[Avodah] Geirus

[Micha Berger]

The usual case of apitropos is management of a yerushah on behalf of
qetanim. (At least I imagine it's the most common.) This includes being
a maqneh, even though the qatan's lack of da'as bars him from giving
up ba'alus if he were doing it himself.


On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 05:09:04PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: Firstly, you are either conflating two different concepts here - or you are
: defining Kabbalas ol mitzvos differently from the way most people here are
: defining it.  

: The ability to reject what was done to the katan while they were a katan, is
: one thing and an agreement to keep the mitzvos is another.  The fact that
: they are two separate concepts can be seen by the modern day separation that
: occurs - a person (eg take a modern day Israeli of Russian descent) wants to
: be a Jew and identifies themself as a Jew.  They do not however want to be
: shomer mitzvos.  If such a person was converted as a katan, they would
: unquestionably not protest on reaching majority (and would use every
: opportunity to proclaim that they are a Jew)...

KOM is a mandatory part of geirus. "Chutz midavar achas" as the gemara
(Bekhoros 30b) and numerous rishonim write is enough to invalidate. (The
Rambam contrasts eved shenistachreir, who has ol mitzvos thrust upon
him with or without his own qabbalah.) The theoretical requirement, at
least WRT adults is clear cut. Rambam, Issurei Bi'ah 12:17, and SA YD 268.

The pragmatic issues:

1- We can't measure qabbalas ol mitzvos. After all, it's devarim shebaleiv
-- how can we know what a person honestly accepted at which point in
his life? So, the pragmatic question of whom we can assume is a geir is
distinct from the simpler one of who in principle should be a geir.

The Rambam makes this distinction WRT geirei arayos and WRT ignorance
of halakhah (see also 2a below) in Issurei Bi'ah 13:17 -- "yatza mikelal
goyum vechosheshin lo ad sheyibareier."

What overrides saying devarim shebeleiv einam devarim is the anan
sahadi -- what is he doing lemaaseh? See IM YD 1:159. And in IM
EhE 4:78, RMF uses this notion to prove that a C conversion wasn't
geirus, regardless of the personal observance of the rabbis in the
court.

2- Ein adam ba'aretz asher ya'aseh tov velo yechta. No one perfectly
knows halakhah nor perfectly observes. What's the "shiurim" in both
(a) knowledge and (b) willingness to try for qabbalas ol?

In both areas there are machloqesin lemaaseh, and this is many are more
meiqil than the current norm.

2a- The level of information isn't necessarily all that high. Batei din
today certainly want more than halakahah requires. The Rambam (13:2)
specifically quotes Chazal that we needn't give them details beforehand
lemaaseh, and if omitted, the Rambam has the problem mentioned in #1, we
can't know what they thought they were getting into.

2b- Here there is plenty of room for machloqes.

RCOGodzhinsky (Shu"t Achiezr 3:26) says that KOM means accepting that he
must do what every other Jew must do. Even if he is a mumar letei'avon
al davar achas and they are planning not to overcome the yeitzer hara
even while dunking.

R' Uzziel (MU #58) says the same, adding hopes for the next generation.

3- Does KOM actually mean accepting mitzvos? The phrase comes from the
gemara explaining Rus's words "amekh ami" (Yevamos 49b). What if someone
had another way of joining the am other than fealty to mitzvos?

RMS says that this is the primary thesis of the Mishpetei Uzziel, but I
see it as I wrote above, 2b. However, it seems to more clearly be
attributable to R' Goren.

Ad kan things I learned in March-May here and in looking others' mar'eh
meqomos up.



Now the question is geir qatan. One way to phrase it, as RnCL is heading,
is what is the role of the qatan's rejection?
    - Rejecting the self-assumed shelichus of the BD; or, as I assumed,
    - rejecting ol mitzvos 

I want to both explore the question as phrased, and turn the question
90 degrees. Given that KOM is required (whatever that means), where does
it go in the case of geir qatan?

1- It evaporates. There is geirus of women, even though milah is
   impossible, geirus bizman hazeh without the qorban, so perhaps someone
   not capable of KOM simply doesn't have to do it.
2- The BD does it for the qatan, as the words say "al da'as beis din"
3- The qatan does it himself upon becoming an adult.

The problem with #1 is that it's clear from the Rambam that milah,
tevilah and qorban constitute geirus, which would mean KOM (which he
requires as well) is not parallel. Perhaps a precondition.

According to Tosafos (Kesuvos 11a "Lekhi"), a geir qatan must pass two
criteria to be considered a geir:
1- he must in practice shomeir Torah umitzvos, and
2- he is not mocheh.

Tosafos (Sanhedrin 68b) explicitly say that the qatan does his own KOM.
And that in fact, R' Huna (Kesuvos) uses "zakhin le'adam shelo befanav"
only loosely. The KOM is the ikkar of geirus (perhaps only in this case,
since it's the last makeh bepatish, but perhaps not), and he is doing
it himself.

I noticed when reviewing all this for posting that the first requirement
they give in Kesuvos is the same as the anan sahadi for KOM later
mentioned by RCOG and RMF.

The aforementioned Rashba (Qiddushin 23a) and Tosafos Yeshanim (Kesuvos)
say that the macha'ah is a rejection of their shelichus. However, the
Tosafos Yesheinim says that being non-observant is an implicit macha'ah.
It would seem RnCL is right on the details according to the Rashba.

So, I would say the difference isn't that I'm conflating two different
things, it's that I first encountered the sugyah learning Kesuvos in
shiur, and thus remembered the shitas Tosafos I saw first.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
micha at aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)