[Avodah] Geirut

[Chana Luntz]

Sorry, I have been busy and not had time to look up sources or write:

RMB writes: 
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:49:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
> : On the other hand, it is also Tosphos and those following 
> him who understand the whole story of Hillel and the convert who only 
> converted on condition he
> : could be kohel gadol as giving leeway to the beis din "l'fi 
> ra'os enei beis
> : din" - where we are dealing with a case where a mitzvah was 
> rejected...
> 
> As opposed to the Maharsha?

It would seem so.

> And how does that fit the 
> position of Tosafos repeated in the SA (above)?

What it points to is that Tosphos understands KOM as being not equal to
Bechoros 30b - ie it opens up the meaning of KOM according to Tosphos -
remember at least one of the arguments on this topic is that while KOM is
required, it does not mean Bechoros 30b, but wanting to join the Jewish
people.  That view holds that KOM is defined by the statement in the gemora
Yevamos 47a quoted almost in its entirety [is there any significance to the
minor differences, or was it a girsa difference] in the Shulchan Aruch  in
Yoreh Deah siman 268 si'if 2 "when he comes to convert we say to him,  what
did you see that you come to convert?  Do you not know that Israel in this
time are afflicted, oppressed,  downtrodden and harassed [thanks Artscroll,
I was struggling with the translation of this little list] and issurim come
upon them and if he says I know, and I am not worthy they accept him
immediately and make known to him some of the mitzvos kalos and the mitsvos
chumros ..." The alternative argument to the one you are proposing, ie that
KOM means every last mitzvah as per Bechoros 30b, is that KOM means what is
set out in this passage - ie that the person wants to (in the language of
the Shulchan Aruch, but note not in the language of the gemora as we have
it) "l'chitchaver imahem".  A by-product of that is an obligation in
mitzvos.

> The way I read the Tosafos is that beis din can choose how 
> much to teach the geir. The absence of acceptance could be 
> rejection, but also it could be ignorance. Like for kiruv, 
> where you don't necessarily teach or inforce the mitzvos that 
> are harder for the person to accept first. Things he would 
> reject if he knew now, but BD believes he would accept if he 
> knew more are simply not taught. It is up to their assessment 
> of the geir whether he would reach that point or not.

That is difficult in the case of the Hillel story - because it was not just
a case of the person being ignorant of the halacha, he specifically wanted
something that was assur - ie he came to Hillel and said the equivalent of -
I want to convert on condition that I can eat pork.  Even if he was ignorant
that pork is assur, and you decided that he was not ready to be told that,
still, to actually convert him while he was holding by this particular
tnai... You are suddenly a long long way from KOM the way you have been
arguing it.  If you can say that, well then you can certainly convert your
Russian ignoramus who thinks that what it means to be Jewish is what his/her
secular Israeli friends all do, if you think (hope) that eventually they may
come round. 

That is why one can well understand the Maharsha feeling the need to say
that it is all about agreeing to educate him prior to conversion - because
that means that at the actual time of conversion (ie at the mishpat) the KOM
was based on real knowledge of the reality of halacha, not some complete
fantasy that bears no relationship whatsoever to halacha.  But if you don't
say that, and say that this convert dunked in the mikvah completely under
the understanding that he could be a Jew and also be kohen gadol, then why
is it any different if a convert dunks in the mikvah completely on the
understanding that he can be a Jew and still violate Shabbat and eat treif. 

> : There are two possibilities in relation to this:
> 
> ...
> : But secondly, even if you follow Tosphos and the Rosh - 
> they do *not* state
> : that KOM means acceptance of every single mitzvah.  On the 
> other hand, they
> : do not state that it doesn't.  The only evidence we have is a) their
> : treatment of this story regarding Hillel and b) the fact 
> that the Shulchan
> : Aruch does not bring Bekhoros 30b.  It is however not an 
> unreasonable
> : inference that it doesn't, given the sources.
> 
> What about the fact that Tosafos don't need to farenfer 
> Berkhoros 30b? They simply let the gemara pass without a comment.

Tosphos does not work the way this comment would imply (ie making a comment
on every gemora on that gemora).  Rather they tend to comment elsewhere and
bring various gemoras together.  I don't think this amounts to much of a
proof.

This of course is different from Rashi (which of course they knew all of).

Rashi's main comments on Bechoros 30b is itself not found there but on
Shabbas 31a.  Note that this Rashi is on the earlier story of the potential
convert who came to Shammai and said convert me on condition that you teach
me only Torah Shebichtav, and Shammai sent him away and then he came before
Hillel and Hillel converted him.  Rashi's comment there on why Shammai sent
him away was because of what it teaches in Bechoros 30b that if one comes to
accept upon himself divrei torah chutz medevar echad aini mekablin oso.  He
then explains on "and he converted him"  - that this is not similar to
"chutz medevar echad shelo haya kofer be torah she baal peh ele shelo meamin
shehi mepi hagvura.  Ie Rashi clearly understands there to be a maklokus
regarding the meaning of Bechoros 30b between Hillel and Shammai - so that
following Hillel it is OK for somebody to be converted in a circumstance
where they do not believe that Torah she baal peh is from Hashem (and hence
presumably are not preparing themselves to keep torah she baal peh), so long
as they are not kofer in it.  From this we can see that he holds that the
conversion happened before the full acceptance of torah she baal peh, and
secondly given that he does not comment on the later story regarding the man
who agreed to convert only on condition that he was made cohen gadol, that
while presumably Shammai's rejection of him was triggered by the same logic,
he did not even need to comment on why Hillel was then able to accept him.

Tosphos takes up the discussion of what is necessary in terms of belief and
what a beis din should do and the case of Hillel and the converts not on
Bechoros 30b, not on Shabbas 31a, but over in Yevamos 24b - where they are
discussing the case of a) the Kusim, and b) people converting for ulterior
motives (such as to marry a particular person), and c) people converting in
the time of David and Shlomo.  In s'v  "halacha k'divrei haomer" - they make
it clear that according to them - a convert who claims to convert but
continues to worship idols is not a convert unless they later convert
properly.  Ie there is clearly something sufficiently fundamental that it
will invalidate a conversion.  However, in s'v "lo b'yamei David" they inter
alia discuss the case of Hillel and the convert who wanted to be cohen
gadol, and it seems pretty clear that according to them that conversion
occurred at the point where Hillel is merely having faith that ultimately it
will be leshem shamayim.  

> I can't find this Bach.

It is right towards the end of what is a very long long discussion - vechal
inyanav starts, in my edition towards the top of the previous page (in my
edition page 214a) but the relevant piece isn't until page 214b - and it
starts three lines above the next s'v "hamal".  It commences af al pi
d'katav harav Moshe bar Mamoni d'kasher  af al pi shelo haya l'shem kabalat
mitzvot kol ikar mihu hatosfot vharosh cholkin al zeh d'kabalat mitzvot
vadai meakev 

 But in any case, isn't "kol ikar" 
> more like "not entirely", but in some tafeil way, yes, as 
> opposed to leaving off any modifier to mean "not needed"? 
> When is it taken to mean "not at all"?

I think it is clear from the full sentence quoted here that the only way to
translate kol ikar here is not at all.  (I confess I think it would usually
be translated that way, but there are unquestionably greater experts on that
one than I am).

> Tosafos there leave it up to the BD to decide what to leave 
> the candidate in ignorance of. Just like in kiruv, you don't 
> start with the hardest mitzvos to swallow. And so, if the 
> person accepts what they know and BD assess him as being 
> later capable of accepting what they don't, the geirus is chal.
> 
> Ignorance is a third ground between accept and reject.

Only sort of.  If I as a prospective Russian convert are kept in ignorance
of the importance of keeping shabbas and kashrus, based on that third ground
then according to this, their conversion would be valid.  If you think it is
really bad for klal yisroel having all these people living in Israel and
mingling with Jews and yet not being Jews, then you can convert them so long
as you keep them in ignorance.  Ie so long as you do not know for certain
that they are kofer in the full sense of the word.  That is a far far
reduced test to the one you were originally proposing.

Also given the position that most secular Jews today can be considered to be
tinok shenishbu - ie ignorant, despite being exposed to frum people in
Israel and elsewhere, then surely one must say the same thing about all
these converts - ie whatever it is you teach them, if the society they are
in can be considered ignorant, then surely they can too. In which case again
their conversion would be valid.

> Also, Tosafos isn't the only way to understand the gemara. 
> The Maharsha takes QOM so for granted, he assumes that the 
> person was taught enough to clear up their objection BEFORE geirus.

Yes, but if we have a Maharsha's understanding of a gemora and one from
Tosphos, or Rambam or Rif etc, who do we follow l'halacha?

> : Start from the other end.  A shavuah is X. If KOM fulfils 
> the requirements
> : of X, then how can you say KOM is *not* a shavuah?  If it 
> walks like a duck
> : and quacks like a duck?  That is what is odd about it.
> 
> This threw me. I thought we were looking for a category in 
> order to make a determination about what QOM requires. IOW, 
> we are less sure as to whether it quacks than whether QOM is a duck.
>
Well both.  There are two separate issues here. And part of the problem I am
having is that you have something in halacha called a shavuah.  And it has
certain characteristics.  And the way KOM is being described from the one
perspective, it seems to fully fit the description of a shavuah.  But you
are saying it is not a shavuah, because if it were, it would have different
consequences than it is being assigned.  What I am saying is that one of the
problems of the KOM means a formal acceptance of each and every mitzvah is
that it seems to be a form of shavuah, but the consequences assigned to it
are not the general halachic ones.


> 1- Perhaps QOM is a neder, but anan sahadei is enough anyway. 
> Much like the implied neder of someone who follows a minhag 
> enough times to qualify as a chazaqah. We already have a case 
> where a neder can be implied.

Shavuah not neder.  Note even in the neder case one always can overrule an
implied neder by a verbal bli neder, no matter how often you do it.  Verbal
trumps.

I am struggling to see how we can have an anan sahadei undermine and
completely nullify a shavuah made to beis din, without consequences?  Can't
you see what this does to the whole judicial process if applied more
generally?

> 2- The Chasam Sofer on Kesuvos writes that the ikkar of 
> tevilah is QOM. This also fits the Taz (s"q 2) which requires 
> a repetition of telling him some of the mitzvos before 
> tevilah. This would allow a Brisker to say that QOM and 
> tevilah are one -- tevilah is the pe'ulah, and it is 
> tzerikhah kavanah because QOM is its qiyum shebileiv.

Yes but it does not necessarily mean that KOM means the acceptance of every
mitzvah, rather than wanting to join the Jewish people despite their being
oppressed.  Ie you can still follow Tosphos and hold all this and understand
KOM differently.

> This notion is also supported by the observation (made by the 
> Taz) that the examples of tevilah for other purposes, qeri 
> and nidah, presume that the person was meqabeil ol mitzvos.

I think you are jumping here.  Tosphos concludes that KOM is the mishpat and
is meakev if not before beis din from these cases, as otherwise you have no
mishpat, so of course. If you understand the cases in the gemora as I gather
the Rif does, as evidentiary, well all it presumes is a formal conversion,
whatever that means.

> : In addition, let us look at the gemora reference to KOM. It 
> is a bit of an
> : off hand reference in the gemora - ie it goes like this: - 
> the gemora (in
> : Yevamos 47b) is discussing a Braisa which says "echad ger 
> vechad eved
> : meshachrer" ...
> 
> If I thought that Yevamos, not Bekhoros, was the primary 
> source, it would seem off-hand. It would even have proven 
> RnTK's instinctive position that QOM is the whole essence of 
> geirus and taken for granted.

I don't understand how you can not see the gemora in Yevamos as the primary
source.  The Shulchan Aruch brings the language from Yevamos in a number of
places almost exactly. He does not quote the gemora in Bechoros.  

> What we see in the machloqes the SA spells out is that he 
> holds that Tosafos and the Rosh consider QOM to be the 
> essence of geirus, and the Rambam and the Rif hold geirus is 
> a set of actions, but those actions require QOM in order to 
> be valid.

This is of course your understanding of the Rambam, and not the Bach's.

> RnCL spells out three different lenient positions:
> : A) the person does not have to accept each and every mitzvah (as per
> : Bechoros 30b) it is enough that they accept certain 
> fundamentals.  What
> : these are is  a bit unclear, but it is hard to see an atheist who
> : rejects absolutely everything falling within this category.
> 
> This seems clear from Hillel's geirim, and other cases 
> already discussed.

Ah, but this would seem to be in contradiction to the straightforward
reading of Bechoros 30b that you have been arguing for previously.  

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana