[Avodah] Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates

[Chana Luntz]

Anyhow, in terms of theory: 

> At my yeshiva, there is a situation of many people in the process of
> doing giyur. Now then, we have an issue of yayin nesech;

I doubt very much you are talking about yayin nesech (ie wine that has been
poured as a libation to avodah zara) vis a vis giyor candidates.  To cut a
very long story short the din is that wine used for avodah zara is, of
course, not just assur to drink, but assur b'hana'ah (ie to get any kind of
benefit from, eg to sell) d'orisa.  

There are also gezeros instituted by the chachamim on stam yenam, ie wine of
a non Jew, including where they touched our wine.  The simplest explanation
of this, to my mind, is as sent out in the Taz on Yoreh Deah siman 123 si'if
aleph si'if katan aleph. The Taz writes: (on the phrase in the Rema "mishum
kezeras") "the explanation is because of their daughters it is forbidden
from drinking and and because of the gezera of yayn nesach it was forbidden
even b'hana'ah".  Similarly the Shach writes there  to say tahtt it is
forbidden d'rabbanan because of Yayin nesach to idol worship that is
forbidden d'orisa and so because of the gezera of their daughter as is
brought in shas and the poskim." [The source in Shas for the gezera of their
daughters is Avodah Zara 36b]  Note that the Taz goes on to explain that
because today one does not find bone fide idol worshippers, and yayin nesech
is not common, there is a heter to get a benefit from such wine.  The
prohibition on drinking, however, remains in force. 

RMB asked about the question of a ger toshav.  The gemora brings differing
opinions on this in Avodah Zara 64b - which included one opinion that wine
touched by them was permitted for drinking, but other opinions that it was
not, and it may be yayin neseach. The Mechaber holds in the SHulchan Aruch
(Yoreh Deah siman 124 si'if 2) that while hana'ah is permitted, drinking is
forbidden, and the Rema brings (the Tur in the name of the Rosh) that by a
ger toshav, if he touched our wine, it is permitted even to drink, but their
wine is still assur to drink.  One reason given for the Mechaber's position
(which is based on the Rashba, as brought by the Tur) by the nosei kelim is
that since the gezera on stam yanam was because of intermarriage, gerei
toshav, are within it being prohibited in intermarriage.

In that same si'if, the Mechaber brings another type of person, a
prospective ger who has had mila, but not yet tevila - and holds that the
status of his wine too is permitted in hana'ah and forbidden in drinking.
This too follows the Rashba.  It is not entirely clear from the wording of
his exclusion allowing wine touched by a ger toshav to be drunk, whether the
Rema is referring to a ger toshav only, or to a ger toshav and a person who
has done mila but not tevila.  The Tur when brings the Rosh refers to both
of them, and the Beis Yosef has a certain amount of discussion as to why a
person who has done mila and not tevila might be in a better situation than
a ger toshav.  On the other hand, both the Shach and the Taz understand the
Rema as referring only to a ger toshav, and not to a person who has only had
mila, but not yet tevila.  This is supported by the fact that the Rema
earlier comments that a person who has not had proper tevila is considered
to not have had tevila at all in this respect.

> Later, I was speaking to a rabbi of mine, and he told me that Rabbi
> Nathan Lopes Cardozo had showed him, a few years ago, a teshuva of
> Dayan Grossnass of England, Shu"t Leib Arye volume One or Two (he
> didn't remember which, and I haven't had a chance to investigate),
> that ruled that once a person commits to doing giyur, his yayin is no
> longer a halachic issue; he is a yehudi as far as his yayin is
> concerned.

Well it would be interesting to see the teshuva - but are you sure that
"commits to doing giyur" does not mean mila but not tevila?  As you can see
from what I have written above, even allowing this for mila but no tevila
goes against the Shulchan Aruch, and would seem to be against the most
straightforward reading of the Rema, and as understood by the two major
commentators - on the other hand, you can see where there is some support
for this position.

To have a step earlier than mila but not tevila seems even more problematic,
unless - perhaps you are talking about somebody who in the course of
committing to do giyur, had some sort of acceptance before beis din of the
sheva mitzvos benei noach. 

> A question that's occurred to me, and which I have sent to Rabbi Angel
> (so his reply is pending): what of people who have not committed to
> doing Orthodox giyur, but only because they already (wrongly) believe
> themselves to be Jews. That is, people with a Jewish father, people
> with non-Orthodox giyur, etc. These people honestly believe they are
> Jewish, and were they to be convinced that they truly are NOT Jewish,
> they'd of course commit to doing Orthodox giyur. The only reason they
> don't pursue Orthodox giyur is that they don't realize they need it to
> be Jewish. Now then, should these people be any worse than a stam
> non-Jew who's committed to giyur? It seems to me that these people's
> wine should be kosher just as the Orthodox giyur candidate's is.

If you follow the most straightforward and simple understand of the gezera,
which fits with the Mechaber and the Rashba's position, then the issue here
is intermarriage.  If you can marry them (or your daughter's can) you can
drink wine they have touched, if not, not.  Since you cannot marry somebody
on giyur track until they have actually gone through with the conversion,
then you cannot drink their wine.  The same is true of people who think they
are Jewish but they are not.

If you take the Ran's position (as  brought in the Shach), the issue is not
so much intermarriage, but whether they have accepted upon themselves in
front of beis din not to be involved in idolatry.  He held that a person who
had done mila but not tevila was more problematic than a ger toshav, because
a ger toshav had made a commitment in beis din to accept the sheva mitzvos
benei noach, including the no idol worship, and a person who had done mila
but not tevila had not. Given that a person who thinks they are Jewish but
are not has not made any commitment in front of beis din, then the same
would clearly be true for them.

BTW, your typical person who thinks he is Jewish but is not, may quite well
have had mila (this may get into the question of whether mila done by a non
frum mohel is mila, and may depend on who did it) - so you might in fact
have a mila but not tevila scenario here.  And a mila but no tevila
situation is one discussed by the poskim.  To go yet a further step back and
talk about somebody on giyur track, whatever that means, really seems to be
pushing the envelope. 

Like everybody else on this thread, it seems to me that he simple solution
is for the yeshiva to insist, as a matter of policy, that all wine brought
into the yeshiva is mevashel, which will completely solve the problem
(Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman 123 si'if 3 if you want the source).
Leaving aside the issue of students on giyur track, are you telling me that
every single person who works in the yeshiva kitchen/cheder ochel is a frum
Jew?  If you have non Jews around working in the kitchen, cleaning up the
cheder ochel etc it seems to me that it is just too complicated to have non
mevushel wine around.

You further write on this:

> As for using yayin mevushal: the problem is that students bring in
> their own wine on Shabbat, and the rabbis aren't around to say
> anything.

Are people free to bring food into the yeshiva without any concern about its
kashrus?  More than anything else this is a kashrus issue.  If they choose
to come to a yeshiva that takes giyur candidates, or that employs non Jews
in the yeshiva kitchen, then they ought to abide by standards that ensure
that the yeshiva maintains a high level of kashrus.  Having wine here there
and everywhere that may well be treif (don't forget there are issues about
leaving an open bottle around without supervision, there are issues in
relation to the kellim etc etc) would seem to indicate very lax kashrus
standards (and note also that there are potential issues with wine by non
frum Jews as well - is every Jew in the yeshiva clearly shomer shabbas -
there are teshuvos to rely upon when faced with a problem, but this is not
the sort of situation that a yeshiva should be getting itself into).  As a
simple matter of kashrus I can't understand how they can allow this.

 Actually, the rabbis aren't very concerned with the shame
> caused to the giyur candidates. (Believe you me, the candidates DO
> feel great shame at this, but no one but them seems to care. Even the
> rabbis don't seem to care when I discuss this with them. I never said
> I like the rabbis at my yeshiva.)
 
Do the candidates also feel shame that they cannot marry your daughter?
Will they feel that it is problematic, once they have converted, that they
cannot marry the daughters of those who are yet to convert?  As I have
indicated, I don't think this ought to be going on for kashrus reasons, you
are quite legitimately on eggshells to avoid kashrus violations, but you
shouldn't be eating like that.  But on the other hand, it is very clear from
the sources that this has been created as a heker, a symbol, to remind
everybody that relationships are prohibited.  You haven't got to this yet,
but during the period when a husband and wife are not permitted to be
together (ie she is in nida), it is also traditional to have some sort of
sign on the table when they eat alone, known to the two of them that
indicates that they are not permitted to be together. Similarly there are a
whole bunch of other restrictions, arguably very embarrassing to perform (or
not to perform) in public which distance the couple.  You can argue the same
principle, one of shame, but the halacha doesn't view it like that.  
 
> (While on the subject of people doing giyur: many Israelis seem to
> think it is perfectly alright to treat these people as shabbos goyim,
> asking giyur candidates to turn on their lights. I hope I don't need
> to explain why I find this utterly disgusting, revolting, wretched,
> and putrid. These people exploiting the giyur candidates have no
> derech eretz, have no humanity. I have spoken to giyur candidates
> about this; almost invariably, they find this extremely embarrassing.
> I cannot understand why these people will come to my yeshiva and ask,
> "Do you have any non-Jews here?"; it's absolutely horrible, and as far
> as I'm concerned, these people are rejecting the mitzvot bein adam
> l'havero bichlal; these people, as far as I'm concerned, may as well
> come up to the faces of these giyur candidates, spit, kick, throw mud,
> and taunt and laugh and mock and deride; it's all the same in the end.
> I do not understand how anyone who fears G-d can behave in such a
> manner.)

Well the obvious solution is for you to make yourself an expert on amira
l'akum, and when anybody comes and asks - dissect what they want to do to
find out whether it is mutar.  My guess is that most of the time it isn't.
In many cases it may be forbidden to then benefit from what they have asked
the non Jew to do.  Even if you don't know exactly the halacha, you could
always try asking - are you sure that this is mutar?, and point out this
consequence (ie that they are not allowed to benefit until the period of
time it takes to perform the melacha after shabbas) if it isn't.

And yet, you write:

> To use a gentile, a pureblood gentile, is a real serious question of
> amira l'akum. But to use someone doing giyur is moreover an averah
> bein adam l'havero.

The reality is that most of the permissible cases of amira l'akum involve
things like helping the sick, disabled or vulnerable or assisting the
community as a whole.  What you appear to be saying is that better that a
sick or disabled person suffers than that a healthy bodied giyur candidate
is asked.  Is that really the right priority?  Putting yourself into their
shoes for a moment - helping the sick and disabled is a mitzvah.  You can
argue where it fits into the sheva mitzvos benei noach, but I think you
could find enough evidence if you searched hard enough that it is a mitzvah
not just for a Jew but for a non Jew. And even if not, it is certainly one
of the things one is hoping that the giyur candidate is training themselves
in, no less than in shabbas.  You are suggesting that a mitzvah be diverted
from this giyur candidate and sent the way of a non giyur candidate (if any
available, which there may not be).  This is arguably one mitzvah that they
can only do before they convert, is it right to run away from it?  Of
course, while it is not clear that lifnei iver exactly applies to a non Jew,
it is certainly not a good thing for them to be enabling a Jew to violate an
issur d'rabbanan like amira l'akum, so it might not be a bad thing if they
also learnt the halachos really well, not just so they know what not to do
when they convert, but so they know what not to do now.  I agree this would
need to be handled sensitively, but is your response actually the right one?
If they cannot keep shabbas properly, is it right to also not permit them to
perform mitzvos ben adam l'chavero?  Is it so shameful to be able to perform
mitzvos ben adam l'chavero that a Jew cannot perform?

> 
> Michael Makovi

Regards

Chana