sophistry which Kluger himself condemns in his discussion of M. Yevamot 2:8. On the level of law, even if"sincerity" is equated with the absence of a formal ulterior motive, Kluger relies upon an unnecessarily strict-constructionist definition of that term. This point is brought out by R. Meir Arik who, facing a similar case, makes a forceful critique of Kluger's reasoning.*” The meaning of "ulterior motive" ilah, in the language of the codes)*® is not exhausted by the stated examples, such as"for the sake of marriage". The category, says Arik, includes"any kind of pretext”, and in our case,"perhaps the man now wants to live with her in honor and not in a licentious manner(behefgerut)". The couple do not require a conversion in order to live together, but they do need it in order to live together legitimately within the Jewish community. That desire, while it may be laudable, does not prove that the woman wants to become a Jew for the purpose of serving God as a member of the covenant people of Israel .
Kluger, by contrast, defines"ulterior motive" more narrowly and, as the obverse side of the coin,"for the sake of Heaven" more broadly than does Arik. The issue here is not whether he, as opposed to Arik, has the better argument. As I have indicated, Kluger’s definitions of"ulterior motive" and"sincerity" do seem to run afoul of the canons of plausibility and common sense, but the lay understanding of terminology is not always decisive in the technical world of law and halakhah. It is rather that his making of that argument is an act of choice, of rabbinic discretion. Nothing in the halakhic texts forces him to define these crucial terms as he does. Were he to choose the opposite set of definitions, those favored by Arik, he would have no choice but to conclude that the conversion is forbidden by halakhah. To permit it, he would have to emulate Rambam and set aside the established law in favor of some overriding principle. His own set of definitions allows him to champion the conversion as perfectly"legal; no deviation is necessary. My point is simply that this conclusion, presented as a logical inference demanded by the words of the texts, is not that at
15