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

[Daniel Israel]

I'm glad to see my query sparked some discussion, and sorry that I put 
it out there and then dropped the ball on this thread.  I just got back 
from out of town from Purim, and am going to try to catch up, which may 
mean a string of responses tonight.

Apparently RDE (disagreeing with me) and RMM (agreeing with me), both 
misunderstood my position.  I actually am not sympathetic to RMA's 
proposal at all.  However, as the proposal itself has been discussed at 
length, I tried to write be neutrally in order to raise another issue. 
My neutrality was apparently too well done, and read as approval.

The issue I wanted to raise was sparked by the suggestion in some posted 
link that RMA and co. might start some new batei din, and I was 
wondering, b'dievad, what would be the implications of this, l'halacha.

Because of this misunderstanding, I am going to respond to some of your 
points out of order, emphasizing the issue I intended.

The basic issue is in the following:

 > 9) And yes the vast majority of poskim would declare posul - a convert
 > who is not clearly committed to keep the entire Torah.

The requirement is "kabbalos ol mitzvos."  My reading of that is 
accepting the binding nature of the mitzvos and the obligation to keep 
them, as opposed to a promise to actually keep them.  To take a concrete 
example: what about someone who clearly states that he accepts the 
entire Torah as binding, _but_ also states that he is (at this time) not 
capable of completely ceasing to eat a particular non-kosher food.  He 
acknowledges that he will be violating halacha to do so, and that this 
halacha is min haShamayim, but he simply feels his taivos in this area 
are too strong.  It is not clear to me from the sources you are talking 
about what the status of this case is.

I see three possibilities:
1) We say that the requirement of "kabbalos ol mitzvos" actually means 
someone promises to keep all the laws.  The problem here is (a) it 
doesn't fit the simple meaning of the words (IMHO), and, (b) where do we 
draw the line between this person and the one who says he will try to 
keep the halahca, but he's only human and know he will mess up occasionally.
2) We say that such a person, although he claims he accept the mitzovs, 
is insincere.  But the problem is this is directly contradictory to his 
own words.
3) We say that the person is sincere, but that the BD that accepts him 
as a ger creates a tremendous michshol.

My question is this: assuming the third is correct, then b'dievad if 
such a BD actually forms, wouldn't we have to accept their geyrus?

This is exactly my reaction to RMA: what he is proposing would be 
irresponsible, but not posul.  If you disagree with this analysis, then 
where exactly is the point of divergance?

This is all assuming that we are speaking of the case where there is a 
statement of kabbalos ol mitzvos, but not a clear immediate practice, 
which is how I read R' Uziel, as well as many of RMA's statements.  As 
opposed to the case where there is an intermarriage without real 
kabbalos ol mitzvos, or accpeting C&R converts for the sake of "achdus." 
  The latter I don't see any basis for.

I would also note here that keeping the entire Torah is clearly beyond 
any of us.  Clearly a beis din can't demand perfection, but can't be too 
lax either.  My impression is that a BD doesn't really quiz the 
candidite, "will you keep this, will you keep that," but relies on a 
basic knowledge of the candidate.

> 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. 

Fine.  But can we use this on a BD by BD basis?  If a BD has a low 
"success rate" suitably defined, then all of a sudden we declare their 
geirus posul?  What happens to geirim that were m'gayir before we 
"discovered" the low success rate?  What about "successful" candidates 
afterwards?

In discussions with a particular Av Beis din who is considered very 
reliable about another BD which is not so responsible, he pointed out to 
me that it is not so simple to start posuling geirus, particularly on a 
case-by-case basis (although I know others who will do so, using their 
own evaluation of the candidates sincerity).

Switching to the case at hand, if RMA starts a BD, can we posul based on 
a presumed low success rate?  If not, can we do so for an established 
low success rate?  Again, I don't see this as a clear cut issue.

> 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).

My understanding is that his son, Rav Dovid, also holds like this (as 
far as a Jewish father, I don't know about the other case).  AFAIK the 
reason is that there is some spiritual connection.

> There is no written 
> teshuva that allows encouraging conversion of an intermarried couple  
> who know that they are  living in sin.

But most community Rabbaim and BD that I am familiar with are willing to 
be meikil in some aspects in cases where there is a real appearance of 
sincere interest on the part of the non-Jewish spouse.  I know of 
several such cases.

Again, just so the discussion doesn't veer off on a tangent, let me make 
it clear that I am not sympathetic to RMA's approach.  It seems to me 
that it creates many communal and halachic difficulties.  The only 
question is how the majority who disagree with RMA would have to treat 
the geirim he produces.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1 at cornell.edu