[Avodah] Geirut

[Chana Luntz]

RMB writes:

> 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.)

But Bekhoros 30b is not quoted verbatim by the SA.  That is the point.  I
agree with you that Bekhoros 30b has some specific language about the need
to accept every single mitzvah.  What is puzzling therefore is in fact why
is it not quoted verbatim by the SA if it is the halacha.

What *is* quoted in the SA is the requirement that it be made known to him
the mitzvoth "lkablam" before three judges.  Now one could try and argue
that this is weaker than the language of Tosphos, as the SA says only that
the requirement is that they be "made known to him" so that he can accept
them "l'kablam", whereas the language of Tosphos is that you need three
judges l'kabeles hamitzvos (see Yevamos 45b s'v  "mi lo tavla") - but given
that he then goes on to states that while the other requirements of mila and
tevila, if they are not before three judges, it is not meakeves,  "chutz
mekabeles mitzvos she makeves if ano b'yom, u'beshlosha" that would seem to
make it clear that he requires mekabeles, and not just that the prospective
convert be informed.  Also, the Rema clarifies that the position that the
Shulchan Aruch is taking is based on Tosphos and the Rosh, so it seems fair
to import the full weight of their position.

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.  That
would fully explain why Bechoros is *not* quoted by the Shulchan Aruch - he
doesn't hold like it, as he is following those opinions who do not hold like
it.

The Shulchan Aruch then goes on to say (regarding the requirement of having
three judges) that according to the Rif and the Rambam even bideved you need
three judges for mila and tevila - ie an absence of mila and tevila is
me'akeves.

There are two possibilities in relation to this:

a) According to the Shulchan Aruch the Rif and the Rambam agree with Tosphos
and the Rosh that an absence of kabalas mitzvos in front of three judges is
me'akeves and just add mila and tevila; or

b) they hold that mila and tevila is me'akeves in front of three judges
because they do not require kabalas mitzvos at all in front of the judges,
and something has, as per the gemora, to be meakeves if not in front of
three judges.

However a) is the more difficult.  There is some discussion including in the
Beis Yosef about the extent to which one can learn needing three judges
regarding mila from tevila.  If there was any suggest that the Rambam and
the Rif learnt kabalas mitzvos from tevila and or mila, that would certainly
have been discussed. (and in fact as I mentioned, the Aruch Hashulchan has a
problem with the SA learning mila from tevila, because that is not what was
stated, how much more so kabalas mitzvos).

The most straightforward way of learning this is surely b), there is a
maklokus rishonim as to whether kabalas mitzvos is a requirement, and the
Shulchan Aruch followed Tosphos and the Rosh.

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.

Getting back to the Rambam, Rav Henkin has pointed out to me a Bach (Yoreh
Deah 268, s. v. vechal inyanav, end) explained the Rambam's opinion as being
that a conversion is valid even if "no kabalat mitzvot took place at all."
(the language is "kol ikar").  

Now I agree that all the references in the Rambam that you bring are
somewhat puzzling, but it would seem important that you are aware that
stating that the Rambam requires KOM requires you to be cholek on the Bach.

The Bach would also seem to be supporting interpretation b) of the Shulchan
Aruch that I brought above.

> 
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana