PART TWO: THE HISTORY OF JEWISH UNIVERSALISM 
             
A. Jewish Universalism in Jewish History  
     Offering Judaism and welcoming converts is a resumption of
an ancient Jewish historical vocation. It is not a break with
Jewish history, but rather a return to its roots. Welcoming
converts was a normative part of Jewish history.
     Jewish universalism has to stretch back to retrieve
Judaism's historical welcoming of converts and its eventual
retreat from the active part of the religious vocation. Only when
that retreat is seen against the general background of Jewish
history can it be fully appreciated why we have now reached the
historical moment to resume the active, conversionary part of the
Jewish vocation. It is therefore important to get an overview of
conversion in Jewish history.  
     From the point of view of Jewish universalism, an analysis
of the willingness and ability of the Jews to perform their
divinely-mandated conversionary mission forms the basis of
understanding the meaning of Jewish history. Jewish history in
this sense can be seen as an ongoing struggle, a clash of
interpretations between Jewish universalism and other
interpretations of Judaism, such as Jewish particularlism, which
was the most important alternative interpretation in Judaism's
formative years. When Jewish universalism is ascendant in Jewish
history, particularism is present but is balanced by reaching out
to gentiles and seeking to offer Judaism. (It is important to re-
emphasize that Jewish universalism doesn't see particularism and
universalism as polar opposites. Jewish universalism is a unified
concept that incorporates particularism). When particularism is
ascendant, there is almost a total emphasis on spiritual
obligations internal to the Jewish community with virtually no
attempts to win converts.  
     It is also important to note that the struggle between
Jewish universalism and, for example, particularism cannot be
simplified as a struggle between non-Orthodox and Orthodox Jewry.
Jewish universalism is compatible with some but not all Orthodox
interpretations of Jewish history and some but not all non-
Orthodox interpretations of Jewish history. 
     Jewish universalism as a theory was discussed in the first
part. As a practice, Jewish universalism is difficult to
demarcate. Almost any attempt to transmit Judaism might
legitimately be seen as an effort to obey the covenant.
Therefore, in keeping with the conclusion that specifically the
seeking and welcoming of converts is the most useful way of
understanding and evaluating the success of the Jewish mission,
the history of that mission will be, in effect, the history of
conversion to Judaism. 
     The history of conversion included here is, of course, a
very brief outline of that entire history; a full, scholarly
history is not intended. The historical material is included to
provide illustrative evidence that conversion was once a prized
and vigorous activity and that, despite sustained efforts to
prevent it, it never fully ceased. To make such a claim, an
historical overview of conversion to Judaism must not only be a
list of applicable religious laws or brief biographical portraits
of some converts. That history must be interpretive.
     An interpretive history of Jewish universalism needs to
answer these questions: (1) how did Jewish universalism arise
from Judaism's basic theological beliefs and develop into a full
belief system? (2) What external and internal conditions affected
the status of Jewish universalism within Jewish religious life?
(3) what activities constituted proselytism in Jewish history?
(4) why did conversionary activities decline? and (5) is it now
the historical moment to revive Jewish conversionary activities?
     















B. Conversion in the Biblical Period                            
     The Biblical Israelites had no concept of religious
conversion because the notion of a religion as separate from a
nationality was incoherent. The words "Jews" and "Judaism" did
not exist. Abraham was called an "ivri," a Hebrew, and his
descendants were known either as Hebrews, Israelites (the
children of Israel), or Judeans. These words are nationalistic
terms that also imply the worship of the God of Abraham. 
     While there were no "conversions," many non-Israelites
joined the Israelite community, often through marriage or
acceptance of the beliefs and practices of the community. In this
sense, assimilation is the earliest form of conversion. Abraham
and his descendants absorbed many pagans and servants into their
group, greatly increasing the size of the Israelite people. 
   After their journey into Egypt, their Exodus with the "mixed
multitude," and the receiving of the Torah on Mount Sinai, the
Israelites returned to the land of Israel. Once again, they
increased their numbers from among non-Israelite peoples, both
those who lived in Canaan (such as the Hittites, Hivvites,
Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and others) and
those who entered the land. 
     Some of these foreigners, the nachri, remained apart from
Israelite society, apart from the ezrach, the native Israelite.
Some nachri, though, wished to join the Israelites. Such people
were given a new status, as gerim (Hebrew for "strangers"). A ger
would be taken to the holy mountain and there render the
necessary sacrifices. 
     Gerim often assimilated into the Israelite people by
intermarriage. For instance, pagan women who married Jewish men
automatically adopted their clan, and thus their religious views.
The marriages that resulted were seen as positive because pagans
would turn from idolatry to God through such marriages.   
     The gerim were permanent residents, but did not own land.
All non-Israelites who joined a family or tribe were to be given
equal rights and equal responsibilities, although the
participation in religious rituals developed in stages.
 The Israelites were enjoined to love the gerim, for the
Israelites had been gerim in Egypt.  
     As Judaism attracted adherents, it became both useful and
necessary to explain the relationship between Jews and gentiles
within Jewish thought. For a full theory of Jewish universalism
to develop, the central Jewish understanding of God had to
undergo a maturation.
     God was conceived in very early Jewish thought as a national
deity, protecting the Israelites in their land, aiding them in
their fights, freeing them from hunger, and generally providing
for the nation's sustenance. Misfortune--bad crops, illness--
could be overcome by offering a sacrifice to God. God was seen as
the exclusive Lord of the Israelites; they could worship no other
deity and God would protect no other people.
     The concept began to change in the 800s B.C.E. The
Assyrians, desiring hegemony over the world, gave impetus to the
very idea of a single, unified world, an idea which transplanted
itself into an emerging Israel and was transformed into a
spiritual concept. It was such an idea that the prophet Amos (c.
751 B.C.E.) adapted when he asserted that God was not just the
God of the Israelites, but of all people, of the whole world.
Amos concluded that if the Jews were faithless, God could rescind
the covenant made with the Jews and give it to another people,
assuming the other people accepted God's commandments. Amos, of
course, preached a fidelity to the covenant that would insure
God's continuing favor. The startled Israelites heard from the
prophet that their God was independent of them and could exist
without them if they did not adhere to God's commandments. 
     Amos, the first universalist, could not fully comprehend the
implications of his own interpretation. He believed God could
enter into only one covenant at a time rather than entering
simultaneous covenants. Also, Amos could not conceive of Israel
worshipping God outside the land of Israel.
     Amos's disciple Isaiah (c. 740-700 B.C.E.), also noting
Assyrian power, concluded that it, like Israel, was susceptible
to God's ethical teachings. This was a vital step for Jewish
universalism, for a critical connection had been made. Isaiah
concluded that if God is God of the whole world, not just Israel,
and if God had revealed divine laws at Mount Sinai, then it
follows that those laws must apply not just to Israel but to the
whole world. 
     One of the defining moments of Jewish history was the exile
of Jews from the land of Israel in 586 B.C.E. The exile had many
significant effects. It destroyed the tribal structure of the
Israelites. The severing of national identity from the overall
identity of the people made the religious elements of the people
paramount. The rabbinate based on scholarship replaced the
priesthood based on lineage, synagogues and academies replaced
the Temple, and Torah study and prayer replaced sacrifices. The
Israelites, a national people, became Jews, the followers of a
religion.  
     At some point, the prophet Jeremiah sent a letter to the
Babylonian exiles telling them to pray for the welfare of their
settlement in Babylon. The revolutionary theological change was
that Jeremiah, altering the views of Amos and Hosea, argued that
God could be worshipped outside the land of Israel. 
     Such an insight about God transformed not only the
theological views of the Israelites, but their view of gentiles
living outside the Holy Land. Just as the concept of a "portable
God" made it possible for Israelites to retain their identity
outside their promised land, so, too, did such a concept of God
allow for gentiles living outside the land to join the people not
by moving to the land of Israel, but by adopting the religious
views of the Jews. Non-Jews could join the Jewish people by
worshipping God, by renouncing their pagan ways, and by accepting
new beliefs. 
     Because in the exile gerim could no longer attach themselves
to the Israelites in the same way as had been done in the land of
Israel, the very notion of ger changed. Converts were termed
nilvim, those who attached themselves to God (Isaiah 56:3,6;
Esther 9:27; Zechariah 2:15; Isaiah 14:1) or nivdalim, people who
left the non-Jewish world to follow the holy law (Ezra 6:21).   
     But if worshipping God on foreign soil was possible for
Israelites, and gentiles could accept God anywhere, then it
followed that worshipping God was possible for all humanity in
every land. Only after Israel realized that God's laws were meant
for all humanity and that God could be worshipped by pagans
everywhere (that is, without having to move to the land of
Israel) could there arise the idea that the entire world could
follow God's laws. Armed with this insight, with Ezekiel's
statement that God wished to be worshipped by all people, and
with the already long-standing and potent belief that idolatry
was a sin, the Israelites needed only a few more steps before
they could realize the moral need for proselytizing. 
     The next step was a belief that God would punish sins. This
belief in divine retribution through resurrection, judgment, and
moral justice after death gave a moral compulsion to confront all
idolaters in order to release them from divine retribution. This
idea of retribution fueled the Israelites. "It provided
tremendous attractive power to missionary Judaism."    
      It was Deutero-Isaiah (c. 540 B.C.E.) who provided the last
necessary step for the Israelites to understand their mission.
Deutero-Isaiah asked the logical question: who would teach the
gentile nations about God, about divine truth? Who would make
humanity follow the moral laws of the covenant? Who would save
humanity from divine retribution? The answer, of course, was that
the people Israel were the divine messengers. God had revealed
the moral truth to them, had given them the toughening discipline
of exile, and would return the Jews to their land to become God's
servant and become the moral teachers for all humanity, to become
God's active witnesses to the world, to become, in Deutero-
Isaiah's insightful image, a light unto the nations. Israel was
to bring God's revelation to the world and with it truth so that
all humanity could be redeemed. It was also Deutero-Isaiah who
transformed the way Israel understood spiritual change from the
assimilation in earlier times to religious conversion, from a
gradual process to a single moral act. The Jewish concept of
religious conversion is first clearly defined in Isaiah 56:1-8.
Jewish universalism had fully emerged.       
     The obvious implication of the notion of Jewish universalism
that unfolded slowly from the most basic Jewish beliefs meant
that Jews should offer their religion and welcome converts. They
now had all the necessary theory.  
     It is therefore unsurprising that on Rosh Hashanah in 516
B.C.E., as the Second Temple was being dedicated, Zechariah
proclaimed such a program of seeking converts to Judaism.
(Zechariah 8: 20-23). This proselytizing program was undertaken
for the next quarter century.
     Eventually, a particularist reaction weakened the Jewish
universalist movement, especially after the legislation mentioned
in Ezekiel 44:6-9 was enacted in 458 B.C.E.
     The return of Ezra in 458 B.C.E. and Nehemiah in 444 B.C.E.
brought back the particularist strand of Jewish thought.
Proselytism was halted. Opposition to this isolation was
expressed in Ruth and Jonah, but the particularists won for
three-quarters of a century as Jews re-grouped and focused only
on battling significant internal problems such as intermarriage. 
     But the Jewish universalism that developed in the fourth and
third centuries B.C.E., a careful blending of particularism and
universalism, did not die. It was passed on to and interpreted by
the Pharisees. 
   The emergence of the Pharisees was important because their
theological views buttressed the pro-conversionary views widely
held by Jews. The Pharisees believed that a universal messianic
future would eventually occur, and that salvation was not a
matter of birth, but of keeping the Torah. This democratization
of salvation was important, for it theoretically made Judaism
available to everyone in the world. The Pharisaic emphasis on
social ethics included the notion that loving your neighbor as
yourself meant making the Torah available to that neighbor. The
Pharisees also believed in chosenness, with its sense of mission.
     In some sense, though, the pro-conversionary views of the
Pharisees were mixed. The Second Commonwealth had inherited the
social divisions of the earlier kingdom. The urban plebians (e.g.
Hillel and Joshua ben Hananya), were very much in favor of
offering Judaism. Another segment of society, the provincials
(e.g. Shammai and Eliezer ben Hyrcanus) opposed proselytizing,
believing that a person was born into Judaism and could not join
it. This struggle allowed for the eventual triumph of the
provincials, but only after a long period of plebian success at
convincing Jews that proselytization was central to their
religion. 
     Other religions took the efforts of the Pharisees very
seriously indeed. The most famous statement about the Pharisees's
zeal in seeking converts comes from the Christian testament in a
vituperative comment that indicates how seriously the early
Church took its Jewish competitor: "Alas for you, scribes and
Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over sea and land to make a
single proselyte and anyone who becomes one you make twice as fit
for hell as you are." (Matthew 23:15).
     Jews won many converts during the Hellenistic period through
to the destruction of the Second Temple (323 B.C.E.-70 C.E.). The
Maccabean victory (c. 164 B.C.E.), with its renewal of Jewish
sovereignty, spurred conversionary efforts. That victory gave new
impetus to missionary activity for several reasons. 
     The rise of the Jewish nation back to political power was an
incentive to gentiles. Kings found it advantageous to be on
friendly terms with Jews and even to convert and accept their
religious worship. The religious fervor of the Jews, their
ceremonies, and their re-dedicated Temple, were all attractive to
gentiles. 
     Salo Baron cites demographic figures and argues that in 586
B.C.E. there were no more than 150,000 Jews, but that by the
first century of the common era the Jewish population had grown
to eight million. Louis Feldman observes that "The most likely
explanation of this increase is proselytism..." Indeed,
virtually every extant Jewish source and a large number of both
Greek and Roman sources discuss Jewish efforts to offer Judaism.
There are some who argue against the idea that the Jews
proselytized in the Greco-Roman period. Much of the argument,
though, is over language, about what precisely constitutes
proselytism.
     There were a variety of methods used that fall under the
general term of Jewish proselytizing. Usually the term meant one
of the following: 

1. Judaism was "offered" by waiting for God to bring the gentiles
to Judaism. This method was favored by those who believed solely
in a passive mission.  

2. Jews created literature that was aimed at attracting potential
converts. This literature was, of course, secondary to the sacred
literature. The missionary literature had a specific aim: to
convince others of Judaism's truth. Such literature included,
among other works, the Sibylline Oracles, Josephus' Contra
Apionem, Philo's Apologia hyper Ioudaion (a work no longer in
existence), the Letter of Aristeas, Joseph and Aseneth, and
material by Eupolemus, Demetrius, and Aristobulus. There is clear
evidence that the Septuagint, the oldest Greek translation of the
Bible, was prepared, in part, to offer Judaism to non-Jewish
Greeks. In the translation "ger" was translated as "proselyte." 
The translator is believed to be Onkelos (Aquila), himself a
proselyte. In particular, emphasis is placed on a Jewish
missionary task in the translation of the Book of Isaiah.
  
3.  The synagogue was used indirectly to offer Judaism. The
synagogue's main function was the exposition of the Torah for
Jews. In the non-Jewish sense of the word mission, the synagogue
did not engage in missionary work. However, the synagogue's very
presence and mystery to many non-Jews combined with its openness
and hospitality to invited guests and visitors to make it an
important place for potential converts to investigate Judaism.
Those who had a natural curiosity about Judaism, that is, had a
place to go. They were not always directly invited in; their own
interest brought them to the synagogue's doors, and the Jewish
notion of "offering" meant, in this case, making Judaism
available by having public houses of worship and allowing non-
Jews to enter. Of course, individual Jews no doubt invited
friends to enter. Once inside the synagogue, visitors came into
contact with the prayers and reading of the Torah. In the
synagogue and elsewhere, non-Jews saw a religious and ethical
system and a set of practices they admired, especially the
Sabbath and the dietary laws, that stood in considerable contrast
to the ways in which they had been reared. The Jewish alternative
to pagan, Greek or other beliefs was attractive to many, and they
sought further instruction. There is a reference in Philo (De
Septinario, 6) to "thousands of houses of instruction in all the
towns," a reference which may be to the many synagogues which
functioned as learning centers for gentiles. 
4.  There is mixed evidence about whether or not there were ever
any organized Jewish "missionaries." In general, however, Judaism
did not have a need to create a specific missionary occupation in
the way it is commonly understood because, as the occasion
warranted, all individual Jews would spread the religion. For
example, it was an actor named Alityrus who interested Poppaea,
the wife of Nero, in Judaism. That is, it is more accurate to
talk of personal approaches made by Jews to non-Jews than
missionaries. The personal approaches were made in various ways,
such as by inviting non-Jews to attend a synagogue, participate
in a Jewish practice, listen to an exposition of Jewish thought,
or read a piece of literature, when non-Jews expressed an
interest in Judaism or asked a question or discussed religious or
philosophical views. Because there were many Jews who were
travelers and merchants, non-Jews frequently came into contact
with Jewish practices and ideas on a regular basis. Some of the
gentiles asked questions about particular matters. Because the
religious education Jews gave themselves and their children made
virtually all Jews religiously knowledgeable and observant, even
ordinary Jews could answer questions and provide living models of
a Jewish way of life. The early literature lists large numbers of
actual and probable converts, some famous, most not. Gentile
merchants traveling through Judea, for example, frequently
converted because they were attracted to the ethical way of life
of the Jews.
     Gentiles also approached Jews on a personal basis because
the gentiles were befriended by Jews or observed Jews performing
good deeds, but Jews didn't, for instance, go out on the streets
stopping strangers and seeking converts because such an act was
considered pagan.    

5. The education of Jews and especially Jewish children extended
to non-Jewish children who were adopted by Jews. If Philo is to
be believed, the Jews regularly took in children who had been
cast off by their gentile families. Such children became Jews and
were reared as Jews. Adoption of non-Jews may be seen as
analogous to Judaism's earliest methods of offering Judaism to
their servants and to the non-Jewish resident aliens in their
land or those living outside the land of Israel but among Jews.
That is, many non-Jews who naturally lived among Jews and came in
daily contact with Jewish religious activities were invited to
participate in those activities.    

6. Another way in which Jews actually welcomed converts, and thus
a way that defined the "offering" borders of Jewish universalism,
was through marriage (Yevamot, 92b). The marriage partners
frequently converted to Judaism and the children of
intermarriages were raised as Jews. Interestingly, there were few
objections to Jews marrying converts, at least until Christianity
arrived to challenge Judaism. 
     
     Despite all these proselytizing activities of the period, a
common legal ritual for conversion only slowly emerged. Ruth, for
example, simply declared her loyalty to her new faith and people.
Hillel only asked that a pagan go and study. There were
procedures by which non-Jews could become Jews and clear
statements about their legal status (a status more legally
complex than presented in this overview) and clearly-set positive
views about the converts.
     It is unclear when precisely these legal rules developed,
rules which included circumcision for males (milah), immersion in
clear water (tevilah), and, when the Temple existed, sacrifices.
They may have developed in the Second Temple period or after the
destruction of the Temple. Certainly after the destruction of
the Second Temple, the need for certainty must have accelerated
because the halakhah, which would eventually be written down in
the Mishnah, was to be the rock to which a drowning Israel in
exile clung, a guiding collection of religious laws to maintain
Jewish identity without the unifying effects of common
nationality.
     Josephus notes that the impulse to seek what can now
legitimately be called religious converts was so strong that it
sometimes included force. The Idumeans, for instance, were
forcibly converted to Judaism by John Hyrcanus in 125 B.C.E.
Hyrcanus also forcibly converted the Edomites. His son
Aristobulus I forced the Itureans to convert in 105 B.C.E. Such
rare events were well outside the normative conversionary
activities which involved persuasion rather than force. The
forced conversion was no doubt justified by those forcing them as
an attempt to eliminate paganism. Politically, the conversions
seemed to try to force loyalty on the new subjects of Judea.
Josephus tells the tale (also mentioned in the Talmud) of the
royal house of Adiabene, a small kingdom on the Tigris River. The
Crown Prince, Izates, the Queen Mother, and perhaps many in the
kingdom were converted in the first century, Izates by the
merchant Ananias and his mother by another merchant, Hananya.
     Philo, writing in this period, believed that the proselytes
he saw should be "accorded every favor." Roman writers disliked
the widespread proselytism.  Horace unflatteringly noted how
peculiar Jews were in wanting gentiles to become Jews. Tactitus,
Cicero, Juvenal, and Dio Cassino are among those who, in
disparaging proselytism, acknowledged both its presence and
influence.  There were many famous Roman converts, such as
Flavius Clemens, a relative of the Emperor Domitian and a member
of the Senate.
   So successful were all these efforts, that by the beginning of
the Christian era, ten per cent of the population of the Roman
Empire, about four million people, were Jewish. 



C. Conversion in the Talmudic Period
     One of the difficulties about considering conversion in the
Talmudic period was that the Biblical terminology used to discuss
the subject was re-defined by the Rabbis. For the Rabbis, for
instance, a ger specifically meant a convert to Judaism. The
Rabbis made a distinction between two types of gerim. A ger
toshav, or settler convert, also called a ger ha-shaar (or
proselyte of the gate, as in Exodus 20:10), was a resident alien
given permission to live in land controlled by Jews if he or she
did not worship other gods or engage in idolatry of any kind or
blaspheme God. The ger toshav agreed in the presence of three
scholars to follow these Jewish principles. In addition, a ger
toshav had to observe the Noachide Laws. The ger toshav did not
have to perform work on the Sabbath, but was not required to join
in worship or perform specificially Jewish religious
commandments. Maimonides called them righteous gentiles. They
were clearly not full converts to Judaism.
     The second category of gerim was the ger tzedek, a righteous
proselyte, one who converted for the sake of religious truth and
not for any other motive. (Such a ger was also called a ger
emet,l a true proselyte, or a ger ben b'rit, a proselyte who is a
child of the covenant). These gerim didn't just follow the
principles of Judaism but also its rituals and practices. They
are mentioned in the thirteenth blessing of the Amidah. 
     Some people, the gerurim, converted to Judaism for non-
religious reasons such as marriage or a perceived economic or
other advantage. Such proselytes (including, for example, the
Gibeonites who became Jewish by a trick to avoid destruction and
those who had been forcibly converted) were considered to be
fully Jewish.
     In addition to those who formally converted there was
another group mentioned in Psalms and by Josephus, among other
places. This group, known as "God-fearers," frequently kept the
Sabbath and many believed in monotheism and prophetic ethics.
They did not eat meat from a pig. However, they did not observe
the other prescribed rituals of Judaism. They were not
proselytes, just gentiles following many Jewish customs in a very
wide variety of ways. The God-fearers, sometimes called semi-
proselytes, included the magi of Persia, the Gymnosophists of
India, and such well-known Greek thinkers as Plato, Aristotle,
and many of the stoics.
     Part of the problem with developing such categories is that,
apart from those who formally converted, there were many ways
with which gentiles identified with Judaism short of actually
becoming Jewish. These ways have been defined by Shaye J. D.
Cohen, and include: (1) admiring an aspect of Judaism or Jewish
life; (2) acknowledging that the Jewish God is powerful; (3)
receiving a benefit from Jews or being friendly with Jews; (4)
practicing some or many Jewish rituals; (5) praising the Jewish
God; and (6) joining the Jewish community. Some of these led to
Cohen's seventh category, actual conversion.
     The destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. and the
defeat of Bar Kochba (135 C.E.) marked the end of Jewish
sovereignty, or even national existence under occupation, for
almost 2,000 years. The existence of Jewish life in the Diaspora,
as it had during the Babylonian exile, propelled the importance
of religious views. The Jews themselves still had a favorable
attitude toward converts, and Judaism was still considered
attractive by many, but various factors imperiled Jewish
universalism's survival.
     The external restrictions imposed on a stateless and
militarily weak Jewish people by Christian and Muslim authorities
were a major factor in the decline of proselytism.   
   Converts, for instance, were persecuted by Domitian between
81-96 C.E. The converts' property was confiscated, and they were
sentenced to death or exile. In 131 C.E. Hadrian prohibited
circumcision and public instruction in Judaism. Five years later
he added to the list of prohibitions the observance of the
Sabbath and the public performance of any Jewish ritual. In the
year 200 the Emperor Severus promulgated laws forbidding heathens
to embrace Judaism. In 325 Constantine re-enacted Hadrian's law,
forbidding Jews to convert slaves or engage in any proselytizing
activity. In 330 Emperor Constantius decreed that Jews would
forfeit any slaves converted to Judaism and the circumcision of a
Christian slave carried a death penalty and the confiscation of
property. Seven years later Constantius passed a law confiscating
all property of a Christian who converted to Judaism. These and
other early prohibitions greatly affected Jewish religious
leaders.
   The Rabbis who wrote and edited the Mishnah and the Gemara, as
well as other writings, had, as has been seen, generally
favorable attitudes toward converts. Drawing on the prophetic
implications that proselytism was, in effect, the Jewish mission,
the Rabbis saw conversion as affirming both the truth and the
eventual triumph of Judaism. 
     These conversions did not stop even after the loss of
national sovereignty. In the second and third centuries there
continued to be a series of conversions, especially among the
intellectuals. Both Raba and Rab Ashi, Babylonian scholars in the
fourth century, vociferously advocated proselytism. It seems as
though entire villages approached Rabbah ben Aboah to be
converted, and the Talmud notes that Mahoza, a major Jewish
community, had many proselytes. (Avodah Zarah 64a: Kiddushin
73a).
     The post-Mishnaic minor tractate Gerim detailed a procedure
for welcoming converts, provided regulations regarding
circumcision, ritual baths and sacrifices, defined the ger
toshav, and reminded the Jews that they were to have a friendly
attitude toward converts. M. Simon suggests that "The existence
of Masseketh Gerim-a manual of the laws relating to converts--is
in itself a substantiation" of a claim by George Foot Moore that
all the persecutions did not prevent the Jews from persisting in
vigorous missionary efforts.
     Still, slowly, over time, the Rabbinic attitude, and the
Jewish peoples' attitude, changed. 
     The rise of Christianity was one reason for the change.
Christianity used the Jewish missionary zeal and methods,
ultimately transforming the Jewish concept of conversion from an
ideal into a requirement and transforming the means of effecting
conversion from offering into intrusive missionary work. When
such zeal was combined with a relaxation by Paul of existing
conversionary obligations, especially circumcision, the
Christians became very successful in attracting converts. Indeed,
many gentiles close to Judaism, who had not formally converted,
chose instead to take the easier route and become Christians. The
Rabbis began to discourage would-be converts for fear that
instead of becoming Jewish they would become Christian. 
     Another reason for the change was that the horrible defeats
by the Romans had turned Jewish life inward, making it focus on
religion and ritual observance rather than nationalism and
militarism as a means of survival. The Rabbis saw their mission
increasingly as one of educating Jews about the Torah and making
them follow religious laws. This mission, in brief, was one of
survival; saving the world couldn't take place while the Jews
first had to save themselves. The Rabbis were trapped and
desperate. They had to preserve Judaism under the most trying
circumstances but still felt the missionary obligation to welcome
gentiles. The Rabbis praised conversion going so far as to put
the praise in daily Jewish prayer. But fear of persecution and
the need for self-preservation in the Diaspora was making the
Jews a religious body segregated from the gentiles by both
external legal authority and internal religious authority. If
seeking converts would endanger the very existence of the Jewish
community. the Jewish leaders would take the prudential route of
protecting the community. If the Godly mission was not to be
allowed by contemporary history, Rabbinic Judaism organized to
protect and preserve the Jewish people for the day when that
mission could be resumed. 





















D. Conversion in the Middle Ages
     The political status of Jews in the Middle Ages, essentially
subordinate to the Christian and Muslim authorities under whom
they lived, combined with the continuing illegality of conversion
to Judaism to prevent many conversions. 
     There were a wide variety of legal prohibitions that
supplemented those imposed earlier. Between 395-408 the Byzantine
Emperor Arcadius re-enacted Constantius' decrees prohibiting
proselytizing by the Jews; in 538 and 548, the Third and Fourth
Councils of Orleans forbade Jews to proselytize; between 717-720
Omar II forbade Jews to seek converts among Muslims; and in 740
Egbert, the Archbishop of York, in England, forbade Christians to
attend Jewish festivals. Under such circumstances, conversions
continued on an individual basis, with mass conversions occurring
only during those rare moments when the political status of the
Jews was improved. 
     Conversions occurred more frequently in the areas that were
contiguous to Christian or Muslim rule, suggesting that
conversion was, in part at least, a political strategy to resist
the religious intrusion of Christianity or Islam. The two most
famous cases of this are the conversion of Yusuf Dhu Nuwas, the
King of Himyar (in what is currently Yemen) in the early part of
the 6th century and the conversion of the Khazar royal house in
the 720s. Dhu Nuwas, attempting to achieve freedom from Christian
Abyssinian rule, could not get the assistance he sought from
Persia, and his Jewish kingdom did not survive. The Khazars were
a Turkic people who lived between the Black and Caspian Seas in
Southern Russia. Legend has it that King Bulan held a debate
among speakers for Judaism, Islam, and Christianity and chose on
the basis of what he heard to accept Judaism. It is more
probable, however, that Jewish traders, travelers, and refugees
introduced Judaism to the Kingdom. Khazaria eventually fell, and
some of its Jews went to Eastern Europe.
     What is most important about the Khazars was their effect on
medieval Jews. The rise of Christianity and Islam, following on
the loss of sovereignty and the concomitant demise in any
military or political power, had made Jews desperate for a
theological explanation of their plight. The explanation that
they would one day be justified when the messiah came and that in
the meantime they would be judged by their adherence to the
mitzvot and not by temporal success had not yet fully seeped into
the Jewish imagination.
     Medieval Jews were still considering the possibility of
revival; they were encouraged by the conversion of the Khazars
precisely because it illustrated for them the attractiveness of
Judaism and because the conversion was an exemplification of the
Jewish mission to offer itself. It is no accident that Judah
Halevi (c. 1075-1141) grasped on to this story of the Khazars
when he sought a framework within which to explain Judaism. His
classic work, Sefer ha-Kuzari, sees in the act of conversion the
essence of the Jewish message and the Jewish mission. 
     There are a large number of individual cases of conversion
all through the Middle Ages. Many converts were made from among
servants. Some of the converts to Judaism were even Christian
clerics. These converts were often forced to flee for their
safety to Muslim-controlled lands, where, of course, it was not
illegal for Christians to convert to Judaism. Indeed, Christian
sources indicate concern over Jewish proselytizing. In the 9th
century, for instance, the Carolingian Bishop Agobard argued that
the Jews still were active in offering Judaism. Christians were
concerned about such people as Bodo, a Carolingian cleric and
court deacon who converted to Judaism in 839, adopted the Jewish
name Eleazar and married the daughter of a Jewish friend. Bodo-
Eleazar fled to Sargossa, Spain. Once there, he began a campaign
against Christianity by writing materials critical of his former
religion and attempting to convert Christians to Judaism.
     Other clerical conversions were also noted, perhaps because
of their notoriety. Wecelin, a cleric who worked for Duke Conrad
of Carinthia, accepted Judaism sometime about 1005. There is
written evidence that Wecelin published a brief tract against
Christianity. Wecelin, who may have fled to Egypt, is only one of
many 11th century converts described in the Cairo Genizah. Other
11th century converts were Andreas, an archbishop of Bari who
converted about 1070, various anonymous converts, and, most
famous, Obadiah, who was born in Oppido, Italy late in the 11th
century. Obadiah specifically cited Andreas (and a mystical
dream) for his inspiration to convert. Norman Golb estimates that
about 15,000 people converted to Judaism and fled Europe between
1000 and 1200.
     That even individual cases are recorded, that they occurred
in each generation, and that non-Jewish authorities continued to
argue and regulate against conversions indicate that such
conversions did persist and that Jews continued, carefully, to
accept converts, perhaps in larger numbers than we know. The
Jews, restricted as they were, continued to prize converts and to
welcome them when they could. 
     In the 12th century the tosafist Rabbenu Tam ruled that the
Jewish community should accept a man who had had an affair with a
Jewish woman and wished to convert in order to get married.
Abraham ben Abraham, a former monk from Wuerzburg converted after
noting the unreliability of the translation of the Bible from
which he was taught. In England, converts continued to be
welcomed until the Jews were expelled in 1290. Before the
expulsion, the conversion of a Dominican friar named Robert of
Reading (who supposedly converted after studying Hebrew
literature, assumed the name Haggai, and married a Jewish woman)
was widely noted; indeed, the expulsion order specifically listed
Jewish proselytizing as one of the reasons the Jews were forced
to leave.
     Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg mentions converts in 13th century
Germany in his responsa. The various Jewish communal memorial
books list conversions up to the middle of the 14th century.
     One famous story of Jewish conversionary zeal during this
era involves the Kabbalist Abraham Abulafia (1240-c.1291) who, in
the summer of 1280 went to Rome in an attempt to convert Pope
Nicholas III to Judaism. Abulafia wished to see the Pope on the
eve of the Jewish New Year. The pope, however, was then living at
a summer house. He was told of the plan and ordered Abulafia to
be burned at the stake. Abulafia arrived at the outer gate of the
pope's residence, but he was not arrested. Nicholas had died of
an apoplectic stroke during the night. Abulafia was jailed for 28
days and then released.
     There were many other conversions through the Middle Ages
including that of Count Valentine Potocki (died 1749) who
suffered martyrdom rather than renounce his new religion. 
     Hasdai Crescas, a major 14th century Jewish philosopher,
could still claim that the exile might serve some missionary
purpose: "It is through our being exiled and scattered among the
nations that His name is proclaimed among all men and the message
of the prophets is articulated...When the truth is revealed in
time, all the nations will come to serve Him, shoulder to
shoulder."
     Many tosafists welcomed converts as rabbinical students.
Rabbi Shimon ben Zemach Duran of Rashbaz (1361-1444) still clung
to the notion that offering Judaism in order to seek converts
ought to be understood as one of the 613 Biblical commandments.
The fact that Jews were willing to endanger their lives in order
to welcome converts indicates that many did, in fact, regard such
proselytizing as a divine commandment. 
     Maimonides in his famous responsum to Obadiah the righteous
proselyte expressed respect and appreciation for converts, saying
proselytes are genuinely Jewish and so may address the "Holy One"
as "Our god and the God of our Fathers." As to those Jews who
humiliated converts, Maimonides reminded Obadiah that
"God...loves proselytes."
     But it is clear that conversion was affected not only by the
persecutions and restrictions and by the successes of
Christianity and Islam in winning converts, but also by the
changing attitudes internal to Judaism. An interpretation of
Jewish life must fit Jewish reality and Jewish needs. As the
Middle Ages progressed, the most realistic Jewish political
conclusion was that segregation was beneficial. Inside their own
communities, Jews maintained a high degree of autonomy--which
they understood as power. The value of this autonomy in providing
religious and to some extent other freedom was such that
competing interpretations which endangered it were discouraged.
The need for self-segregation brought a justifying ideology that
emphasized passivity and focused solely on obeying mitzvot and
expectantly waiting for the messiah rather than obeying these
particulars of Judaism but also offering their religion to the
gentiles. Such a narrowing of Judaism's view was useful in
providing both a justification for the current life of the Jews
and a hope for their future life.
     Additionally, the Christian persecutions provoked so much
hostility that Jews became suspicious of all Christians, making
it psychologically all the more difficult to offer Judaism to the
very people who were identified with mocking Judaism and
persecuting, forcibly converting, injuring, and even killing
Jews. The idea of a mission to the gentiles became more and more
repugnant.     
     Other reasons for Jewish universalism's decline included:
(1) Jews were viewed by many gentiles as guilty of and disavowed
by God for Deicide, a dispersed people to be feared or abused or
shunned, not joined;  (2) Jews wouldn't adjust their rituals to
make it easier to convert to Judaism; and (3) the Jews insisted
on really persuading gentiles and having real motives for
conversion so that, for instance, when the Jews were persecuted
they simply found it difficult to accept that gentiles sincerely
wished to convert a persecuted people. 
     Finally, the decline of Jewish universalism is attributable
to the fate of proselytizing within the halakhic system.    
     There were two kinds of teachers of the halakhah in the
second half of the 13th century. These teachers, or schools,
worked independently and had differing opinions about proselytes.
First, there were those who sought to explain the classic
Rabbinic texts such as the Talmud. These mefareshim or
commentators were used to establish practical law. The chief
commentators centered in France and Germany and other areas under
Christian rule were Rashi and the tosafists. They saw all the
Talmud's tractates as a single document and so sought in their
interpretations to unify diverse elements. They were very much in
favor of proselytes. Rashi, commenting on the Pentateuch
(Deuteronomy 33:19; Isaiah 44:4-5) said the day of redemption
would be preceded by proselytes adhering to the Jewish people.
The tosafists were the first to say that Jewish law requires the
acceptance of converts. Indeed, "The Franco-German rabbis made
the commandment to proselyte their basic premise."
     The other group of teachers were the posekim, the decision
makers. They were centered in North Africa, Spain, and other
areas under Muslim rule. They focused on codifying the law and
writing responsa. One of the posekim was Simeon Kayyara, compiler
of Halakhot Gedolot, one of the earliest codes. Isaac Alfasi was
another famous posekim. Maimonides, the most famous, compiled the
classic code, the Mishneh Torah. In general, the posekim were
more restrictive in their view of proselytization, although, as
noted, Maimonides was solicitous to righteous proselytes if not
proselytism.
     Because two conflicting schools of practical halakhah
existed, with both the tosafist interpretations and the rulings
of Alfasi and Maimonides accepted, there was considerable
confusion.
     Asher ben Jehiel (the "Rosh" or Asheri) attempted to produce
a code that balanced both schools. His son, Jacob ben Asher
produced a similar code called the Tur. Nahmanides and his
disciple Rashba also attempted to blend the two halakhic systems.
It was in these attempts to blend the Maimonidean and tosafist
approaches that the Maimonidean approach to proselytization
prevailed. The reason is largely historical. Especially after the
Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, there was a vigorous and vicious
campaign against Jewish proselytizing. The contemporary
codifiers, then, were protecting the community, choosing survival
and sacrificing Jewish universalism.
     Joseph Caro sought to unify what he saw as the existence of
many views. He wrote the Shulhan Arukh (1564-65) seeking out
majority opinions, but heavily favoring the Spanish view in
almost all areas. Only when Moses Isserles added the Mappah, the
notes, in 1569-71 did the Shulhan Arukh become the most
authoritative code, perhaps, in part, because it was the first
code devised after the invention of the printing press and so
could be rapidly and widely distributed. The Shulhan Arukh became
the code followed by traditional Jews. In Yoreh De'ah, chapters
268-269, Caro discusses proselytes. He quotes Maimonides and
seems opposed to active proselytization. But Caro is more
complicated than he appears. Like the Tur, for instance, he
presents the laws for proselytes more favorably than Maimonides
did. He explicitly did not quote Rabbi Helbo's famous anti-
conversionary statement that proselytes are like sores. Caro also
did include some tosafist opinion. In Yoreh De'ah chapter 268
Caro writes that the prospective convert is to be told at
considerable length that all the idolatrous nations will perish,
but Israel will survive, that Judaism will become the sole
religion. (Caro cites Yevamot 47a).
The very existence of conversionary laws in the Shulhan Arukh
indicates that converts were still acceptable in principle, even
during the Jewish historical period that had the most negative
attitudes toward converts. The continuing existence of laws
delineating conversion procedures may even be read as a
calculated effort to keep alive the spark of the Jewish mission
so that it would be available to burn brightly again at a more
propitious historical moment.
     Nevertheless, the tosafist interpretation of proselytization
as a commandment was gone. Many in the community used a narrow
interpretation of Caro's views, an interpretation which was more
useful for the historical moment, and the communal policy of
being wary of converts prevailed.
     The downplaying of proselytizing as a commandment was, of
course, central to its demise. A divine obligation had to be
engaged in despite Christian or Muslim opposition or oppression.
If proselytization were voluntary, however, then the non-Jewish
pressures to cease it could be part of the calculation about
whether or not to continue engaging in it.
     Additionally, by the 17th and 18th century, Jewish thinkers
began to see Christianity as conforming to the principles of
Noachism so that converting gentiles to Judaism was considered
unnecessary.
     There were, of course, a continuing stream of individual
conversions, many with fascinating stories, but by the end of the
Middle Ages, proselytism, once central to Jewish self-
understanding, once understood as part of the covenantal
obligation, had become rejected by the Jews themselves.
     Jewish universalism had lost the battle to interpret
Judaism. Even after the persecutions ceased, the communal policy
of particularism stayed. The surrender of Jewish universalism was
psychologically traumatic for it implied a voluntary retreat from
a covenantal obligation, so Jews tried to justify it precisely by
removing the perception of it as a covenantal obligation.   
      Opposition to conversion became the Jewish tradition.
Persecution and understandable fear had turned a principal
obligation of the Jewish covenantal relationship, the spreading
of God's sovereignty through offering Judaism, into an activity
spurned by the Jews themselves. Such attitudes toward conversion
transformed the self-understanding of the Jewish mission itself,
from the original one of being a light unto the nations to
keeping the religious commandments and waiting for the messiah.
Missionary quiescence, like nationalistic quiescence, became the
tradition. Judaism almost stopped being taught to gentiles and no
serious tradition of teaching the Noachide Laws ever was
developed. The covenantal obligation to bring God's message to
humanity was interpreted out of existence. However prudential
were the social reasons for re-interpreting the long-standing
Jewish tradition of welcoming converts, one result was clear. The
particularists triumphed in establishing this post-Exilic,
persecution-driven communal policy not to welcome converts as the
normative Jewish tradition. The messengers became reclusive
scholars, refining the message, savoring its meaning, but were
unwilling to deliver the message to houses other than their own.




E. Conversion in the Modern Age
     As Judaism entered the modern world, its negative attitude
toward conversion continued. 
     Secularization and social and legal emancipation were
modernity's chief characteristics for Jews. Many laws against
accepting converts were rescinded. The end of legal persecution
did not eradicate gentile hatred of the Jews; modernity could
make discrimination illegal, but it could not make prejudice
disappear. Modernist Christian anti-Semites saw Judaism as an
overly legalistic archaism and thus unattractive. Modernist
racial anti-Semites, superceding theological anti-Semites, saw
the Jews as inherently biologically inferior and so unworthy to
join.
     Within Judaism, many modernist Jews rejected all religion,
so Jewish universalism was not an option for them; they could not
offer to others what they did not believe in themselves. It
seemed as though Jewish universalism would not re-appear in
Jewish life.
   A universalist notion, though, did re-appear in a new guise in
the nineteenth century as an idea propounded by the Reform
movement. The Reform thinkers, operating in a post-Enlightenment
world, asserted that Judaism's attractiveness would be enhanced
if it embraced universally-accepted moral values as its core and
presented itself to the world in a fashion that would be familiar
and therefore comfortable to non-Jews. The particularist elements
of Judaism were de-emphasized. Jewish nationalism was declared at
odds with Jews being full citizens in the countries in which they
lived. Jewish law was declared no longer binding. Selected
universal moral teachings of Judaism, most specifically as
embodied in the Prophets, were advanced as the heart and soul of
Judaism. 
     This was, of course, liberal universalism and not Jewish
universalism. A universalism more grounded in its Jewish roots,
and more politically sophisticated about the elements needed for
any such mission's success, would have maintained attachment to
Jewish law even if re-interpreting it, embraced Jewish
nationalism, and kept the particularist ceremonies. In advancing
their view, though, the Reform thinkers reintroduced into
theological discourse the very concept of universalism in Jewish
life, however conceived.
     Similarly, in suggesting that Judaism contained the moral
values that all people could embrace, these reformers were led to
another great historical contribution: the re-introduction of the
concept of historical mission in Jewish life. As the early Reform
leader Samuel Holdheim put it: "It is the messianic task of
Israel to make the pure knowledge of God and the pure law of
morality of Judaism the common possession and blessing of all the
peoples of the earth." In a sense, Reform Jewish thinkers
secularized the messianic interpretations of the original Jewish
mission. These thinkers, in rejecting chosenness, replaced it
with the notion that each people on earth has a mission and the
Jew's mission was a religious one to advance the social
conditions of humanity by making people adhere to the ideals of
classical prophetic Judaism. Reform Jews saw their new Judaism as
fully capable of being acceptable to the entire world while
simultaneously saving that world. 
     The problem was that, based on a liberal rather than a
Jewish universalism, the mission idea was not so much to bring
gentiles to traditional Judaism as it was to bring gentiles to an
already-accepted ethical system stipulated as normative Judaism.
Of course, even liberal gentiles friendly to Jews already
accepted those moral principles and were already willing to fight
for the same social goals as Reform Jews. These liberal gentiles
saw no need to call themselves by the name "Jewish." Ironically,
because they were not offered the particularist elements of
Judaism along with the universal, they saw no substantive
distinction between Judaism and their own religion, and therefore
did not even see an alternative to consider.
     The mis-interpretation of Jewish universalism and mission by
the early reformers was important because their mis-
interpretations became the standard modern definitions of those
concepts. This led to significant mistakes, such as the
identification of "universalism" in Jewish life with liberal
universalism rather than with Jewish universalism, the
identification of "mission" with the reformist notion rather than
the Jewish universalist notion, and the inaccurate identification
of Jewish nationalism as antithetical to Jewish universalism. 
     Despite these mis-interpretations, the Reform movement had
made an extraordinary contribution to the reclamation of Jewish
universalism. 
     The Reform movement made its greatest headway in the new
Golden Land. There had always been conversion to Judaism in the
United States. Many of the early converts were black slaves, some
of whose descendants formed Jewish congregations. American Jewry
was changed after the 1848 revolution in Germany failed, bringing
religiously liberal refugees to the U.S. Some of the children of
these refugees married Jews and wished to convert. Their
fascinating stories were carefully traced in several Jewish
periodicals such as The Occident (1843-1869) and The American
Israelite (founded in 1854).    
     The most famous of early American converts was Warder
Cresson (1798-1860) who was put on trial and charged with
insanity after he converted to Judaism. Eventually, he was
cleared and moved to the land of Israel.    
     Various American Reform rabbis emphasized conversion. Rabbi
David Einhorn (1809-79) so regularly admitted converts to his
congregation, Har Sinai in Baltimore, that his prayer book
included a specific service to accept converts. Einhorn fervently
believed that Judaism would become universally accepted.    
     Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), who founded the central
institutions of Reform Judaism in the United States, noted with
satisfaction the increase in converts. In 1849 he wrote: "The
mission of Israel was and still is to promulgate the sacred
truths to all nations on earth; to diffuse the bright light that
first shown on Sinai's sanctified summit all over the world."   
     On November 3-6, 1869 Reform rabbis held a conference in
Philadelphia. They reaffirmed that the purpose of their exile was
"to lead the nations to the true knowledge and worship of God."   
     At the 1885 Pittsburgh Conference the Reform rabbis
recognized the Bible as the "consecration of the Jewish people to
its mission as the priest of the One God."     
     Other Reform leaders who supported the mission concept
included Kaufmann Kohler, Samuel Schulman, and Leo Baeck (1873-
1956), who wrote in his famous book The Essence of Judaism that
"the Jewish religion is intended to become the religion of the
whole world...Every presupposition and every aim of Judaism is
directed towards the conversion of the world to itself."
     It is important to note that over time the Reform movement
has engaged in significant self-correction. It now sees Zionism
as central to the Jewish enterprise. It has led the way, as will
be seen, in welcoming and integrating converts. If it is still to
be faulted, that fault lies in the continuing fact that its
universalism still does not sufficiently recognize the
particularist Jewish elements that make up Jewish universalism;
Reform's remains still more a liberal than a Jewish universalism,
but may be moving in the direction of reforming itself on this
issue as well. As Reform Judaism re-discovers the values of
particularistic practices and grafts them onto the unique but
modified insights of historical Reform, Jewish universalism will
become an attractive ideology for the Reform movement.
     As the Reform movement began to affect the way conversion
was seen, the other two large American Jewish religious movements
also were evolving their views on proselytizing.
     The Orthodox movement was split at the end of the last
century and the beginning of this one. One group permitted
conversions of those who came for intermarriage and encouraged
Jews to accept children of Jewish fathers and gentile mothers to
convert to Judaism. This group consisted of such rabbis as Zvi
Hirsch Kalishcher (also famous as a forerunner of Zionism), David
Hoffmann, Marcus Horovitz, and the Imrei David, David Horowitz.
Another group of Orthodox rabbis was more stringent. The
stringent view prevailed after the Second World War for a variety
of reasons. Intermarriage had greatly increased, emphasizing to
the stringent a continuing need for Jewish self-segregation so
that Jews and gentiles could not meet and fall in love. Such
self-segregation necessitated a decline in all interactions with
Christians, including interactions which could lead to conversion
to Judaism. Also, the Conservative and Reform movements had
continued to grow and promote policies that the Orthodox often
found troubling. The Orthodox reaction against leniency in
conversion can to some extent be seen as a reaction especially to
the Reform movement. By being strict, the Orthodox presented
themselves as refusing to have the same pro-conversionary views
that were widely identified with the Reform movement. Indeed,
more and more as Orthodoxy dismissed the religious legitimacy of
the non-Orthodox, the moderating influences within halakhic
discussions that once prevailed disappeared.  
     Orthodoxy has also engaged in self-correction. Mainstream
Orthodoxy, once hostile to Zionism because the messiah had not
arrived to lead Jews back to Zion, is now staunchly pro-Israel.
But Orthodoxy has not fully overcome the traumas of Jewish
history. It continues to believe Judaism must be kept apart from
the non-Jewish world, privately following God's laws. Such a
view, so vital to Jewish survival for so many centuries (making
the reluctance to abandon it understandable), is not as useful
for contemporary Jewish life. Orthodoxy continues to reject the
universalist elements of Judaism, choosing instead to focus on
the particularistic, especially the legal, aspects of Judaism.
There are some modern Orthodox leaders who are stalwart in their
efforts to reclaim the valid universalist elements of Jewish
tradition. Insofar as Orthodoxy re-discovers the legitimate,
missionary aspects of Jewish tradition based on halakhah, it will
find Jewish universalism more attractive.    
     Conservative Jewry has had a continuous pro-Zionist stance
and maintains a delicate balance between particularism and
universalism within Jewish tradition. However, perhaps wary
because the ideas of universalism and mission were re-introduced
to the Jewish theological vocabulary by the Reform movement,
Conservative Judaism has been reluctant to accept the missionary
implications of Jewish universalism. The Conservatives have
welcomed converts as a means to combat intermarriage, but not as
a means to perform a specific covenantal mission. In part this is
also because Conservativism is a pragmatic movement rather than
an ideological one, focusing on solutions to the problems of
Jewish life rather than on defining a specifically Conservative
world view from which its views could be deduced. In part this is
so because Conservative Judaism emerged as a reaction to Reform
Judaism rather than from a definite ideology. Conservatives saw
themselves confronting a pragmatic not a theological problem: how
to keep tradition but make modifications to fit the tradition to
modernity. Because of this it did not develop an ideology, but
instead focused on what it perceived to be the central aspects of
the Jewish tradition that cohered with modernity. Conservative
Judaism saw Judaism as its ideology, so it sought no further
clarification. Additionally, Conservatives are concerned, with
some historical justification, that a clearly-articulated
ideology would do more to divide than to unite those who call
themselves Conservative Jews. In religious life, the
Conservatives have often seen themselves as a middle course
between Orthodoxy and Reform, judiciously steering their movement
through the turbulent waters of American modernity. Such efforts
require reacting to specific problems rather than operating out
of a general ideology. Such an existential approach to life,
however useful, leaves an ideological void, a void Conservatives
only recently have come to recognize as limiting. Conservatives
see that both Orthodoxy and Reform have much more clearly stated
views and the clarity has helped them. Orthodoxy, once considered
near extinction in America, has renewed vitality as does Reform,
in part because each can offer its members a specific world view.
As Conservative Judaism continues to define itself ideologically,
it will find Jewish universalism more and more attractive. 
     There were individual voices in Conservative Jewry promoting
conversion. Dr. Solomon Goldman in his 1938 experimental
prayerbook wrote: "Judaism means to convert the world, not to
convert itself...It hopes and prays and waits patiently for the
Great Day when the world will be ripe for its acceptance."
     Robert Gordis also focused on conversion in several
writings, but most explicitly in a 1958 article in the National
Jewish Monthly forthrightly titled "Has the Time Arrived for
Jewish Missionaries?" In the article, Dr. Gordis advocated a
pilot missionary program for Japan and the establishment of
Jewish information centers in the United States.
     Despite various pro-conversionary views, none of the three
major religious groups in the United States had embarked on a
conversionary program. There were relatively few conversions and
only a few, small conversionary efforts.
     Such conversionary efforts were at first undertaken by small
organizations favoring conversion, groups which began to arise
after the Holocaust and the birth of Israel. (These groups
included the United Israel World Union, the Jewish Information
Society, and the National Jewish Information Service, among
others). Individual rabbis and authors praised conversion. But
conversion was not an idea that was very valued in the Jewish
community or very acceptable to any of its leaders.  
   By the late 1970s, however, much had changed in American
Jewish life. The overt anti-Semitism in America had radically
declined. There was a widespread perception among gentiles that
Judaism was a religion which emphasized family values, education,
a tolerance toward those with differing religious views, personal
morality, the social good, and a spiritual outlook on life. Jews
were seen as model American citizens--and marriage partners. The
changing attitude toward Jews by gentiles and the continuing
cultural assimilation by Jews into gentile society led to a rapid
increase in intermarriage. This increase caused alarm within the
Jewish community, but also resulted in an unexpected development.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s between 30-40% of those
marriage partners not born Jewish were converting to Judaism. The
fear of intermarriage and the unexpected rise in voluntary
conversions began to change attitudes.
     At first, the rise in conversions that followed the rapid
increase in intermarriages over the last thirty years was simply
a surprise to many Jews. It had always been an unspoken
assumption, both among Jewish leaders and in the general Jewish
community, that intermarriage inevitably meant the loss of the
Jewish partner to Jewish life. Jews had concluded that a
principal reason for intermarriage was to escape the purported
burdens of a Jewish identity. They were unsure about what to make
of the many Jews who intermarried but wished to remain Jewish,
not to mention those born Christian who chose to become Jews.    
     Yet Jews were pleased by such conversions at an elemental
level. Seeing people who were born gentile choose to become Jews
validated the choice of those born Jewish to remain as Jews. The
enormous step of conversion made the smaller step of remaining
Jewish both easier and more sensible. Just as Israel does,
converts, or Jews by Choice as many converts began to be called,
provide American Jews by birth with a sense of personal
legitimacy. That this is so reflects, in part, the peculiar
nature of American Jewry; its own fundamental character is
voluntary. In a sense all American Jews are Jews by choice;
people who are born Jews must choose to remain active Jews by
such actions as choosing a marital partner, joining a synagogue
or Jewish organization, and making other similar choices. There
are no legal, and weakened religious, familial, and cultural
forces that seek, reward, and support such a voluntary choice to
remain a Jew. Thus the unique conditions of contemporary American
Jewish culture have contributed to making born Jews appreciate
the validation of their religious lives by Jews by Choice.   
     There are other aspects of the general religious culture of
America that also contributed to a climate in which Jews by
Choice would be welcome by Jews by birth. The rise of ethnicity
as a socially-approved organizing principle for defining identity
has made Jews more willing to identify themselves and to be
identified in the society as Jews. The self-confidence that
emerged from this ethnic identification, which was dramatically
supplemented by a pride that emerged from an identification with
the efforts of the people of Israel, allowed American Jews to
feel more comfortable in America, to put the American anti-
Semitism of the 1920s, 30s and 40s behind them, and even, to use
a commercial metaphor uniquely applicable to America, to place
their product up for sale alongside the other religious products
already available in the marketplace of religious ideas.    
     Additionally, an important part of the American religious
scene in the 70s and 80s had been the visibility of cult groups
and Evangelical ministers popular in the American media. The
religious fervor of both the cults and the Evangelicals was
complemented by their open desire to convert others to their
beliefs and way of life. Their beliefs and activities increased
the legitimacy of conversion in American culture, including
conversion to Judaism. In addition, the cultic and Christian
efforts prompted a defensive response against their conversionary
overtures in the Jewish community. The increase in acceptance of
conversion can in this sense in part be seen as an ironic
acceptance of the aim (but not the tactics) of those whom they
saw as posing a religious threat; welcoming converts became a way
of fighting religious fire with religious fire.    
     Beyond these and other social and internal communal reasons,
the attitude of American Jews has been changed by the converts
themselves. They have spoken out in forums, on television, in
books, in synagogues, and in uncountable conversations,
arguments, fights, and tear-filled pleas. They have requested
acceptance, and have frequently gotten it. 
   Sensing the changing attitudes, Rabbi Alexander Schindler,
President of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, a Reform
group, delivered an address in December, 1978 to the Board of
Trustees of that organization, urging it to establish an outreach
program for the "unchurched," that is those without formal
religious affiliation. He proposed that Jews should try to
attract non-Jews to Judaism, especially the non-Jewish partners
in intermarriages. The outreach program was intended to be
unobtrusive, taking its forms in the establishing of information
centers, educational courses, and publications rather than such
methods as door-to-door missionary work. Schindler's
revolutionary point was that Jews should not wait for potential
or actual partners in an intermarriage to consider converting,
but rather Jews should approach such partners about the
possibility. Schindler wanted his movement to do the seeking, to
identify and nurture those who might convert and support those
who did. He sought to minimize Christian opposition to his
proposal by ruling out seeking converts from among those who were
already affiliated with another religion. The UAHC's Board of
Trustees unanimously adopted Schindler's resolution and endorsed
a Joint Task Force created with the Central Conference of
American Rabbis.
     The Task Force presented its report to the 1981 UAHC General
Assembly. That Assembly adopted five resolutions establishing an
outreach program. In 1983, the Task Force was re-formed as a
Joint UAHC/CCAR Commission on Reform Jewish Outreach and was
charged with, among other tasks, developing appropriate programs
and visual materials for its various outreach audiences. The
Commission has Regional Outreach Coordinators and has produced an
impressive array of publications on the place of converts within
Reform Judaism.
     Other religious movements in America were also reacting to
the changing times. In 1979, the Reconstructionist movement
developed formal Guidelines on Conversion, including an outreach
program. Their program was aimed directly at those who had
already converted in order to help them integrate into the
community. 
     The Conservative Movement eschewed the original mission idea
inherent in Rabbi Schindler's approach, but nevertheless saw the
value of preventing intermarriages by encouraging an intermarried
non-Jew to convert and making Judaism available (as opposed to
intrusive proselytizing) to those who were interested. In 1985,
the movement's Rabbinical Assembly approved a statement viewing
the increase in conversions as a "positive" aspect of Jewish
life, both as a reaction to intermarriage and as a personal
religious quest. In 1987, the movement held its first Conference
on Intermarriage and Conversion and was planning a common
syllabus to use in teaching potential converts as well as other
related efforts. Also in that year, the Rabbinical Assembly
published Embracing Judaism by Simcha Kling, a book explaining
Judaism that was especially aimed at potential converts. The
Rabbinical Assembly also established Regional Conversion
Institutes which provide introductory courses in Judaism that may
lead students to convert, and the Assembly's Committee on Keruv
and Giyur issued a Keruv Resource Guide in 1991. The United
Synagogue of Conservative Judaism established a Committee on
Intermarriage in 1991.  
     The Orthodox movement continues to accept converts in
principle, but to reject converts not converted according to what
the Orthodox understand to be halakhic standards. By their
definition, no non-Orthodox conversion can be religiously valid
because non-Orthodox rabbis are unqualified to serve as religious
witnesses and because, according to many Orthodox, the formal
conversion requirements and practices of the non-Orthodox don't
conform to traditional Jewish law. Of course, non-Orthodox Rabbis
forcefully disagree with such an Orthodox viewpoint.
     There were other signs that the Jewish community was
starting to welcome converts. Numerous programs and support
groups organized by YM-YWHAs and Jewish community centers were
established. Rabbi Stephen C. Lerner, who is affiliated with the
Conservative movement, established the Center for Conversion to
Judaism, to provide support for converts and potential converts
through such activities as counseling and weekend retreats. Lena
Romanoff, author of the highly-acclaimed book on conversion Your
People, My People, established the non-denominational Jewish
Converts Network which coordinates local support groups for
converts. A wide variety of books and articles on conversion
appeared as well as many newsletters such as Jewish Ties, edited
by Doreen Clark.
     Despite the increase in efforts to welcome converts, two
negative factors stand out. First, none of the organized Jewish
religious groups in the United States has yet linked the
traditional interpretation of Jewish universalism to the
covenantal mission to offer Judaism and welcome converts. Second,
the percentage of conversions among the intermarrying or
intermarried has declined. The reasons for this decline are
varied and include a greater tolerance for intermarriage by
American Jews and a greater willingness by rabbis to perform
intermarriages without conversion. Some in the Jewish community
also cite as a reason for the decline the Reform movement's
patrilineality principle, which presumes that a child of a Jewish
father and non-Jewish mother who identifies as a Jew is, in fact,
Jewish. This principle, at odds with Judaism's traditional
matrilineal principle, has, it is claimed, reduced the urgency to
get non-Jewish mothers to convert. Defenders of the principle say
the very absence of pressure to convert leads not only to more
converts but to converts who are more knowledgeable about and
committed to Jewish life.
     Despite these facts, if the reasons for Jewish
universalism's decline are reviewed, it becomes clear that all
those reasons have been reversed. History is poised for Jewish
universalism's renewal.
      One reason for Jewish universalism's decline was the end of
Jewish national sovereignty. The current historical moment is
characterized by the revival of a Jewish nation in Israel. The
revival of Israel, as discussed, allows Jews to organize for
communal self-defense, arrange for the transmission of their
heritage, and resume their covenantal obligations. The very
existence of Israel challenges the view that Jews were
permanently placed on the periphery of spiritual history by their
exile from the land. Israel provides validation for the
religiously sensitive; if a historic Jewish community has been
revived, then its original spiritual enterprise remains
legitimate. There must be a Zion from which spiritual wisdom can
radiate. The Zion exists; it is time to turn on the spiritual
lights so that the nations can see them. 
     A central argument against resuming a Jewish mission has
always been that such a mission might endanger Jewish lives.
Generally, (though, of course, with significant exceptions), Jews
are free--especially in Western countries--to worship as they
wish. The Jews do not, in general, face restrictive legislation
which disallows them to offer Judaism or persecution if they do
so. They are free to offer their religious ideas without fear of
reprisal. Of course such offering, to remain inoffensive, must be
uncoercive and unobtrusive.
     A third reason for Jewish universalism's decline was the
success of its competitors at the time. Yet one of Judaism's
chief current competitors, socialist secularism, has failed. The
collapse of Marxism has laid bare the spiritual chaos of non-
religious modernity and has made many seek spiritual nourishment.
It is no accident that so many religious leaders from so many
religions are finding hospitable receptions in East European
countries. There will be competition for the minds of those who
turn away from secularism. Jewish universalism wants Judaism to
be among those who compete. If one characteristic of Jewish
universalism's decline was that its external competitors won, the
current situation is one in which a major external competitor has
lost. 
     A fourth reason for Jewish universalism's decline was that
Jews were suspicious of Christians because of Christian anti-
Jewish activities. Official Christian persecution has ceased.
While Jewish suspicion of Christianity has not fully evaporated,
any lingering suspicions are rooted more in memory rather than in
current communal experiences. The Jewish hostility to
Christianity has been greatly reduced. From the Christian side of
the relationship, Jews are now widely admired, a people worthy of
joining.
     Another reason for Jewish universalism's decline was
Judaism's halakhic evolution limiting proselytizing. At the time,
the halakhah controlled most Jewish lives; today halakhic rule
has been greatly reduced. Additionally, halakhah itself has been
seen by some of its adherents as inherently evolutionary so that
the Jewish universalism in early halakhah might return. Also,
some halakhists can still find within it a justification for
Jewish universalism.
     The fact that many of the reasons for Jewish universalism's
decline are now reversed or modified in a crucial way is
important for Jewish universalism's revival.
     Equally important, however, is the question of whether
Jewish universalism as an interpretation of Judaism can claim to
be the best interpretation to fit the needs of this age. Jewish
universalism as an ideology was presented in the first part as a
world view independent of time. The question is whether that
world view can be applied to this historical moment and whether
it is the best world view to apply.
     A Jewish world view which is both applicable and the best
must have certain characteristics. It must be consonant with
Jewish tradition. It must be useful for the age. Finally, it must
provide a goal and a vision.
     Jewish universalism is completely consonant with Jewish
tradition. Jewish universalism embraces the particularities of
Jewish practices. It does so, however, without making a specific
claim about how contemporary Jews should interpret their
particularist obligations. Jewish universalism is neutral about
conflicting interpretations of Jewish practice among the
denominations. As such, all Jews who embrace Jewish tradition can
accept Jewish universalism even though that Jewish tradition may
be understood in different ways and make different claims on the
religious consciences of specific groups.
     The fact that Jewish universalism is compatible with all
Jewish traditionalists independent of denomination is very
important because one of the characteristics of this age in
Jewish history is religious fragmentation. Therefore, a useful
Jewish world view must be compatible with as broad a range of
Jews as possible.
     Jewish universalism is useful for the age in other ways as
well. It coheres with the revival of a Jewish nation. In seeking
to increase Jewish numbers, in projecting a pride in Judaism that
is so deep that there is a belief that it should be offered to
others, and in other ways, Jewish universalism faces and combats
anti-Semitism. Jewish universalism emphasizes the spiritual basis
of Judaism and so challenges the failed secularism of modernity. 
     But Jewish universalism does not challenge the scientific
and other advances of modern thought so that it can be appealing
to the modernist who wants to keep the intellectual advances of
modernity but seek a spiritual dimension to it. Jewish
universalism is not theologically compatible with Jewish
secularism, but it is intellectually compatible. Additionally,
insofar as Jewish secularism focuses on Jewish survival, Jewish
universalism's conversionary activities are compatible with
secularism. Also, Jewish universalism has a specific goal--
offering Judaism--that needs to be achieved in this world, not in
the privacy of the synagogue or the home. Such an emphasis on a
worldly purpose will be congenial to many secularists. Finally,
Jewish universalism's neutral stance concerning the
interpretation of particularistic practices will also be inviting
for those secularists who will only slowly explore the
particularistic practices of Judaism.
     For Jewish universalism to be the best world view for the
age, it must also face its internal Jewish competitors. Liberal
universalism continues to focus on the universal but too often
neglects the specifically particular. Jewish universalism
provides the universalism but includes the particularities of
Judaism that are crucial for Jewish survival. Particularism still
has considerable theological power, and in a secular world in
which those who follow Judaism feel imperiled, renewed vigor. But
it offers no vision of a way to embrace modern Jews, instead
offering only the survival of a small remnant. Jewish
universalism offers a way both to survive in a secular world and
to embrace the broadest possible range of Jews. Traditionalism
wants a balance between tradition and modernity but one without
an underlying ideology. Jewish universalism offers such a balance
but with the additional value of a useful ideology.
     What is interesting about these Jewish alternatives to
Jewish universalism is that if they were unified and then their
incompatibilities were removed, the result would be Jewish
universalism. Jewish universalism is the Grand Unified Theory
which unites the existing different ideological entities. Jewish
universalism has the potential to re-unify diverse Jewish groups.
     Jewish universalism provides Jewish life with a vision and a
purpose. The vision of Judaism being offered to all humanity and
the purpose of making Judaism available to all who wish it and
welcoming converts adds a crucial dimension to Jewish religious
life. American Jewry, in particular, needs an identifiable
purpose for itself, a purpose that supplements its
extraordinarily vital sense of being supportive of Israel. Jewish
universalism presents such a purpose.  
     It is now the moment to reclaim Jewish universalism.