[Avodah] Geirut for marriage

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:15:51AM -0000, Chana wrote:
:> I was looking at the SA when I wrote that. Not what the Rambam says,
:> just translating what the SA says he says.
: 
: But the thing is, any reading of the SA has to be plausible...

First point of disagreement (POD #1): I don't see this as a "reading of
the SA", which is a phrasing that makes it sound like the SA's words can
be taken different ways.

However, here's the SA YD 268:3:
    ... except for qabalas hamitzvos, which is me'aqeves if not during
    the day and before 3.
    And according to the Rif and to the Rambam,
    AFILU bedi'avad, shetaval o mal bifnei 2 o balaylah me'qeiv
    ve'asur beYisraelis

Where in "afilu" do you see "instead"? There is no aval lehaRif
vehaRambam, the connective is a "ve-". Here is clearly adding to the
previous.

:                                        Similarly, we all agree that the SA
: knew how to read the Rambam.   So if he says that the Rambam says something,
: it must be a plausible read in the Rambam...

Somewhere in the Rambam. Not necessarily the two peraqim of the Yad
we're looking at, or even the Yad altogether. It could even be implied
by diyuq halashon and seeing whose words the Rambam echos. IOW, I doubt
our own ability to know what the plausible reads are.

POD #2:
: a) QOM as a legal action - very similar to a shavuah in fact, in which the
: person says in front of a beis din of three - "from here on in, I will keep
: the mitzvot".   This is what Tosphos and the Rosh understands when they
: refer to QOM....

Where do you see this in Tosafos or the Rosh? I think this is some later
lomdus. Why does a shavu'ah require BD? I believe the actual lashon in
the rishonim is that QOM is the iqar of geirus, and thus requires BD.
IOW, the only question is which parts of geirus require BD.

I disagree with this whole "legal action" vs personal qabalah
distinction. Rather, QOM is either auxiliary to geirus or part of
geirus, and if the latter, may be of the subset (which may be 100%) of
geirus that requires BD).

POD #3:
: Yes he does say kol hagoyim kulam sheyisgayru viyqablu aleihen kol hamitzvos
: shel Torah .. harei hein keYisrael lekhol davar...".  But there is a leap in
: the logic here to say, as you have done above that this means that "QOM is a
: separate part of becoming Jewish".   He does not say this.  He says that if
: the ger has this he is like your standard born Jew.  But that does not
: necessarily mean that if he does not have this, that means he is not a ger
: but a goy.

You just created a new category -- someone who isn't a standard Jew nor
a goy. Unless you're classing him with avadim Kenaanim, that's an
entirely new concept to me and in either case would require major
evidence that people can fall into this "no man's land".

: In fact, if it was an intrinsic part of "becoming" Jewish, then you would
: not need to mention it here.  The Rambam does not need to mention all goyim
: sheyisgaru and do tevila - because tevila is an intrinsic part of
: sheyisgaru, without which the goy remains a goy...

You assume that the Rambam identifies shenisgayeir with becoming a Jew.
Turn that 180deg... If the Rambam says you need both, then clearly he
holds that the mitzvah ma'asis of geirus is not enough to be a Jew,
one also needs QOM. A geir tzedeq is someone who was misgayeir AND did
QOM -- without QOM he isn't a Jew, and thus not a geir tzedeq. Even
though he did the geirus rite. That's the Rambam's words, at face value.

POD #4:
: But getting back to the main point.  If you understand the Rambam, as the
: Bach does, that he does not require QOM kol ikar - that is, not only does
: the Rambam not require the legal action of Tosphos and the Rosh, but he
: doesn't even require the mindset that goes with b), the resolve in the heart
: at the time of the geirus and as a precondition for geirus, then of course
: the Rambam needs to say this.

The Bach is a daas yachid in how he understands the Rambam, and only
presents his version of the Rambam in order to reject it. I don't see
why you return to the Bach so frequently.

IOW, why not take the same tack with the Bach as you do with the SA.
Since the Bach appears to deny the Rambam's explicit requirement for
QOM, why not assume you're misreading the Bach?

See POD #6, where I argue just that.

POD #5:
:                                                But the point is that the
: Yisrael mumar does not have, depending on the kind of mumar he is, the
: status of a standard Yisrael l'kol davar.  His wine may be assur to drink,
: it may be permissible to lend to him at ribus.  It may be permissible to
: hate him.  And the list goes on and on.  In fact, at the extreme, he has the
: status "k'akum".

A mumar who marries a Yisraelis, the qidushin is chal. Not so the person
who is nisgayeir but doesn't accept QOM. They are different things.

: I am not saying this is the only read of this Rambam, your read is possible,
: but it is a very weak thread to hold you read on when everything else points
: the other way and this read is perfectly tenable.

Except it forces you to take neither the Rambam nor the SA at face
value. (As per above; which is why I didn't make this POD #6.)

POD #6:
:> The Bach you refer to (YD 268, "vekhol inyanav") also doesn't deny the
:> Rambam requiring QOM. Rather, he says the Rambam and Semag only require
:> BD for tevilah. The question he addresses is whether QOM requires BD,
:> not whether becoming a Jew requires QOM altogether -- even bedi'eved.

: No, you quoting from too high up in that Bach.  He starts by discussing that
: the Rambam and the Semag only require BD for tevila, but later on he
: says"D'katuv haRambam (perek 13 halacha 17) d'kasher af al pi shelo hayta
: l'shem kabalat mitzvoth kol ikar"

But as you appear to agree, in my citation later on he does later down
say the Rambam requires QOM, albeit without a BD.

So here's how I read the Bach's "kol ikar"... The tevilah wasn't lesheim
QOM explicitly, however since it was for a mitzvah, there is some kind of
connection to QOM in the tevilah. IOW, "kol ikar" modified the tevilah,
which is the feminin noun in the "shelo hayta", not QOM. I don't see how
you can read this part of the Bach as referring to anything but the need
for lesheim QOM within the tevilah, not QOM itself.

POD #7:
: OK, so here is your argument that the Rambam has two aspects, one is the
: formal legal one which has nothing to do with QOM, and one is the duty of
: the heart, akin to teshuva.  Now there are various problems with this.  As
: you indicate "I think there is a leshitaso here -- the Rambam doesn't count
: pure thought and emotion among the mitzvos" - well I think that could be
: said generally.  Devarim sheb'lev aino devarim...

And yet kaparah requires a davar shebeleiv as well. I don't see this as
a problem. As I wrote, this is how the Rambam treats chovos halvavos in
general. Far from problematic, it fits his consistent means of avoiding
the problem. The rite of geirus is maasis, then there is a qiyum shebeleiv
that is required as well.

: But the other thing that seems to come out of your test is that there need
: be no defining moment.  The mila and the tevila can happen without this QOM
: in the heart, and then an hour, a day, a week, a month or months later maybe
: there can be this QOM...

I'm not sure the first part is true. It would appear, e.g. the Bach,
that QOM is a prerequisite. The whole chiddush of ger qatan is that al
daas BD can stand in, to be affirmed when the qatan becomes a bar
mitzvah.

POD #8:
: There are two points where you and I are reading this differently.

: a) the word choshashin.  You understand choshashin to mean that we are in
: doubt about whether there is a real, halachically valid, conversion.  I
: understand choshashin similar to the way it and chashad are used throughout
: discussions regarding a Yisrael Mumar, hilchos shechita etc....

Yes, I am saying we're chosheish whether he's Jewish, not whether he's a
mumar. As per my point in POD #5, that saying he can't marry a Yehudis
means there is more than mumarus afoot.

You also lump cheshash and cheshad as synonyms. They aren't, and that's
relevent here. Cheshad is a statement of accusation. Cheshash is
entertainment of doubt. It's relevent that this is a cheshash in
particular.

: b) You are reading the "afilu chozer" as only going on one who has
: "sheyitbaer tzidkuto" whereas I read it as going on each and every ger in
: the sentence, whether he has sheyitbaer tzidkuto or not....

I don't see this chiluq as relevent.

I'm contrasting the afilu chozer to the person who makes it clear he
never had a QOM to return from. The whole concept of "chozer" implies a
need for QOM. Otherwise, you could have a geir who is oveid AZ who never
left AZ, no chazarah involved. Nor tzidqus. And the whole discussion of
Shimshon and Shelomo's wives wouldn't work without assuming some kind of
QOM -- with or without it being a step requiring BD.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
micha at aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter