[Avodah] Geirut

[Arie Folger]

R'n CL wrote:
> The question here seems to be though not quite as you have stated, and I
> think this is the heart of the dispute - ie whether refusing the ol
> mitzvos mean that the whole statement of wanting to become Jewish is
> meaningless, or is it that the statement of refusing ol mitzvos is
> meaningless - because it is not possible.

Most posqim would say that refusing 'ol mitzvot, even when accepting them 
theoretically but not intending to fulfil them, is utterly meaningless. Both 
Rav Herzog and Rav Goren considered such conversions meaningless. Rav Herzog 
in a letter to the Swiss Rabbinical Council (home turf ;-)) preserved in 
Shut 'Helqat Ya'aqov. Rav Goren in his invalidation of Mr. Langert's 
conversion on account of lacking KOM. As I posted on list, some dispute that 
Rav 'Uziel meant to recognize conversions with no KOM, and as I stressed, the 
A'hi'ezer definitely didn't rule leniently in such a case. He wasn't talking 
about umdena demukha'h, where the dayanim simply refuse to scratch below the 
surface, but about any unknown thoughts the convert may have been harboring, 
stating that devarim shebelev einam devarim.

> There is also the question of 
> the terminology at stake. If you take the statement "I want to become
> Jewish but not be obligated in the mitzvos" - that last part is an
> impossibility, given the first part, so do we ignore the last part, and
> keep the first part, or do we knock out the whole statement as not
> meaningful because it is contradictory.  And what if the statement is "I
> want to become Jewish and not keep the mitzvos" (but nothing about
> obligation)?  Is that too an impossibility and meaningless, despite the
> fact that the reality of that is lived by secular Jews every day?

Rav Moshe considers this a mockery of 'ol mitzvot.

> What 
> if the person said explicitly "I want to become Jewish and I want to
> have the same olam haba as my non frum Jewish friends" - ie accepting
> that there is an obligation, and there may well be din v'cheshbon on
> this, but willing to take the same chances as the non Jewish friends.

See above. No go.

> The case of the katan though is different, because at no stage does the
> katan necessarily even state he wants to become Jewish.  At most he
> seems to have the option to reject the whole package - Jewish plus ol
> mitzvot.  So if he does nothing, what happens?

I asked of several dayanim what would be the case, and I got wildly differing 
answers. The most honest one is that, because this isn't a clean cut case, 
you should confront the convert with the question, even years later (IIRC 
that is according to Avnei Nezer, who, IIRC, believes that as long as the 
child isn't aware he/she/it can be mo'heh, there is still a possibility to 
renege on one's Jewishness even well into adulthood) whether he/she/it wants 
to be Jewish and keep mitzvot, or neither.

> Even if you hold that you 
> cannot halachically separate between the two, that does not necessarily
> mean that you rule him not Jewish.  The other alternative is that you
> rule him Jewish but still a bar hiyuva, whatever he says - in exactly
> the same way you do for a born Jew - who can wander around refusing the
> ol mitzvot as much as he likes, it don't help any.

But the basis for enabling the conversion of a minor is zekhut hu lo, which is 
all about KOM, and anyway, higdilu yekholim lim'hot, because may be it ain't 
a zekhut after all, and by being through and through non-practicing (I am not 
talking about incomplete observance but with attempts at kind of keeping 
Shabbat - such *would* show interest in 'ol mitzvot) doesn't the now gadol 
child show he/she/it isn't interested in 'ol mitzvot?

> In the words of the 
> gemora (Nedarim 8a) v'halo mushba v'omed m'Har Sinai hu - we are deemed
> to be sworn to keep the mitzvos from the time of Har Sinai, and because
> of this we *can't* in reality go swearing to keep mitzvos now, even if
> we want to, because ain shavuah chal al shavuah.  Similarly, we can't go
> resiling from the obligation to keep mitzvos now.  Neither, according to
> this view, can the now grown up katan - the only thing he can do is
> reject everything, and even that he cannot do once he has done something
> that indicates that he is behaving like a Jew - ol mitzvos comes whether
> he wants it or not, just like for us.

Or, by rejecting 'ol mitzvot, he is rejecting everything.

I will grant you one admission: whereas regarding gedolim, the issue is clear 
cut, regarding qetanim, it might very well be that as long as bish'at tevilah 
the family was going to be religious, and later went off the derekh, the 
child is indeed properly converted (but it must have been a zekhut bish'at 
tevilah), and perhaps indeed, as the secular child is usually not capable of 
understanding 'ol mitzvot at the tender age of 12-13, his non-observance is 
not deemed a me'haah. After all, I only speculated about this being 
tantamount to a me'haah, and I see no conclusive answer. IOW, I admit that, 
as there is no way of having a regular KOM in a minor, it is a milta de-i 
efshar and is partially waved. (Note I did concede that 'al da'at beit din 
doesn't mean that BD is doing the KOM for the qatan.)

But please remember, it isn't charitable to find or make people to be safeq 
geirim. A vadai nokhri can marry a vadai nochriyah, a vadai ger any Jew 
except a bat Kohen, but a safeq cannot even marry a safeq. We do a disservice 
by allowing doubtful identities to form, never mind the lifnei iver problem 
of allowing people to become Jews when they will then acquire some gehinnam 
for suddenly transgressing serious prohibitions every time they do simple 
things that were hitherto permissible for them, such as eating bassar 
be'halav, neveilah, tevel and having relations with one's now spouse without 
that the woman uses the miqweh.

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