Talk:Ger tzedek

IZAK don't be anonymous, you do realize that you have completely reversed the point of view of the original article instead of adding thwe alternative POV?Wiki is not about t4rying to force one POV into domination but to report all of the POVs in a neutral manner.Zestauferov 05:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Halakha & Gerim

Hi Zest:You are introducing ERRONEOUS definitions and confusing people. A "Ger" or a "Ger Tzedek" is someone who has become fully and Halachically Jewish 100% because they have undergone "GIUR" ("Conversion) and this is what makes them into a "Ger". "Ger Tzedek" refers to a very "Righteous" convert. One CANNOT be refered to as either a "Ger" or "Ger Tzedek" PRIOR to the actual "day of conversion" when an AUTHORIZED Beit Din accepts the PROSPECTIVE Ger and oversees the Halachic requirements, such as immersion in the Mikveh supervised by that Beth Din. ONLY THEN does the Beit Din ISSUE a "SHTAR GIUR" (Certficate of Conversion) certifying that the former GENTILE (GOY) is now a Jew (Halachik Jew). So to call someone who has NOT immeresed in the Mikveh a "Jew" is incorrect from the point of view of Halacha and any branch of Orthodox Judaism and most Conservative Judaism goes by this procedure. The Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism do not have these standards for conversion to Judaism. The branch of "Netzarim" people, who believe in "Ribi Jesus" are confusing you. Maybe you would enjoy learning at http://www.aish.com/ or http://www.ohr.org.il/ or at http://www.chabad.org/ and you will see that they will all say what I have just told you here. IZAK 19:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

According to what I am learning from the Beit Din I am thinking of practicing in (ask your Rabbi to tell you which one), by making a distinction between one who has become Jewish and one who was born Jewish Izak you and your teachers are breaking halakha. Maybe your Beit Din has a different stance on this. I do not know well about the differences between the beitei Din yet. I have already mentioned that Wiki is not about the battle for one opinion to dominate, but for the neutral expression of the various opinions. Are you not content enough with my leaving the Jew page according to your opinion that you are seeking to silence my Beit Din's position here too? My beit din does not accept any Noahides as genuine unless their intention is to become fully torah observant with the exceptions provided for them within the Torah. The 7 noahide laws are simply a minimum start. Please read http://www.noahide.com/minimum.htm for more details on that. Only those Noahides who cannot become Jewish because for example they are married to a Gentile, or have damaged genitalia, etc. are permitted to remain Ger Tzedek, The word Guir does not mean convert it means proselytize why do you think we never used the word convert with regards to Judaism even in English until recently? You were either as Jew or a Proselyte ("Judaized" non-Jew). That is the traditional stance. I know American Reform movement is trying to promote different views but then so are Messianics, but in the orthodox view there is no difference between these two schools.Zestauferov

Zest: Noahides have NOTHING to do with the question of Halachik conversion according to Orthodox Judaism. They are merely a wonderful group of NON-JEWS (Gentiles) who have decided to follow the "7 Laws of Noah" (they are NOT "converts" and they are NOT "GERIM" or "Ger Tzedek" in any way shape size or form or whatever....). I have not touched on that subject at all, so I don't know why you drag them into this discussion.IZAK 18:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about "discriminating" between true "Ger" (convert) or "Ger Tzedek" (righteous converts) and a Jew born of a Jewish mother? I am NOT suggesting that Halakha be broken at all. We are having a SCHOLARLY discussion about these issues. It is the Torah that says that "You should love the ger (convert)" (Leviticus, chapter 19, vs.33-34): Is the Torah "discriminating" because it calls a "ger" a "ger"? On the contrary, SOMETIMES it is a high COMPLIMENT in Torah Judaism to call someone a "Ger", such as the famous case of the Vilna Gaon's Count Potocki, who is known as the "Ger Tzedek of Vilna" or the "Ger of Vilna". All throughout classical Torah writings there is mention of those who are a "Ger Tzedek". However, as far as Reform Judaism, they definitely and deliberately "changed" (some would call it "broken") the paramaters and allow even people who do not have a Jewish mother but only have a Jewish father to call themselves "Jews", so they have created a schism that allows people who according to Halakha are NOT Jews to call themselves "Jews".IZAK 18:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The term "giur" means the PROCESS of conversion. I am just trying to help you out with correct terminology as you say yourself you are only now begining to learn about HALAKHIC Judaism in depth. IZAK 18:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. why don't you stop mentioning the name of that "divinity' you like to name so much. It is also against Halakha to do so. I don't want to alienate you, but I do find it unfair that you are trying to give the impression in your posts that I am being misled while I am simply following Halakha while you are the one who has been misled into not following Halakha. Please consider the nature of the ground you are standing upon friend. Zestauferov 06:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What "Halakha" are you "following" if you call someone who has NOT completed the process of conversion yet, and is Halakhically a complete Gentile, a "Ger" or "Ger Tzedek"? IZAK 18:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision is a prerequisite of becomming a Jew (for men, I think you may be right that Ruth was just a Ger Tzedek -I have to get confirmation- since one can be a Jew if you are the son of at least a Ger Tzedek female & a male Jew). Read the Torah. I have heard that some Beitei din even insist that one who has already been circumcised must have a symbolic nic in the forskin or even be re-circumcised if possible. You wrote it yourself, Mikhvah is the final requirement for a Ger Tzedek or Proselyte and not circumcision. Zestauferov 06:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Zest: FIRST comes the circumcision ( and yes, if the converting gentile did have it done earlier it must now be done symbolically with just a drop of blood drawn, known as hatafat dam brit), and then the FINAL STEP is the immersion in the waters of the mikveh, as far as I know. Why would you think that a man can "skip" brit mila (the required circumcison of conversion), and fancy to call himself a Halakhic "Jew" by merely going into a mikveh? That sounds really too much like Christianity which merely requires "baptism". Judaism is not some sort of "eloborate Baptist religion". I highly recommend you purchase a copy of BECOMING A JEW By (Orthodox) Rabbi Maurice Lamm. (Jonatahn David Publisheers) Get it at your local Judaica store or online at either

Barnes&Noble:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=BQv1PKPx8K&isbn=0824603508&itm=1 or at

Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0824603508/103-5616073-8653426?v=glance IZAK 18:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an online reference from one of the communities I respect most http://www.chayas.com/ger.htm You will see that this is not a netzarim site at all and that my POV is certainly valid. I hope you will do something about reverting your very strong suppression of my POV considereing the facts presented. If not I will do it myself, I will try not to show a bias. All the best.Zestauferov 15:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Netzarim

This section of the discussion does not belong here it has been moved following no objection to the Talk:Nazarene Judaism page. Zestauferov 11:02, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link and incorporated the material into the article to give some context. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ger Tzedek

In Reform Judaism, Ger Tzedek has a different meaning since they make a distinction between their own Ethnic Jews and people who become Jewish, but such a stance is seen as apostasy by the ultra orthodox community. The reform view is derived from an interpretation of Maimonides, who stated that Abraham is the father of all the Righteous (Tzedekim).

Though I haven't checked the edit history, this paragraph looks like a typical Zestauferovism. Does it actually add any value? Indeed, aside from making Zestauferov's usual point (that Reform is considered apostacy by Orthodox), does it even mean anything? Jayjg 17:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello, any comments? Jayjg 21:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I find his edit confusing. Taken as written, it adds no information to the article, and I suspedct it will confuse readers. RK 00:36, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

It is Zestauferovese. Delete and replace with something that actually represent Reform views on conversion to Judaism. JFW | T@lk 09:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reversing conversion

I do not believe a rabbinical court can reverse a conversion, but they can annul it if they find it was entered into under fraudulent premises. The most famous case (that I'm aware of) is the Paula Cohen (if memory serves me right about the name), who converted in Israel, promptly married a Kohein, moved to the UK, where the London Beth Din refused to accept the conversion. Once the rabbi in Israel heard that she'd a) moved out of Israel and b) married a Kohein, they "took back" the conversion as well. Without getting into the case beyond this, the point made was that Ms. Cohen intended fully to marry a Kohein at the point when she converted.

---

If I am not mistaken, essentially the same principle applies to Orthodoxy's rejection of, say, Conservadox conversions: they are done according to Orthodox ritual, but one of the premises (namely, an Orthodox understanding of the nature of the law) is not present. I don't think the semikha of the Rabbi involved is the primary issue; most Conservadox rabbis have Orthodox semikhas. Hasdrubal 20:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Restrictions on a convert

As far as I know there isn't a general restriction against converts serving on a beit din. There is, however, a restriction against them serving on a beit din that is witnessing a conversion. (There are, after all, other uses for a beit din). For some reason I can't quite understand, it is thought that converts have a conflict of interest in such a situation.--Leifern 02:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, a convert cannot be appointed a Dayan (he may sit on a beth din though). This is based on a textual hint in the Torah and not on logic. The other restriction is female converts marrying kohanim. JFW | T@lk 06:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dinopup's additions

Judaism was once more of a proselytizing religion than is commonly thought. The very word "proselyte" originally meant a Greek who had converted to Judaism. In the Gospels there are criticisms of Pharasees for being so enthusiastic about making conversions. Byzantine authorities passed edicts against converting to Judaism as late as the 6th century. The Byzantine government would not have needed to pass such laws if conversions were not occurring.

Dinopup, could you please provide some sort of sources for this; e.g. the verses in the gospel, or the date or name of the Byzantine edicts? Also, you conclusion about those edicts seems highly POV; do you have support for this reasoning? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what verse Dinopup had in mind, but a notable one is Matthew 25:15, which in the King James version reads "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."Benami 14:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what I take Jayjg to be saying: a prohibition of X is not a proof that X is actually happening to any significant extent, but, rather, it is a sign that the powers that be fear X (whether reasonably or not). I also agree with Dinopup's statement, except for the last sentence. Hasdrubal 20:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Poppycock!

Ger does not mean Convert! Hitgairut = conversion and is from a competely different root. Just because two root words in Hebrew look the same it does not mean they are etymologically related. It is shameful that there should be any Hebrew speakers confusing the two words here. Ger (as in Ger Tzedek, Ger Toshav or Ger Ha Shaar) means Stranger/foreigner/sojourner and that is all. Any other meaning for a similar Hebrew sound is a different Hebrew word.

It's the same word, it has multiple meanings. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]