[Avodah] Giur and kabbalat mitzvot

[Michael Makovi]

Regarding the earlier debate about whether conversion requires
kabbalah of the mitzvot:

http://www.jewishideas.org/responsa/halakhic-conversion-of-non-religious-candidates

(Note: this is the website of Rabbi Marc D. Angel's organization.
Therefore, the conversion articles will be following his and Rabbi
Uziel's shita. By the way, the website has many other interesting
articles on other topics as well.)

Here, the views of three prominent rabbis are brought, that kabbalah
of mitzvot does not mean a declaration of intent to keep the mitzvot,
but rather, a declaration of acceptance that Jewish law requires
observance, and that the ger will be subject to the Jewish community's
punishments for non-compliance. In other words, it is acceptance of
the legal existence of Jewish law, acceptance of the fact that Jewish
law requires observance by Jews (including converts), and acceptance
of culpability for its nonobservance and subjection to punishment.

[Question: must he accept Heavenly punishment, or is accept beit din's
punishment sufficient?]
[My own speculation: Perhaps we could even say, based on this, that
kabbalat mitzvot would be satisfied if the ger accepts he is liable to
the same degree as all Jews - Jews are liable to degree X, and he
accepts that he too will be liable to that same degree X. Even if he
does not follow the Torah/Orthodox/observant opinion on what X
actually is, the fact that he equates himself with all born Jews as
far as his own liability goes, perhaps this is valid kabbalah. If so,
this would simply be another way of saying, that he accepts he is a
fully-fledged Jew, whatever that means. Alternatively, even if he
rejects Heavenly punishment, perhaps if he acknowledges that he'll be
subject to the beit din's punishment, then this is valid kabbalat
mitzvot.]

To quote a short portion:
"In fact, the meaning of this phrase [kabbalat mitzvot] in the context
of Giyyur was not agreed upon during the 1000 years before rabbi Caro
employed it, and was not agreed upon afterwards. As did many rabbis
before them, leading Sephardic rabbis in the 20th century held other
interpretations of this phrase. In the following text, the views of
three such great Sephardic rabbis are discussed. In their view,
Qabbalat Mitzvot means an acknowledgement by the Ger, that after they
become a Jew they will be liable before G-d (as are all Jews) for
their actions: if they sin, they may incur Divine punishment, while
performance of mitzvot will earn merit and reward. According to this
view, a valid halakhic giyyur is fully possible for persons who do not
intend to subsequently follow a religious lifestyle."

---------------------

See also http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/retroactive-annulment-giyyur-conversion
Especially footnote 23, and the basic text to which it applies.

Text: ...Furthermore, at no point between the Talmudic period and the
19th century did any rabbi rule that an individual proselyte's
inappropriate motivation, inner disposition or beliefs during the
process of giyyur itself – would invalidate the efficacy of the
ritual.[23]

Footnote 23: For the sake of clarity: this is true not only with
regard to those rabbis who held that a valid giyyur is possible
without kabbalat mitzvot, but also with regard to those rabbis who
held that kabbalat mitzvot is a sine qua non for a valid giyyur. This
is so because, however those rabbis understood that phrase, they never
identified it as an internal disposition but as an event that is
empirically verifiable at the moment it occurs.Some understandings of
that event were: the proselyte's reception of information about the
commandments, as conveyed to him by the court; the proselyte's
willingness to become a Jew; the proselyte's commitment to proceed
with the giyyur ritual (= circumcision and immersion) after hearing
about the commandments; the proselyte's declaration of commitment to
observe the commandments. See: Transforming Identity, chapters 9, 10,
11, 12.

Also, this article, from Rambam Hilchot Issurei Biah chapter 13, shows
that even if kabbalat mitzvot is required, this is only l'hatchila.
Rambam says that King Shlomo had his (ostensibly pagan gentile) wives
convert, and even though it was known AT THE TIME OF THE GIUR that
they were still idolatrous, the giur was kosher. Bedieved, the giur is
kosher regardless of the ger's intent at the time of the conversion.
And as Rabbi Berkovits notes (in Crisis and Faith, in his essay on
conversion, also found in Essential Essays), in times of great need,
what was bedieved, becomes l'hatchila. (Rabbi Berkovits uses this to
support converting non-Orthodox Jews, under Orthodox auspices, for the
sake of the unity of Am Yisrael. Rabbi Uziel uses this to support
converting gentile spouses of intermarried Jews, and converting their
children too.)

Mikha'el Makovi

P. S.

Further articles on this topic:
http://www.jewishideas.org/minhamuvhar/conversion-crisis
http://www.jewishideas.org/minhamuvhar/slamming-the-door-on-converts
http://www.jewishideas.org/responsa/responsa-of-rabbi-uziel

Some of the other interesting articles I found:

On superstition in Orthodox Judaism:
http://www.jewishideas.org/minhamuvhar/religion-and-superstition-maimonidean-approach

On agunot:
http://www.jewishideas.org/minhamuvhar/rabbis-no-more-alibis-center-womens-justice