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

[Michael Makovi]

> R' Daniel Israel:
>  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.
> ...
>  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.

I would say you cannot possibly draw a line - NO ONE can possibly hold
a distinction between one who promises to try to keep halacha, and one
who says that he won't keep halacha because he simply cannot. It is
not a theoretical question of where the line would be drawn; rather,
it is objectively impossible to even consider drawing a line. EVERY
ger will mess up. EVERY bar mitzvah will mess up. EVERY *Jew* will
mess up. NO ONE can keep all the mitzvot perfectly, and so NO posek
can demand this. Poskim can argue on how close to success (in perfect
mitzvah performance) the ger must achieve, but they all must concede
that perfection is impossible.

So there is no difference, at all, whatsoever, between one who admits
that he will fail, and one who will try his best to keep all the
mitzvot (and does not say that he will fail).

>  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.

Plus, you are declaring him insincere simply because he speaks the
objective truth. If the ger says he will perform all the mitzvot
successfully, he is either lying or objectively wrong. The ger who
says he will *try* to keep them all, but surely fail, is simply
speaking the *objective* truth (i.e. it is *objectively* true for
*all* gerim that they will surely fail).

How can you pasul a person simply because he refused to lie?

So the third one must be the true one, as R' Daniel Israel himself
will say in a moment:

>  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?

Mikha'el Makovi