continuity, the subject—the gavra— performing the count must be the same subject. As explained, the fact that the Torah obliges a person with a mitzvah grants him being. Likewise, the Torah’s demand that man choose the good, by his free choice, reveals that this choice is the expression of the “image of God”⁵⁴ that is within man⁵⁵—it is what gives man being, similar to the true and absolute reality of God, as it were.
In general, the mitzvot of the Torah obligate the adult individual, one who possesses da’at, i.e., consciousness and agency, for will is expressed through da’at⁵⁶—this is the gavra, the subject that Torah addresses. But da’at is not monolithic. There are clearly levels of da’at.
We see that even a minor, who does not yet possess complete da’at, has a certain dimension of choice expressed in the mitzvot in which he is obligated by virtue of chinuch,⁵⁷ or education/habituation to perform mitzvot. Therefore, the day the child reaches adulthood (the bar or bat mitzvah) is “the completion and primary entry of the holy soul,”⁵⁸ but it begins to enter already from birth and becomes more and more pronounced as their da’at develops⁵⁹).
Regarding the question of whether non-Jews who do not have a complete Divine soul have free will, it is explained⁶⁰ that the moment the Torah imposed upon them the seven Noahide commandments, it gave them free will regarding those commandments and gave them “subject” (gavra) status regarding those areas where they are obligated.
In light of this, we say that so too regarding a convert who converted—the Torah gave the non-Jew the choice, the potential to convert, and the moment he or she makes the decision to do so, it is revealed that they have a “subject” (gavra) status and free will regarding their choice to become Jewish. The convert is a Jew-in-potential even before he converted; the precise term used by the Sages, “a convert who converted” and not “a non-Jew who converted.”⁶¹
A Convert Who Circumcised Himself
We can apply the same principle in relation to another issue, pertaining to circumcision. Valid circumcision can only be (ideally) performed by one who is obligated to circumcise and is circumcised himself.⁶² This is gleaned from the wording in parashat Lech Lecha⁶³— הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל. Some authorities learnt from this that it may not be possible for a convert to circumcise himself. 63F⁶⁴
However, some⁶⁵ have challenged this opinion on the grounds that we find explicit examples of converts who circumcised themselves—beginning of course with Abraham⁶⁶ himself, as well as Jethro⁶⁷, Antoninus,⁶⁸ and Ketia bar Shalom⁶⁹—and therefore they wrote⁷⁰ that since after the convert circumcises he is among the circumcised, he is qualified to circumcise himself.⁷¹ The reasoning here—which is difficult to follow—is basing a present status on a future status, i.e., considering the convert a Jew because he is destined to be a Jew (even though circumcision alone will not complete the conversion, as he still need to immerse in the mikveh⁷²).
But according to what was said above, that when the Torah enables a convert to choose to convert, a certain point of Jewishness is also revealed within him, we will say that this is not merely a decision based on the future. Rather, already at the moment of the convert’s choice to circumcise, he becomes “circumcised” (“in the place of the thought and will of a person there he is truly found,”⁷³ and the moment the “convert [even before] he converted” wants to circumcise, he is already “there”). Put another way: Abraham is the father of all converts,⁷⁴ and when the convert comes to convert, the spirit of Abraham rests upon him—just as God told Abraham that he must circumcise (and the Tzemach Tzedek explained that this stemmed from his feeling that he was uncircumcised and must circumcise,⁷⁵ just as every convert who comes to convert feels), and thereby made him obligated to circumcise, thus fulfilling the requirement that the one circumcising be obligated himself,⁷⁶ so too the convert who chooses to circumcise in order to convert is considered obligated and is permitted to circumcise himself!
Are We Encouraging Conversion?
The core of this discussion is relevant to the pressing question regarding conversion when considering the Fourth Revolution: do we encourage conversion? Is this the way of the Jewish people? The answer is that by conversion it is revealed retroactively that the individual was always a “convert who converted,” one who belonged to the Jewish people inwardly always.
The question of conversion therefore depends on the convert himself, and not on the one who teaches him Torah, who can only illuminate for him and thereby help him find the point of Jewishness that already exists within him. The purpose of the Fourth Revolution is to shine light upon all who come into the world in order to draw them near to the way of God, but there is no attempt in it to persuade anyone to convert—only one who always truly belonged to Judaism of his own accord will be drawn to the light and truth of the Torah and pursue a proper conversion.
34. Isaiah 53:8, Jeremiah 11:19, Ezekiel 32:23, Psalms 27:13, and more.
³⁵ Hilchot Kelim 20:9.
³⁶ And see at length the Talmudic Encyclopedia s.v. Issuro Choshvo. See Hayom Yom for the 8 of Cheshvan: “A mitzvah also means “togetherness” (tzavta) and connection. One who performs a mitzvah connects with the blessed Essence—He who commands that command. And this is [the meaning of] “the reward of a mitzvah is a mitzvah”: that this which he became connected with the essence of the Infinite Light, who commands the command—this is his reward.” See also Likkutei Sichot, vol. 7, p. 30.
³⁸ Deuteronomy 26:15. The essay “Ita BeMidrash Tehillim” 5653 (the essay that is customarily repeated at a bar mitzvah).
⁴⁰ Sanhedrin 10:1.
⁴¹ Likkutei Sichot, vol. 38, Shavu’ot (and see there in particular ch. 3 onward).
⁴² Based on Zohar 1:11b.
⁴³ Psalms 76:9.
⁴⁴ Shabbat 88a.
⁴⁵ Proverbs 31:26.
⁴⁶ Micah 7:18.
⁴⁷ Sotah 47a; Sanhedrin 107b; Zohar 3:177b. See note 27 in the talk. In the Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 306) the discussion is regarding obligation or exemption, but the essential question is about the counting itself—whether there is here a reality of days that can be counted, or whether, since there is no reality to the days that have passed until now, there is no act of counting. ⁴⁹ See note 36 in the talk and the marginal notes on this note. ⁵⁰ Yevamot 22a. ⁵¹ Ibid. 62a (and see Tosafot s.v. “Rabbi Yochanan” there for the reason for this). ⁵² Bechorot 47a. As was discussed beginning from 24 Tevet 5775 (and recently printed in the book HaMahapechah HaRevi’it).
⁵⁴ Genesis 1:27.
⁵⁵ See Derech Chaim by the Mitteler Rebbe, ch. 12.
⁵⁶ See HaNefesh, ch. 7, under the heading “The Power of Choice.” Both on the side of the obligation and on the side of the prohibition—the two sides of free choice—as above. Case in point: a minor who caused damage, although he is legally exempt, even when he reaches adulthood—because he is not considered a “subject (gavra) who is obligated— still, the damage is real from the side of the “object” (the cheftza) and it is tied to him as the one who inflicted the damage. Therefore, it is fitting for him to repent for having caused the damage when he grows up and even to compensate the party affected. See Rema on Orach Chaim 343 and the Mishnah Berurah there.
⁵⁸ Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, Orach Chaim 4:2 (second edition).
⁵⁹ See the class of 3 Adar 5778 and especially the class of 9 Nissan 5784.
⁶⁰ Iggrot Kodesh, vol. 16, letter 5871.
⁶¹ Responsa of Maharam of Rothenburg in the name of Rabbi Yehudah HeChasid (cited in Sefer Teshuvot Ba’alei HaTosafot, from manuscript [New York 5714, p. 286, sec. 19]); Midbar Kadmut (the Chida), section 3, letter 3; Yosher Levav (by the author of Mishnat Chassidim), first house, fourth room, ch. 3.
⁶² Avodah Zarah 27a. See also Hilchot Milah 2:1.
⁶³ Genesis 17:13.
⁶⁴ Minchat Chinuch, mitzvah 2, letter 14 (and so too in the Meiri on Yevamot 45b). His exact words are, “and it seems simple that a convert who comes to convert is not permitted to circumcise himself, for he is still a non-Jew as long as he has not immersed.” He also questions what the ruling would be if the convert first immersed and then circumcised himself (not in the proper order, but there is a view that it is effective). Would the circumcision be ideal (lechatchilah), or would it be valid after the fact (bedi’eved) making it unnecessary to draw a drop of blood, and whether in such a case it is fitting to recite a blessing after the circumcision (as with immersion). Avnei Tzedek, Yoreh De’ah 106; She’erit Yaakov, Yoreh De’ah §18; Hagahot Pri Yosef on Avodah Zarah; Divrei Sofrim §123.
⁶⁶ Genesis 17:26 and in the Ibn Ezra and Ramban there. See also Chiddushei Maharil Diskin, end of Parashat Lech Lecha, who distinguishes Abraham from all other converts. Sanhedrin 94a (and the Maharsha there brought that he was from the sons of Keturah, who were commanded about circumcision, since he came from Midian—and apparently he was already circumcised, and therefore he explained that the intent in the Talmud there is that he added peri’ah to the circumcision—and some say that they are qualified even to circumcise a Jew).
⁶⁸ Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:11 (in a dispute).
⁶⁹ Avodah Zarah 10b, there Keti’ah (bar Shalom) is written with a קְטִיעָה( ה ), but in many places it is written with an קְטִיעָא( א ), as in Ein Yaakov ad loc., in Nedarim 50b in the version of Yalkut Shimoni, and elsewhere. Numerically, the values of the names of the two converts in the Torah—Abraham (אַבְרָהָם) and Jethro ( יִתְרו)—together equal 864, which is also the value of “Serve Havayah with joy” ( עִבְדוּ אֶת הוי ’בְּשִׂמְחָה ) and the product of 4 and 216, where 216 is the value of “awe” (יִרְאָה). 864 is also the value of the filling of “joy” (שין מם חית הא). The two unique converts in the Talmud—Antoninus (אַנְטוֹנִינוֹס) and Ketia (קְטִיעָא)—together equal 432, which is the value of “ben Partzi” (בֶּן פַּרְצִי), a connotation for the Mashiach. 432 is 2 times 216, exactly half of 864, a relationship of “a whole and a half.” The sum of all four converts is 1296, or 36 squared and 6 to the fourth power. 6 is the value of the letter vav (ו), which corresponds to the sefirah of foundation, the sixth of the attributes of the heart and the location of the covenant of circumcision. She’erit Yaakov there; Hagahot Pri Yosef there; Beit Yitzchak, Orach Chaim 13:11. See also the Rashba on Yevamot 76a.
⁷¹ See the marginal notes on Shulei HaMinchah on Minchat Chinuch, loc. cit., particularly note 204 for the Acharonim who write this, that the post-factum ruling, the circumcision of these great giants was done lechatchilah.
⁷² As the Minchat Chinuch writes regarding one who immersed and afterward circumcised, that through the circumcision itself he becomes a Jew (according to the view brought in Yoreh De’ah 268:1).
⁷³ See also Keter Shem Tov (Kehot), 56, 208, 230, 275, and 283.
⁷⁴ Based on Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 1:4; Hilchot Bikkurim 4:3.
⁷⁵ See Hayom Yom for the 9 of Cheshvan.
⁷⁶ As above, note 44.
