7 deleted 40 characters in body
source | link

My friend showed me her conversion document. The last sentence was [almost identical to the following]: "She may marry any Jewish man except a Kohen."

Why would the conversion document go out of its way to specify that she can marry "any" Jewish man, with the single exception of a kohen? First of all, it's not necessary; second, it's not true. She can't marry, for example, a Jewish man who has another wife, even if he is a yisroel. She can't marry a Jewish man with a bad enough injury or deformitywho is incapable of consent, nor one she was suspected of living with before she converted, nor one incapable of consent -- even if each of these men is a yisroel. (Also, I am guessing there would be some sort of pushback if she tried to marry her Jewish father, or her biological brother who also became a Jew, whether they were kohanim or yisroelim ... and I doubt I have mentioned all the exceptions.) In short, there are very many opportunities to falsify the categorical statement printed on my friend's teudat ravakut, which she received from a prominent and reliable beit din. I am therefore asking why they write it.

Does this statement have any possible effect, besides confusing the convert and potentially her future partners?

My friend showed me her conversion document. The last sentence was [almost identical to the following]: "She may marry any Jewish man except a Kohen."

Why would the conversion document go out of its way to specify that she can marry "any" Jewish man, with the single exception of a kohen? First of all, it's not necessary; second, it's not true. She can't marry, for example, a Jewish man who has another wife, even if he is a yisroel. She can't marry a Jewish man with a bad enough injury or deformity, nor one she was suspected of living with before she converted, nor one incapable of consent -- even if each of these men is a yisroel. (Also, I am guessing there would be some sort of pushback if she tried to marry her Jewish father, or her biological brother who also became a Jew, whether they were kohanim or yisroelim ... and I doubt I have mentioned all the exceptions.) In short, there are very many opportunities to falsify the categorical statement printed on my friend's teudat ravakut, which she received from a prominent and reliable beit din. I am therefore asking why they write it.

Does this statement have any possible effect, besides confusing the convert and potentially her future partners?

My friend showed me her conversion document. The last sentence was [almost identical to the following]: "She may marry any Jewish man except a Kohen."

Why would the conversion document go out of its way to specify that she can marry "any" Jewish man, with the single exception of a kohen? First of all, it's not necessary; second, it's not true. She can't marry, for example, a Jewish man who has another wife, even if he is a yisroel. She can't marry a Jewish man who is incapable of consent, nor one she was suspected of living with before she converted -- even if each of these men is a yisroel. (Also, I am guessing there would be some sort of pushback if she tried to marry her Jewish father, or her biological brother who also became a Jew, whether they were kohanim or yisroelim ... and I doubt I have mentioned all the exceptions.) In short, there are very many opportunities to falsify the categorical statement printed on my friend's teudat ravakut, which she received from a prominent and reliable beit din. I am therefore asking why they write it.

Does this statement have any possible effect, besides confusing the convert and potentially her future partners?

    Tweeted twitter.com/StackJudaism/status/1040570911760494592
6 added 5 characters in body
source | link

My friend showed me her conversion document. The last sentence was [almost identical to the following]: "She may marry any Jewish man except a Kohen."

Why would the conversion document go out of its way to specify that she can marry "any" Jewish man, with the single exception of a kohen? First of all, it's not necessary; second, it's not true. She can't marry, for example, a Jewish man who has another wife, even if he is a yisroel. She can't marry a Jewish man with a bad enough injury or deformity, nor one she was suspected of living with before she converted, nor one incapable of consent -- even if each of these men is a yisroel. (Also, I am guessing there would be some sort of pushback if she tried to marry her Jewish father, or her biological brother who also became a Jew, whether they were kohanim or yisroelim --and... and I doubt this isI have mentioned all of the exceptions.) In short, there are very many opportunities to falsify the categorical statement printed on my friend's teudat ravakut, which she received from a prominent and reliable beit din. I am therefore asking why they write it.

Does this statement have any possible effect, besides confusing the convert and potentially her future partners?

My friend showed me her conversion document. The last sentence was [almost identical to the following]: "She may marry any Jewish man except a Kohen."

Why would the conversion document go out of its way to specify that she can marry "any" Jewish man, with the single exception of a kohen? First of all, it's not necessary; second, it's not true. She can't marry, for example, a Jewish man who has another wife, even if he is a yisroel. She can't marry a Jewish man with a bad enough injury or deformity, nor one she was suspected of living with before she converted, nor one incapable of consent -- even if each of these men is a yisroel. (Also, I am guessing there would be some sort of pushback if she tried to marry her Jewish father, or her biological brother who also became a Jew, whether they were kohanim or yisroelim --and I doubt this is all of the exceptions.) In short, there are very many opportunities to falsify the categorical statement printed on my friend's teudat ravakut, which she received from a prominent and reliable beit din. I am therefore asking why they write it.

Does this statement have any possible effect, besides confusing the convert and potentially her future partners?

My friend showed me her conversion document. The last sentence was [almost identical to the following]: "She may marry any Jewish man except a Kohen."

Why would the conversion document go out of its way to specify that she can marry "any" Jewish man, with the single exception of a kohen? First of all, it's not necessary; second, it's not true. She can't marry, for example, a Jewish man who has another wife, even if he is a yisroel. She can't marry a Jewish man with a bad enough injury or deformity, nor one she was suspected of living with before she converted, nor one incapable of consent -- even if each of these men is a yisroel. (Also, I am guessing there would be some sort of pushback if she tried to marry her Jewish father, or her biological brother who also became a Jew, whether they were kohanim or yisroelim ... and I doubt I have mentioned all the exceptions.) In short, there are very many opportunities to falsify the categorical statement printed on my friend's teudat ravakut, which she received from a prominent and reliable beit din. I am therefore asking why they write it.

Does this statement have any possible effect, besides confusing the convert and potentially her future partners?

5 added 132 characters in body
source | link

My friend showed me her conversion document. The last sentence was something very much like "She may marry any Jewish man except a Kohen."[almost identical to the following]: "She may marry any Jewish man except a Kohen."

Why would the conversion document go out of its way to specify thisthat she can marry "any" Jewish man, with the single exception of a kohen? First of all, it's not necessary; second, it's not true. She can't marry, for example, a Jewish man who has another wife, even if he is a yisroel. She can't marry a Jewish man with a bad enough injury or deformity, nor one she was suspected of living with before she converted, nor one incapable of consent, nor -- even if each of these men is a Moabite convert(?)yisroel. Also(Also, I am guessing there would be some sort of pushback if she tried to marry her Jewish father, or her biological brother who also became a Jew. And, whether they were kohanim or yisroelim --and I doubt I have listedthis is all of the exceptions.) In short, there are very many opportunities to falsify the categorical statement printed on my friend's teudat ravakut, which she received from a prominent and reliable beit din.

Why, then, doI am therefore asking why they write it?.

Does this statement have any possible effect, besides confusing the convert and potentially her future partners?

My friend showed me her conversion document. The last sentence was something very much like "She may marry any Jewish man except a Kohen."

Why would the conversion document go out of its way to specify this? First of all, it's not necessary; second, it's not true. She can't marry, for example, a Jewish man who has another wife. She can't marry a Jewish man with a bad enough injury or deformity, nor one she was suspected of living with before she converted, nor one incapable of consent, nor a Moabite convert(?). Also, I am guessing there would be some sort of pushback if she tried to marry her biological brother who also became a Jew. And I doubt I have listed all of the exceptions. In short, there are very many opportunities to falsify the categorical statement printed on my friend's teudat ravakut, which she received from a prominent and reliable beit din.

Why, then, do they write it? Does this statement have any possible effect, besides confusing the convert and potentially her future partners?

My friend showed me her conversion document. The last sentence was [almost identical to the following]: "She may marry any Jewish man except a Kohen."

Why would the conversion document go out of its way to specify that she can marry "any" Jewish man, with the single exception of a kohen? First of all, it's not necessary; second, it's not true. She can't marry, for example, a Jewish man who has another wife, even if he is a yisroel. She can't marry a Jewish man with a bad enough injury or deformity, nor one she was suspected of living with before she converted, nor one incapable of consent -- even if each of these men is a yisroel. (Also, I am guessing there would be some sort of pushback if she tried to marry her Jewish father, or her biological brother who also became a Jew, whether they were kohanim or yisroelim --and I doubt this is all of the exceptions.) In short, there are very many opportunities to falsify the categorical statement printed on my friend's teudat ravakut, which she received from a prominent and reliable beit din. I am therefore asking why they write it.

Does this statement have any possible effect, besides confusing the convert and potentially her future partners?

4 edited title
| link
3 edited title
| link
2 deleted 5 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link