[Avodah] Geirut

[Micha Berger]

I keep on trying to start a reply, and then more emails come in on this
tropic. So then I delay my reply until I have time to read them (slowly;
not my moderation-skim), re-entering the loop.

Instead, I will try to just discuss this Rambam that RMS and I disagree
on how to read.

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:58pm EDT, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
: I think we all come with our preconceptions.  I think that RMB comes  
: with preconceptions that kabbalat ol mitzvot must be in the rambam -  
: and I am sure that I have my own preconceptions...

That last clause is why RMS is a pleasure to disagree with.

Yes, I have a prconcieved notion that if the gemara requires it, we
require it, and the Rambam is confusing, we should find a way to read
the Rambam that doesn't assume he disagrees with the gemara.

I therefore took it for granted that in trying to avoid the Rambam's
apparent self-contradiction, one should assume his conclusion includes
QOM.

: References are to the mechon mamre edition - everything in issure  
: biah ch 13.

But it isn't. In the 2nd half of ch 12 the Rambam discusses who may be
megayeir. In 12:13 (12:17) he writes:
> Kol hagoyim kulam shenisgayru veyiqablu aleihen kol hamitzvos shel
> Torah ... harei hein keYisrael lekhol davar.
> Shene'emar "Haqahal, chuqah achas lakhem" (Bamidbar 15:15)
> Umutarim lehikaneis beqehal Hashem miyad...

So, someone who did both geirus and QOM are (1) Jews WRT every mitzvah
and (2) can marry any other Jew immediately (later excepting for those
geirim from Amon, Mo'av, Mitzrayim or Edom).

This to me seems to be a clear statement that the Rambam requires QOM.
Not technically as part of geirus; but that it and geirus are required.

I find the word order difficult. I would have assumed, given this
halakhah's placement in a discussion of pre-conversion (pereq 12),
that QOM is a precondition. But the wording in the halakhah itself
places it second.

But in any case, his speaking of "kol hamitzvos shel Torah" is similar
to the gemara's excluding the convert "haba leqabeil divrei Torah chutz
midavar echad" (Bekhoros 30b). The question remains why he shifts out
of the gemara's negative statement of the din. And why "mitzvos" rather
than "davar"? But it's pretty close, regardless of subtle differences
in implication.

Now that I had concluded that the Rambam requires QOM for someone to be
a Jew in all ways, I'm first ready to reaq pereq 13.

: The problem that the rambam starts this section with is (hal 10) -  
: that it is impossible that  shlomo and shimshon marry goyot - which  
: is an avera.  Therefore, the read of the rambam must end up that  
: those women were not goyot...

In 13:10 (14) the Rambam necessitates checking for ulterior motive. It
need not conclude that they were not goyos. It could instead conclude
that Shimshon and Shelomo haMelekh did everything they were supposed to,
and therefore weren't culpable for marrying goyos.

: One could have solved this problem by arguing the metziut - which to  
: some extent is what RMB and RTK do - that the women were actually (or  
: seemed to be) shomre mitzvot, at least initially, and therefore had  
: the status of ger shechazar....

That's not my position. I argue that they were non-Jews who succeeded
in fooling their husbands into thinking they were giyoros who were meQOM
(mequbalos ol mitzvos).

In fact, it would seem that you would have to conclude that Shimshon's
parents were prejudiced against giyoros (Shofetim 14:3), whereas I could
say they simply weren't fooled.


: The rambam (by my read) deliberately and specifically rejects this  
: option - (hal 13) - vehadavar yadua she chazru ela bishvil davar  
: (not, as RTK .  Furthermore, (still hal 13)  veod hochiach sofan al  
: techilatan - any doubt we might have had is erased by their later  
: acts - that they seemed sincere.

Which fits my understanding that the Rambam said the husbands only
thought they were geirim. After the whole maaseh, with hindsight, we
realize the husbands were wrong, that the wives never were really
meQOM.

...
: (BTW, as RMB notices, hochiach sofan et techilatan  - if it means  
: that by knowing later improper actions tells us about earlier actions  
: - and that therefore the gerut is invalid - is directly contradicted  
: by the notion of (hal 14) that chazar ve'avad avoda zara hare hu  
: keyisrael meshumad -  but there is no contradiction if hochiach sofan  
: allows us to evaluate the individual - but it does not invalidate the  
: gerut (as in my pshat))

I see 13:14 (17) as distinguishing between the cases where later
behavior is because they never did QOM vs those where the geir returned
to the practices of their youth. This is kind of difficult, and often
impossible. So, we are left with having someone we /think/ is a Jew but
we're allow to harbor cheshash about until we see where they actually
stand.

Otherwise, 13:14 (17)'s "afilu chazar ve'avad AZ, harei hu keYisrael
meshumad" would contradict "ve'od shehochiach sofan al techilasan" of
the previous halakhah.

: The rambam, therefore, tries to be crystal clear to make sure that we  
: understand that the issue is not that they might have been sincere.   
: He goes even further, and here is where I think RMB misunderstands  
: the purpose and thrust of the statement.  This is in hal 13
: hishvan hacatuv keilu hen goyot uveisuran omdot
: RMB reads this to mean that the rambam states that they were goyot,  
: uveisuran omdot.  This reading, if correct, would mean that the  
: rambam is saying that the women were  assur - and this would directly  
: contradict hal 10 - that they were not assur.  This by itself  
: suggests that this pshat is problematic and  probably wrong.

I resolve this as above. In 10 (14) we are told what should be done
and the husbands did. That need not mean they weren't assuros; it could
simply mean the husbands didn't realize they were assuros.

: However, the rambam doesn't say that they were goyot uveisuran omdot-  
: this phrase is part of subordinate clause - hishvan hacatuv keilu hen  
: goyot uveisuran omdot -
: tanach treats them as if they were goyot uveisuran omdot = but he  
: does not say hishvan hacatuv shehen goyot - tanach treats them as  
: goyot - a a crucial distinction...

It is, and I admit I don't know what to do with the distinction.

However, I feel that to explain the Rambam otherwise requires ignoring
12:13 (17) and makes a hash of the contrast between "ve'od shochiach
sofan", which isn't part of "chashvan hakasuv" and "chazar ve'avad".

Bottom line is that I don't like either of our takes on pereq 13.
They're both flawed. But concluding that the Rambam requires QOM along
with geirus doesn't require understanding that stretch of pereq 13,
since it's stated outright in 12.

: Lastly, again, simple pshat of hal 14 is as follows:
: 1) ger shelo badku acharav o shelo hodiu - first cases of inadequate  
: examination before conversion - hare ze ger.

: 2) vefafilu noda shebishvil davar - the afilu tells us that this is a  
: worse case - not merely inadequate examination, but the examination  
: reveals improper motivation - ho'il umal vetaval yatza miklal hagoyim  
: - but then hoshehsim lo ad sheyitbaer zidkuto.

It's possible to convert for ulterior motives, but still accept ol
mitzvos. Not likely, but possible. The guy believes in Torah miSinai,
but would have remained in his current lifestyle if it weren't for that
pretty Jewish girl...

I think this distinction, between geirus ledavar and a lack of QOM, is
being overlooked in general in this discussion. I'm checking my notes
(from my ever-delayed attempt to reply to the rest of the thread) to
see how badly I'm doing it too.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
micha at aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507