To Whom Should You Go for a Bracha

We've talked in the past about how Chazal often use the term Chacham where we expect to see the term Tzadik or Chasid.  One of the interesting examples is the Gemara in Bava Basra 116a,

דרש ר' פנחס בר חמא כל שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו ילך אצל חכם ויבקש עליו רחמים שנא' (משלי טז) חמת מלך מלאכי מות ואיש חכם יכפרנה

This is also in Yalkut Shimoni משלי רמז תתקנד

 חמת מלך מלאכי מות. דרש רבי פנחס בר חמא מי שיש לו צער או חולה בתוך ביתו ילך אצל חכם ויבקש עליו רחמים, שנאמר חמת מלך מלאכי מות ואיש חכם יכפרנה

The Rama paskens like this as well: YD 335:10, from the Nimukei Yosef there in BB.

 י"א שמי שיש לו חולה בביתו, ילך אצל חכם שבעיר שיבקש עליו רחמים 

The Nimukei Yosef inside actually seems to be a little different from the Rama.

 ומנהג זה בצרפת שכל מי שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו מבקש פני הרב התופס ישיבה שיברך אותו

and the Prashas Drachim (13) says pshat in הרב התופס ישיבה that since the Rav hatofes yeshiva is responsible for the rabbim, the zechus of the rabbim strengthens his tefilla.  So the Nimukei Yosef clearly is reading the choice of the term Chacham to be davka, meaning a Rosh Yeshiva.  But the Rama evidently does not think that matters.

So, who are Chazal sending us to?  I would have thought that the first thing would be a Tzadik, and it would be even better if the Tzadik were a Kohen as well.  But here we find we are being sent to a Chacham.

On the other hand, when the Medrash Rus 6:2 expresses this idea, it advises us to go to a Zakein or a Tzadik.  Zakein is probably synonymous with Chacham (Kiddushin 32b, אין זקן אלא מי שקנה חכמה) but Tzadik is different.

ויאמר ברוכה את לה' בתי, היטבת חסדך וגו' ר' יוחנן וריש לקיש ורבנן - רבי יוחנן אמר: לעולם אל ימנע אדם עצמו מלילך אצל זקן לברכו. בועז היה בן שמונים שנה ולא נפקד, כיון שהתפללה עליו אותה צדקת מיד נפקד. שנאמר: ותאמר נעמי ברוך הוא לה'. ריש לקיש אמר: רות בת ארבעים שנה היתה ולא נפקדה, כיון שנשאת למחלון, וכיון שהתפלל עליה אותו צדיק נפקדה. שנאמר: ויאמר ברוכה את לה' בתי. ורבנן אמרין: שניהם לא נפקדו אלא מברכותיהן של צדיקים, שנאמר: ויאמרו כל העם אשר בשער והזקנים עדים יתן ה' את האשה הבאה אל ביתך כרחל וכלאה... 

See Brachos 34b, where this was put into action by going to Reb Chanina ben Dosa for a sick child.

ת"ר מעשה שחלה בנו של ר"ג שגר שני ת"ח אצל רבי חנינא בן דוסא לבקש עליו רחמים כיון שראה אותם עלה לעלייה ובקש עליו רחמים

Following that story, the Gemara says that if you're going to ask someone to daven for you, you should look for a "Eved," not a "Sar."

מעשה ברבי חנינא בן דוסא שהלך ללמוד תורה אצל ר' יוחנן בן זכאי וחלה בנו של ריב"ז אמר לו חנינא בני בקש עליו רחמים ויחיה הניח ראשו בין ברכיו ובקש עליו רחמים וחיה אמר רבי יוחנן בן זכאי אלמלי הטיח בן זכאי את ראשו בין ברכיו כל היום כולו לא היו משגיחים עליו אמרה לו אשתו וכי חנינא גדול ממך אמר לה לאו אלא הוא דומה כעבד לפני המלך ואני דומה כשר לפני המלך

See Taanis 8a.

 ואם לחש ולא נענה מאי תקנתיה ילך אצל חסיד שבדור וירבה עליו בתפילה, שנאמר [איוב לו] ויצו עליה במפגיע, ואין פגיעה אלא תפילה שנאמר ואתה אל תתפלל בעד העם הזה ואל תשא בעדם רנה ותפילה ואל תפגע בי

 לחש ולא נענה there means that he davened and wasn't answered.  That Gemara is talking about a time of drought, which explains why it says to go to the Chasid of the generation.  This is something that endangers the entire community, not just individuals.

Eli once sent me a Medrash Seichel Tov, (authored/compiled in 1139 by R. Menahem Ben Shlomo, Italy (?),) that says:

ותלך.  לבית מדרשו של עבר: לדרוש את ה׳. לבקש רחמים על העובר, ואע׳פ שאברהם קיים, הלכה אצל זקנים ללמדך שכל המקבל  פני זקן שבדור, כאילו מקבל פני שכינה

This Medrash has two interesting ideas.  It says that there is a unique benefit from going to a Zakein, here meant literally as an elderly person.  It also indicates that the purpose of going to the Zakein is not so he should daven for you, but so that you can daven for yourself, to enhance the tefilla of the supplicant, because being in the presence of the Zakein is like being before the Shechina.

This "rationalist" approach is not unique to the Medrash Seichel Tov.  The Meiri in Bava Basra says it even more emphatically:

 ומי שיש לו צער או חולה בתוך ביתו או אחד ממיני הצרות ילך אצל חכם וילמוד הימנו דרכי התפלות ויבקש רחמים

No shortcuts, no out-sourcing!  He says that the reason you go to a Chacham is so that you can watch him and learn from him how to daven.  You can learn "Darkei HaTefillos," and then, you should apply the lessons to your own davening.  Go home and daven yourself.

 This is not like the Nimukei Yosef/Rama, who changes the girsa from ויבקש עליו רחמים, which might mean that you daven in the presence of the Chacham, consistent with the Medrash Seichel Tov that seems to be saying that Rivka was doing the davening in the presence of Shem and Eiver, to שיבקש עליו רחמים, which clearly means that the Chacham is doing the davening.

Similarly, the Ramban in Yisro on the passuk (18:15) ויאמר משה לחותנו כי יבא אלי העם לדרש אלהים says 

 השיב משה לחותנו, צריכים הם שיעמדו עלי זמן גדול מן היום כי לדברים רבים באים לפני, כי יבא אלי העם לדרוש אלהים, להתפלל על חוליהם, ולהודיעם מה שיאבד להם, כי זה יקרא דרישת אלהים.

Which is how he learns that expression by Rivka-

 דגם מה דאיתא אצל רבקה ותלך לדרוש את ה׳ היינו תפילה

So although you have a few Rishonim that learn that going to a Chacham is to enable and empower your own tefillos, most Rishonim, and the Rama in Yoreh Dei'ah, say not like that.  They learn like the Gemara kipshuto, that you go to the Chacham and ask him to daven for you or for your friend.

But that does not mean they would disregard what the Meiri says.  I think all the Rishonim would agree that there is a great benefit for a person to daven himself while in the presence of the Chacham, and to take that inspiration home and daven like that in the future as well.

As far as the variations in who one should ask for a bracha, it is possible that you go to a tzadik for a bracha (Medrash Rus) and to a chacham to be mispallel for you (Bava Basra.)  But this does not explain the Gemara in Taanis, where it says ילך אצל חסיד שבדור וירבה עליו בתפילה.  It is also possible that these Maamarei Chazal indicate that Chacham, Zakein, Chasid and Tzadik are being used synonymously.  After all, despite the unparalleled respect accorded Talmidei Chachamim, it is just hard to believe that an impious scholar has Hashem's ear.  As we mentioned above from Kiddushin 32b, the Gemara equates the terms Zakein and Chacham, reading Zaken as an acronym of Zeh Kanah Chachma, and from the passuk in Mishlei (8:22) ה' קנני ראשית דרכו, with ראשית a reference to Bereishis.  But I have to say that I've known Chachamim that were far from Tzadikim, and I've known Tzadikim that were far from Chachamim.

Reb Moshe (Igros YD 4:51) says that Chacham relates to tzidkus, and that the idea of going to a Chacham applies in our generation no less than in the time of Tannaim and Amaraim.

דלכל חכם חש השי"ת לתפילתו יותר מלסתם אינשי, וגם הוא בחזקה שיקבל השי"ת תפילתו. אך שאיכא מדרגות בין החכמים ליותר עדיפות וברירות – מצד גודל איכות חכמתו ומעשיו וכמות המעשים. וממילא פשוט וברור שהחכם שמבקש מי שהוא מישראל ממנו שיתפלל עבורו, מחוייב מכ"ש דכל אדם להתפלל עבורו, דהא יותר אפשר שיקבל השי"ת תפילתו. ופשוט שאף שר' פנחס בר חמא אמר על מי שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו, ה"ה על כל צער אחר שלא תבוא, לענין פרנסה ולזכות לבנים וכדומה, דמאי שנא, דהרי הכל תלוי בהשי"ת

.........

יש לנו לומר דגם לכל הדורות אמר זה רב פנחס בן חמא, אף שידעו חכמי הגמ׳ חכמי הדורות מתמעטין. וממילא אף שאיני מחזיק עצמי אף מחכמי הזמן, מ״מ כיון שהחולה מחזיק אותי לחכם, ובדין הוא צריד להחזיק כן, הרי הולך למקום שרב פנחס בן חמא ציוה לילך. ובזכות אמונתו בדברי חז״ל יקבל השי׳׳ת גם תפלתי וברכתי. וזהו טעם נכון ומוכרח לדינא שכל שמחזיקין אותו לחכם ובשביל זה מבקשין אותו שיתפלל ויברך, שמחוייב להתפלל עבורו ולברכו.

So the answer to the question I asked in the title of this post, who do you go to when you need a bracha, is
1. Go to a Tzadik,
2. Go to a Chacham,
3. Go to a Rosh Yeshiva,
4. Go to a Zakein,
5. Make sure they are Avadim, not Sarim.
6. Ask them to daven for you,
7. Ask them to give you a bracha.
8. While you're there, you also should daven for yourself,
9. Observe how the Chacham davens and apply those lessons to your tefillos.

Only the Ribono shel Olam knows who fills the bill, but it seems to me that if you're in Israel, you could save a lot of time and combine one through five by going to HaRav Steinman Shlitah, and if you're in the US you can go to HaRav Dovid Feinstein Shlitah.

Another lesson is that despite how proudly Misnagdim denigrate those who ask Gedolim for Brachos, the fact is that Chazal make it crystal clear that this is appropriate and helpful.  This should not become a crutch that we use to relieve ourselves of our own chiyuv of tefilla, but it is absolutely proper to go to a gadol and ask for his tefilla and bracha.

It's interesting, though, that contrary to what everyone seems to assume, Kehuna is irrelevant.  It seems that the special din and koach Kohanim to give a Bracha is exclusively in Birkas Kohanim, not a general koach of bracha.  The special din of Birkas Kohanim might apply only in very specific circumstances, and it certainly only applies to the nusach of Koh Sevarchu.  See Shaar Tziun in 128, and also see Igros Moshe OC 5:20:23 and our discussion here.  If anyone knows of a Chazal that is mashma that there is a special advantage in the bracha or tefilla of a kohen outside of Duchening, please let me know.  If you're going to see Reb Chaim Kanievsky, ask him.

Note:
I saw the following Chasam Sofer, Drashos II 356.  I find it perplexing, and I don't want to discuss it at the moment.  He's talking about Chanah going to the Mishkan to daven to have children, and he explains why she didn't ask the great Kohanim of the time to daven for her.

 ומזה הטעם בעצמו נראה מה שלא באתה חנה לפני הכהנים אשר היו בימים ההמה לבקש רחמים בעדה כראוי לכל מי שיש לו צער בתוך ביתו שילך אצל ת״ח (ב"ב קט׳׳ז.], והטעם הוא זה כי היו הכהנים החשובים סגן הכהן ומשוח מלחמה חפני ופנחס, והם לא היו כדאים להיות שלוחא דציבורא. כי די להיותם שלוחא דרחמנא ולא שלוחא דידן כידוע — וממילא יש תי׳ מספיק שלא רצתה שיתפלל עלי עליה על בנים כיון דבהאי מלתא ריע מזלא דידי׳ שבניו לא הי׳ הגונים. אין מהראוי שיתפלל הוא בעדה, ואולי עי״ז יתרע מזלה ג״כ להיות לה בן שאינו הגון ח״ו — וזה שקאמר בתחלת הפרשה ושני בני עלי חפני ופנחס כהנים לה׳ דייקא, שלא היו ראוים אלא להיות כהני ה׳ שלוחא דרחמנא לא שלוחא דידן. והיותם בני עלי ממילא מובן שגם אביהם עלי לא הי׳ ראוי לישא תפלה ורנה בעד חנה בענין זה

Additional Note:
Here is my opinion about to whom to go for a bracha.  It depends on whether you are looking for רצון יראיו יעשה,  namely, the bracha of a צדיק גוזר והקב"ה מקיים, or you are looking for ואת שועתם ישמע, namely, tefillos of a beloved servant.  If you're looking for צדיק גוזר והקב"ה מקיים, then you go to a Sar, a Rosh Yeshiva, a Talmid Chacham.  If  you're looking for תפלה לעני כי יעטוף ולפני ה' ישפוך שיחו ה' שמעה תפילתי ושוועתי אליך תבוא, if you're looking for a שם את נפשו בכפו, then you are looking for an עבד, an entirely different kind of person.

Be'haaloscha, Bamidbar 11:10, Bocheh L'Mishpechosav. Geirus

Synopsis:
The Jewish People underwent Geirus at Har Sinai.
There is a rule that גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי , conversion erases all previous familial relationships and renders relatives unrelated and able to marry each other.
It appears that this rule did not apply to the Jews at Har Sinai.
Why?
Answer: Because at Sinai, two things happened, but the Geirus only had one step.
One: the actual Geirus- we were granted a quantitative (613) and qualitative (servants of Hashem) increase of mitzvos and kedusha, and
Two: this endowment was declared to be exclusive to members of Klal Yisrael.
At every Geirus after Sinai, two things happen, but they are different, because they are both parts of the Geirus. (Neither of these two elements can exist independently, but they are conceptually and effectively distinct.)   
One: the person erases his past and joins Am Yisrael, and
Two: he accepts the kedusha of Avdus to Hashem and Taryag Mitzvos.
It is element One, the negation of his prior identity, that results in the annulment of familial relationships.
Element One was not present at Mattan Torah, nor was there any need for it, nor would it make any sense at all.
Therefore, at Sinai there was no negation of their prior relationships.

However, there is an contrary opinion that holds that the rule of K'katan did apply at Sinai.
I explain the basis of the two opinions.
I discuss problems with this minority opinion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our passuk, 11:10,  says וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה אֶת הָעָם בֹּכֶה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו אִישׁ לְפֶתַח אָהֳלוֹ.  Chazal (Shabbos 130a) explain that the people were upset about the Arayos restrictions they were taught at Mattan Torah.  As the Gemara says, כל מצוה שקבלו עליהם בקטטה כגון עריות דכתיב וישמע משה את העם בוכה למשפחותיו על עסקי משפחותיו עדיין עושין אותה בקטטה דליכא כתובה דלא רמו בה תיגרא.    Mitzvos they accepted with contentiousness, they are still fussing about.  (I don't know if this is a siman or a sibba.  Both make perfect sense.)  For example, it says they cried about marital relations, and this initial resentment still echoes among us, as we see that wedding negotiations always involve some argument. 

What so upset us that we came to tears?  Rashi there in Shabbos says שנאסר להם קרובות, that certain relatives that are allowed to a Ben Noach are prohibited to Jews, and they were crying for the loss of those relatives.  But there is an important disagreement between the Maharal and Reb Meir Simcha as to exactly what the problem was.

The Maharal (and Rabboseinu Ba'alei Hatosfos on our passuk) understands the Gemara to mean that many married couples realized that they would have to separate, because under the new rules their marriage was illegal. 

Reb Meir Simcha (Devarim 5:26) understands that the marriages of the people that received the Torah at Sinai were not affected: with the giving of the Torah, we all became Geirim (Yevamos 46a), and converts are viewed as newly born.  גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי.  (Yevamos 97b)  The familial history of all the people living then, who were all geirim, was erased.  All their relatives from their past life were no longer legally related to them.  Therefore, there could be no problem with marriages among those people, and so Hashem told them to go home, no matter to whom they were married, שׁוּבוּ לָכֶם לְאָהֳלֵיכֶם, which means to their marital relations (Moed Kattan 7b).  The reason they cried here in Be'ha'aloscha was because they were thinking about the future, when the children they would have in the future would not be allowed to marry the childrens' relatives.

The Maharal (Breishis 46:10 and in Yisro) says that the rule of גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי did not apply to that generation, because it was a forced conversion; Hashem had them over a barrel, so to speak.  They couldn't refuse the conversion.  A forced conversion does not yield the result of גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי.  So, many married couples were forced to separate.  (Side note- The Shmaitsa in the Hakdama says that it wasn't a literal case of duress.  Instead, the fact that the world could not exist without Torah was so obvious to the Jews at that point, that in a manner of speaking, they had no choice.  Similarly, the Prashas Drachim I discuss in a different post says that even then, there was a din of the Rambam's Kofin making Ratzon.)

Ironically, the Chasam Sofer in his pirush to Avodah Zara 63b says that he never could find a convincing source for Chazal's rule of Geir Shenisgayer K'Katan Shenolad Dami.  Reb Meir Simcha says that the passuk in Devarim 5 שׁוּבוּ לָכֶם לְאָהֳלֵיכֶם that allowed them to go home to their spouses is the source for the rule- that they could go back to their spouse even if the spouse was a relative, because any potential problem was solved by the chidush of גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי.   The Maharal looks at the same event and says that on the contrary, the couples that were related to each other were  prohibited to go home, and that's why they cried.  According to Reb Meir Simcha, it is the source for the rule.  According to the Maharal, it is the one and only exception to the rule.

Most Achronim assume the Maharal's pshat, that they were crying for the spouses they lost.  However, they offer several alternatives to the Maharal's explanation for this anomalous absence of the general rule that a Ger is no longer related to his erstwhile relatives.  As we said, the Maharal's explanation is that Mattan Torah was to some extent a forced conversion, and a forced conversion is not called a rebirth.  The explanations offered by other Achronim are as follows:

Many achronim (including Rav Shternbuch in his Moadim Uzmanim on Shvuos #238) say that Geir Shnisgayer is only Ke'Kattan when he is coming from a different nation.  But we already were descendants of the Avos, we already were Klal Yisrael.  For example, the Ramban at the end of Emor says that after Avraham's Bris Milah, his children acquired the yichus of "Zera Avraham," and the Brisker Rov in Parshas Bo says that the din of Kol ben neichar by Korban Pesach proves that there was already a legal distinction between Zera Avraham and a Ben Neichar in Mitzrayim.  So the Geirus at Mattan Torah was simply geirus to add kedusha.  Such a Geirus is not ke'katan she'nolad.

Reb Yosef Ber (YU) as brought by Rabbi Shurkin in his Harrerei Kedem brings the Rambam that Geirus requires three things, Milah, Tevilah, and Ritzui of the Dahm of a Korban.  From the words the Rambam uses (13 Issurei Bi'ah 1 and 3, and see similar in 1 Teshuva 2), it appears that he sees the Korban at Mattan Torah as essentially distinct from the normal korban of a geir: it was a korban tzibbur.  Therefore, he says, the geirus too was a geirus of a tzibbur.  We only say Ke'kattan when an individual becomes a geir, because he leaves behind all his relatives.  But where a group all becomes geirim together, their relationships survive the geirus.  I'm sure Reb YB said it slightly differently, because the way it's written it's very speculative.  What I think he said was that there is a difference between the geirus of a yachid and the geirus of a tzibbur.  Even if a bunch of geirim are misgayeir at once, they are still not related, because the nature of their geirus was Geirus Yachid.  But here, it wasn't geirus of a yachid.  It was Geirus of a Tzibbur.  A Geirus tzibbur brings along its members' relationships.


I am not a Googelamden, who just digs up a bunch of pshatim and adds nothing.  I don't write unless I can offer something new.


What I have to offer is this: 
When Rus insisted on becoming a Giyores, she told Na'ami  עמך עמי, ואלקיך אלקי.  Your nation is my nation, and your G-d is my G-d.  Geirus involves two elements, two dinim: joining Klal Yisrael and kabbalas Mitzvos Hashem.  What is this Ameich Ami business?  Why does the Ger need to join Klal Yisrael?  Apparently, it's only shayach to be chayav in Mitzvos when you're a member of Klal Yisrael: that special yachas to the Ribono shel Olam requires being a member of Am Yisrael.  Now, these two elements have different characteristics.  Establishing the special relationship through the mitzvos is a a matter of acquiring something totally new.  Before, you weren't chayav in mitzvos, and now you are.  Joining Klal Yisrael is more than a matter of entering, it requires leaving as well.  One can be a Amoni, or a Ashuri, or whatever, and that's fine, but in order to become a Yisrael, you have to abandon your earlier national identity.  Kedusha- a positive act, be'poeil.  Klal Yisrael- both a negative and a positive, shlilis and be'poeil. You have to erase your past in order to enter your future.  (Maybe this is a part of the Geirus, maybe it's only a machshir for kabbalas mitzvos.  That's a question for another day.)  This is the basis of Geir Shenisgayer: not the addition of kedusha, but rather the abandonment of the previous identity that was necessary in order to become a Yisrael.

So nowהסכת ושמע :

What is the source of this dual requirement, of joining Klal Yisrael plus kabalas mitzvos?  Why isn't Kabalas Mitzvos alone good enough?  Because at Mattan Torah, at the the bris of Chorev, two events occurred:

• One, that we were endowed with and we accepted the Chiyuv mitzvos, the special relationship with the Ribono shel Olam.  
• Two, that the Ribono shel Olam was meyacheid this chalos davka to Klal Yisrael.  

This was a geirus, certainly, but at that time the actual Geirus only had one element- chalos mitzvos and avdus to Hashem.  It so happens that there was also a special yichud of this chalos to members of Klal Yisrael.  Why was this higher kedusha made exclusive to Klal Yisrael?  I don't know.  Maybe because of Avraham's being the first to recognize with tifkeit what the Ribono shel Olam wants and to fulfill it, maybe because of the perfection of Yaakov, maybe because of the gevura of Yitzchak.  I don't know, and it doesn't matter to me.  The fact remains that this special yachas through an endowment of kedusha is specific and exclusive to members of Klal Yisrael, and this exclusivity was established at the time of Mattan Torah.  And while we were the kallah, we were also the Chosen.

After Mattan Torah, only after the limitation of chiyuv mitzvos to Klal Yisrael, the process of Geirus itself required two steps. The two steps now are:

• First that the Geir becomes a member of Klal Yisrael and 
• Second that he accepts the kedusha of mitzvos and avdus to Hashem.  

So the kashe of the Maharal disappears, poof.  Geirus is only ke'katan shenolad when the process involves two elements, identity change and kedusha.  This is true after the Bris with Klal Yisrael at Sinai, when the Ribono shel Olam was meyacheid His name and kedusha upon us.  But at Sinai, no identity change was necessary.

I think this pshat is gold, and makes everything else unnecessary.  True, Reb Meir Simcha holds that Geir shenisgayeir is ke'katan because of a Gzeiras Hakasuv and it applied to the Geirus of Sinai.  But for all the rishonim and achronim that say not like Reb Meir Simcha, what I'm saying could be, as my father zatza'l used to say, karov l'emes. 

I ask, too, that you realize that this goes FAR, FAR, BEYOND the teretz from the achronim that Rav Shternbuch brings.  What they say is dry as dust, with no explanation, no lomdus, a take it or leave it teretz.  What I'm saying brings a completely different perspective that breathes life into the teretz.

One more thing:
Let's talk for a moment about the basic machlokes whether Geirus Sinai had a din of K'katan she'nolad or not.  What's the yesod of the machlokes?

We already explained that the shita that Sinai did not cause כקטן שנולד holds that nolad comes from the change of identity, from Nochri to Yisrael.  What does the other shitta, Reb Meir Simcha, hold?  Reb Meir Simcha holds that כקטן שנולד comes from the Chalos din of becoming an Eved Hashem.  This applied 100% at Har Sinai, so there was a din of כקטן שנולד there too.

In fact, if  you want to say this with a little smile, you might say pshat in the machlokes about what causes the din of katan she'nolad - is it the שינוי השם  from Nochri to Yisrael or the שינוי רשות from owning himself (or, perhaps,  הפקרות,) to being a kinyan of the Ribono shel Olam, an Eved Hashem.



Please note that even if you don't accept the essential difference between Mattan Torah and later Geirus, the idea that Geirus involves two elements still is very useful, as follows:

Would this din apply where they were already members of Klal Yisrael?  Of course not.  They weren't abandoning their past. 
Would this din apply where it was the geirus of a tzibbur?  No it would not.  Since Hashem allowed the tzibur to convert as a whole, it appears that their din tzibbur was allowed to remain.  If not, then they couldn't have a GEIRUS TZIBUR.  If they remained a tzibur, then there was not din of katan shenolad.
And finally; would this din apply if the geirus was forced?  No, it would not. A chalos can be chall ba'al korcho.  But a bittul chalos cannot be chall ba'al korchos.  You can be mechayeiv someone in more mitzvos against his will, you can impose kedusha on him, but a person's identity is inherently personal- you can't make a person not be what he is.  That can only happen if the person changes himself.


UPDATE:
Tal Benschar wrote a comment noting that it is clear in Chazal that the generation of Sinai did inherit from their parents.  The Gemara in Bava Kamma 109a says that under certain circumstances, repayment of theft may be made to the heir of the victim.  That person is called the Go'eil.  The Torah says there may be a victim who has no heir.  The Gemara asks, but every Jew is related to every other Jew!  The Gemara says that the only person without an heir is a Ger who had no children after the conversion.  According to Reb Meir Simcha, the entire generation of Sinai were considered reborn without relatives, so why would every Jew be related to every other Jew?  There were 600,000 unrelated individuals created on that day.
I attempted to defend Reb Meir Simcha by saying that the din of Go'eil may survive the Geirus of Sinai, though the din of yerusha did not, just as Amoni or Mitzri does.  I supported this with the opinion of Reb Yochanan, that a convert (whose children later convert, according to the Rambam's reading of Reb Yochanan) is considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah of Piryah ve'Rivya.  I deflected the fact that rishonim seem to equate Go'eil with Yoresh by arguing that the laws of yerusha might be a siman of who is the go'eil, not the sibah, and would therefore apply even through geirus.

I later admitted that this argument was untenable, because there is not a shred of support for this concept in the Braisos or Gemaros or Rishonim.  

It was also noted that it is impossible to contend that there was no din yerusha in the midbar, because the way the Gemara in Bava Basra understands the story of the Bnos Tzlafchad assumes all the dinim of yerusha were in full force.

The only defense of Reb Meir Simcha I could think of is that although they were K'katan regarding Arayos, they were not K'katan  regarding Yerusha.  The problem with this is that Reb Meir Simcha says that the entire source for the rule of K'katan  is Sinai, and if it didn't apply to yerusha, on what basis does it apply in cases of later geirus?

One might respond that it is obvious to Chazal that if kurva regarding Arayos is annulled, then  kurva regarding yerusha must be annulled as well.  If so, one must deal with the contradiction evident between Tzlafchad and Shuvu L'ahaleichem.  One can say that the retention of yerusha was a singular exception to the rule which was necessitated by the overriding need to bequeath Israel to the descendants of Avraham, either to fulfill the vow to Avraham, or because we, as individuals, were not worthy of Eretz Yisrael.  Our only claim was through Avraham Avinu.  This is why Geirus did not annul kurva regarding Geirus Sinai.   But for all subsequent Geirus, just as kurva regarding Arayos is annulled, kurva regarding yerusha is annulled too.

In any case, I noted that with or without a defense of Reb Meir Simcha, we can assume that he had a way to resolve the questions, and so his opinion that K'Katan applied to Sinai remains on the roster of Shittos.