[Avodah] Geirut

[Meir Shinnar]

Me

>  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.
>

RMB
> I find the Rambam quite clear the reverse, that we conclude  
> "ube'isuran
> omedin" (IB 13:16, a/k/a 13). Rather, Shimshon and Shelomo erred  
> thinking
> that they were geirim kesheirim who later returned to their  
> previous AZ
> (halakhah 17/14). The only way I see avoiding a setirah in the  
> Rambam is
> if you take the first halakhah as describing the status of the  
> women, and
> the second as describing why the husbands did what they did -- in  
> error
me
> : Why could they keep them? because once converted, even though
> : dishonestly (nigla sodan), - meachar shetaval hare ze yisrael...
>
RMB
> But 17 (or 14) is about a geir shechazar. One we believe never left  
> is 16
> (13). How we know when to invoke 16's "shehokhiach sofan al  
> techilasan"
> and when we invoke 17's "afilu chazar ve'oveid AZ" is a difficult  
> metzi'us
> all. So difficult, even Shelomo's chokhmah erred in it.

I think we all come with our preconceptions.  I think that RMB comes  
with preconceptions that kabbalat ol mitzvot must be in the rambam -  
and I am sure that I have my own preconceptions.  However, on a  
simple pshat level, I think that his reading is untenable - because  
it ignores the basic problem of the rambam - which isn't solved by  
his solution.  One more iteration.
References are to the mechon mamre edition - everything in issure  
biah ch 13.

The problem that the rambam starts this section with is (hal 10) -  
that it is impossible that  shlomo and shimshon marry goyot - which  
is an avera.  Therefore, the read of the rambam must end up that  
those women were not goyot - and any pshat that concludes otherwise  
contradicts  this explicit statement in the rambam - which is the  
motivational thread for this entire set of halachot.

One could have solved this problem by arguing the metziut - which to  
some extent is what RMB and RTK do - that the women were actually (or  
seemed to be) shomre mitzvot, at least initially, and therefore had  
the status of ger shechazar.   One could try to reconcile tanach with  
this - eg, a la RTK, that even though tanach does not mention it -  
the women were initially shomre mitzvot

The rambam (by my read) deliberately and specifically rejects this  
option - (hal 13) - vehadavar yadua she chazru ela bishvil davar  
(not, as RTK .  Furthermore, (still hal 13)  veod hochiach sofan al  
techilatan - any doubt we might have had is erased by their later  
acts - that they seemed sincere.

   - and this is also clear at the end of 14 - ve'af al pi pi  
shenigla sodan - the sod revealed can't be that they worshipped avoda  
zara later in life - because that wasn't secret - but instead  
reflects that we now can be sure about their reasons for conversion  
and lack of sincerity.

(BTW, as RMB notices, hochiach sofan et techilatan  - if it means  
that by knowing later improper actions tells us about earlier actions  
- and that therefore the gerut is invalid - is directly contradicted  
by the notion of (hal 14) that chazar ve'avad avoda zara hare hu  
keyisrael meshumad -  but there is no contradiction if hochiach sofan  
allows us to evaluate the individual - but it does not invalidate the  
gerut (as in my pshat))

The rambam, therefore, tries to be crystal clear to make sure that we  
understand that the issue is not that they might have been sincere.   
He goes even further, and here is where I think RMB misunderstands  
the purpose and thrust of the statement.  This is in hal 13
hishvan hacatuv keilu hen goyot uveisuran omdot
RMB reads this to mean that the rambam states that they were goyot,  
uveisuran omdot.  This reading, if correct, would mean that the  
rambam is saying that the women were  assur - and this would directly  
contradict hal 10 - that they were not assur.  This by itself  
suggests that this pshat is problematic and  probably wrong.


However, the rambam doesn't say that they were goyot uveisuran omdot-  
this phrase is part of subordinate clause - hishvan hacatuv keilu hen  
goyot uveisuran omdot -
tanach treats them as if they were goyot uveisuran omdot = but he  
does not say hishvan hacatuv shehen goyot - tanach treats them as  
goyot - a a crucial distinction. The rambam is again emphasizing the  
opposite of what RMB thinks - - that by reading simple pshat in  
tanach one has no sense at all that these women had any portion in  
yahadut - they seem goyot who remain goyot, and the actions of shlomo  
and shimshon become problematic - but the conclusion at the end is,  
in spite of the fact that we know (as above) that their conversion is  
insincere - they were not goyot, and they were not assur - and  
therefore shlomo and shimshon could keep their wives - even when it  
was crystal clear that their conversion was insincere.

Lastly, again, simple pshat of hal 14 is as follows:
1) ger shelo badku acharav o shelo hodiu - first cases of inadequate  
examination before conversion - hare ze ger.

2) vefafilu noda shebishvil davar - the afilu tells us that this is a  
worse case - not merely inadequate examination, but the examination  
reveals improper motivation - ho'il umal vetaval yatza miklal hagoyim  
- but then hoshehsim lo ad sheyitbaer zidkuto.

The question is what it means hosheshim lo ad sheyitbaer zidkuto -  
whether this reflects our relationship to him (eg, lack of hezkat  
kashrut) or whether it means that if we find a problem, and we know  
that he is not a tzadik, the conversion is invalid -  and the rambam  
answers that by

3) afilu chazar ve'avad avoda zara - hare hu keyisrael meshumad -  
shekidushav kidushin.  Even if he not even not a tzadik, but a  
complete rasha who goes from the converion and goes back to  avoda  
zara - he remains a ger - and his kiddushin remain kiddushin.  The  
hashash does not translate into invalidating the gerut. There is  
also  a reason why, of all the issues defining what a jew is and  
remains, he specifically mentions kiddushin, and that is

4)  ulefichac kiyam shimshon ushelomo neshotehen - therefore - and  
this seems to go back specifically to afilu chazar ve'avad -
  as with even an insincere conversion, where the convert shows he  
never meant it and goes back to worshipping idols, they remain jews  
and able to marry -  shlomo and shimson could keep


RMB suggests that statement 3 does not apply to gerim of statements 1  
and 2 - but apply to a regular ger, who was fully examined, sincere,  
and then backslid.  I don't think that there is any reason to  
separate this halacha.  Textually, it would be out of order - The  
only textual issue is the use of the term chazar - but it is clear  
that in general the ger isnt continuously doing avoda zara throughout  
the gerut process - regardless of his true intentions - and therefore  
the right term is chazar.  14 explains why, in spite of the fact  
that, as hal 13 deliberately states, the wives of shlomo and shimshon  
were clearly insincere converts who were never sincere and went back  
to worshipping idols, and are described by tanach as if they were  
goyot, they remain Jews - and therefore marriageable.

Meir Shinnar






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080904/4f88e7eb/attachment-0001.htm>