Talk:Anusim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] the two

The two refer to two diffrent people starting out. Anusim are more Middle Eastern, whereas Morrano refers more to Spain descendants.

[edit] Anusim is just a rabbinic status.

The word Anusim is just a rabbinic legal term, like Kasher, Pasul, etc. It has nothing to do if the Anusim in question is of Ashkenazi, Sefaradi, Mizrahi or Maghrebi background. "Marrano" was a word invented by Old-Christian Spaniards who were anti-Semites.

[edit] POV disputed

The use of such words as "unfortunately" smacks of POV in my opinion. Moreover, the whole article is very poorly written. I have neither the time, nor the expertise, to rewrite the article better. Someone knowledgeable should undertake this. David Cannon 23:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree: I came to the same thought. Specifically about Freud and Einstein being called apostate and heritic, respectively. This is certainly a violation of NPOV. Heretic? They asked Einstein to be president of Israel, for crying out loud! Do you really think the relgious of Israel would even stand for suggesting his name?Valley2city 17:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Look Closely: Please see the discussion of Meshumad below. The basic reason why the legal classification of Herr Einstein is that of a "Meshumad" is that he was not an observant Jew, much like 90% of Jewry today. --Dramirezg 16:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning the page

This is the contributor to the page. We realize it needs editing. Corrections and additional sources are coming up. Thank you for your concerns.

[edit] Making changes

Dramirezg wants to inform for those who make changes, please discuss the reasons of your changes in this page. The issue of anusim is complex for someone not trained in Jewish Law, and editions must be performed by someone trained in this tradition.

[edit] Unclear

While the article makes it clear that anusim are considered Jews by (most) other Jews because their conversion was forced, it does not make clear what their present status is. Are the modern-day descendants of Spanish Anusim practising Jews, or Catholics?

I saw in another article a claim that the anusim of Catalonia still use Hebrew loanwards in casual speech. I would think it pretty hard to believe that they are Catholics if this is the case. --Saforrest 17:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dramirezg: Thank you Saforrest for making the questions. I think I have to reword some parts of the article, because the point of your first paragraph is not precisely what I wanted to give across. It is somewhat difficult to convey this meaning, because Jewish Law does not operate within the constrains of what people consider "racial" or "religious" categories. And I will bring you certain points that perhaps will make it easier, but I personally do not know how to put it in the article without becoming long winded. Maybe you can help me out.

In Jewish Law, there are two points one must consider for confirmation of Jewish status. One is the "citizenship" one, and second is the behavioral one.

The "citizenship" point of Jewish Law states that the child of a Israelite woman is still an Israelite, no matter what "religion," or belief system the child may be raised with, he still remains an Israelite, or in modern common parlance, a "Jew." So for example, if the child born of a Jewish mother is raised Catholic, the child though Catholic [in religion] is still Jewish, because "citizenship" wise he still belongs to the Nation of Israel for having being born of a Israelite woman. Similar if a child of American parents who is raised as a Mexican in Mexico, the child still has the rights to American citizenship, though he behaves like a Mexican, because the U.S. constitution protects that right.

Now, why did I prefer to use the word "citizenship" over the "biological" or "racial"? Because for example, a Chinese woman decides to "become Jewish", this means she accepts and is willing to follow the Laws of Judaism. In common parlance, this would be called "conversion", but the terminology in Jewish Law is ger ssedeq, which means "righteous alien". Such person is recognized as a full member of the Nation of Israel. "Giur" [pron. gee-oor, gutural "G" as gable] is the process homologous to becoming a "Naturalized Citizen" in American Law. Even if the ger ssedeq decides to adopt another religion, that person still remains an Israelite, and their children are too Israelites ad infinitum, though they may have ethnic Chinese ancestry.

The behavioral one is a bit more complicated, but the point I made in the article is clear. Suffice to say, the axial element is if the person follows Jewish Law or not. An Israelite who follows Jewish Law to the best of his abilities is termed "kasher". If he does, then he can be considered Jewish for all tense and purposes prescribed in Jewish Law. If the person is a min or a meshumad, then there are restrictions as to what one can do with such person, although for marriage they are permissible. This element would make more sense comparing it to American criminal law. Any person who commits a felony in the U.S. automatically has revoked certain rights and priviliges. But it does not take away the fact that he remains a U.S. citizen. It sort of works the same in Jewish Law. For example, a case of a Jewish "felony" [in Hebrew we use the word aberrá, i.e. transgression] would be breaking the Shabbat. Jewish Law states that any Jew who makes fire on Shabbat has commited a grave transgression. Since most "Jews" today drive a car of internal combustion on Shabbat, that on itself is considered "creating fire," and therefore it is a transgression.

So going back to your questions: Since children from the Anusá maternal line remain Israelites ad infinitum, they are still Israelites [alt. Jews] according to Jewish Law. So the descendants of the Spanish Anusim are Jews, eventhough most might be practicing Catholics. The Anusim's children belief system or "religion" does not change the fact that they are still Israelites.

The term "anusim" is not exclusive to the descendants of Spanish Jews converted to Catholicism. It is a legal terminology that can be applied to any Jew in their circumstances.

As far as speech, word usage does not determine nationality. Or is it that using the words Chocolate (from nahuatl, Xocolatl) or the the word Tomato (from nahuatl, Xitomatl) would make you Mexican?

If you can help me to clarify this succintly on the article, it would be helpful.

Thanks Dramirezg for your response. Two points:
  • First, of course I understand that word usage does not in itself determine nationality or religion. My question was a purely factual one, about what religion is actually practised by the people called Anusim in Spain. This is not a question of Jewish law, but of a present-day fact. Do these people go to a church, or a synagogue? If their Spanish ancestors resumed the practice of Judaism some time after their forced conversion, when did this happen, and under what circumstances? If they never resumed the practice of Judaism, then do they still retain Jewish traditions, such as the use of Hebrew loanwords, even though their families have been practising Catholics for five hundred years? Regards, --Saforrest 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I would recommend two excellent books on the subject. One about the period of forced conversions (1391-1492), Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition; about those Anusim who returned to Judaism, Miriam Bodian's The Hebrews of the Portuguese Nation. Literally, the Anusim have kept on returning during the last five centuries, the last big case in group has been those in Oporto, Portugal, during the first-half of the 20th century. Some have preserved Jewish traditions, most without knowing it. Others may not have, but overall, the religous patterns of Anusim can be extremely diverse. On the psychology of Iberian Anusim across history, consult José Faur's In the Shadow of History. --Dramirezg 07:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Secondly, your description of "Israelite" as a maternally-inherited ethnicity which cannot be lost even with conversion to another religion seems to contradict the claim in the article that the reason the Anusim are still considered Jews (or Israelites) is that their conversion was forced. If even willing converts (and other Jews who have transgressed Jewish law) are still Israelites, then how is it possible for an individual to lose "Israelite status"? Regards, --Saforrest 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Your second question falls on the issue of Jewish behavior, not on the issue of birth-right. Again, the axial, pivotal, revolving aspect of Jewish behavior centers on the commitment to Jewish Law and traditions. Even when transgressing, the Israelite remains an Israelite, albeit by birth-right. However, such transgressing Israelite cannot function fully as a Jew within the community. What does this mean in practical terms? For example, a Jew is commanded not to transgress on Shabbat, or Jewish Sabbath. A typical way today to transgress the Shabbat is by the act of driving a car of internal combustion. Combustion is Fire, and the Jew is forbidden to create fire on Shabbat. Since Jewish Law, both in the Pentateuchal agreement (five books of Moses) and in rabbinic tradition, prescribe that a Jew who transgresses the Shabbat is denying the sign of the Covenant, he is therefore denying his belonging to the people of Israel as a Nation. In laymen terminology, is sort of like a traitor to the Nation, and therefore punishable by death or banishment (this last one I have to double check).
    • In rabbinic interpretation, such person is considered an unreliable witness. What does this entail in practical terms? Many things: If male, he cannot be counted as part of a quorum of ten necessary for Jewish prayer; he cannot read his own portion of the Torah (Pentateuch); he cannot be trusted in issues of Kosher food or wine, that is, a Jew cannot eat at his table; he cannot serve as a witness in a Jewish wedding or divorce. Among many things. In older times, such person was persuaded to change his ways, but if unsuccessful, the community pretty much acted as he did not exists, and sometimes the family would disown him.
    • Rephrasing your answer, the Israelite does not loose his Israelite status of birth-right, just certain priviliges of participation within the Jewish community are revoked.
    • Today, this is next to impossible to enforce, as most Jews are Shabbat desecrators, plus many are not even aware of all this I have just told you. Can you keep a secret? ;-)

--Dramirezg 07:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a meshumad is also legally a Jew. The difference is that a voluntary apostate cannot claim the benefit of his Jewish status, though he is still subject to its burdens: his status exists but is in abeyance. An anús has full Jewish status for all purposes.--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to make a clarification on the Jewish status of Sabbath-desecrators. Most comments seem to be right on target on the fact that such individuals retain their Jewish birth-right but lose certain communal privileges (such as serving as witnesses and being counted in a minyan). However, according to Maimonides, a person is considered a public Sabbath-desecrator ONLY if he PUBLICALLY does something that is known to the masses to be violation of the Sabbath's rest (see Hilkhot `Edut/Laws of Witnesses, Ch. 12). Today we have a situation where most observant Jews rely on fake `eruvin to carry in the public domain on the Sabbath, which is forbidden from the Tora, but since most are unaware of the prohibition, they would not lose their communal privileges becauce of this (despite the fact that they are indeed transgressing). On the other hand, those who drive a car on the Sabbath would lose their communal privileges, for this is widely-known form of desecration. --Nathan613 01:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meshumad

I don't think the definition of meshumad is right: I think it is confined to one who voluntarily converts to another religion. Einstein was not an apostate: he was simply a lapsed Jew.

Other related terms are:

  • apikoros: a Jewishly educated person who comes to deny the basics of Judaism (e.g. Elisha ben Abuyah). This differs from a min, who is usually a member of a heretical sect, such as the Sadducees
  • mumar: rebel against Jewish observance (one can be a mumar le-dabar echad by renouncing one particular mitzvah)
  • tinok she-nishba: one kidnapped in childhood, who disobeys Jewish law by ignorance through no fault of his own
  • am ha-aretz: Jewishly ignorant person.

The overwhelming majority of non-observant Jews today falls in the last category! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir Myles,

The rabbis beg to differ on your opinion. Read the treatise of Aboda Zara in the Talmud Babli. Also, Maimonides codifies "Meshumad" as the following: Two are “mešumadim”: a) the “mešumad” for only one type of transgression; and b) the “mešumad” in relation to the whole Torá. The “mešumad” for one type of transgression – that is whoever is stuck to a [determined] transgression, making it consciously and knowingly, becoming accustomed [to it], same way with lighter [transgressions], for example, to dress with [clothing made of] “ša‘atnez,” or trim [the hair in a round manner, without leaving the sideburns on the head, on each side,] the peá, making it appear as if this precept [was inexistent] void for the whole world – this is a “mešumad” in relation to such thing [i.e. the given precept]. This is, if done with the intention to provoke. [In regards to] the “mešumad” for the whole Torá, this is that who turn to the laws [as creeds] of the gentiles, when these decree religious persecutions, uniting with them, saying: “ – What gain do I have in remaining united to the People of Israel, who are humiliated and persecuted? It is better for me to unite to those whose hand is powerful!” – this is the “mešumad” for the whole Torá. [MT Book of Science, V: Chp. 3, 18]. For a sensible assessment on the Biblical and Talmudic sources regulating this position, see Foot Moore’s Judaism (Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 460 – 473.

As most Jews today are outright Shabbat desecrators, it follows most Jews are in the status of "Meshumadim."

Also, I will share with you a recent response I received to Hakham Oliveira regarding the status of "Meshumad."

As for the question of "meshumad", as it relates to those who believe in the "Kabbalah" [medieval Jewish mystical lore begun in France 12th c.], this does not make them into meshumadim, since there is absolutely no problem in believing about reincarnations or not, having [or not having] understanding about the superior worlds as sefirot. If the person believes in the thirteen principles -- and the former is not included [in the thirteen principles] -- he's a Jew, and not a meshumad. If he believes in banalities that are not outright desecrations of the Toráh, we cannot consider them as minim, and much less as meshumadim. Because of this, [people] like rabbi Iossef de Efraim Caro, as rabbi Menashé ben Israel, as rabbi Ia'aqob Sasportas, among others, are kesherim.
The term "meshumad" is applied for two cases:
a) For a person who left one of the precepts, [this one] is a meshumad for one of two things in the Toráh, and the Sages call them Meshumad leMisswáh Ahat, or leDabar Min haDebarim, or lidbar Midiberehem.
b) For a person who left the whole Toráh deliberately. This included those who admit another form of faith, and I do not mean "Cabalismo", but Christianity, Islam or similar, which are declared denials of the Toráh and its truth. This [meshumad] is called Meshumad leKhol haToráh Kuláh.
Some [rabbis] pretend to include the Anusim in this [category], due to the fact that they chose to remain in their places of origin in moments when they could flee. It is clear these are rare cases, but it cannot be taken into account. For the cases of kiddushin and gerushin, if they were any, this can help for defense against such people [this in reference to contemporary ignorant rabbis who may consider Anusim as Mamzerim; case which cannot be applied because the kiddushin of Anusim could not be valid, as they were Shabbat desecrators, and therefore their witnesses invalid too. Having no valid witnesses, no valid kiddushin can be performed]. Not that the Anusim are really Meshumadim. This only [is used] as a strategy concerning the halakháh.

Hence, herr Einstein was a Meshumad. Best Regards. --Dramirezg 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we really differ here. Maybe I was remembering a censored edition of the Mishneh Torah, which uses "mumar" (rebel) instead of "meshumad" (apostate).
Maimonides' category a) is the same as my "mumar le-dabar echad". Note that it only applies to those who renounce a given observance "le-hach'is", as you say, with intention to provoke. It does not apply to casual non-observance, for example because one has been brought up that way, or has fallen into lazy habits.
Category b) is the apostate to another religion, and Maimonides seems to regard this as of the essence, not as just one example. Someone who has simply lapsed into complete non-observance, but still believes in God and identifies as a Jew, would not qualify.
Einstein would not come into either category, since as far as I know he was not brought up orthodox. A better example would be Spinoza, who did indeed break from Judaism in an act of deliberate rebellion even though he did not convert to another religion.
There are all sorts of disqualifications miderabbanan (for example, as a witness) for people who habitually desecrate the Sabbath or otherwise do not live respectable Jewish lives. None of these would be necessary if all these people were automatically meshumadim. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear Sir Myles:

I think there is a problem with semantics. Maimonides does not use the word Mumar.

Secondly, if you were to read more carefully, the way RaMbaM breaks "Meshumad" down is in the following order:

1. the Meshumad who transgresses any of the commandments.

2. the Meshumad who transgresses the whole Toráh

Of the Meshumadim who transgress any of the commandments, Maimonides' codification separates those who casually or intentionally transgress any particular comandment (The “mešumad” for one type of transgression – that is whoever is stuck to a [determined] transgression, making it consciously and knowingly, becoming accustomed [to it], same way with lighter [transgressions]). And then he identifies those Meshumadim who do it out with the intention to provoke. Hakham Oliveira gives us these categories too.

Then we have the Meshumadim for the whole Toráh [Meshumad leKhol haToráh Kuláh], of whom Maimonides says there are those who purposely leave the whole Toráh, to turn to different laws; note that he does not mention "conversion" to another religion. In Jewish thinking, Law does not mean only the Written Law, but also the Oral Law. One cannot be without the other.

In this last category of Meshumadim we can include the "Reform" Jews as they have denied rabbinic tradition. "Conservative" Jews are in the first category, as they only break certain commandments without abandoning rabbinic tradition in toto.

"Believing" in the God of Israel does not save either of them from the classification of "Meshumad". A kasher Jew cannot have a "belief" without "action".

There is an underlying current in all this, that even though the Jew may have been raised as a 'am aress, it does not exempt him from performing the misswot, specially if he has every opportunity to do so. A lot of Jews today know that driving in Shabbat is wrong, even though they were raised accustomed to it. They cannot be classified as 'am aress in this particular instance, or can they?

By the way, the Sages recommended us not to mingle into 'am aress:

“‘am haress are despicable, and their wives such as vermin, and to their daughters one must apply the verse, ‘Cursed be those who lie with all kinds of beasts!’” (Deut. 27:21). [M. Pesahim, 49a]

The implications of a Torah transgressor are several. As you had mentioned, one of them is that they cannot be witnesses ('ed), but also that they are classified "as gentiles" (ke goy) or worst than gentiles. Not that they are actually gentiles [their biological right as Jews is not cancelled], but that they are not kesherim (like gentiles) to be used in Jewish ritual, for example, be counted for minyan. Read the following responsa from early 20th c.:

4. Haham Joseph Hayyim of Baghdad [“Ben Ish Hai”], teshuvot Rav Pe’alim, vol. 3, Orah-Hayyim 12
A question from the city of Shanghai, with regard to a person who publicly desecrates the Shabbat by performing work for himself and for others: can he be counted for a minyan, and can he be called up to the Torah...
And also: if such persons who are ineligible to be counted for a minyan want to say kaddish, are they permitted to do so? And [if they do so] should others answer “Amen”?
Teshuva: Any Jew who publicly desecrates the Shabbat, i.e., performs work [m’lakha] in the presence of ten Jews, has the status of a Gentile, and does not count for a minyan. And not only if ten were present, but even if he desecrated [the Shabbat] in a public place where his actions become known to many, is regarded as having desecrated publicly.... From the way the question is phrased it is clear that this person performs these acts in a publicly visible place and he realized that it would become known, so that even if ten were not present he is regarded as a Gentile. And it is also clear that he does so usually, on every Shabbat, and his actions are known to all.
Thus, the person you are asking about, because he publicly desecrates the Shabbat, cannot be counted as constituting ten for kaddish or for kedusha and similar matters […]
Therefore, [you should ensure that] there should be present ten persons, besides him. And do so in a manner that it is not obvious nor noticed by him, lest there be hatred and enmity, or lest he be driven further away [from religious observance]. For the joining together [for minyan] is done in synagogue, where many are present, and you shall covertly make an effort that ten kosher persons will be present besides those who are unfit, and you will easily be able to do so.
However, with regard to calling him up to the Torah, if he will not be called up to the Torah he will notice this, and this will cause hatred and enmity, and there is concern that he might be driven further away [from religious observance] – especially in these times. However, this can be averted… by calling him up after the obligatory number have already been called up. And if the congregation sees that there are hatred and enmity and quarrels if he is not called up at the beginning on Shabbat and on Festivals, so, call him up for one of the obligatory ‘aliyyot, but make sure that when the next person is called up, the reader begins to read from the place that the previous one began [….]
And what you asked, if the ineligible persons who do not count for minyan want to say kaddish, what should be done, and should the congregation answer “Amen” after them ?
Teshuva: They cannot recite kaddish in a manner that causes the obligation of the public to be fulfilled. However, to avert hatred and enmity and quarrels, you should not prevent them from reciting kaddish, and you should not say to them: “Your kaddish is useless”. Rather, allow them to recite kaddish. But, the hazan should recite kaddish along with them, to fulfill the obligation of the public. Thus, the public will have their obligation fulfilled by the kaddish of the hazan, and answer “Amen” to the kaddish of the hazan, and they [= the ineligibles] will not notice this and thus hatred will not be born. Because, you will follow this custom all year round: the hazan will recite kaddish together with whoever says kaddish, even though they are ‘kosher’ – so that when such ineligibles happen to say kaddish this will not be noticeable in anything [unusual] the hazan does, because it will be his custom to always say kaddish.
{trans. Prof. Zvi Zohar, at Bar Ilan Univ.}

The way rabbis get around this halakháh today, the loophole, is that if they do not presence the Jew breaking a misswáh, particularly the one for Shabbat, they assume they are kasher for minyan. Albeit, knowing that it is public knowledge, they bent backwards to the limits of this permissibility.

Best Regards. --Dramirezg 15:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You obviously know a lot more about all these things than I do, but I shall have one more shot.

Maimonides' mention of "turning to different laws", in its context, clearly does mean "other religions": in the passage you quote, he says "turn to the laws of the gentiles ... adhere to them": it is not a question of the distinction between written and oral laws. And where he says "when these (gentiles) decree religious persecutions" he puts it beyond doubt: he is clearly thinking of Christian and Muslim persecutions.

It was common usage in the Arabic of his time (e.g. in the works of Averroes) to call the three Abrahamic religions "thalatha ash-shariāt", "the three Laws", and he is here using "Torah" as a translation of "shariah". Similarly, when he says that an idolater may not study Torah, he says "yaamod be-torato", which may mean either "let him stick to his own religion" or "let him remain in his own legal status".

As I read the Ben Ish Hai, he is speaking of the disqualifications miderabbanan, and does not actually say that these people are meshumadim.

Interesting as these discussions are, the main point is that disqualifications caused by simple non-observance of halachah are too far from the subject of this article. The article is about "anusim", in the sense of forced converts. The question is "Does conversion to another religion affect one's status as a Jew?" The answer given is "No, if one is an anús; yes, as concerns the right to exercise it, if one is a meshumad". Of course one may also lose the right to exercise Jewish status through abandonment of tradition falling short of conversion to another religion. But this fact, however true, is irrelevant in the context. The article should therefore be pruned in such a way as only to discuss the issue of conversion, forced or voluntary. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir Myles,

The context that Maimonides uses "laws of the gentiles" has to do with everything outside Jewish tradition as formulated by the rabbis, which comprehends the Written and Oral tradition. Therefore, anything outside this realm is considered "gentile." It is also important to note that Maimonides is giving us a summary of the Talmudic discussion, one occurring within the definitions of the halakhot themselves. There is more than what meets the eye and splitting hairs he does not touch upon this particular codification, but noticeable as one reads along his opus.

The context he uses "laws of the gentiles" is anything outside rabbinic tradition. It could be Islam, Christianity, Communism, Free-enterprise Capitalism, etc. On itself it could be anything regarding the action of adopting ways and customs outside what the rabbis formulated for proper Jewish behavior.

If for example, we live in a country where is common to drive on Shabbat, and therefore some Jew thinks is OK to drive on Shabbat, as every body does it, then the rabbis consider this as "turning to the laws of gentiles." There is no need to formally recant Judaism; when it comes to breaking the Shabbat, as long as the Jew does it, he has recanted Judaism privately; if did he it in front of ten (kasher) Jewish witnesses, he has recanted in public.

The context in which Hakham Hayyim develops his teshubáh follows the lines of the discussion of meshumadim, and anyone familiar with the discussion knows this. He does not have to say outright the word "meshumad." Anyone familiar with the halakháh knows he's speaking about a "meshumad." It is obvious from the nature of the discussion.

As it comes to the particular melakhot of Shabbat [where making fire and transporting in public are two concerns to the act of driving a car], the melakháh of making fire is mide'Oraita and punishable by hayab karet (death); the melakháh of transporting something in public is mideRabbanan and it is punishable by hayab malkhot (wips). It is not just a "simple non-observance" as you put it, particularly when knowing that Shabbat is one of the two of the signs of the covenant (the other is circumcision). The observance of Shabbat not only upholds the giving of the Toráh at harSinai, but it also is witness to the cornerstone of Judaism, which is creation ex-nihilo. Breaking the Shabbat -- even if the Jew "believes" in the Shabbat -- leads to denying harSinai and creation ex-nihilo ever happened.

And with all due respect, this discussion is everybit relevant to the discussion of "anusim," as we are discussing what qualifies someone as a Jew who is kasher, and a Jew who is pasul. The determination of who is kasher or pasul revolves on the issue of Jewish behavior, otherwise also referred to as "observance." "Conversion to another religion" is only peripheral to the rabbinic concern, and only important if done out of conviction or out of coercion of some kind. The initial rabbinic concern is one of the behavior of the Jewish individual.

You should know that the rabbis considered the "anusim" kasher, meaning they were kasher witnesses, therefore their weddings and testimonies valid, and so there was their wine and shekhitáh. This happened as long as the rabbis knew they were shomer Shabbat, shomer Kashrut, shomer Tefilah, etc., to the best of the possibilities; despite they had to go to Church, take a Eucharist, eat pork or recite Hail Mary in front of the priests or other Old Christians and apostate Jews (minim). The conversion by force -- and their coerced public non-Jewish behavior -- does not alter the kasher status of the Jew.

It is also important to note that of those forced converts, if they knew that they would lapse into non-observance on their own volition, the rabbis would call them meshumadim.

Lastly, of those Jews who converted to Catholicism out of conviction, as it was the case of Abner de Burgos, the rabbis called them minim.

All these issues are evident in the rabbinical responsa of Spanish rabbis from 1391 to 1492. Some of which you can view in the Hebrew original at www.judaismo-iberico.org.

I think there is an initial confusion with the notion of "Shemad" as perceived today. However, when we review the minutiae of Talmudic discussions, and the attitude of the rabbis up to the present century, you will realize that the notion of "meshumad" as "convert to another religion" is imprecise.

Best Regards. --Dramirezg 17:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/u/Talk%7EAnusim_8af9.html"