<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Zev Sero <<a href="mailto:zev@sero.name">zev@sero.name</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">Richard Wolpoe wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Came Rav Parness [not RRW!} and said if the propsetive Ger says: "I accept but K know the flesh is weak and I might or am likely to sin..." ka mashma lan it is still an OK kabbalah.<br>
</blockquote></div>
[...]<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
What this Ger is saying is he accepts Mitzvos but realizes that he is subject to human frailty and if if is for Te'avon he is OK. That is the hiddush here.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
But this is not a chiddush. </blockquote><div><br>Qeustion:<br>do ANY of your cases below address teh case of the kabbalh itself being qualified by a discleaimer of human frailty?<br><br>If yes, than ein ahchi name this is no hiddush. {it's not mine it's rav Parness's and he never siad it was a hiddsuh anyway - just peshat] <br>
<br>however, I failed to notice any mention of a qualified kabbals ol mitzvos, if that is the case it is indeed a hiddush, because devarim shebelev einan devarim<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Every ger knows that he is likely to sin,<br>
and probably has a good idea of which sins he's likely to have the most<br>
difficulty with. He's accepting the *yoke* of mitzvot, the obligation<br>
to keep them, not guaranteeing that he will actually do so, all of the<br>
time. Note the language of the lecture a ger is given: "yesterday if<br>
you broke Shabbat or ate chelev you did nothing wrong, but now if you<br>
do so you will be punished with stoning or with karet." This implies<br>
that both we and he accept that he's likely to be nichshal, and what<br>
he's accepting is that if he does so he'll be punished, just as every<br>
Jew is. Essentially he's choosing a Jew's Genenom over a goy's Gan<br>
Eden, "baasher tamuti amut vesham ekaver".<br>
<br>
There's a teshuva in IM dealing with this exact question: a woman<br>
admitted years after her conversion that *in the mikveh* when she<br>
was accepting the yoke of mitzvot she intended to do an avera, once.</blockquote><div><br>as above devarim shebelev einan devarim<br>I am adressing a declaration of weakness not a THOUGHT of weakness.
<br><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
RMF ruled that this wasn't a problem, because she knew and accepted<br>
that what she intended to do was an avera, and that she would be<br>
wrong to do it, and intended after that one occasion never to do it<br>
again.<br>
<br>
What's not acceptable is if he doesn't accept this, and thinks he<br>
continues to have the right to do these things. And one sign that<br>
this might be the case is if he appears to make no effort at all to<br>
keep them, even immediately after the conversion. If he goes straight<br>
from the BD to Red Lobster, it's pretty obvious that his promises were<br>
lies. But if he restrains himself for a while, and eventually gives<br>
in and guiltily sneaks off to indulge his taavah, that makes him no<br>
different than any Jew with a yetzer hara.<br>
<br>
(OTOH if he goes directly from Red Lobster to the BD, that's a sign<br>
that he means the promises he intends to make. I knew a ger who on his<br>
way to the mikveh stopped off somewhere for one last fling.)<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
-- <br>
Zev Sero S</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br><br>