[Avodah] Geirut

[Meir Shinnar]

>
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:58pm EDT, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
> : 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...
>
> That last clause is why RMS is a pleasure to disagree with.
>
> Yes, I have a prconcieved notion that if the gemara requires it, we
> require it, and the Rambam is confusing, we should find a way to read
> the Rambam that doesn't assume he disagrees with the gemara.
>
The question, of course,  is the statement that the gmara requires it.
 That is in itself a preconception - that is hard to justify on pshat
of the gmara.

To clarify - there are two separate issues:
a) What are the type of gerim that a bet din should accept?
b) What happens if a bet din is megayer someone who doesn't fit those criteria?

It is quite clear that the optimal ger is someone who has QOM - and
the gmara in bekhorot 30 about eyn mekablin oto is about that issue -
the bet din should reject any candidate who is not fully mekabbel ol
mitzvot (whether we paskin that way is a different way - but that is
the pshat of the gmara)

The question is someone who is megayer without QOM - and the simple
pshat in the gmara about the machloket about whether gere arayot and
gere mordechai are gerim is that we wouldn't have accepted them
lecatchila - but once they underwent gerut they become gerim - but
because they lacked real QOM, they remained problematic.
There is a shitta in the gmara that gere arayot are not considered
gerim - but that is rejected halacha lema'ase by the gmara and
poskim..
(yes, I know one can learn the gmara that gere arayot did have in the
end QOM - but that is not the simple pshat - it reads back into it
preconceptions)

This distinction - between lecatchilla accepting and what to do once
being megayer - is explicit in the rambam 13:12

> I therefore took it for granted that in trying to avoid the Rambam's
> apparent self-contradiction, one should assume his conclusion includes
> QOM.
>
> : References are to the mechon mamre edition - everything in issure
> : biah ch 13.
>
> But it isn't. In the 2nd half of ch 12 the Rambam discusses who may be
> megayeir. In 12:13 (12:17) he writes:
>> Kol hagoyim kulam shenisgayru veyiqablu aleihen kol hamitzvos shel
>> Torah ... harei hein keYisrael lekhol davar.
>> Shene'emar "Haqahal, chuqah achas lakhem" (Bamidbar 15:15)
>> Umutarim lehikaneis beqehal Hashem miyad...
>
> So, someone who did both geirus and QOM are (1) Jews WRT every mitzvah
> and (2) can marry any other Jew immediately (later excepting for those
> geirim from Amon, Mo'av, Mitzrayim or Edom).
>
> This to me seems to be a clear statement that the Rambam requires QOM.
> Not technically as part of geirus; but that it and geirus are required.
> I find the word order difficult. I would have assumed, given this
> halakhah's placement in a discussion of pre-conversion (pereq 12),
> that QOM is a precondition. But the wording in the halakhah itself
> places it second.
Precisely.  The rambam in 12:13 is a  "clear statement that the
Rambam"  does not require  QOM as an intrinsic part of the gerut.
(again, preconceptions) - QOM is part of becoming  a member in good
standing of the community- rather than merely a member who is
problematic.  A ger who does not do QOM does  not have the  hezkat
kashrut of a Jew - he has to demonstrate his obedience - but it is
clear that gerut lechud and QOM lechud - that is what the wording in
the halacha means.....

This is clearly related to the chosheshin lo - the notion that once
one is mitgayer, if one didn't have QOM or there is a perceived
problem in the motivation, one watches to determine before full
embrace into the community - but they have the halachic status of jews
- they are gerim.

This seems the halachic equivalent of the midrashic ambivalence
towards gerim - between a major zchut and a sapachat - and is here
formulated in the nature of the gerim's QOM and full integration into
the halachic community - but both types of gerim are gerim....
>
> But in any case, his speaking of "kol hamitzvos shel Torah" is similar
> to the gemara's excluding the convert "haba leqabeil divrei Torah chutz
> midavar echad" (Bekhoros 30b). The question remains why he shifts out
> of the gemara's negative statement of the din. And why "mitzvos" rather
> than "davar"? But it's pretty close, regardless of subtle differences
> in implication.

It is actually talking about completely  different issues - the gmara
is talking about the bet din's decison whether to accept the candidate
- the rambam is talking about relationship to the individual after
gerut..



> : 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...
>
> In 13:10 (14) the Rambam necessitates checking for ulterior motive. It
> need not conclude that they were not goyos. It could instead conclude
> that Shimshon and Shelomo haMelekh did everything they were supposed to,
> and therefore weren't culpable for marrying goyos.

again, as in previous go rounds, this is not a sustainable pshat -
because the rambam works hard to make sure that we understand that
this was not an error, and even if we think that there was an initial
error - in the end, ( 13:14) ulefichach, kiyam shimshon ushlomo
neshotehen, ve'af al pi shenigla sodan - explicit that even after it
was known to everyone, including shimshon and shlomo,  the truth, so
even if they might have been initially fooled, they now knew the
truth, they could still keep their wives - and not be over on being
bo'el a goya - because  they were still gerim...
the rambam, by his language, seems to explicitly reject the notion
that shlomo and shimshon were fooled - and that, at least in the end,
they were fully aware of what they had converted and married - but the
conversion (and therefore the marriage) was still valid...
>

> That's not my position. I argue that they were non-Jews who succeeded
> in fooling their husbands into thinking they were giyoros who were meQOM
> (mequbalos ol mitzvos).

see above
> In fact, it would seem that you would have to conclude that Shimshon's
> parents were prejudiced against giyoros (Shofetim 14:3), whereas I could
> say they simply weren't fooled.

the difference is before hand and after - the difference is between
opposition to converting people who may be insincere - versus whether
the gerut is actually chal..
>
>
> ...
> : (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))
>
> I see 13:14 (17) as distinguishing between the cases where later
> behavior is because they never did QOM vs those where the geir returned
> to the practices of their youth. This is kind of difficult, and often
> impossible. So, we are left with having someone we /think/ is a Jew but
> we're allow to harbor cheshash about until we see where they actually
> stand.

> Otherwise, 13:14 (17)'s "afilu chazar ve'avad AZ, harei hu keYisrael
> meshumad" would contradict "ve'od shehochiach sofan al techilasan" of
> the previous halakhah.
no - shehociach sofan means that we (and Shlomo and Shimshon after the
beginning of the marriage) now are able to understand their true
motives - and judge them as individuals - but as to legal status, hare
hu keyisrael meshumad....


> I resolve this as above. In 10 (14) we are told what should be done
> and the husbands did. That need not mean they weren't assuros; it could
> simply mean the husbands didn't realize they were assuros.

This is against the explicit rambam that we shouldn't think that
shimshon and shlomo married goyot - you are trying to say that means
that they married people they didn't know  were goyot - quite
difficult.....

>
> : 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...
>
> It is, and I admit I don't know what to do with the distinction.
some agreement.....
> However, I feel that to explain the Rambam otherwise requires ignoring
> 12:13 (17) and makes a hash of the contrast between "ve'od shochiach
> sofan", which isn't part of "chashvan hakasuv" and "chazar ve'avad".
>
> Bottom line is that I don't like either of our takes on pereq 13.
> They're both flawed. But concluding that the Rambam requires QOM along
> with geirus doesn't require understanding that stretch of pereq 13,
> since it's stated outright in 12.
actually - 12 states the opposite....
> : 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.
>
> It's possible to convert for ulterior motives, but still accept ol
> mitzvos. Not likely, but possible. The guy believes in Torah miSinai,
> but would have remained in his current lifestyle if it weren't for that
> pretty Jewish girl...
yes, it's possible - but the rambam's language suggests that gerut
ledavar is even more problematic.
Meir Shinnar