[Avodah] R' Angel & Geirus Redux

[Daniel Eidensohn]

> All these seem to be cases of where a prospective ger is simply flat-out turned away. But did any of them go so far as to deny the Jewishness of a ger who had already converted under someone else's auspices?
>   
*Rav Moshe Feinstein(Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:157):* *Question:* Concerning a 
convert who does not accept the obligation of doing mitzvos is he 
considered a convert? *Answer: *It is clear and obvious that he is not a 
convert at all even after the fact. This is also what my father actually 
ruled in Strabin. He said in such a case that the person was not a ger 
in any sense whether for leniencies or strictness. That is because the 
acceptance of mitzvos is an absolutely necessary condition to become a 
convert (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 268:3). Even if the person asserts he is 
accepting the mitzvos – if we are aware that he is not actually 
accepting them – his assertion is meaningless. While it is true that if 
a person is converting for the sake of marriage it is valid after the 
fact – but that is only if he is fully and truly accepting the mitzvos 
for the sake of marriage. This is clear and obvious. All this was stated 
explicity by my father when he ruled in this case. I really don’t 
understand the reason why some rabbis err in this matter. Even according 
to their mistaken view that the acceptance of mitzvos is not required – 
what is the benefit that they are providing for the Jewish people in 
accepting as converts those who don’t accept the mitzvos. It is certain 
that G‑d does not approve nor is it desirable for the Jewish people that 
such converts become mixed into the Jewish people. It is simply obvious 
that such a person is not considered a convert.**

*Mishna Halachos(7:250): *Concerning Ezra (chapter 9 and 10) where we 
see that he insisted on the sending away of all the non‑Jewish wives and 
their non‑Jewish children. It seem surprising that we don’t find that 
they converted them – either the wives or the children… It is 
unreasonable to say this absence of conversion was because not a single 
one of the wives or children wanted to convert. I saw that the Ibn Ezra 
addressed this question. Ibn Ezra (Ezra 10:3) writes, “We don’t find 
that any of them were brought close. Perhaps they were sent away because 
they weren’t converts like Ruth the Moabite. Our Sages say “The 
offspring from a prohibited sexual relationship is considered his son in 
every respect except if the child was born by a maidservant or non‑Jew” 
- and consequently the mothers and children were sent away. It would 
appear from this that it wasn’t that none of the wives or children 
wanted to convert but rather that Ezra and his beis din did not want to 
accept them as converts because they would not have been genuine 
converts like Ruth the Moabite who converted only for the sake of G‑d. 
Even though the population of Jews in Israel was very small – 40, 000 
men and so they obviously wanted to increase the population as it says 
that half of them worked and the other half did guard duty – 
nevertheless they did not want to mix non‑Jews amongst them that had not 
converted properly. That is because such type of gerim would not only 
not help their security but would make things worse. It is important to 
note that there is a dispute in Yevamos (24b) concerning conversion for 
ulterior motivation. R’ Nechmiah says that a man who converts for the 
sake of a woman or a woman for the sake of a man or someone who converts 
for the sake of power… all of these are not considered gerim… However it 
was said in the name of Rav that the halacha is in agreement with the 
one who says all of these with ulterior motivation are in fact 
legitimate gerim. This is also the view of the Rambam (Hilchos Issurei 
Bi’ah 13:14) and the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 268:12). The reconciliation of 
this apparent conflict between the views of Ezra and the halacha in 
Shulchan Aruch is that since lechatchila we are not to accept these type 
of gerim – Ezra and his beis din did not want to accept them - even 
though if he had accepted them bedieved the conversion would have been 
good. An alternative explanation is that we don’t say that a person who 
converts for the sake of marriage is a ger bedieved unless he converts 
prior to marriage. Only if the conversion is before marriage can we say 
that the person is motivated to accept all the mitzvos and the 
conversion itself because he has no choice if he wants to get married. 
However if the conversion takes place after marriage and he is well 
aware that his or her spouse will not desert them and therefore does not 
truly accept the mitzvos and converts only as an expression of love for 
the Jewish spouse. Thus the conversion is just for the sake of 
appearances but is not genuine. In such a case Ezra and his beis din did 
not want to accept these converts at all and in such a case it is not 
valid conversion at all. With either explanation it is clear from these 
verses that Ezra did not want to accept them as gerim. This 
understanding is consistent with the rulings of gedolim who have dealt 
with the case of a Jew who is living with a non‑Jewish woman with whom 
he has had a civil marriage and they have children. Now she wants to 
convert with the children – and the question is should they be accepted 
or not? The Beis Shearim (Y.D. 361) writes…. It is difficult to believe 
the sincerity of the conversion concerning the non‑Jewish wife of a 
Jewish man who has halachically lived in sin all these years and has 
ties with his non‑Jewish wife according to the secular marriage laws of 
the country and is still persisting in his error and transgression – 
because even if the beis din doesn’t accept her for conversion he will 
continue to live with her as man and wife. It is simply difficult to 
believe that he would really allow his non‑Jewish wife to truly accept 
all the mitzvos even if she did in fact want to sincerely accept them. 
That is simply because he would obviously prefer that she be freely 
available to him and not as a wife who has fully accept all the mitzvos 
– even the finer points of rabbinic laws. If there is not full 
acceptance then there is no conversion at all…. In truth we find in Beis 
Yitzchok (Y.D. #100), Achiezer (3:28), Maharshag (Y.D. #32), Imrei 
Yosher (#176), Even Yekara Telisah (#98), Be’er Chaim Mordechai (#40), 
Arugas HaBosem (Y.D. #224), Ruach Chaim of Rav Palaggi (#16), Igros 
Moshe (E.H. 27) – that all of them pasken that conversion in such a case 
is assur. Reflect on this. Even where they want to accept conversion but 
there are problem they are not to be accepted and surely and kal 
v’chomer 1000 times in our case.* *


*Rabbi Bleich* has written page 274 In Contemporary halachic Problems:

All authorities agree that an application for conversion may justifiably 
be entertained only if the Bis Din is satisfied that upon conversion the 
condidate will become a Gd fearing Jew and will scrupulously observe the 
commandments of the Torah. It is clear that according to halacha 
certainty of future religious observance is a necessary condition for 
acceptance of a prospective convert:"

> Even if at the time of conversion he *was* clearly committed to keep the entire Torah?
>
>   
*R' Angel* is not concerned with whether they are committed to keep the 
entire Torah. He stated the following in an interview published in 
Forward November 2007

"Rabbi Uziel argued that not only may rabbis do conversions in less than 
ideal circumstances, but they are obligated to do so — even when the 
would-be convert is not expected to become fully observant religiously. 
Since so many conversion cases involve intermarriage or potential 
intermarriage, Rabbi Uziel believed we should perform conversions in 
order to maintain whole Jewish families that can raise Jewish children 
within the Jewish community. He viewed himself as being “strict” in his 
opposition to intermarriage, not as being “lenient” in matters of 
conversion."

Daniel Eidensohn