[Avodah] Geirut

[Chana Luntz]

RTK writes:

> My understanding of the case of the fellow who came to Hillel 
> and said he wanted to convert on condition he could be Kohen 
> Gadol was that Hillel accepted him /as a candidate/ for 
> conversion, as a student, on the assumption that after he 
> taught him Torah, the fellow would then realize on his own 
> that his demand was ridiculous (but would still want to go 
> ahead and convert).

Let's take step back, and discuss some general principles in terms of
learning gemora and then halacha.  The gemora is often cryptic. Even if
it does not appear to be so on the face of it, it can often be read and
understood in a multitude of ways.  When one is learning gemora for the
sake of it, there are a vast range of commentors that one can consult,
with different approaches and insights.

However, when one is looking at a halacha l'ma'se question, the range of
commentators whose views carry weight is often more limited (assuming
that they comment on the situation - if they don't you may need to look
further afield to find somebody who does).  As is well known, the
Shulchan Aruch looked primarily to three commentators, assuming they
commented, being the Rambam, the Rif and the Rosh, and in general
poskened like the majority of them.  As is also well known, that makes
two Sephardim (the Rambam and the Rif) versus one Ashkenazi (the Rosh).
Hence the Rema is more likely to disagree with the Shulchan Aruch and
posken like the Rosh, especially if some of the other Ashkenazi greats,
such as Tosphos or Rashi also held similarly.  And of course in general
the Sephardim posken like the Shulchan Aruch and the Ashkenazim like the
Rema.

However these rules are hardly universal. There are numbers of cases
where the psak is not according to the rules (classic case: channukah
candles and who lights, where the Ashkenazim posken like the Rambam and
the Sephardim posken like Tosphos).

However, what can be seen from all of this is that what is important in
terms of halacha l'ma'ase when reading a gemora are the views of certain
key commentators - even if one might, on a pshat level, find the
explanation of some other commentators more satisfying or in tune with
what one believes.

So, let us get back to our case.  Where the gemora on Shabbas 31a says
"guyreyha" (gimel, yud, yud resh yud hey), does that means that Hillel
"converted him" or "accepted him as a candidate for conversion".  Or
alternatively, if you find it too hard to say that this word can be
understood to simply mean "accepted him as a candidate for conversion"
do you say that what appears to happen in the story *after* that
critical word (ie the section that begins "amar lo" - Hillel said to
him) which comes right after this critical word actually happened before
- so that in fact the story is not being told in chronological order.

Now the most straightforward reading, as you can see from this, is to
say that the word means that Hillel converted him, and that the
subsequent conversations and learning that is then documented happened
in the chronological order described, ie after he was a convert.

However, as has been pointed out, this would seem to lead to a
contradiction with the halacha that appears to be prescribed in the
gemora in Bechoros 30b.  So it is not that surprising that some
commentators (I gather the Maharsha, although I haven't seen it inside)
do not learn the gemora in the more straightforward manner, but in the
manner that you bring above. And given the cryptic and shorthand nature
of the gemora, such a reading is not that difficult in comparison to
many others that are employed throughout Shas.  And of course the
advantage to this way of learning is that it appears to resolve the
apparent contradiction between this gemora and Bechoros 30b.

However, the Maharsha, while commonly learnt for the aggadaic part of
gemora, is, not generally regarded as one of the heavyweights in the
halachic process.  So for a question of halacha l'ma'ase, which of
course conversion is, one would much rather want to know what those
commentators say.  Do they learn it in the manner that would seem most
straightforward, or do they not?

Now for Tosphos and Rashi we seem to have an answer, because both of
these comment in relation to this daf that Hillel acted despite the
statement in Bechoros 30b, ie they see there being a contradiction.

The Rambam does not comment directly, but by implication he does,
because he does not bring Bechoros 30b in his code.  If the Rambam does
not bring a statement of halacha in his code, that means he does not
hold by it (although of course, that does not necessarily tell you what
he does hold).  And if you do not hold like Bechoros 30b, then what
reason do you have to move away from what would seem to be the most
straightforward reading of the gemora?

Note also that in this particular case, the views of Tosphos would seem
to carry more weight even than the norm, because it would seem that the
Shulchan Aruch, contrary to his general rule, poskens like Tosphos and
the Rosh (the Rema notes this explicitly) regarding what is required
before a beis din of three, including KOM and not like the Rambam or the
Rif.  

> Anyway, I think the question of the halachic status of 
> somebody who was forced or compelled to convert to Judaism is 
> somewhat different from the question of somebody who comes to 
> a bais din for conversion on a purely voluntary basis

I agree that it does.  Again, this is dealt with explicitly in the codes
and on this the Shulchan Aruch in siman 268 si'if 12 quotes the language
of the Rambam that a beis din is required to try and understand whether
the person comes to convert because of money or high position or fear
[there is your coercion] or because he or she wants to marry a Jew or
Jewess - but then adds explicitly that if in fact the conversion takes
place in any of these cases "herei ze ger afilu node shebishvil davar hu
mitgayer..." and all of the other language of the Rambam that RMB and
RMS have been debating (ie what does chosheshinan mean).

This is of course is a different si'if in the Shulchan Aruch than the
one that specifically mentions KOM (268:3 versus 268:12). 

Note again while we are discussing halachic understanding versus pure
learning, the same thing can be said about this debate between RMB and
RMS.  In terms of learning the Rambam, it is a very interesting debate
as to what the Rambam actually meant.  But in terms of halacha l'ma'ase
questions, the opinion of the Bach carries a lot more weight that the
opinion of our own RMB, and it is hard to criticize somebody for relying
on the Bach's understanding of the Rambam, - while going against the
Bach would seem to need somebody of some significant weight (query
whether anybody alive today could be considered to have the necessary
authority to come out against the Bach - perhaps, but they would
probably prefer to have somebody regarded as more comparable to rely
on).

> --Toby Katz
> =============

Regards

Chana