By Zvi Zohar   My involvement in the issue of giyyur (conversion) includes almost two decades of research, as well as personal interaction with the community of Jews from the Former Soviet Union. Specifically, I assisted and advised a Russian woman who was very active in setting up classes to enable a smoother giyyur process for FSU immigrants, and was facing resistance by the Rabbinate. This experience with the institution of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate has shown me that in the real world, power corrupts. I have also come to understand that the link between the Rabbinate's actions and the halakhic sources is tenuous at best, and that the Rabbinate is not taking responsibility for the fate of intermarried Jews and their children.  It also remains impervious to the impact of intermarriage on Israeli society as a result of the current giyyur policy.   No proof exists that making giyyur difficult has prevented intermarriage from taking place. Clearly, however, making giyyur difficult discourages people from turning their intermarriage into a Jewish marriage and from bringing up their children as Jews. Unfortunately, this is the result of the Rabbinate’s policy.     Especially in the course of the last 150 years, as the rift between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox denominations grew, the Orthodox stressed more and more the importance of full observance of the mitzvot. To clearly demarcate the line between themselves and other denominations, they accorded special importance to those commandments that identify a person as Orthodox. Accordingly, the commandments of Shabbat, kashrut, and family purity (taharat hamishpacha) have become, in Orthodox rhetoric, the sign of authentic Jewish commitment. By way of contrast, honoring parents, loving your fellow as yourself, and charity aren't considered as equally significant – because they are followed also by non-Orthodox Jews.   This stress upon the ritual commandments “between man and God” (bein adam laMakom) has carried over also into the realm of giyyur.   In some Talmudic sources, there is mention of kabbalat mitzvot (acceptance of the commandments) as a component of the giyyur process. However, the only components that the Talmud cites as absolutely critical for giyyur are circumcision (for a male) and immersion in a mikveh (for both sexes). The Talmud nowhere states that the lack of kabbalat mitzvot invalidates giyyur. Rather, the Talmud says that after a convert immerses in the mikveh, he is irrevocably Jewish, however he behaves. Indeed, the Talmud states that even if this person would completely revert to a gentile way of life, he is considered a Jew (albeit, a sinful one)!   The Tosafot (the commentary of 12th century Ashkenaz scholars) were the first to hold, that giyyur without kabbalat mitzvot is invalid. However, they did not define what they meant by these words. Nahmanides (the greatest rabbi in 13th century Spain) explained, that what the Tosafot required was that the convert accept the two commandments related to giyyur - immersion and circumcision. Later, the Shulhan Arukh (the 16th century authoritative compilation of Jewish Law) followed the Tosafot both in stressing the importance of kabbalat mitzvot in giyyur – and in not specifying what the content of that requirement is.   In the 19th and 20th centuries, many halakhic authorities interpreted kabbalat mitzvot in a variety of ways, and held that in any case this clause does not preclude the acceptance for giyyur of persons who do not intend to be fully Orthodox. However, in 1876 an East-European halakhist argued, that the one true meaning of kabbalat mitzvot is: a sincere commitment to lead a fully Orthodox life after becoming a Jew. On this view, even intent to observe most of the Ten Commandments is insufficient for a convert to be considered Jewish.   Sadly, this view is espoused today by the Israeli Rabbinate as absolutely correct. Indeed, there is a rabbi in Haifa who suggests that giyyur be renewed every year like a driver’s license, and that its renewal be conditioned upon remaining observant. This is ludicrous according to all halakhic sources - but seems increasingly plausible if one follows the innovative interpretation that giyyur requires sincere commitment to observance.   Traditional halakhah contains within it many views with regard to giyyur. If rabbis really care about the continuity of the Jewish People in general, and not only of those who are fully Orthodox, they should give preference to those halakhic positions that enable a valid giyyur even if the candidate is not able to sincerely promise to follow an Orthodox lifestyle. Why should we do so?  In order to enable the giyyur of the non-Jewish spouses and children in situations of intermarriage, thus turning a mixed marriage into a Jewish family. Failure to recognize that a partially observant but fully Jewish family is highly preferable to a continued situation of intermarriage is a deep sin against the value of Jewish continuity.   Zvi Zohar, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute's Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, is a professor at Bar Ilan University, where he teaches in the Law and Jewish Studies Faculties and heads the Rappaport Center for Assimilation Research and the Strengthening of Jewish Vitality. Zohar heads its Center for Contemporary Halakha. Interested all aspects of Jewish life and thought, Zohar has published more than 40 scholarly articles and several books on related topics.