[Avodah] Geirut

[Chana Luntz]

RAF writers:

> If the mechanism for conversions of minors is zekhut hu lo - as the
> sources indicate -, then beit din has a lot less leeway than some people 
 think. When it ain't a zekhut, the deal never happened!

Only if you understand zekhut hu lo as meaning that the Beis Din is obliged
to investigate the circumstances in which the particular katan in front of
them lives and is going to live and decide whether in his particular case,
there is a benefit.

But that is not the usual understanding of zekhut hu lo - across halacha.
If one had to carry out an investigation of the particular individual and
decide whether in their particular case, zekhut hu lo, then the principle
would have extremely limited application.  You would need a beis din every
time you wanted to apply the principle - including in terms of accepting
gifts etc.  Rather zekhut hu lo is usually understood as a chazaka.  You
(the individual and certainly beis din) can assume, without knowing the
individual at all (observant, not observant, weak, strong, intelligent,
stupid, you name it), that in certain defined circumstances (ie defined by
the halacha), zekhut hu lo, and then act on this assumption - with that act
being effective, unless the individual then comes and protests.

That is the way we generally apply such chazakas.  That is why I liked it to
the tan du situation.  If every time you wanted to apply tan du - you needed
to go and investigate the particular woman in question to find out if she
was the type of woman who would prefer to be married rather than single -
and if in fact she turned out to be the type of woman who would not
necessarily prefer to be married, that could retrospectively uproot the
chazaka, then we would all unquestionably be followers of R' Rackman.

But that is what you are suggesting here.  The gemora says that it is a
zakhut for a katan to be converted.  Ah say you, but not for every katan,
only for those katanim that beis din determines, based on investigation of
the surrounding life circumstances, are currently living in observant
families.

Now you may be right objectively that a katan raised in a non observant
family is not likely to be observant, and that therefore a beis din might
well decide not to get involved with somebody like that - regardless of the
fact that the gemora says it is zekhut hu lo - you don't always have to do a
zekhut for somebody - especially if it may be bad for the Jewish body
politic.  But to go saying that it is not a zekhut for him when the gemora
says it is (ie that the principle of the gemora only applied automatically
to katanim in those days and not to katanim today, whose family
circumstances we need to investigate), seems to me to be exactly like saying
that the fact that the gemora states tan du only applies to women in those
days, and not to women today (whose particular circumstances we now need to
investigate to see if the presumption is appropriate).

Earlier RAF said:

>The "song and dance [up]on gadlus" is performed in order to avoid problems 
>further down the line, when it becomes unclear if there was or can still be
> a me'haah, and what to do if behavior [nonobservance] contradicts stated 
>preference [wants to have become Jewish].


The Aruch Hashulchan has 268:13 has a nice summary of the various rishonic
opinions on what is needed to effectuate a mehaah.  Nobody requires a song
and dance.  I am not saying it might not be a nice to have - but it is not
halachically required.  Nor can I think of a situation where it would cause
an issue.  If the person does one thing that can be considered a "ma'ase
yehudi" they are no longer allowed to be ma'haah - according to the most
long term opinion (the rest hold that once gadlus is achieved without a
mehaah, then you can no longer have one - which means that he safek
continues only until the point that we considered the safek to have passed
for mitzvos d'orisa for our children).  But anything we need them to be a
Jew for will constitute a ma'ase yehudi anyway.  

I gather from you that the Achiezer holds that a mehaah can happen later in
life just so long as the person does not know up until that point that they
can be mehaah - in which case one would presumably need to know that at
least they had been told they could be mehaah (but even there, we just need
to know they have been told).  Nor does that position seem normative in
light of the Aruch Hashulchan's summary.  So a song and a dance, while it
does seem a very nice chumra to have, seems to be just that, a chumra.

> KT,
> --
> Arie Folger

Regards

Chana