[Avodah] R' Angel & Geirus Redux

[Meir Shinnar]

>  The Rambam and SA both list the criterion of not excluding a single
>  din. How then can one not require the enterprise of dinim? If someone
>  saw R' Uziel or R' Goren inside, I would appreciate explanation.
>  \
I don't have sources in front of me, and it has been a while.
However, as I previously said, the notion of kabbalat ol mitzvot as
being central in the giyur process is not universal - although it has
become the dominant notion, to the extent that people are matmiah at
the notion that this can be doubted.  there is a book by Zvi Zohar and
avi Shagya, GIyur vezehut Yehudit, published by Machon Hartman, that
makes the following claim:  It is extensively documented.  A while
back I went through many (not all) the sources, and while I didn't
agree with all their interpretations, they make a powerful case, which
also makes simple pshat of many gmarot and rishonim.

The basic argument is that there are two main approaches to giyur: In
one, the acceptance of the religious dimension of being a Jew is the
fundamental part- leading to kabbalat ol mitzvot as the fundamental
part of giyur.  This is the more familiar model.

However, there is another model of giyur - where the primary process
is the transformation of becoming part of am yisrael (and not in the
notion that we are only an am through the mitzvot) - and mila and
tevila are the technical acts that transform a non Jew into a Jew.

Now, as keeping the mitzvot is a fundamental part of being a Jew - by
becoming a Jew, one perforce is bound by the mitzvot.  Kabbalat
hamitzvot here becomes, rather than an intrinsic part of the processof
giyur,  an outcome of it.  The questions that arises in this model  is
a) If someone who has no particular desire to keep the mitzvot
undergoes giyur - is the giyur valid, or is dependent on whether he
actually keeps the mitzvot
b) how much does one have to investigate the ger's desire to keep the
mitzvot c) If an insincere ger is accepted, and the giyur is valid
what are implications both for the ger (eg, better being a poor Jew
versus nonJew) and implications for klal yisrael (eg, in the notion of
kol yisrael areivim)

The latter implication,especially for klal yisrael, are quite widely
discussed.

Many rishonim do not discuss a requirement of kabbalat hamitzvot as
part of the giyur process (eg, the rif),and the rambam, who does want
investigation of the potential ger, says that if bet din of hedyotot
converts without informing anything about the mitzvot - the giyur is
valid - even if we don't let him marry until we know whether he will
keep mitzvot - and furthermore, if the ger does not keep mitzvot, he
has the status of a yisrael rasha - rather than a nonJew (this is the
simple pshat - I am aware of other readings).

This also gives a simple pshat to the entire discussion in the gmara
about gere arayot, gere mordechai, gere isha, etc - there is a
position that those gerim are not valid, but the halacha is that they
are valid gerim - even though kabbalat ol hamitzvot was not an
intrinsic part of the giyur (and I am aware of the other pshatim) -
and much of the ma'amre hazal about gerim oppose gerut precisely
because they fear that many of the gerim were not sincere in kabbalat
hamitzvot, leading to a problem for klal yisrael - but not to
questioning their basic status as a ger.

There is also the gerut of a kattan - where again, kabbalat hamitzvot
is not required ( a kattan is not a bar da'at) - and the requirement
to reaffirm before a bet din is actually quite late...

There are  later poskim who continue this or a modified thread - even
if they require kabbalat hamitzvot, it is more of an added requirement
than an intrinsic
part of the giyur - and so therefore, something that is more
susceptible to a kula under some circumsances.  IIRC, Zohar and Shagya
bring down Rav Kluger holds that kabbalt ol mitzvot is only
derabbanan, and the bet meir holds that kabbalat ol mitzvot refers
that one is doing the mila and tevila for the sake of the mitzva of
giyur

.  There are multiple other sources brought down by Zohar and Shagya.

I think that the evidence they bring that this was a position is
fairly strong, and I think that this underlies many of the more
radical positions on giyur.  To the extent that giyur is primarily
about a transformation into being a Jew, the issue of kabbalat
hamitzvot  becomes secondary - the issue becomes a public policy one
about the desirability of having large numbers of non shomer mitzvot
gerim, and whether it is good for the individual ger to be a non
shomer mitzvot.  .  Many tshuvot which are mekil on gerim seem to
implicitly assume a form of this position.  I think much of Rav
uzziel's position seems to assume at least part of this position -
although I don't think he ever explicitly states it.  I remember
hearing this position in the name of someone who is a major MO talmid
chacham - but as I didn't hear it from him directly, I don't want to
state it.

On the otther hand, there are clearly major poskim who would radically
reject this position - and even view it as incomprehensible and not
part of eleh ve'eleh.  When I previously referenced this, RM Berger
was surprised and viewed it as clearly against Shulchan Aruch.

The question is wehter

a) This is reasonable reading of at least some of the sources

b) Even if this is a reasonable reading, whether this position is
still a legitimate halachic position, or the other viewpoint has
become so predominant that the
this is no longer part of the halachic process

Meir Shinnar