Geirut: The Jewish Conversion Process

Part I

In order for a non-Jew to convert to Judaism, he must undergo a conversion process.  This process is known as geirut.  The Gemara, Keritut 9a, quotes a Beraita that there are three components to the conversion process: circumcision, immersion in a mikveh and bringing a sacrifice.  The Gemara notes that nowadays, when a sacrifice is not possible, one may still convert without bringing sacrifice.  In this issue, we will discuss the relationship between circumcision and immersion in the geirut process.  In the next issue, we will discuss the role of the convert's acceptance of mitzvot.

The Role of Circumcision

One can ask the following question regarding the role of circumcision:  Is the role of the circumcision merely to remove the foreskin or is the circumcision an integral part of the process?  Before we develop this question, it is important to note that the Gemara, Yevamot 46b, states that we do not require a source to teach us that women can undergo a conversion.  Rashba (1235-1310), Shabbat 135a, quotes an opinion that one can deduce from here that if one cannot undergo a circumcision there is no requirement for circumcision.  This seems to be the basis for the ruling of Tosafot, Yevamot 46b, s.v. D'Rabbi, that one who is castrated may convert even though circumcision is not possible.

The question we presented regarding the role of circumcision may be a factor in a number of disputes among the Rishonim and Acharonim.  First, there is a dispute among the Rishonim regarding an individual who wants to convert but already had a circumcision as a non-Jew.  R. Yehudai Gaon (8th century), Halachot Gedolot, Hilchot Milah, rules that even if he had a previous circumcision, at the time of his conversion, he must have blood drawn from the area (hatafat dam brit).  R. Zerachiah HaLevi (c. 1125-1186), HaMaor HaKatan, Shabbat 54a, suggests that hatafat dam brit is only necessary out of concern that he wasn't really circumcised but rather born with a latent foreskin.  However, if we were to know that he had a foreskin and it was removed, there is no requirement for a circumcision for his conversion.

The dispute between R. Yehudai Gaon and R. Zerachiah HaLevi seems to be based on how they understand the role of circumcision in the geirut process.  According to R. Yehudai Gaon, a circumcision is an integral part of the process.  Therefore, even if there is no foreskin, one must perform hatafat dam brit, which is considered a form of circumcision.  According to R. Zerachiah HaLevi, the purpose of the circumcision is to remove the foreskin.  If it can be determined that the foreskin was already removed completely, there is no need for circumcision.

Second, the Gemara, Yevamot 46b, states that a conversion must be performed in the presence of three individuals (beit din).  Rambam (1138-1204), Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 13:6, implies that only the immersion must be performed in front of the beit din.  Rambam mentions no requirement to perform the circumcision in the presence of the beit din.  R. Ya'akov ben Asher (1269-1343), Tur, Yoreh De'ah no. 268, rules that the circumcision must be performed in the presence of a beit din.

One could explain that Rambam and Tur disagree regarding the role of circumcision in the conversion process.  Rambam is of the opinion that its purpose is simply to remove the foreskin.  Therefore, there is no need for a beit din to be present.  Tur is of the opinion that the circumcision is an integral part of the process and therefore, it must be performed in the presence of the beit din.  R. Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986), Igrot Moshe, Yoreh De'ah 1:158, presents a different approach to the dispute.  R. Feinstein suggests that one can question whether a beit din is required for the entire conversion process or just for the completion.  If one assumes that it is only required for the completion, one would only require a beit din for the immersion and not for the circumcision.  R. Feinstein further suggests that even Tur agrees that under normal circumstances there is no requirement for a beit din to be present at the circumcision.  Tur only requires a beit din for the circumcision if it is performed after the immersion.  In that situation, the circumcision is the final stage in the process and a beit din is required.

Third, there is a dispute among the Acharonim regarding a potential convert who is too ill to receive a circumcision.  R. Chaim Ozer Grodzenski (1863-1940), Achiezer, Kovetz Igrot no. 27, rules that he cannot convert without a circumcision.  R. Yitzchak Rabinowitz (c. 1853-1918), Zecher Yitzchak no. 3, writes that the question may depend on the role of circumcision.  If the circumcision is part of the process, it is arguable that under the circumstances, one is not required to engage in this part of the process because it is dangerous.  However, if the purpose is to remove the foreskin, one cannot perform conversion until that foreskin is removed.  Being that it is dangerous to remove the foreskin, one cannot convert.  R. Rabinowitz concludes that the circumcision plays a dual role in the conversion.  One cannot convert without removing the foreskin.  Yet, the circumcision is not only for the purpose of removing the foreskin.  It is also part of the conversion process.  [R. Tzvi Elimelech Shapira of Dinov (1783-1841), Derech Pikudecha, Aseh no. 2, Chelek HaDibur no. 30, writes that if the circumcision is considered dangerous from a medical perspective, but the potential convert wants to endanger himself in order to become Jewish, it is permissible to do so.]

The Relationship between the Circumcision and the Immersion

The question regarding the role of circumcision relates to the relationship between the circumcision and the immersion.  Ordinarily, immersion is performed after the circumcision.  There is a dispute among the Rishonim if it is possible to reverse the order.  Tosafot, Yevamot 47b, s.v. Matbilin, write that the circumcision must precede the immersion.  Ramban (1194-1270) Yevamot 47b, s.v. Nitrapei, is of the opinion that the circumcision may be performed after the immersion.

R. Aryeh L. Grosnas (1912-1996), Lev Aryeh 1:10, explains that the dispute is contingent on the role of circumcision.  If the purpose of circumcision is to remove the foreskin, it is arguable that this is a necessary prerequisite to the immersion.  One who immerses with a foreskin is comparable to one who tries to removal ritual impurity imparted thorough an insect by immersing with an insect in his hand (tovel v'sheretz b'yado).  However, if circumcision is a step in the conversion process, it is arguable that one can accomplish conversion even if the steps are not performed in order.

R. David Povarsky (1902-1999), in his Shiurim to Ketuvot 11a, presents a similar approach to explaining the dispute, but notes that this approach will present an apparent inconsistency in Ramban's opinion.  Ramban, Yevamot 46b, cites the opinion of Rambam, op. cit., that if one performed an immersion at night, it is valid.  Ramban disagrees and rules that if the immersion was performed at night, one must perform another immersion during the day.  Ramban proves this from the comments of the Gemara, Baba Batra 114, that indicate that if a judgment was issued at night, the judgment is invalid.  R. Vidal of Tolosa (late 14th century), Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 3:6 defends the position of Rambam based on the statement of the Gemara, Rosh HaShanah 25b, that if a judgment began during the day, it may be concluded at night.

R. Povarsky notes that the issue of whether one may perform the immersion at night should be contingent on the role of circumcision.  If circumcision is a stage in the conversion process, once the circumcision takes place, the process is considered to have begun and one can conclude the process at night.  If the circumcision is merely a prerequisite to the conversion process, the immersion is the beginning of the process and one cannot begin the process at night.  However, such an approach would lead one to the conclusion that vis-à-vis performing the circumcision after the immersion, Ramban is of the opinion that circumcision is part of the process and vis-à-vis immersion at night, Ramban is of the opinion that it is only a prerequisite.  Therefore, R. Povarsky explains that because Ramban allows circumcision after immersion, it cannot be considered the beginning of a process, but rather an independent stage.  The two different stages do not relate to each other and are two components necessary to achieve conversion.  If one already performed circumcision, it does not allow one to perform the independent immersion process at night.