[Avodah] Geirut

[Chana Luntz]

RAF writes:

> Not necessarily. It would mean that the da'at of Beit Din stands en lieu
> of the qatan's da'at, just like beit din can appoint an apotropos who is
> qualified to make decisions requiring da'at en lieu of the minor orphans.

In what cases do you believe an apotropos makes decisions requiring da'at en
lieu of the minor orphans?  My understanding was that an apotropos was
fundamentally appointed to look after the property of the minor orphans, and
to make decisions in order to safeguard that property.  And that the basis
for the power of beis din to so appoint was hefker beis din hefker - since
Beis Din has the power to completely confiscate property should it choose to
do so, it is also fully within its power to appoint somebody to administer
such property for the benefit of technically whomsoever it chooses, although
in general such power is mostly exercised on behalf of minor orphans.
Similarly in the case of an absent husband, a beis din has power to appoint
an apotropos to, eg realise the property of the husband in order to support
his wife and children.  It can do so even, in extremis, if it is know that
is not the will of the husband - because of hefker beis din hefker.

I think (dredging up my memory somewhat here) there is some discussion about
an apotropos doing mitzvos on behalf of the minor orphans (particularly
giving charity, fulfilling the wishes of the deceased father, paying off
creditors) - but I was not aware of a case where that extended to a mitzvah
that requires daas.  Do you have an example in mind?  

In fact, if the apitropos (or beis din) could substitute for the daas of the
minor orphans, why can't they swear the necessary shavuos on their behalf
and overcome the fundamental difficulty that keeps cropping up when dealing
with minor orphans, of them not being able to swear?  After all, does not
kabbalas ol mitzvos more closely resemble a shavuah than anything else?

>  Alternatively, it may be that qabalat 'ol mitzvot is a requirement
>similar to the obligation to bring an 'olah scarifice upon converting: when
> impossible it need not be done. Bringing the sacrifice is impossible when
the Beit haMiqdash isn't standing, having da'at is impossible for a qatan.

You don't have to go as far as the olah sacrifice on conversion - there is a
classic case of if it is impossible it need not be done, in the case of
women and mila.  The conclusion on Yevamos 46a is that mila is a necessary
requirement for conversion, where possible (ie in connection with a man),
despite it not being practiced by our foremothers in Egypt (because of
course mila is not possible amongst women).

However, there are differences between mila for women, olah sacrifices and
kabbalos ol mitzvos.  In the case of mila for women, it is never going to be
possible.  In the case of an olah sacrifice, hopefully it will soon be
possible, but if we wait until it is possible, many many converts would
never have had the opportunity to convert, marry etc.  In the case of
kabbalas ol mitzvos, all we need to do is wait until the minor reaches
majority (which most of them are expected to do - yes there is the
possibility that they will die before they reach majority, but I can't think
of any case where we do things vis a vis a minor because of this relatively
remote possibility).

Another difference is that, as far as I am aware, in the case of the olah
sacrifice, when the Beis Hamikdash is rebuilt, that obligation will reassert
itself - ie it is not as though the obligation goes away, it is just
suspended until we have a Beis Hamikdash - that I thought was the general
position for korbanos that are not time bound.  So, for example, every
yoledes will, once the Beis Hamikdash is rebuilt, need to bring the
necessary korbanos (albeit that we know that one korban can be used for
mulitiple births) etc etc.  Why would it not be the same for a ger?  It is
just that the impossibility of bringing a korban makes the korban not meakev
(to the extent that it would be otherwise).  

But in the case of the katan, once he or she hits majority, it becomes
perfectly possible for them to make the necessary kabala, so why do we not
make the katan reappear before beis din on majority to then provide the
missing kabbala element?

> KT,
> --
> Arie Folger
> http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Regards

Chana