[Avodah] Geirut

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 03:12:50PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: 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...

...
: 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"...

RnTK's understanding is that of the Maharsha. He takes it for granted
that the gemara couldn't have meant he converted without QOM first.

This doesn't touch on my disagreement with RMS about whether QOM is
a requirement, or a desiratum lechat-khilah on who beis din ought to
consider as a candidate. Because the implication of the gemara in Shabbos
is that Hillel would have violated either understanding.

: The Rambam does not comment directly, but by implication he does,
: because he does not bring Bechoros 30b in his code...

He actually state the halakhah /more/ strongly than the gemara does. In
the gemara, one might explain "sheba leqabel divrei Torah" as RMS does,
that it's only about who BD should accept as a candidate. Thereby
implying that bedi'eved, geirus without QOM would be chal.

However, according to the Rambam (IB 12:17), it is only "kesheyisgayru
veyiqablu aleihen kol hamitzvos shel Torah" who are "keYisrael lekhol
davar."

It is on this point that my entire understanding of the Rambam diverges
from RSM's, and I therefore can't see how he can explain pereq 13 as
he does. Mind you, my explanation is also left with open questions,
but at least it fits this statement that QOM is necessary for having
the din of a Yisrael.

: 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
...

That's a different topic. One can be improperly motivated but still
accept all the mitzvos, or be motivated by wanting to do what G-d said
at Sinai but not believe that mandates keeping the mitzvos.

On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 09:17:32AM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: The question is someone who is megayer without QOM - and the simple
: pshat in the gmara about the machloket about whether gere arayot and
: gere mordechai are gerim is that we wouldn't have accepted them
: lecatchila - but once they underwent gerut they become gerim - but
: because they lacked real QOM, they remained problematic.

: There is a shitta in the gmara that gere arayot are not considered
: gerim - but that is rejected halacha lema'ase by the gmara and
: poskim..

Again, QOM and geirei arayos are different questions. Who said they
weren't QOM. They could have agreed out of the wrong motivations to
do the mitzvos.

...
: This distinction - between lecatchilla accepting and what to do once
: being megayer - is explicit in the rambam 13:12

And explicitly denied in 12:17 (or 12:13, as you would put it).

If we could resolve this halakhah and what it says about pereq 12, all
the other pieces would fall into place.

: > 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.

: Precisely.  The rambam in 12:13 is a  "clear statement that the
: Rambam"  does not require  QOM as an intrinsic part of the gerut.
: (again, preconceptions) - QOM is part of becoming  a member in good
: standing of the community- rather than merely a member who is
: problematic...

Where is any of that in 12:13? He says that one needs two things, geirus
and QOM in order to have the full halakhah of a Jew. The fact that he
requires 2 things rather than subsuming QOM under the word "geirus"
doesn't change the Rambam's requiring QOM in order for the person to
have the din of a Yisrael.

(Personally, I think it's because, as the gemara writes, QOM is a
precondition to geirus, not part of geirus itself. Thus, the gemara
doesn't mean *only* lekhat-chilah should a BD look for QOM, but that it
must be first. This would explain why the Rambam places it in pereq 12,
who may be megayeir (between a discussion of avadim, shefachos and one
of accepting geirim who are Mitzriyim, Edomimim, Amonim, or Moavim),
rather than in 13 with geirus itself. But I'm just guessing.)

Where do you see anything about "joining the people" in that? Or that
it's not just as necessary as if it were intrinsically part of geirus?

...
: This is clearly related to the chosheshin lo - the notion that once
: one is mitgayer, if one didn't have QOM or there is a perceived
: problem in the motivation...

And again, the topic switched to motivaiton, which I agree could well be
only lekhat-chilah.

:> 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.

: It is actually talking about completely  different issues - the gmara
: is talking about the bet din's decison whether to accept the candidate
: - the rambam is talking about relationship to the individual after
: gerut..

"Harei hein keYisrael lekhol davar" is about our relationship to the
individual? Where do you see such a limitation in "lekhol davar"? And
his source pasuq is "chuqah achas lakhem"!

The only mention of marriage is contrasting geirim in general with one
from the four nations I mentioned above.

...
: again, as in previous go rounds, this is not a sustainable pshat -
: because the rambam works hard to make sure that we understand that
: this was not an error, and even if we think that there was an initial
: error - in the end, ( 13:14) ulefichach, kiyam shimshon ushlomo
: neshotehen, ve'af al pi shenigla sodan - explicit that even after it
: was known to everyone, including shimshon and shlomo,  the truth, so
: even if they might have been initially fooled, they now knew the
: truth, they could still keep their wives - and not be over on being
: bo'el a goya - because  they were still gerim...

13:13 and 13:14 (as Mechon Mamre number them) say conflicting things.
OT1H, "chashvan hakasuv ke'ilu heim goyos, ube'isuran omedin".
OTOH, "ulefikhakh qiyeim Shimshon uShelomo neshoseihen, ve'ad al pi
sheniflah sodan".

13:13 speaks of someone "shehokhiach sofan al techilasan".
13:14 says "chazar ve'avad AZ".

Do we assume they showed their true colors, and are goyos, or that they
are converts who returned to their own ways? 13:13 says the former, and
shows how Shelomo was accused of building bamos for getting to the point
where his wives would. 13:14 says the latter, and that's why he stayed
married.

Both have wiggle room as not describing the actual din.. 13:13 speaks of
"ke'ilu". 13:14 speaks of what people did and were condemned for in 13:13.

(When looking at 13:13, I'm only looking at the QOM issue. Not that they
converted "bishvil davar" which lead to their lack of QOM.)

The question of which way to wiggle requires a kasuv hashelishi.

I think IB 12:13 is that kasuv hashelishi.

I also think there is no reason to understand the Rambam in a manner
that forces him to differ from convention.

: no - shehociach sofan means that we (and Shlomo and Shimshon after the
: beginning of the marriage) now are able to understand their true
: motives - and judge them as individuals - but as to legal status, hare
: hu keyisrael meshumad....

But hochiach sofan refers to how the pasuq judges them. Shimshon and
Shelomo's judgment isn't discussed until the end of next halakhah.

RnCL had much more to address, but as she refers to a wider sweep of
sources, I cn't do so without being nearer my bookcase.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha at aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya