Shiur #03: "Ma Atem Benei Berit. "                                                     

by Rav Yair Kahn                Translated by David Silverberg                              

 1.   The Exclusion of a non-Jew

     According to the conclusion of our sugya, we derive the concept   of  "shelichut"  from  two  halakhot   where   the possibility of shelichut is introduced: the slaughtering  of sacrificial animals and the conferral of gittin.  The  verse that indicates the viability of shelichut for the separation of  teruma,  the  Gemara concludes, introduces  a  different halakha relevant to the institution of shelichut, formulated by  Rabbi  Yannai: "'Gam atem' ['you, too,' which applies  a relationship  between the agent and his dispatcher,  teaches that]  just as you are benei berit, so must your  agents  be benei   berit."    This   extrapolation   establishes    the restriction of shelichut to those defined as "benei  berit," literally, "members of the covenant."  Anyone excluded  from this  group of benei berit cannot serve as a sheli'ach.   An eved   kena'ani  (gentile  servant,  who  undergoes  partial conversion  upon  his  acquisition by  his  Jewish  master), therefore,  can  serve  as  a sheli'ach  by  virtue  of  his inclusion  within the category of benei berit,  despite  the fact he is not defined as a Jew.  Conversely, a gentile, who is not considered a ben berit, cannot execute shelichut even with  respect to matters that apply to him as well as  Jews. Therefore, even though a gentile can designate produce  from his  own crop as teruma, he cannot do so on behalf of a Jew. The  Rambam, in Hilkhot Sheluchin ve-Shutafin (2:1-2),  adds that  those outside the category of benei berit are excluded entirely from the institution of shelichut.  Thus,  just  as they  cannot serve as agents, they can likewise not  appoint another to serve as their sheli'ach:

     "A  gentile  cannot become a sheli'ach for any  matter,      and  neither  can he appoint another to be a  sheli'ach      for  him,  as  it says, 'So shall you, too,  set  aside      [teruma]'  - just as you are benei berit, so must  your      agents  be benei berit.  This applies to [all  halakhot      in] the entire Torah.  And just as your dispatchers are      benei  berit, so, regarding [all the halakhot  in]  the      entire Torah, must the dispatcher be a ben berit.  Even      a  servant or maidservant can become agents, since they      have intelligence and are included in some mitzvot."

2.   Shelichut of a Mumar

      There  is room to inquire as to the status of a  mumar (apostate)   in  this  regard.   With  respect  to   several halakhot,  a mumar shares the same status as a gentile  (see Rambam, Hilkhot Shechita 4:14).  On the other hand, a  basic principle  establishes that "a Jew is a Jew even if  he  has sinned"  (see  Sanhedrin 44a).  Regarding "ishut"  (marriage law)  a  mumar  is clearly considered a Jew, as  the  Rambam codifies  (Hilkhot Ishut 4:15): "If one betroths  a  gentile woman  or maidservant - there is no betrothal.  Rather,  she is  the  same  after the [attempted] betrothal  as  she  was before  the  betrothal.  Similarly, if a gentile or  servant betrothed  a Jewish girl, their betrothal is not  a  [valid] betrothal.   If a Jewish apostate betrothed  -  even  if  he willingly  worships idols, the betrothal is perfectly  valid and  she  requires  a get from him [to be allowed  to  marry another  man]."   Our question yields an important  halakhic ramification.  If a mumar is not considered a ben berit, and he  is thus excluded from the institution of shelichut, then he cannot appoint a shaliach.  Thus, if a husband becomes an apostate, Heaven forbid, and he refuses to take the  trouble to give his wife a get, she or her shaliach must receive the get from him personally, not from his agent.

      The  Shiltei ha-Gibborim (Masekhet Gittin 12a  in  the Rif's  glosses,  1)  cites the following  comment  from  the Ri'az:  "The Rambam wrote that a Jew who became an  idolater or  publicly desecrates Shabbat is considered a gentile with respect  to  all matters.  But we have already explained  in 'Kuntras  ha-Re'ayot' that his betrothal  and  divorces  are valid  like  [those  of] a full-fledged  Jew.   Just  as  he releases  his  wife with a get, even though he  married  her when  he was a proper Jew, so may he execute shelichut  with regard  to  a get for the wife of a proper Jew."  Thus,  the law  concerning  a  mumar's inclusion  within  shelichut  is subject  to  a  dispute  among  the  Rishonim.   The   Ri'az maintains  that  halakha  does  not  exclude  a  mumar  from shelichut, but he understood the Rambam as drawing  a  total equation between a mumar and a gentile, and thus the former, too, cannot serve as a shaliach.

     However, a closer look at the Rambam's comments reveals that in truth, they bear no relevance to our discussion.  He writes  (Hilkhot Geirushin 3:15): "Everyone is qualified  to write a get except for five [groups of people]: a gentile, a servant, the deaf, the mentally disabled, and a minor. A Jew who  turned  to  the apostasy of idolatry  or  who  publicly desecrates Shabbat is like a gentile for all matters."   The Rambam  here discusses the writing of a get, not bringing  a get to a woman.  With regard to the writing of the get, most Rishonim  agree  that  this responsibility  is  not  charged specifically on the husband, and we therefore do not need to employ the institution of shelichut to allow others to write a  get  (see Tosefot, Gittin 22b s.v. "ve-ha").  The  Rambam there explains that a gentile is disqualified for this  task because  he  does  not write "li-shma"  (with  the  required intention): "Why may these five not write [a get]?   Because the  writer  must  have in mind as he  writes  the  man  who divorces  and  the woman who is divorced,  and  the  gentile writes  with  his  own  intentions"  (ibid.,  halakha   16). Presumably,  then, a mumar, too, would be disqualified  from writing  a  get because he is similar to a gentile  in  this regard.   This  is the understanding of Rav Chayim  (Hilkhot Tefillin 1:15).

      In  light  of this, the Rambam's comments  provide  no proof  regarding our issue.  It would seem,  then,  that  we have  only  the  Ri'az's view, that a  mumar  is,  in  fact, included  in shelichot.  In actuality, however, the  Ri'az's comments  themselves do not justify such a  ruling.   If  we review  the aforementioned passage carefully, we will notice that  he  proved (in his "Kuntras ha'Re'ayot") only  that  a mumar  can  effect kiddushin and geirushin - he can  betroth and  administer  a divorce.  From here he concludes  that  a mumar may therefore serve as a shaliach for the transmission of  a  get.   But  if we do not consider a mumar  under  the category  of benei berit, then we must exclude him  entirely from  the  realm of shelichut, even with regard to  halakhot that  apply  to him - such as gittin!  Indeed, as mentioned, our  sugya explicitly excludes gentiles from the institution of shelichut even with respect to teruma.

      In Sanhedrin 72b, the Gemara formulates the warning to be  issued  to someone pursuing another with the  intent  of killing  him: "See that he is a Jew and he is a  ben  berit, and  the  Torah stated, 'Whoever sheds the blood of man,  by man  shall  his blood be shed'."  Tosefot there address  the seeming redundancy latent in the clause, "He is a Jew and he is a ben berit": "He is a Jew and not a gentile; he is a ben berit  and not a mumar who accepted idolatry."  As the Magen Avraham (O.C. 189) notes, these comments strongly imply that a  mumar  is not classified as a ben berit.  On this  basis, the  Magen  Avraham  concluded  that  a  mumar  is  excluded entirely  from  the  institution  of  shelichut.   He   then proceeds  to call into question a comment of the Rema  (E.H. 141:33)   equating  a  mumar  with  those  whom  the   Torah disqualifies  from serving as witnesses due to their  having violated certain transgressions.  This equation implies that a  mumar  can serve as a shaliach.  How can he  serve  as  a shaliach  if,  as Tosefot imply, he is not classified  under the  category of ben berit?  The Magen Avraham answers  that the  Rema spoke there only of a "mumar le-tei'avon," one who violates  the Torah out of lack of self-control, as  opposed to  a  "mumar le-hakh'is" - one who acts with the deliberate intention to rebel.  The former retains his status as a  ben berit  and  hence is included within the realm of shelichut, while  the  lattcannot serve as a shaliach, as he cannot  be considered a ben berit.

      The Even ha-Ozer argues and includes even a rebellious mumar within the institution of shelichut.  He explains  the verbosity   of  the  aforementioned  passage   in   Masekhet Sanhedrin  differently than did Tosefot:  "If  not  for  the comments  of  Tosefot  in Masekhet Sanhedrin  I  would  have said...  that  they  said 'he is a ben berit'  in  order  to include  an  eved  kena'ani... Now  that  we  have  resolved Tosefot's  difficulty, it stands to reason that a  mumar  is considered a ben berit."  He then adds that even  should  we accept Tosefot's claim that a mumar is not classified  as  a ben  berit,  we  should nevertheless not  exclude  him  from shelichut.   He  provides the following  explanation:  "That which  they said, 'Just as you are benei berit... a  servant is  also  a  ben  berit.... '  At first  glance  it  appears difficult   to  understand:  why  should  one  include   [in shelichut]  a servant, since he is considered a  ben  berit, and exclude a mumar?  Perhaps we should do just the opposite -  include a mumar, who is a Yisrael, and exclude a servant, who  is  not  a  Yisrael!  Additionally, perhaps  we  should require  both - that one be both a Yisrael and a ben  berit. Clearly,  then... we include a servant who  is  equal  to  a Yisrael insofar as he is a ben berit, and we also include  a mumar, who is a Yisrael.  We exclude only a gentile, who  is neither  a  ben berit nor a Yisrael."  Thus, the authorities debate  the issue of whether or not a mumar can serve  as  a shaliach.

3.   The Dual Nature of Conversion

      In order to explain the position of the Magen Avraham, that a mumar does not qualify as a ben berit and thus cannot serve  as  a  shaliach,  let us first examine  the  Rambam's comments  in  Hilkhot  Issurei Bi'a (12:11):  "Servants  who immersed for the purpose of becoming servants [of a Jew] and accepted  upon themselves the mitzvot in which servants  are obligated are divested of the status of gentiles,  but  have yet to take on the status of Jews.  Therefore, a maidservant is   forbidden   to  a  free  man."   This   requires   some explanation.  How should we understand the fact  that  these servants  "are divested of the status of gentiles, but  have yet to take on the status of Jews"?  What is the meaning  of this partial conversion of the servant?

      The Rambam writes the following in the next chapter in Hilkhot   Issurei  Bi'a  (13:14-15):  "Do  not  think   that Shimshon,  the  savior of Israel, or Shelomo,  the  king  of Israel,  who  was  called  'the  beloved  of  God,'  married foreign, gentile women.  Rather, the truth of the matter  is as  follows:  The proper procedure is that when  a  male  or female  convert comes to convert, we check  him  to  see  if perhaps  he has come to join the religion because  of  money that  he will receive or for a certain position that he will attain, or because of fear.  If he is a man, we check him to see  if he desired a certain Jewish woman, and if she  is  a woman,  we  check to see if perhaps she desired a man  among Jewish men.  If no ulterior motive is found, we inform  them of  the  weight of the yoke of Torah and the burden involved in its performance among the masses, in order that they will renege.   If they accepted and did not retreat, and  we  saw them return [from idolatry] with love, we accept them, as it says,  'She saw how determined she was to go with  her,  and she ceased to argue with her.'  Therefore, the court did not accept  converts throughout the period of David and Shelomo: during  the time of David - lest they returned out of  fear; during  the time of Shelomo - lest they returned because  of the  kingship  and  the  goodness and greatness  with  which Israel  lived, for whoever returns from idolatry for any  of the  vanities  of  the  world is  not  among  the  righteous converts.   Nevertheless,  there  were  many  converts   who converted  during  the period of David  and  Shelomo  before untrained [courts].  The High Court was suspicious of  them: they  did  not reject them, as they had, after all, immersed [for purposes of conversion], nor did they embrace them [and consider  them  Jews]  until  they  would  see  what   would eventually happen."  The Rambam here implies that should  it turn  out  that  a  certain convert converted  for  ulterior motives,  his  conversion  is  void.   The  High  Court  was therefore  suspicious of all those who converted during  the times  of David and Shelomo until they ascertained how  they ultimately  turned  out  as a way of verifying  the  initial motivation.

      However, from the continuation of his comments (16-17) it  becomes clear that this is not what the Rambam intended: "Since  Shelomo  converted  women  and  married  them,   and Shimshon, too, converted [women] and married [them], and  it was  known that these [women] returned [from idolatry]  only for  a  specific motive, and they were not converted by  the authorization  of the court, the Scripture  considered  them gentiles who remained forbidden [for a Jew to marry].   What more,  the way they turned out proved their initial motives, for  they  worshipped  their gods and built  for  themselves private  altars, and the Scripture considered him  [Shelomo] as  having himself built them, as it says, 'Then did Shelomo construct an altar.'  A convert who was not checked  or  was not  informed of the commandments and their punishment,  and was  circumcised  and  immersed in  the  presence  of  three standard judges is a convert, even if it becomes known  that he  converted  for  some  ulterior  motive.   Since  he  was circumcised  and immersed, he is divested of the  status  of gentiles,   and   we  are  suspicious  of  him   until   his righteousness is affirmed.  Even if he again worships idols, he  is like a Jewish apostate whose betrothals are valid and whose  lost  items  there is a mitzva to return.   Since  he immersed,  he  becomes  the same as  a  Jew.   Shimshon  and Shelomo  therefore kept their wives even though  their  true nature  was  revealed."   The Rambam thus  establishes  that Shimshon's  and  Shelomo's  wives  converted  for   ulterior motives,   as   evidenced  by  the  way  they  turned   out. Nevertheless, by virtue of their having been circumcised and immersed,  the  wives  were no longer  considered  gentiles. Although   they  ultimately  worshipped  idols,  they   were considered like a Jewish mumar, and their marriages to  Jews were valid.

      It would thus appear that geirut (conversion) consists of  two  halakhot.  On the one hand, a convert accepts  upon himself the yoke of mitzvot, and he thereby joins the nation chosen  through  the covenant of the Torah.   Even  an  eved kena'ani who immerses for purposes of servitude to a  Jewish master  and  thus assumes the mitzvot obligated upon  Jewish women, divests himself of his gentile status by joining this covenant.  On the other hand, a convert also becomes part of Am  Yisrael.  It is not enough for him to declare, "Your God is  my  God";  he  must also proclaim, "Your  nation  is  my nation."

      Complete  conversion entails both  the  acceptance  of religious  responsibilities as well as joining  the  nation. In  some  situations,  however, the conversion  cannot  take effect  completely.  For example, an eved kena'ani does  not join  Kenesset  Yisrael  on  the  social  plane.   He  does, however, lose his gentile status by taking upon himself  the yoke  of  mitzvot and joining the covenant.  He nevertheless does  not  join  Kelal Yisrael in the national  sense.   The converse  situation  arises in  the  case  of  the  one  who converts  for  ulterior  motives.   Though  the  prospective convert wishes to join Am Yisrael for various reasons,  this wish  involves no religious intent.  Such a conversion  thus does not bind the convert to the covenant.

      In  light  of  this,  we can understand  the  Rambam's assessment  of  the  eved kena'ani, that  by  immersing  for purposes  of servitude and accepting those mitzvot incumbent upon  servants,  he is no longer classified  as  a  gentile. Nevertheless, he has yet to be included within Kelal Yisrael and may not marry a Jewish woman.  Meaning, the institutions of  marriage and divorce, and the permission to marry a free Jewish  woman, depend on his joining Am Yisrael.  The Rambam therefore  vindicated  Shimshon and  Shelomo  despite  their wives'  having  converted  with  ulterior  motives,  without having  accepted  the  yoke of mitzvot.   According  to  our approach, their desire to join tcovenant of fate that  joins together  Am  Yisrael resulted in their partial  conversion. As  such, the laws of marriage and divorce applied to  them. Nevertheless, the verses considered them pagans due to their failure  to  join  the covenant of destiny  based  upon  the acceptance  of the yoke of divine kingship.  As  the  Rambam writes,  "Even  if he again worships idols,  he  is  like  a Jewish  apostate whose betrothals are valid."  Clearly,  the Rambam  speaks here not of a full-fledged convert who  later becomes  an apostate, but rather of partial conversion  that lends a status similar to that of a mumar.

4.   The Status of a Mumar

      Thus, when we come to assess the status of a mumar, we must  take  into  account these comments of the  Rambam,  by which  it  appears that a mumar has the status of a  gentile only  on  the  religious plane.  At the  same  time,  a  Jew belongs  to  Kenesset Yisrael even if  he  sinned,  and  his betrothals and divorces are thus halakhically binding.

      With regard to shelichut, the sugya in Masekhet Gittin (23b) raises the possibility that a shaliach must belong  to Am  Yisrael: "What is the reason?  Is it not because  it  is written,  'you, too' - just as you are Jewish, so must  your agents be Jewish?"  According to this theory, an eved  would not  be  included  in shelichut, as he  has  not  joined  Am Yisrael  at  the national level.  But the Gemara  concludes, "No;  just  as you are benei berit, so must your  agents  be benei  berit."  In other words, the possibility of shelichut depends  specifically on the "berit," the covenant,  or  the religious  plane.   Therefore, an eved  is  indeed  included within the realm of shelichut.

      Accordingly, it stands to reason that,  as  the  Magen Avraham claims, a mumar is excluded from shelichut.   As  we have seen, a mumar is considered Jewish only in the national sense;  from a religious perspective, he has removed himself from the nation.  Thus, despite his classification as a Jew, he  is  not considered a ben berit.  Nevertheless, there  is room for the contention of the Even ha-Ozer, that, according to  the Gemara's conclusion, shelichut takes effect so  long as  some  connection  exists between the  shaliach  and  his dispatcher.   Therefore, the connection established  by  the ben  berit  status  of an eved, who has yet  to  attain  the status  of  a  full-fledged Jew, suffices.   Similarly,  the connection  established by the national affiliation  of  the mumar  is sufficient, despite his exclusion from the  status of  ben  berit.   So long as we can apply the  principle  of "you,   too,"   as  some  connection  exists   between   the meshalei'ach  and  shaliach,  shelichut  can  take   effect. Therefore,  only  gentiles, who  are  neither  Jews  in  the national  sense nor benei berit, are entirely excluded  from the halakha of shelichut.

 Sources and questions for next week's shiur #4:

 1.   Kiddushin 42a "v-ela ha d-amar ... tikachu."      B.M. 71b "Ikah d-amri ... l-chlal shlichut." 2.    Tosafot Ketubot 11a s.v. matbilin, Ran Kiddushin  [16b in pages of the Rif] s.v. Garsi] 3.    Ktzot 105/1 "omnam hatosafot l-shitatam ... v'kvar he- erachnu." 4.   Gittin 52a '"yitomin ... l-haniach"      Tosafot 40b s.v. ve-katav, Rashba 52a s.v. 'matni.'

Questions:

1.    The  gemara  offers three suggestions  regarding  what halakha   is  derived  from  "nasi  echad."   Is   there   a relationship between them? 2.    What  halakhic  mechanism allows  someone  who  wasn't appointed as a shaliach to acquire on behalf of another? 3.    According to Torah law can one acquire on behalf of  a minor, if it is clearly to his benefit? 4.   How can an apotropis separate teruma even though he was not appointed as a shaliach?