[Avodah] R' Angel & Geirus Redux

[Daniel Israel]

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>> 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.

I still don't see a clear answer to the question, because we are still 
conflating accepting that one is obligated to do the mitzvos, and 
promising that one will do the mitzvos.  These are different, and unless 
we have a clear source indicating that the latter is required for 
geirus, I'm not sure why we should presume that that is what RMF or 
other poskim mean.  Of course, there is very strong reason not to accept 
RMA's position even so, so as not to create geirim who are also avaryan. 
  But that is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is posuling 
gerus done by a BD based on the former kabbalah only.

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

Which volume?  I don't have this one.

> 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:"

R' Bleich writes here more explicitly, but without knowing his sources I 
can't tell how compelling his conclusion is.

>> 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

He also said (I don't have the quote handy) that he would require 
kabbalos ol mitzvos, just not a promise to actually do everything.  So 
b'dieved, what do we make of that?

Keep in mind, although I used in a previous post a clear-cut example 
(eating treif) the reality is likely to be a candidate who plans not to 
cover her hair after marriage, or will eat fish in restaurants: i.e., 
practices which are not uncommon in certain communities where people are 
more lax in halacha.  Furthermore, the BD in practice does not ask 
(AFAIK) what a person will do about these kinds of things, rather it 
relies on knowledge of the person.  So what if there is a BD that 
accepts candidates that it feels sincerely accept Torah min haShamayim, 
but that it suspects will conform to the practices of the more lax 
members of the community?  Can we posul this b'dievad.  For simplicity, 
let's even forget the cases where there are additional factors to create 
suspision, such as conversion for marriage, where the convert commits to 
keeping nothing, or C converts.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1 at cornell.edu