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

[Daniel Eidensohn]

R' Daniel Israel wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>>     
The process of geirus is not simply the simple sum  of citiations from 
gemora, rishonim or Shulchan Aruch. I am just going to mention some 
important issues that modify the simplistic understand presented above.

Geirus does not exist independently of social reality. The dispute over 
R' Angel's proposal (actually it is R' Ben Tzion Uziel) is not a new 
discussion. If you want to see the material in depth R' Angel wrote an 
article in tradition many years ago which was critiqued and rejected by 
R' Riskin in the same issue. He has also written a book on the subject. 
There is also an academic work put out by the Hartman institute which 
also argued that the requirement of commitment to observe the whole 
Torah is a new requirement "Conversion to Judaism and the meaning of 
Jewish identity" by Prof. Avi Sagi and Prof. Tzvi Zohar - they deal with 
the question whether conversion is identity with the Jewish people or 
commitment to halacha. There is a massive tome by Prof. Friedman at Bar 
Ilan (available in English and Hebrew). R' Bleich has a very good 
summary of the issues - original published in Tradition but reprinted in 
his Contemporary Halachic Problems series.

Our Sages say that there are 3 factors needed to convert - mila, tevila 
and korbon. There is discussion of whether ulterior motivation counts in 
Yevamos. This includes whether a person converts for the sake of 
marriage, power or security whether it is good, There is a important 
discussion in the Rambam (Pe'er HaDor) concerning leniences for the sake 
of teshuva. This is the basis of both R' Uziel's psak as well as the 
lenient view found in R' Shlomo Kluger. Prof. Friedman points out there 
are different versions of this Rambam and Rav  Chaim Ozer points out 
that it is not clear how to legitimately generalize the Rambam's 
comments. There is much discussion in the Igros Moshe, Tzitz Eliezar, 
Mishna Halachos, etc etc. It is ***not*** a simple issue!

A lot of this matterial is presented on my blog   
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/ <Daas%20Torah>  in  regards to my on 
going dispute with Rabbi Tropper and the Eternal Jewish Family.

There are a couple of salient issues.

1) There can  be leniencies found when a community or school is involved 
versus an individual.
2) There  has been a major change in the issue of Jewish identity. Rav 
Herzog points out that up until the early 1800's a person converting to 
Judaism - was joining a community which was fairly homogeneous and 
segregated from the non-Jewish community. Non observance meant be 
shunned and a pariah status which ensured poverty and possibly death. 
There was no need to explicity state a commitment to observance since it 
was implicit in conversion. With Emancipation there became a large 
degree of freedom from community pressure and therefore there is a 
significant change in the explication of the requirements for conversion 
in the halachic literature. It is basic consensus that complete 
commitment to halacha is critical to the validity of conversion.
3) The issue of success rate is critical. If the majority of people who 
convert end up non observance and are a negative force on the community 
then conversion should obviously be discouraged - or the standards 
raised so only the most sincere candidates are accepted. The Achiezer - 
who initially supported conversion for the sake of marriage - changed 
his view 22 years later and said that a kosher beis din should not be 
involved in this type of conversion. Igros Moshe similarly says that he 
personally has nothing to do with these type of conversion because so 
few are successful. The Syrian community banned converts for pragmatic 
reasons as did the Argentine community. Ezra rejected the foreign wives 
and their children - and made no attempt to convert them because of the 
danger they posed to the new Jewish community in Israel.
4) R' Angel takes an optimistic view - open admissions policy with the 
hope that the converts will eventual become serious. This can be seen in 
Shabbos (31a) with the dispute of Hillel and Shammai regarding 
conversion (See Rashi and Tosfos there).
5) Rabbi Tropper has asserted that conversion of intermarried couples 
should be encouraged (i.e., proselytizing) to remove the impediment for 
the Jewish spouse to do teshuva and reduce the intermarriage rates.
6) There is an ancient tradition of discouraging converts (Yevamos 48). 
There are some who would assert that there should be no discouragment 
when the person has a Jewish father or mistakenly views himself as a Jew 
(Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky according to his son R' Nosson Kaminetsky and Rav 
Moshe Feinstein according to R' Shlomo Fuerst). There is no written 
teshuva that allows encouraging conversion of an intermarried couple  
who know that they are  living in sin.
7) The question of conversion of children is likewise complicated as to 
whether it is genuinely a zechus for the child. Can the child protest at 13?
8) Talmidei chachomim are not granted automatic permission to go against 
the majority in critical issues involving the nature of the entire 
Jewish people such as conversion (Rabbi Angel) or divorce (Rabbi 
Rackman). It is naive to assert that anyone with semicha can posken what 
he thinks best and the rest of the world has to accept it.
9) And yes the vast majority of poskim would declare posul - a convert 
who is not clearly committed to keep the entire Torah.

The above is  just a small sample of the literature.  I have a couple 
hundred pages of sources on this topic - if you want more.

In sum. R' Angel's (Rav Uziel's) approach is based on wishful thinking 
that the person will eventually become sincere such as we find with  
Hillel. However the hard cold facts on the ground is that it simply 
doesn't work as general policy and never has - and thus is rejected by 
the overwhelming majority of  poskim.

Daniel Eidensohn