Geirut: The Jewish Conversion Process

Part II

In the previous issue, we began our discussion of the Jewish conversion process known as geirut.  We discussed the role of circumcision and immersion in the process and the relationship between the two.  In this issue, we will discuss the role of acceptance of mitzvot (kabalat mitzvot). 

Three Approaches to Understanding the Role of Acceptance of Mitzvot

The Gemara, Bechorot 30b, cites a Beraita that one cannot allow the conversion of a non-Jew who rejects a single law, whether biblical or rabbinic.  R. Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986), Dibrot Moshe, Yevamot no. 35, explains that in the area of transactions, there are three possible outcomes when one places conditions on a transaction.  In certain situations, the conditions are valid and the transaction is defined by those conditions.  This is not a possible outcome of geirut because conversion requires one to attain the status of a Jew and that cannot happen without being obligated to perform the entire Torah.  In certain situations, the transaction is valid but the conditions are considered illegal and are therefore ignored.  In other situations, the illegal conditions render the transaction invalid.  R. Feinstein notes that the Beraita is teaching that when one rejects a portion of the Torah, the geirut is invalid.  We don't accept the geirut and ignore the conditions set by the prospective convert.

It is clear from this Beraita that geirut is not simply a process where one performs certain actions and accepts the basic tenets of Judaism.  One must accept Judaism as a whole in order to convert.  Yet, there are different opinions as to the role of acceptance of mitzvot in the conversion process.  Is the acceptance of mitzvot a prerequisite to conversion or is it an actual part of the conversion process?

Tosafot, Sanhedrin 68b, s.v. Katan, question the ruling of the Gemara, Ketuvot 11a, that a minor can be converted.  Tosafot wonder how this can be accomplished without the minor's acceptance of mitzvot.  Tosafot answer that when the child becomes an adult, his lack of rejection of the mitzvot is an implied acceptance of mitzvot.  R. Baruch B. Leibowitz (1864-1939), Birkat Shmuel, Kiddushin no. 15, explains that Tosafot are of the opinion that acceptance of mitzvot is a prerequisite to the completion of geirut.  When the convert accepts mitzvot as an adult, he becomes Jewish retroactively from the time of his circumcision and immersion as a minor.  [See also Tosafot, Ketuvot 11a, s.v. Matbilin, for a different approach regarding conversion of a minor.]

In the previous issue, we briefly discussed the requirement to perform the conversion in the presence of a beit din.  R. Menachem Meiri (1249-1306), Beit HaBechirah, Yevamot 45b, quotes opinions that the beit din must be present for the circumcision, immersion and the acceptance of mitzvot.  These opinions seem to view acceptance of mitzvot as another part of the conversion process.  Since circumcision and immersion require the presence of a beit din, acceptance of mitzvot also requires the presence of a beit din. 

Rambam (1138-1204), Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 13:17, writes that if a non-Jew was circumcised and immersed in front of three people without being informed of the mitzvot, his conversion may be valid.  R. Yoel Sirkes (1561-1640), Bach, Yoreh De'ah no. 168, infers from Rambam's opinion that acceptance of mitzvot is not mandatory and therefore rejects Rambam's opinion based on the many Rishonim who disagree.  R. Shlomo Z. Lipschitz (1765-1839), Chemdat Shlomo, Yoreh De'ah no. 29, contends that Rambam also requires acceptance of mitzvot.  However, there are two different components of geirut that relate to the convert's perspective on mitzvot.  One component is acceptance of mitzvot.  Rambam, op. cit., 13:4, states that when a non-Jew wants to enter the Jewish covenant and accept mitzvot, he must do so through circumcision and immersion.    Rambam, op. cit., 14:2, also states that before the conversion, the potential convert is informed of some of the major mitzvot and some of the minor mitzvot as well as their reward and punishment.  R. Lipschitz contends that Rambam's ruling that a conversion is valid if the convert was not informed of the mitzvot is limited to the requirement to inform the potential convert about some of the major and minor mitzvot.  Acceptance of all mitzvot, whether he is currently aware of them or not, is absolutely critical to the geirut.  R. Lipschitz explains that acceptance of mitzvot is not a prerequisite to the conversion nor is it a part of the process.  It is the actual conversion.  Conversion is the means by which one can accept mitzvot and the process to accomplish that involves circumcision and immersion. 

The Relationship between Acceptance of Mitzvot and Other Components of Geirut

Tosafot, Yevamot 45b, s.v. Mi Lo, rule that the requirement to have a beit din present only applies to the acceptance of mitzvot.  The circumcision and immersion may be performed without a beit din.  R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575), Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 268:3, rules that ideally, circumcision, immersion and acceptance of mitzvot should be performed in the presence of a beit din.  However, if circumcision or immersion were performed without the presence of a beit din, the conversion is nevertheless valid.

The opinion of Tosafot can be explained according to all three approaches to the role of acceptance of mitzvot.  R. Feinstein, op. cit., suggests that Tosafot are of the opinion that the role of beit din is to approve the candidate's validity for conversion.  Therefore, the beit din is only required to verify that the candidate has accepted the mitzvot.  Once the candidate is approved, the circumcision and immersion may be performed privately.  R. Feinstein seems to view the acceptance of mitzvot as a prerequisite to the conversion.

Rabbeinu Asher (c. 1250-1327), Yevamot 4:31, follows the opinion of Tosafot that a beit din is only required the acceptance of mitzvot.  Rabbeinu Asher implies (see Shach, Yoreh De'ah 268:8) that one reason why a beit din is not required for circumcision and immersion is that the beit din is only required for the beginning of the process.  Rabbeinu Asher's comments seem to indicate that there are three components of the conversion process: circumcision, immersion and acceptance of mitzvot.  Tosafot and Rabbeinu Asher agree with the approach quoted by Meiri.  It is only for technical reasons that a beit din is not required for circumcision and immersion.

R. Lipschitz provides a third explanation for the opinion of Tosafot.  The acceptance of mitzvot is the actual conversion.  For this reason, the presence of beit din is critical for the acceptance of mitzvot.  The presence of beit din is not required for the actions necessary to accomplish the conversion.

Ramban (1194-1270), Yevamot 45b, proves that one must accept mitzvot at the time of the immersion from the fact that a beit din is required (at least ideally) at the time of the immersion.  Ramban's comments indicate that the only purpose for the beit din is acceptance of mitzvot.  Ramban also states that acceptance of mitzvot is required at the time of the immersion even if it was already performed at the time of circumcision.  One can explain that Ramban is of the opinion that the acceptance of mitzvot is the actual conversion.  The circumcision and immersion serve to allow the conversion to come to fruition.  Ideally, the acceptance of mitzvot should occur at the time of the circumcision and immersion so that the actual conversion and the process by which the conversion comes to fruition occur simultaneously.  Nevertheless, Ramban is of the opinion that if the acceptance of mitzvot did not occur in conjunction with the immersion, the conversion is partially valid.  [In that situation, Ramban considers the conversion to be valid, but requires an additional immersion in the presence of beit din in order for the convert to marry another Jew.]