[Avodah] Geirus

[Chana Luntz]

RMB writes:

> Qabbalas ol mitzvos is required of the geir qatan. "Ve'im higdilu
> yekholim limchos" (Kesuvos 11a).
>

Firstly, you are either conflating two different concepts here - or you are
defining Kabbalas ol mitzvos differently from the way most people here are
defining it.  

The ability to reject what was done to the katan while they were a katan, is
one thing and an agreement to keep the mitzvos is another.  The fact that
they are two separate concepts can be seen by the modern day separation that
occurs - a person (eg take a modern day Israeli of Russian descent) wants to
be a Jew and identifies themself as a Jew.  They do not however want to be
shomer mitzvos.  If such a person was converted as a katan, they would
unquestionably not protest on reaching majority (and would use every
opportunity to proclaim that they are a Jew).  They would also keep on
eating pork, being mechalel shabbas etc.  The statement you bring in Kesubos
above therefore does not fit to them, they are not in the slightest going to
protest.  Or alternatively, you will have to define KOM as being not wanting
to protest being called a Jew.

Secondly, as I have pointed out in a previous posting - there is no act of
positive acceptance by such a katan on becoming a gadol.  Even if we were
able to identify the precise moment of majority, such a person remains a Jew
by being passive.  In order to not be a Jew they have to actively shlug off
the Jewish status by protesting. By acting positively as a Jew what they do
is then lose even that option of shluging off the conversion.

> There is a logistic problem making it impossible to time this, since
> geirus would require the deOraisa standard of 2 sa'aros. And once chal,
> it's binding forever so the window of opportunity is all of tokh kedei
> dibur from growing that second sa'ar. The gemara says "sha'ah achas",
> which here means "one point in time" not an hour, but there is no
> pragmatic difference in terms of the impossibility of determination.
> 
> This is why lemaaseh we assume that a child in that situation who acted
> as a member of the shomer Torah umitzvos community from before that time
> until after is a valid geir.

True, but that is the easy case - as we know they have lost their
opportunity to protest.  Take a more tricky case.  Let us say that a child
was brought to Beis Din by its non Jewish parents who were themselves
converting and at the time were clearly sincere and shomer mitzvos.  Let us
say that such parents remained shomer mitzvos for a period of years after
the conversion of both themselves and the child, but then later lapsed - and
the child's behaviour lapsed with them.  There is no question according to
everybody that the parents are Jews, no matter that they have disappeared
back into their non Jewish society.  What about the child?  According to you
- since there has to be a positive kabala, then without such a kabala, by
acting as a non Jew from before the time of galus until after, without more,
this child is not a valid convert.  But the language is not mashma like that
(although I think there are rishonic opinions like that).  Rather, the
language both of your gemora and in the Shulchan Aruch seems to be going in
accordance with the view that you need a formal renunciation to eliminate
the status of Jew, rather than needing a formal act of kabala to confer it. 

If you are going to call that KOM (or QOM) then you are defining KOM as a
passive act of non rejection of Jewishness (which sounds awfully like R'
Uzziel's view - well actually, is more radical than Rav Uzziel's view. He at
least wants an active acceptance of Jewishness, albeit that that can
presumeably be satisfied by voluntarily coming to beis din).  If you want to
retain the more classic definition of KOM and postulate it as a requirement
for adults, then it seems to me you need to differentiate between katanim
and adults, and say that KOM is a requirement for adults but not for
children. (BTW, for those who came into this discussion via a snipet of a
posting of mine from Areivim- please note that the discussion on Areivim was
started off with the question as to whether there any poskim today who held
one did not need KOM, and a further posting saying they did not understand
the logic of those who held that KOM was not necessary.  All I said was that
I thought most poskim held you did not need KOM for minors - and by
generalising from the minor case to the adult case, one could understand
REB's view of no KOM for adults.  What I did not say was that one
*necessarily* had to go that route - ie one could well hold no KOM for
minors but yes for adults.  What I also did not discuss was the definition
of KOM, because this whole discussion on Areivim was predicated on a certain
understanding of the meaning of KOM. As per above, an alternative view is
that KOM is a requirement, but what is meant by that is some fuzzy joining
the Jewish people).

> 
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana