[Avodah] R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Re: [Areivim] rabbi org)

[Daniel Israel]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:05:46 -0600 Saul.Z.Newman at kp.org wrote:
>http://www.forward.com/articles/12864/  if  RCA  doesnt recognize 
>YCT, liberal O sees need for new org... the beginning of a new 
judaism 
>branch?

I posted something about this to Areivim, but the article, which 
mentions RMAngel and the possibility of creating a new network of 
batei din, got me thinking.  Slightly tangential to the original 
post, so I am renaming the thread and moving it to Avodah.

The SA (IIRC, I don't have it here in front of me) describes the 
chinuch associated with geirus in a way that sounds pretty minimal, 
which is the basis for R' Angel's shita.  However, it seems to me 
that there is no independent requirement for a person to learn for 
geirus: the requirement is a consequence of two other issues.  
First, a person can't be m'kabel ol mitzvos without a basic 
understanding of what the mitzvos are.  Second, as a matter of lo 
siten michshol, we shouldn't be m'gayir a person before he knows 
enough to be shomer mitzvos.

The simple version of my question is whether the objection that has 
been raised against RMA is regarding the first or the second.  I 
definitely hear the second, but as far as the first, the suggestion 
that that is exactly p'shat in the SA seems pretty compelling.  
(That is, the SA is indeed describing a process much less stringent 
than what we do today, as RMA suggests, but he is simply telling us 
the minimum chinuch before we can rely on the person to be m'kabel 
ol mitzvos; he isn't teaching us policy as far as what the person 
needs to be taught.)  If that analysis is right, then the argument 
is a policy one, which shouldn't have any effect to pasul a geirus 
b'deivad.

After all, the reason why this is not simply one more area where 
the RW and LW just hold by different shitos is because of the long 
term implications.

If this is not the issue, that is, if there are those who are 
suggesting that a geirus in the format suggested by RMA is actually 
posul, what is the basis?  Are they suggesting that we can't rely 
on a beis din that takes such an approach?  That seems untenable, 
as we are undeniably taking about talmidei chachamim and shomrei 
mitzvos.  Or are they objecting that there is no real kabbalas ol 
mitzvos without a much more stringent learning program?

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1 at cornell.edu