[Avodah] Jew Or Not?

[Zev Sero]

Micha Berger wrote:

> Three dayanim from the Vaad Harabbanim of Queens. I'm giving you
> halakhah as it was applied in the field. I do not know of anyone who
> requires a BT to go to the miqvah before they would count him toward
> a minyan. However, I do know of at least 2 people whose mother or
> maternal grandmother converted where the beis din did so rule.

Did they require shaving as well?  If not, why not?  And more to the
point, would they not count him in a minyan before doing this formal
teshuvah?


> (The relevent SA is YD 268:12, c.f. Rama and Pischei Teshuvah.)

The Pischei teshuvah says explicitly that only applies to the meshumad
himself, not to his descendants.   The GRA presumably disagrees, given
the mekoros he gives.

 
> : 1. Who told you that it applies also to the meshumad's descendants?
> : If the makor is from a medieval takanah to discourage shmad, then it
> : applies only to the meshumad himself, not to his descendants.  And in
> : this case, who says there was ever a meshumad?
> 
> You're suggesting that someone is an n-th generation converso who grew
> up thinking she was a Xian with weird customs and there was no meshumad
> in the line?

What converso?  We're talking about someone who grew up thinking that
she was a normal goy; there's nothing mentioned in the description to
suggest that she or any of her female ancestors were Xian.  The
original grandmother may just have married out without converting,
and the subsequent generations may perhaps not have been religious
at all.  And even if they were religious, if they never knew they were
Jewish in the first place then they could not have apostasised.

(In addition, IF the minhag is based specifically on the tum'ah of AZ,
then one may question whether the particular flavour(s) of Anglicanism
practised at the churches this woman's ancestors would have attended
fit the definition of AZ.   The CofE is a particularly hard church
to pin down when it comes to any theological question; it seems to me
that within the same church there are those who are definitely
idolaters and those who are definitely not, and a whole spectrum in
between.  Which makes sense for a church that claims to follow a
"via media" between Catholicism and Protestantism.)



> And the maqor appears to be mesechtes Bekhoros 30b about amei
> haaretz.

The GRA gives the makor in Bechoros (specifically RT in the tosfos
on 31a, d.h. "vechulan") for the requirement that the returnee accept
divrei chaverus; if that is indeed the makor then it has nothing to do
with shmad or AZ, and applies to any baal teshuvah.  The GRA also gives
Avot d'R Natan as the makor for tevilah; again, if that's the makor
then it must apply to any BT.   The Pischei Teshuvah, who says that it
doesn't apply to the meshumad's descendants, obviously disagrees that
these are the mekorot.



> Where did you see someone attribute it to a medieval taqanah
> and meshumadim?

I don't recall where I read it, but that's the only basis on which
one could distinguish it from a standard baal teshuvah.  And it would
explain why the Mechaber doesn't mention it, and only the Ramo does.


> For that matter, the gemara discusses the criteria for
> an am ha'aretz's son. The tana qama in the beraisa says the children and
> the rest of the family are carried along with his qabbalah, R' Shimon b
> Gamliel require they must go to three chaveirim themselves. Both would
> appear to agree in the case where the father didn't.

That's in reference to the actual chaverim of Chazal's time, who don't
exist any more.   None of us have taken divrei chaverus, and we don't
keep ourselves betahara like chaverim, etc.  Applying this to a mumar
is in Tosfos there, by analogy.   But if this is the makor for this
requirement, then it must apply to anyone who is becoming frum, no
matter from what background.   And of course it doesn't say anything
about tevillah.


> : 2. Who told you that it doesn't apply to returnees from R/C? ...
> 
> Ask the folk at ANY kiruv organization.

That's not an answer.  We don't require it, because it would make
kiruv more difficult; but the same consideration applies no matter
where they come from.   If we don't require it for ordinary BTs, who
says we require it any more from meshumadim?   It is not really a
form of giyur at all, but a formal ritual of teshuvah, or tikkun.




> This is a good question, as C/R appear to me to qualify as amei ha'aretz
> in the gemara's sense of the term. But not upon what I wrote in particular
> -- I was just stating halakhah pesuqah (as I wrote, above).

I question the basis for that psak.


> Do Chabad
> Houses require tevilah and qabbalas divrei chaveirus before counting
> men who walk in off the street for their minyanim?

Of course not, and nor do they require it if the men mention that they
were once Xians, or even if they are still Xians ch"v!  There is no
more basis for excluding meshumadim from a minyan than there is for
excluding mechalelei shabbos.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher