[Avodah] Geirut

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:49:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: 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...

As opposed to the Maharsha? And how does that fit the position of
Tosafos repeated in the SA (above)?

The way I read the Tosafos is that beis din can choose how much to teach
the geir. The absence of acceptance could be rejection, but also it could
be ignorance. Like for kiruv, where you don't necessarily teach or inforce
the mitzvos that are harder for the person to accept first. Things he
would reject if he knew now, but BD believes he would accept if he knew
more are simply not taught. It is up to their assessment of the geir
whether he would reach that point or not.

: There are two possibilities in relation to this:

...
: 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.

What about the fact that Tosafos don't need to farenfer Berkhoros 30b?
They simply let the gemara pass without a comment.

: 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").  

I can't find this Bach. But in any case, isn't "kol ikar" more like
"not entirely", but in some tafeil way, yes, as opposed to leaving off
any modifier to mean "not needed"? When is it taken to mean "not at all"?

And, the SA believes that the Rambam requires QOM; rather, the QOM doesn't
require being a mishpat (see below). So I find this Bach very problematic,
and wish I could find it.

On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 10:36:25PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: A) the person does not have to accept each and every mitzvah (as per
: Bechoros 30b) it is enough that they accept certain fundamentals.  What
: these are is  a bit unclear, but it is hard to see an atheist who
: rejects absolutely everything falling within this category.

Bekhoros has it that a prospective convert can not reject any mitzvah.
That's different than requiring he accept every mitzvah.

For example...

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:49:35PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: 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.

Tosafos there leave it up to the BD to decide what to leave the
candidate in ignorance of. Just like in kiruv, you don't start with the
hardest mitzvos to swallow. And so, if the person accepts what they know
and BD assess him as being later capable of accepting what they don't,
the geirus is chal.

Ignorance is a third ground between accept and reject.

Also, Tosafos isn't the only way to understand the gemara. The Maharsha
takes QOM so for granted, he assumes that the person was taught enough
to clear up their objection BEFORE geirus.

Two weeks ago (which is half a year in email list time), on Sun, Aug 31,
2008 at 12:47:19AM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> I'm missing why you have a need to cast KOM into another halachic
:> category. The gemara discusses nedarim, it mentions KOM. Why can't KOM
:> stand as its own beryah?

: Start from the other end.  A shavuah is X. If KOM fulfils the requirements
: of X, then how can you say KOM is *not* a shavuah?  If it walks like a duck
: and quacks like a duck?  That is what is odd about it.

This threw me. I thought we were looking for a category in order to
make a determination about what QOM requires. IOW, we are less sure as
to whether it quacks than whether QOM is a duck.

I thought of two more possible models. However, I think that RCOG and
RMF both reach a conclusion that we find difficult because for some
reason these models don't work. Your dislike and your desire to find an
umbrella are reflections of the same thing.

1- Perhaps QOM is a neder, but anan sahadei is enough anyway. Much
like the implied neder of someone who follows a minhag enough times to
qualify as a chazaqah. We already have a case where a neder can be
implied.

2- The Chasam Sofer on Kesuvos writes that the ikkar of tevilah is QOM.
This also fits the Taz (s"q 2) which requires a repetition of telling
him some of the mitzvos before tevilah. This would allow a Brisker to
say that QOM and tevilah are one -- tevilah is the pe'ulah, and it is
tzerikhah kavanah because QOM is its qiyum shebileiv.

This notion is also supported by the observation (made by the Taz) that
the examples of tevilah for other purposes, qeri and nidah, presume that
the person was meqabeil ol mitzvos.

: In addition, let us look at the gemora reference to KOM. It is a bit of an
: off hand reference in the gemora - ie it goes like this: - the gemora (in
: Yevamos 47b) is discussing a Braisa which says "echad ger vechad eved
: meshachrer" ...

If I thought that Yevamos, not Bekhoros, was the primary source, it would
seem off-hand. It would even have proven RnTK's instinctive position
that QOM is the whole essence of geirus and taken for granted.

What we see in the machloqes the SA spells out is that he holds that
Tosafos and the Rosh consider QOM to be the essence of geirus, and the
Rambam and the Rif hold geirus is a set of actions, but those actions
require QOM in order to be valid. I will discuss the Rambam's position
further when answering RMShinar's post. The need for QOM is there either
way, the difference is whether it's the bit that we mean when we say
geirus requires BD.

That point is WRT a geir gadol (only!) by the Pischei Teshuvah, which
is why the SA makes QOM the one thing that requires BD even bedi'eved.
And this is important; the SA doesn't question the need for QOM. Or, in
the case of a geir qatan, a lack of rejection.

RnCL spells out three different lenient positions:
: A) the person does not have to accept each and every mitzvah (as per
: Bechoros 30b) it is enough that they accept certain fundamentals.  What
: these are is  a bit unclear, but it is hard to see an atheist who
: rejects absolutely everything falling within this category.

This seems clear from Hillel's geirim, and other cases already
discussed.

: B) the person does not have to demonstrate a fidelity to mitzvos, only
: a desire to join the Jewish people and become a Jew, but this woman does
: not fall within this category either.
...
: C) While the majority opinion, as encompassed in the Shulchan Aruch, is
: that some form of KOM is required for adults...                   there
: are rishonic positions that hold that no KOM is required at all, only
: mila and tevila. And we know that in a sha'as hadchak, we can rely on
: minority opinions...

I thought C was more like: QOM is only required lechat-khilah according
to some shitos, and those we can rely on when needed, eg for the sake of
the general Israeli community.

I also believe some form of QOM is required for youth as well, as per
the whole anan sahadei discussion and the possibility of macha'ah
annulling the geirus lemafreia.

My discussion with RMShinnar started with my asking where either (b) or
(c) are found in the rishonim. So, he brought the Rambam.

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:56:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: you distinugish between issues of improper motivation and issues of  
: QOM...

Perhaps I did, last week, I do not recall. At the moment my opinion is
that they are different things, although quite likely the same basic
issue. Ulterior motive makes QOM unlikely, therefore lechat-khilah we
do not convert people who want to be geirei arayos. But if we did, and
there was QOM even though they were driven to taking the step by love
or by fear of lions, the geirus is chal bedi'eved. IOW, they can be the
same basic issue, and still one is only lechat-chilah, while the other
is required even bedi'eved.

...
: 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

Or, as the acharonim most of us in the US pasqen by actually conclude,
anan sahadei is enough.

WRT to your understanding of IB pereq 12, see Yevamos 46b, near the
bottom. It seems that the idiom of qabbalas geir is bedi'eved, as the
gemara uses it WRT accepting that a person who claims to be megayeir
before moving into town actually was. It's not accepting him as a
candidate, but accepting him into the community.

...
: 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...

I am saying the Rambam holds they're distinct, as I wrote above in my
reply to RnCL. The Ashkenazi rishonim didn't, nor did the SA, which then
places QOM at the enter of geirus and the one thing that requires BD
even bedi'eved.

However, according to the Rif and the Rambam, I would argue that QOM
is logically prior to geirus -- there is no geirus w/out QOM. And this
is why the Rambam places it in pereq 12, rather than 13. However, they
are chronologically simultaneous -- the person must be willing to do
mitzvos at the time of geirus, or, in the case of a qatan, at the time
he becomes an adult.

: 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...)

But his "kol davar" is chiyuvim and issurim, as is consistent from the
pasuq the Rambam uses for proof, taken from a discussion in Vayiqra of
qorban nedavah. I don't see how your read fits.

: 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

You also imply that there are two ritualistic states, a Yisrael, and a
Yisrael lekhol davar ("in good standing"). ZThis is a major chiddush for
a distinction the Rambam doesn't spell out himself.

: 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.

Word order is not a problem, since by today's norms they must be
simultaneous, and QOM must actually be simultaneous with the last maqeh
bepatish in particular. Which means that the Rambam's language is not 
inconsistent with what American batei din require. However, given my
above objection to your take on "Yisrael lekhol davar", problems with
the word order wouldn't cxhange the need for QOM anyway.

13:13 vs 13:14 is problematic regardless. Either he is saying the pasuq
says "ke'ilu" but that's not the din, or he is saying that Shimshon and
Shelomo erred. But one of the two is non-authoritative, and thus requires
"explaining away". You just prefer your explanation, and therefore
consider your position to lack a problem, whereas my explanation you
considered flawed and therefore the problem remains. I would instead say
the Rambam is ambiguous, and if it weren't for the requirement for QOM
stated in pereq 12, I wouldn't know which way he holds. A requirement
the SA agrees to, he just questions the need for QOM having a BD.

: RCL has cited the Bach as understanding the rambam as I do. My Bar  
: Ilan is not working...

The Bar Ilan's Bach doesn't have a 268, as far as I could see. Part of
my problem finding what R' Henkin and RnCL were talking about.

And in any case, it would disagree with the SA's take on the Rambam.

To get to the core question: You cited the Rambam as an example of
someone who holds that QOM is part of being in the community, and given
12:13 being about being a Yisrael to the extent of qorban nedavah and
the like "haqahal chuqah achas lakhem... torah achas umishpat echad", I
don't see how that stands.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha at aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507