Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
The Torah study is dedicatedin the memory of
Rachel bat Yakot
Ruling: The source that a Jewish apostate who wishes to return to proper Jewish practice requires kabalat chaveirut and tevilla is the Rama (Yoreh Deah 268:12), based on the Nimukei Yosef. This is not a fundamental law but a rabbinically prescribed step to properly deal with the situation. Certainly, even before this process, the person in question has a status of a Jew.
We must determine Rav Yosef Karo’s view on the matter, as the woman is of Sephardic origin, for whom his rulings are binding. The Beit Yosef (YD 268), written by the aforementioned, cites the Nimukei Yosef’s opinion but then cites the Tur who says that it is unnecessary to subject a halachic Jew returning from a period of sin to undergo a conversion-like process. The Beit Yosef does not state a preference between the opinions but, in a parallel discussion (Yoreh Deah 267:3), he accepts the Tur’s opinion, upon which the Rama (ad loc.) argues. Therefore, according to letter of the law, this family should not be required to go through the re-initiation process.
Granted, the common practice is that even returning Jews of Sephardic origin go through the process. However, when it is not possible, e.g., when it involves a young child who cannot be expected to significantly do kabbalat chaveirut, we can excuse him and allow him to be listed as Jewish immediately so that he can study in Jewish schools. There is logic to request tevilla, which can be done at any age, although, again, it appears not to be halachically required for Sephardim.
What would the halacha be for the child of an Ashkenazi family, who wanted to return to the fold? Avot D’Rabbi Natan, cited by the Gra as a primary source in this matter, attributes the need for the process to the fact that the person was involved in all sorts of foreign practices and stresses eating and drinking. It appears that it is not an intrinsic outcome of the "conversion out," which has no halachic standing. Therefore, in our case, where the child was returned to a Jewish lifestyle before becoming entrenched in an Islamic one, there should be no need for tevilla. Regarding kabbalat chaveirut, it also appears that if the mother has been accepted, her small son does not require a separate process (see Rambam, Mishkav U’Moshav 10:5).
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Various Rabbis
134 - An Unspecified Obligation Following a Specific One
135 - Steps of the Child of a Woman Who Returned to the Faith
136 - A Benefit Provided Despite the Recipient’s Protest
Load More
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Seller with Questionable Rights to the Property – part II
based on ruling 84062 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Sharing in Plumbing Expenses – part II
based on ruling 85013 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Dividing Parents’ Resources when Mother Still Alive
based on ruling 82017 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part I
based on ruling 84093 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Various Events FOR WHOM NOT TO VOTE
Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook stressed that Israeli politics is G-dly, so I have no problem answering this common question on a Torani blog. Also, Free-Will is a G-d-given right and obligation, to "destine one's fate" (R. Soloveichik, Kol Dodi Dofek, 67), so I obviously don't tell others how to vote. But once not a few (especially young) have already asked, a couple of personal words from experience and thoughts from chazal & Rav Kook which may be of help to others, mainly for whom NOT to vote.
P'ninat Mishpat Fallout from Failure to Install Elevator – part II
based on ruling 85007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
