[Avodah] Geirut for marriage

[Chana]

RMB writes:

> Except that I still don't find it clear. He writes, "chutz miqabalas
> hamitzvos sheme'aqeves..." which although is the language of the
> Tosafos
> and the Rosh WRT requiring a beis din (3 kesheirim meeting during the
> day) does not prove he holds like them WRT sefeiqos in the qabalah due
> to the person having ulteriar motives. And the Rambam is more machmir,
> requiring the other steps to also require BD, not that qabbalas ol
> mitzvos
> before a BD is less mandatory.

I struggle to see how you can see this in the Rambam - let us look at the
whole section in Issurei Biah Perek 13 (I have summarised each halacha and
my comments are in square brackets):

Halacha 1: Three things caused Israel to enter into the convenant, mila,
tevila and korban. [No mention of Na'aseh v'Nishma, which would be the
equivalent of kabbalat mitzvot - noting of course that if he had done so,
questions of har hagigis would not doubt have come up]

Halacha 2: The mila was in Mitzraim ...

Halacha 3: The tevila was in the midbar before matan Torah ...

Halacha 4: And so for the generations when a non Jew wants to convert he
needs [tzarich] mila, tevila v'haritzat korban (and if a woman just tevila
and korban). [Note that while the language used to describe him wanting to
convert is "to enter the bris, be gathered under the wings of the shechina
and receive upon himself [kabel alav] the yoke of the Torah" but that is a
description of what the ger wants, the second half describes the "tzarich"
the bits that would seem to be necessary, and which parallel the entering
into the covenant of Israel above.  He then reemphasises this by saying] -
just as you with mila and tevila and korban so a ger l'dorot with mila,
tevila and korban. [Where is the reference to the tzarich of kabalat
mitzvoth at all.  According to you despite the Rambam clearly laying out the
requirements of conversion, he omitted one that he holds is in fact meakev]

Halacha 5: Gives details of the korban that the ger has to bring, and says
that today, he just needs [tzarich] mila and tevila and that when the beit
hamikdash is built then he will have to bring a korban. [Again, no mention
of any kabbalat of mitzvoth in his tzarich - isn't this a glaring omission?]

Halacha 6: A ger who has mila but not tevila or tevila but no mila is not a
ger until he has both [ie these two are meakev.  Where is the reference to
the kabala of mitzvos being meakev as per Tosphos, if in fact the Rambam
agrees with Tosphos].  And he needs [tzarich] to toyvel before three since
the matter needs a beis din and we don't toyvel him on Shabbat or yom tov or
at night but if they did toyvel him so behold he is a ger. [And the Magid
Mishna notes that the discussion about before three is a maklohus tanaim in
perek hacholetz (46) and they posken there like Ravvi Yosi who says that
mila and tevila is meakev - again, where is the reference to what to you is
the third meakev leg, that of kabala of mitzvos]

Halacha 7: - deals with a ger katan, so not so relevant for our purposes.

Halacha 8: If he is married to a Jew (whether from Yisrael or a convert) and
he said that he converted beni uvein atzmo - ie without the assistance of a
beis din, he is possel for himself but not for his children and he needs to
go back and toyvel in front of bet din [not toyvel and accept the mitzvos
note].

Halacha 9: A giyores who goes according to the ways of Israel always like
she toyvels for nida and she separates trumah from her dough and so for a
ger who goes in the ways of Yisrael that he toyvels for keri  and does all
the mitzvos, harei  elu b'chezkas gerei tzedek. This is even though there
are no eidim to testify before whom they converted.  But even so if they
come to marry with Israel we don't marry them until they bring  witnesses or
until they toyvel in front of us because they had the chazaka of an akum.
[ie this is discussing somebody who seems frum now but we have no evidence
of any conversion at all].

Halacha 10:  But one who comes and says I was an akum and I converted before
beis din is believed based on the principle that the mouth that assurs is
the mouth that matirs.  Where is this, in Eretz Yisrael in those times where
the chazaka was that one was a Jew. But outside of Israel he needs to bring
a proof to marry in Israel..

Halacha 11: Discusses that just as you do mila and tevila for a ger, you do
it for an eved ... and you do not tovel an eved except before three and
during the day as it is a form of little gerus.

Halacha 12:  When you free a slave he needs another tevila before three and
in the day because he is completing his gerus.  [Now here is the only place
we suddenly have mention of kabbalas mitzvos as possibly an essential part
of the process - because it says] that he does not need [v'ain tzarich]
lkabel alav mitzvos ul'hodos ikar hadas since the hodah was already done
when he toyvelled for his avdus. [So in order to argue that the Rambam
requires a kabala you need to read back from this negative to a positive
requirement.  But it is just as easy to understand this as an instruction to
beit din.  Just as later it is said to be a mitzvah nachona to do this, well
here with an eved even as a mitzvah nachona it is not necessary]

Halacha 13: Details of the type of mikvah and issues of chatzitza required
in the tevila.

Halacha 14: You shouldn't think that Shimshon who led Israel and Shlomo
Hamelech who was called the friend of Hashem married non Jews.  But the sod
hadavar is this.  It is a "mitzvah nachona" when a ger or giores comes to
check after them to see if they come because of money or position of
authority or marriage.  And if you don't find [any such rationale] you tell
them the weight of the torah etc And if they accept "kiblu v'lo pirshu v'rau
she chozru m'ahavah kablu otan".  [ie this is the ideal, you check and see
that there are no ulterior motives and you tell them what is involved and
you see that they don't run away and this is a gerus meahava].

Halacha 15:  Therefore, the Beit Din did not accept converts all the days of
David HaMelech because maybe they returned out of pachad.  And in the days
of Shlomo because maybe they returned because of the malkchut etc.  Because
kol hu chozru min haakum bishvil davar mehevlei olam v'aino gerei tzedek.
But despite this there were many gerim in the days of David and Shlomo
"mipnei hahedyot".  And the Beit Din Hagadol choshishinan l'hem v'lo dochin
otan achar shetevilo but on the other hand "lo mekarev otan ud shetire
achreihen". [Here he seems to be drawing a distinction between a ger tzedek
and a regular ger.  And while the Bet Din hagadol refused to get involved in
conversions, there were a lot of ordinary people doing conversions, and once
the conversion happened, the Bet Din did not push them away but they did not
draw them close either]

Halacha 16: Accordingly, Shlomo HaMelech converted the women and then
married them.  And so Shimshon converted and married.  And it was a known
thing that they did not convert ela bishvil davar.  And since they were not
converted by the beit din the text considers them to have been like non Jews
and their end proves the beginning because they worshipped idols etc
[Remember of course we have other statements from the Rambam as the Kesef
Mishna brings in his comment on halacha 17 that even a born and bred Jew who
worships idols is considered like an akum]

Halacha 17:  A ger whom one does not check after them or we do not make
known to them the mitzvoth and the punishments and they do mila and tevila
before three hediyot behold this is a ger.  And even if you know that
bishvil davar he converted since he did mila and tevila he goes out of the
category of a non Jew but we are choshesh him until he demonstrates his
righteousness. [This is where you try and understand some sort of
indeterminate status in the Rambam - a sort of overlapping wave form, but
the language that follows doesn't seem to bear this out]  And even if he
returns and worships idols he is like a Yisrael mumar and his kidushin is a
kidushin.  And it is a mitzvah to return his lost object like a Jews.  And
thus Shlomo and Shimshon did with their wives even though the truth was
revealed.  

Halacha 18: Because of this the Chachamim said that gerim are hard for
Yisrael like a plague of tzaraas, because many return bishvil davar.  And it
is hard to separate from them after they convert.  Go and learn what
occurred in the midbar with the golden calf etc etc [ie cases where converts
have led the rest of Yisrael astray]

End of chapter.

So where can you see in the Rambam that kabal ohl mitzvos before a beis din
is mandatory?  The Rambam is very very clear about what is tzarich and what
is not.  Trying to squeeze an additional tzarich into the words of the
Rambam when he has so clearly paralleled the conversion process with that of
receiving the Torah at har Sinai seems quite a stretch.  And to suggest that
the Shulchan Aruch makes that stretch, when he contrasts the position of the
Rambam (and the Rif) with that of Tosphos in terms of what is needed for
three, and so effectively to sticks kabala of the mitzvoth into halacha 6
when it is clearly not there is really yet a further extension. 

And regarding your confusion with Halacha 17, it seems to me to be a much
more straightforward read to say the Rambam is making a distinction (that I
agree I am not aware of anybody else making) between what he calls a "ger"
and what he calls a "ger tzedek".  A ger tzedek is somebody who converts for
the right reasons and does the right thing.  But this is not just in
contrast to an akum, but also to a "ger".  A ger is something else. They
convert for the wrong reasons and then often do the wrong thing.  But,
halachically he stresses that their kiddushin is a kiddushin and hence
Shlomo HaMelech and Shimshon could marry them, their aveidah is just like
that of any other Jew etc

So unlike you it seems to me the most straightforward reading of the
chosheshinan is not that they have some sort of indeterminate status between
an akum and a valid ger, as you would have it, but that they are indeed a
valid ger with valid kiddushin and otherwise the din of a Jew, but that one
should be worried about getting too close to them, marrying with them etc.
Not because they are not Jewish but because there is a high risk that they
will be a bad influence, just as one is required to keep away from bad
influences, it is appropriate to be suspicious that they are likely to be
bad influences (you might not want your kids playing in school with them
sort of thing) - until there is evidence that they are seriously keeping
mitzvos properly (sort of check our schools do on all of us these days).

And in regard to making known the mitzvos and seeing that they are kablu the
description of doing that is halacha 14 along with that of checking after
them which is described with the language of mitzvah nachona.  The Rambam is
known to be very precise in his language and "mitzvah nachona" does not read
to me as being the slightest language of meakev (which the Rambam has no
problem using and discussing when he is talking about mila and tevila).  It
seems to me that you need a fair bit more proof that the Shulchan Aruch
makes such an assertion (or that the Rambam has the capacity for this read
at all).

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana