The Syrian Ban on Conversion

I received an email a couple of months ago arguing for a ban on conversion, in order to counter conversions which are performed for the sake of marriage. That reminded me of a New York Times piece published a few years ago on the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn, highlighting their ban on conversion. The article pretty much gets the story right: In 1935, out of fear of intermarriage and assimilation, the Syrians banned marriage to converts.

That wasn’t the first time a Jewish community took strict measures to reduce the likelihood of intermarriage. This concern has produced many rabbinic laws, such as bishul akum - the prohibition against eating certain foods if they are cooked by non-Jews. (Interestingly, the Church actually did the same thing in reverse; they even forbade Christians from receiving medical care from a Jewish doctor.)

Further, any Jewish authority is within his rights to refuse to cooperate with a conversion. Since Judaism teaches that a human being can be great, earn a portion in Heaven, etc, without being Jewish, one is not committing harm by refusing to participate in a conversion.

That said, I have a two-part problem with the Syrian ban.

[Note: I'm not addressing the ban's undertone of emphasizing "pure-bloodedness," a charge Jewschool lodged here in response to the NYT article. I'm not sure I agree; that same charge could be used to indict anyone who opposes intermarriage, too.]

Part 1: Despite the wording of the ban (“this law covers conversion, which we consider to be fictitious and valueless”), the Syrian authorities cannot invalidate conversions performed by legitimate authorities outside of their community. The only thing they can do is rule that Joe Convert cannot marry a Syrian woman. And once they do that, they have overstepped fundamental biblical prohibitions against harming or oppressing a convert.

Therein lies Part 1 of the problem. It’s a matter of harming the convert. The Torah says explicitly, וגר לא תונה, You shall not oppress a convert.

However: One might defend the ban by arguing that this is a case of Preserving the Community vs. Protecting the Convert. The needs of the many vs. the needs of the few. And so one might well argue for the many vs. the few; isn’t Jewish history filled with such decisions?

But there’s a second problem:

Part 2: The people you are protecting are the ones who want to intermarry inappropriately.

In order to keep your children from marrying out, you prevent converts from marrying in, and so you harm converts - who have properly joined the Jewish people - in order to benefit those who wish to sin. To borrow from Parshat Lech Lecha, it’s a case of harming the righteous while you rein in the wicked.

To which Avraham cries Heavenward, חלילה לך, This would be a desecration for You!

Granted, I have relied on the assumption that refusing marriage to a Syrian counts as oppression and harm, an assumption which may not be accurate, since there are other Jews for them to marry. But to me, telling someone who has embraced the Torah, “You may not marry our children,” counts as hurtful - even if those children are not the only Jews in the world.

Just my two cents.