[Avodah] Geirut

Tue Aug 26 08:36:16 PDT 2008

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 02:05:51PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: Well this gets us into what I think is an even more complicated issue.
: If KOM exists as a halachic requirement - what *is* it.  Is it, as you
: say devarim shebaleiv?  But halachically, as you know, devarim shebaleiv
: aino devarim - they just don't really count for anything.  And suddenly
: you are saying that devarim shebalev, which are discounted all the way
: through halacha as having real halachic impact, suddenly do so in this
: case?  That seems a really difficult understanding to have.

RMF (IM YD 1:159, EhE 4:78) and RCOG (Achiezer 3:26) were both already
cited as invoking anan sahadei to explain why it's not dismissable as
other devarim shebeleiv.

So it seems you're not alone in your difficulty, but they didn't see the
answer in mapping KOM to another halachic concept.

...
: On the other hand, if you do hold KOM is a requirement, does that mean
: that you hold that the ger is *not* bound by the shavuah made on Har
: Sinai (which makes a certain degree of sense, because as a goy he was
: clearly not), and hence he had to enter into his own shavuah? ...

I'm missing why you have a need to cast KOM into another halachic
category. The gemara discusses nedarim, it mentions KOM. Why can't KOM
stand as its own beryah?

But in any case, maamud har Sinai was a beris. Is entering a beris the
same as making a shavu'ah? And if so, can two distinct shavu'os bring
two different people into the same beris? Because that's what it would
take to cast KOM into something from mesechtes Nedarim.

Maybe a better model is a qinyan. Not in the sense of acquiring an
object, but like the qinyan sudar used to appoint a shaliach.

But again, I'm only playing the game of fitting KOM into a bigger kellal
because I am expecting that in a future email you will show me why there
is a need to.

...
: Dunno, but this is why I find the whole concept of KOM, that you seem to
: swim through so easily, so messy and complicated.  Can somebody give me
: another paradigm for KOM that is not a shavuah and not devarim shebelev?

How can we? RMF and RCOG already felt compelled to give their teirutz
as to how it's an exceptional davar shebeleiv. I would think therefore
it can't be done in simpler terms.

The big problem not yet addressed is if KOM means joining the Jewish
people, how does one explain Bekhoros 30b and the need to accept every
single mitzvah? (Quoted verbatum by the SA.)

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:40pm EDT, R Chaim G Steinmetz gave sources for
KOM for an eved:
: See Rambam Hil. Shabbos 20:14. Issurei Biah 14:9.

I don't think hil' Shabbos is relevent, since that's about shevisah in the
same sense as my animals (kesheim she'adam metzuveh al shevisas behemto...
kakh ...) -- my chiyuv that he rest, not him accepting a chivuv to rest.

IB 13:12 is interesting in that it requires KOM before avdus (as in 14:9),
and that removes the requirement for KOM after -- even though the number
of mitzvos he must do increased. (RHM: see IB 14:9 for the logistics.)

This feeds right into the other geirus discussion, as you'll note the
Rambam's presumption of a need for KOM. As I already wrote, he says this
explicitly in IB 12:17, that there are two requirements:
    kol hagoyim kulam
    shenisgayru
    veyeqablu aleihem kol hamitzvos shel torah...
    harei heim keYisra'el lekhol davar

KOM is listed alongside geirus, not as part of it, but still as a
requirement to becoming a Yisrael lekhol davar.

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 07:11:03PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: WRT RMB's bringing in the name of RYBS about understanding the rambam
: on geirut.

: It is difficult for me to be holek on RYBS, but, BMKVT...

So, why assume you're choleiq rather than leaving it as a lo zakhisi
lehavin? I would agree with RMS that RYBS's statement requires more
explanation, as the whole wording of the Rambam is about cheshash, not
about two elements of Jewish identity. So we need to find someone who
was there, no?

Explaining the Rambam IB 13:16-17 (13-15 in Teimani), RMS writes:
...
: 3) Because it was clear that their conversion was insincere, the katuv
: considers them as goyot, and that they are still forbidden.
: This may suggest that the rambam considered them as goyot - with an
: invalid conversion.
...
: The rambam then specifically rejects the notion that these women were
: halachically goyot - in hal 14.

: he says about people who converted for secondary reasons  hare ze ger.

The Rambam says that people who converted for no known reason or wasn't
taught anything about Judaism first, harei zeh geir (bedi'eved). The
phrase is not used in the second case of "noda shebishvil davar hu
misgayeir". I think this is significant, as I'll explain below.

:  veafilu noda shebishvil davar hu mitgayer - ho'il umal vetaval, yatza
: miklal hagoyim  - an explicit statement that the previous statement
: about the katuv considering neshe shlolmo as goyot is not a a halachic
: determination - they are not goyot .
: He then says, vehosheshim lo -, ad sheyitbaer tzidkuto.
...
:  (BTW, The simple pshat (and apparently the one that was accepted by
: most poskim until recently ) seems to be that even though the gerut is
: chal, in such a gerut, he does not have the hezkat kashrut of a
: regular Jew - and hosheshin lo - and presumably, one wouldn't want to
: get married to such a person unitl one is sure ....

I wouldn't phrase it that way. If the geirus is chal, why wouldn't you
want to marry into the family? His son is a mumar just because he is? My
own read of the Rambam is somewhat similar to yours, but I instead read
him as saying that we have a chazaqah that allows us to assume he's a
geir -- although we don't really know.

IOW, I"m not reading "chosheshin lo" as we are chosheish he is a Yisrael
mumar, but in contrast to "yatza miKELAL hagoyim" -- not the clear
"harei zeh geir" that the Rambam says where we have no particular reason
to suspect his motives. We are chosheshim for the validity of his geirus.

And therefore if another birur comes along, the chazaqah wouldn't
stand. (The chazaqah is already ika rei'usah, our case is "noda shebishvil
davar hu misgayeir.)

This is based on the same issue RCOG and RMF raise, that the only reason
why KOM isn't dismissed as devarim shebeleiv is because we have an anan
sahadi. But the ultimate qiyum is still beleiv.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
micha at aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter