<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Me<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The problem with your pshat is the end of the rambam - and the problem</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">: he is dealing with:</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">: he concludes that at the end; it was clear to everyone that the</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">: conversions of neshe shlomo and shimshon were insincere -they were</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">: only megayer to get married and they never had any intention of</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">: keeping the mitzvot, and they<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>didn't keep the mitzvot<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>as he says, -</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">: af al pi shenigla sodan.</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br></p></blockquote><div><br></div>RMB<br><blockquote type="cite"> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">I find the Rambam quite clear the reverse, that we conclude "ube'isuran</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">omedin" (IB 13:16, a/k/a 13). Rather, Shimshon and Shelomo erred thinking</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">that they were geirim kesheirim who later returned to their previous AZ</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">(halakhah 17/14). The only way I see avoiding a setirah in the Rambam is</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">if you take the first halakhah as describing the status of the women, and</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">the second as describing why the husbands did what they did -- in error</font></p></blockquote>me<br><blockquote type="cite"> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">: Why could they keep them? because once converted, even though</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">: dishonestly (nigla sodan), - meachar shetaval hare ze yisrael...</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br></p></blockquote>RMB<br><blockquote type="cite"> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">But 17 (or 14) is about a geir shechazar. One we believe never left is 16</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">(13). How we know when to invoke 16's "shehokhiach sofan al techilasan"</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">and when we invoke 17's "afilu chazar ve'oveid AZ" is a difficult metzi'us</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">all. So difficult, even Shelomo's chokhmah erred in it.</font></p> </blockquote></div><br><div>I think we all come with our preconceptions. I think that RMB comes with preconceptions that kabbalat ol mitzvot must be in the rambam - and I am sure that I have my own preconceptions. However, on a simple pshat level, I think that his reading is untenable - because it ignores the basic problem of the rambam - which isn't solved by his solution. One more iteration.</div><div>References are to the mechon mamre edition - everything in issure biah ch 13.</div><div><br></div><div>The problem that the rambam starts this section with is (hal 10) - that it is impossible that shlomo and shimshon marry goyot - which is an avera. Therefore, the read of the rambam must end up that those women were not goyot - and any pshat that concludes otherwise contradicts this explicit statement in the rambam - which is the motivational thread for this entire set of halachot.</div><div><br></div><div>One could have solved this problem by arguing the metziut - which to some extent is what RMB and RTK do - that the women were actually (or seemed to be) shomre mitzvot, at least initially, and therefore had the status of ger shechazar. One could try to reconcile tanach with this - eg, a la RTK, that even though tanach does not mention it - the women were initially shomre mitzvot</div><div><br></div><div>The rambam (by my read) deliberately and specifically rejects this option - (hal 13) - vehadavar yadua she chazru ela bishvil davar (not, as RTK . Furthermore, (still hal 13) veod hochiach sofan al techilatan - any doubt we might have had is erased by their later acts - that they seemed sincere. </div><div><br></div><div> - and this is also clear at the end of 14 - ve'af al pi pi shenigla sodan - the sod revealed can't be that they worshipped avoda zara later in life - because that wasn't secret - but instead reflects that we now can be sure about their reasons for conversion and lack of sincerity.</div><div><br></div><div>(BTW, as RMB notices, hochiach sofan et techilatan - if it means that by knowing later improper actions tells us about earlier actions - and that therefore the gerut is invalid - is directly contradicted by the notion of (hal 14) that chazar ve'avad avoda zara hare hu keyisrael meshumad - but there is no contradiction if hochiach sofan allows us to evaluate the individual - but it does not invalidate the gerut (as in my pshat))</div><div><br></div><div>The rambam, therefore, tries to be crystal clear to make sure that we understand that the issue is not that they might have been sincere. He goes even further, and here is where I think RMB misunderstands the purpose and thrust of the statement. This is in hal 13</div><div>hishvan hacatuv keilu hen goyot uveisuran omdot</div><div>RMB reads this to mean that the rambam states that they were goyot, uveisuran omdot. This reading, if correct, would mean that the rambam is saying that the women were assur - and this would directly contradict hal 10 - that they were not assur. This by itself suggests that this pshat is problematic and probably wrong.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>However, the rambam doesn't say that they were goyot uveisuran omdot- this phrase is part of subordinate clause - hishvan hacatuv keilu hen goyot uveisuran omdot -</div><div>tanach treats them as if they were goyot uveisuran omdot = but he does not say hishvan hacatuv shehen goyot - tanach treats them as goyot - a a crucial distinction. The rambam is again emphasizing the opposite of what RMB thinks - - that by reading simple pshat in tanach one has no sense at all that these women had any portion in yahadut - they seem goyot who remain goyot, and the actions of shlomo and shimshon become problematic - but the conclusion at the end is, in spite of the fact that we know (as above) that their conversion is insincere - they were not goyot, and they were not assur - and therefore shlomo and shimshon could keep their wives - even when it was crystal clear that their conversion was insincere.</div><div><br></div><div>Lastly, again, simple pshat of hal 14 is as follows:</div><div>1) ger shelo badku acharav o shelo hodiu - first cases of inadequate examination before conversion - hare ze ger.</div><div><br></div><div>2) vefafilu noda shebishvil davar - the afilu tells us that this is a worse case - not merely inadequate examination, but the examination reveals improper motivation - ho'il umal vetaval yatza miklal hagoyim - but then hoshehsim lo ad sheyitbaer zidkuto.</div><div><br></div><div>The question is what it means hosheshim lo ad sheyitbaer zidkuto - whether this reflects our relationship to him (eg, lack of hezkat kashrut) or whether it means that if we find a problem, and we know that he is not a tzadik, the conversion is invalid - and the rambam answers that by</div><div><br></div><div>3) afilu chazar ve'avad avoda zara - hare hu keyisrael meshumad - shekidushav kidushin. Even if he not even not a tzadik, but a complete rasha who goes from the converion and goes back to avoda zara - he remains a ger - and his kiddushin remain kiddushin. The hashash does not translate into invalidating the gerut. There is also a reason why, of all the issues defining what a jew is and remains, he specifically mentions kiddushin, and that is</div><div><br></div><div>4) ulefichac kiyam shimshon ushelomo neshotehen - therefore - and this seems to go back specifically to afilu chazar ve'avad -</div><div> as with even an insincere conversion, where the convert shows he never meant it and goes back to worshipping idols, they remain jews and able to marry - shlomo and shimson could keep</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>RMB suggests that statement 3 does not apply to gerim of statements 1 and 2 - but apply to a regular ger, who was fully examined, sincere, and then backslid. I don't think that there is any reason to separate this halacha. Textually, it would be out of order - The only textual issue is the use of the term chazar - but it is clear that in general the ger isnt continuously doing avoda zara throughout the gerut process - regardless of his true intentions - and therefore the right term is chazar. 14 explains why, in spite of the fact that, as hal 13 deliberately states, the wives of shlomo and shimshon were clearly insincere converts who were never sincere and went back to worshipping idols, and are described by tanach as if they were goyot, they remain Jews - and therefore marriageable.</div><div><br></div><div>Meir Shinnar</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>