[Avodah] Geirut

[Meir Shinnar]

Me
> : WRT RMB's bringing in the name of RYBS about understanding the rambam
> : on geirut.
>
> : It is difficult for me to be holek on RYBS, but, BMKVT...
RMB
> So, why assume you're choleiq rather than leaving it as a lo zakhisi
> lehavin? I would agree with RMS that RYBS's statement requires more
> explanation, as the whole wording of the Rambam is about cheshash, not
> about two elements of Jewish identity. So we need to find someone who
> was there, no?
To revise some of my original points:
WRT to avdut, the rambam (Issure biah 13:9), has a specific category -
yatzu miklal hagoyim, uliklal yisrael lo higiu.  This would seem the
category that you suggested (according to RYBS)_ means vechosheshin lo
- an intermediate category - but while the rambam is willing to define
and use that category for avadim - where the second transition to full
yisrael is quite clear and specific - he does not use such language
for the case of a ger whose motives are unknown - so the rambam can
define an intermediate category, but does not use it here.
> Explaining the Rambam IB 13:16-17 (13-15 in Teimani), RMS writes:
> ...
> : 3) Because it was clear that their conversion was insincere, the katuv
> : considers them as goyot, and that they are still forbidden.
> : This may suggest that the rambam considered them as goyot - with an
> : invalid conversion.
> ...
> : The rambam then specifically rejects the notion that these women were
> : halachically goyot - in hal 14.
>
> : he says about people who converted for secondary reasons  hare ze ger.
RMB
> The Rambam says that people who converted for no known reason or wasn't
> taught anything about Judaism first, harei zeh geir (bedi'eved). The
> phrase is not used in the second case of "noda shebishvil davar hu
> misgayeir". I think this is significant, as I'll explain below.
me
> :  veafilu noda shebishvil davar hu mitgayer - ho'il umal vetaval, yatza
> : miklal hagoyim  - an explicit statement that the previous statement
> : about the katuv considering neshe shlolmo as goyot is not a a halachic
> : determination - they are not goyot .
> : He then says, vehosheshim lo -, ad sheyitbaer tzidkuto.
> ...
> :  (BTW, The simple pshat (and apparently the one that was accepted by
> : most poskim until recently ) seems to be that even though the gerut is
> : chal, in such a gerut, he does not have the hezkat kashrut of a
> : regular Jew - and hosheshin lo - and presumably, one wouldn't want to
> : get married to such a person unitl one is sure ....
RMB
> I wouldn't phrase it that way. If the geirus is chal, why wouldn't you
> want to marry into the family? His son is a mumar just because he is?
me
Why do you think the chashash is about the family? the question is
about the individual - the rambam is not talking about marrying into
the family - but about marrying the individual...

RMB
> My own read of the Rambam is somewhat similar to yours, but I instead read
> him as saying that we have a chazaqah that allows us to assume he's a
> geir -- although we don't really know.
>
> IOW, I"m not reading "chosheshin lo" as we are chosheish he is a Yisrael
> mumar, but in contrast to "yatza miKELAL hagoyim" -- not the clear
> "harei zeh geir" that the Rambam says where we have no particular reason
> to suspect his motives. We are chosheshim for the validity of his geirus.
>
> And therefore if another birur comes along, the chazaqah wouldn't
> stand. (The chazaqah is already ika rei'usah, our case is "noda shebishvil
> davar hu misgayeir.)

The problem with your pshat is the end of the rambam - and the problem
he is dealing with:
he concludes that at the end; it was clear to everyone that the
conversions of neshe shlomo and shimshon were insincere -they were
only megayer to get married and they never had any intention of
keeping the mitzvot, and they  didn't keep the mitzvot  as he says, -
af al pi shenigla sodan.

If the gerut was therefore not chal because we now know that the gerut
was insincere, at that point shlomo and shimshon could no longer keep
their wives - even if the marriage from safek was originally
acceptable - there was no longer a safek.

Why could they keep them? because once converted, even though
dishonestly (nigla sodan), - meachar shetaval hare ze yisrael  - and
therefore kiyem shimshon ushlomo neshehen - not nas'u neshem -  but
kiyem - not merely that the original marriage was not a problem, but
they could stay married - and if finding out that a conversion was
insincere without KOM would invalidate the marriage
> This is based on the same issue RCOG and RMF raise, that the only reason
> why KOM isn't dismissed as devarim shebeleiv is because we have an anan
> sahadi. But the ultimate qiyum is still beleiv.
But in the case the rambam deals with, we have an anan sahadi - and
the gerut was still chal....
RMF and RCOG can pasken against the rambam - but he is quite clear...

Meir Shinnar