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

[Michael Makovi]

>  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.
>  Daniel M. Israel

Not only the SA, but also the Gemara in Yevamot, etc., AFAIK. It says
we teach him a few large and small mitzvot, peah and such, and then,
if he acknowledges Jewish suffering, he's in. It doesn't sound like
such an involved process is being spoken of.

In America, there's no reason for a person to convert, and in Israel,
those from America, England, Germany, and the like (Russia is of
course a different story) certainly need not be suspected of ulterior
motives - there is no reason for conversions to take so long. We have
a fellow here at my yeshiva doing conversion, who already has Jewish
ancestry and simply lacks documentary evidence, so he needed a safek
conversion. Moreover, he was about to begin medical training in
America (he was a medic for the US Army) that would get a him a
six-figure salary, and left it for yeshiva in Israel - ulterior
motives?, ROFL! And yet, despite all this, he was in the process of
conversion for an entire year, after which he finally got fed up with
the Chief Rabbinut that was getting him nowhere, and he had to do the
more lenient Meah Shearim conversion.

>  Second, as a matter of lo
>  siten michshol, we shouldn't be m'gayir a person before he knows
>  enough to be shomer mitzvos.

I've heard in the name of the Lubavitcher Rebbe that we can learn from
two people that G-d doesn't expect perfection: the bar mitzvah and the
ger. Both have little idea what they're supposed to do, and yet
they're both chayav! G-d cannot expect very much from either, but He's
happy with them.

>  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.

Whatever validity the second has, the fact that the SA's pshat
supports him, means apparently the SA wasn't challenged by the second.
If the SA didn't see it as a problem, why should we? Should we be
holier than the mechaber?

Mikha'el Makovi