[Avodah] Geirut

[Meir Shinnar]

>
>
> 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.
>
you distinugish between issues of improper motivation and issues of  
QOM.  My understanding - that again, I think is simple pshat and that  
of most mefarshim - that the issue of QOM is not merely being willing  
to do the actions as part of the communtiy - qabbalat mitzvot - but  
qabbalat ol mitzvot - one would like lecatchilla  a ger not only  
commited to orthopraxy, but commited to mitzvot.

The problem of gere arayot and gere mordechai or being mitgayer for a  
cause is a problem with QOM - because even if, after the giyur, they  
perform the mitzvot, the motivation is wrong - and, lacking proper  
motivation, one's performance can easily lag, because there isn't  
real QOm, merely qabbalt or arayot or qabbalat ol mordechai or ahavat  
davar  - and they can easily backslide.   It is clear that the  
midrashic literature treats gere arayot in this sense.  Therefore,  
the problem with all the improper motivation is precisely the idea  
that their commitment to QOM is not complete but rather faulty - but  
still, even though the bet din may reject them, once converted - they  
are gerim, in spite of improper QOM.

Now, we can never be certain about motivations - so QOM for a bet din  
ends up being a technical issue of public declaration as well as  
assessment - but the issue of faulty motivation is an issue of faulty  
QOM

> ...
> : 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.
>

Yes, as you understand - there are two things - geirut and then QOM -  
and the word order is clear that the QOM is after the geirut - so  
geirut in and of itself does not require QOM - that seems clear in my  
reading, as well as in your reading.

You would like QOM to be pre geirut as a condition - but that is not  
the rambam's order - so QOM is something, as you acknowledge,  
separate from geirut - and can occur after geirut.  This would seem  
to end the discussion - as you recognize that geirut lechud and QOM  
lechud...

The question then seems about what QOM actually does - and as you are  
committed to QOM being part of geirut, you argue that it is required  
for shem yisrael - although then the quesiton is what is geirut?

I think that this is a misunderstanding of the rambam and the role of  
QOM.  The rambam doesn't say that after QOM he is a yisrael - but  
rather, that after QOM, he is yisrael lechol davar..... (I wold argue  
that after geirut he is yisrael...)

There are two basic models of gerut:

1) Geirut is about becoming part of the faith community - and  
therefore QOM is an intrinsic part of the process.

2) Geirut is about becoming part of am yisrael and getting shem  
yisrael.  Once one is yisrael, one is automatically hayav in all the  
mitzvot - so once one is mitgayer, QOM is required to become a Jew in  
good standing - rather than a yisrael mumar....  The hiyuv in the  
mitzvot isn't part of the process - it is a consequence - and  
therefore QOM can occur after the process is complete - because it  
determines whether the ger (who is now yisrael) is willing to accept  
the obligations that are now imposed on him.

The Rambam makes complete sense according to the second model - there  
is the process of geirut - and then, to be fully recognized as a  
member in good standing - there is QOM - otherwise one is possibly a  
yisrael mumar (perhaps ledavar echad, perhaps lechol hatora kula -  
but a yisrael who does not accept the mitzvot has that status...- and  
one would not want lecatchilla to accept such a yisrael.  WIthout  
public QOM - one does not know - and therefore chosheshin lo

According to your model, you end up with a problem in the word order  
in the rambam - QOM should have been prior to geirut - and  
contradictions between 13:13 and 13:14.  By my model - everything is  
a coherent whole - the word order is precise, there is no contradiction.

RCL has cited the Bach as understanding the rambam as I do. My Bar  
Ilan is not working, and my source list that I wrote  is not  
available, but my recollection is that this understanding - that the  
rambam does not require QOM - is not just the bach, but is the  
standard one in most poskim (and,  IIRC. every major posek pre 19th  
century - even when they disagree with the rambam halacha lema'ase -  
and even most 19th century poskim understand the rambam in this  
fashion- eg, RS Kluger).


One can question whether one paskens like the rambam - but it is very  
difficult to read the rambam in any other way.

Meir Shinnar