[Avodah] R' Angel & Geirus Redux

[chana at kolsassoon.org.uk]

RDE writes:

>To reiterate. You are claiming that the individual members of  
>Reform/Conservative have 1) the halachic status of  tinok shenishba 
and 
>that consequently they bear  no guilt at for their actions which 
violate 
>the Torah. However the correct use of the term tinok shenishba 
(Shabbos 
>68a) is concerning one who is totally ignorant of being Jewish and 
of 
>anything about Torah. Once they receive some knowledge they are 
>responsible for not finding out more. It is questionable whether  
they 
>are still tinok shenishba after this point. 

So far I have avoided getting involved in this discussion, mostly 
because I have agreed with you as compared with RMM that one cannot say 
that a tinok shenishba bears no guilt for their actions which violate 
the Torah.

However, now you have started quoting RJB, with whom I have been round 
the houses before and relying on him to my mind has made you express 
matters incorrectly vis a vis the modern responsa (ie starting with the 
Binyan Tzion).

Basically, the categorisation goes like this:

a) an ovdei avodah zara/mechallel shabbas befarhesia is somebody whose 
teshuva can never be accepted, whose korbanos are not to be accepted in 
the beis hamikdash,  who cannot  be counted in a minyan (other than 
according to Rav Moshe), who cannot be given an aliya, who cannot 
duchen if a cohen, who has no chezkas kashrus,  whose brochos are not 
brochos to which one should respond and in general and most respects is 
someone who has the din of a non Jew;

b) an ordinary aveyran is somebody who bears responsibility for what 
he does, but he is capable of repentence and his teshuva is accepted, 
and while he may not be trusted vis a vis the particular averah in 
which he is nichshol, his general chezkas kashrus is not affected.

c) an ones, who does not bear any guilt.

Now following the Binyan Tzion and on, there has been a steady stream 
of halachic literature which defines modern day irreligious (or 
traditional) Jews using the phraseology tinok shenishba and which 
concludes that such a designation takes a person who might seem to fall 
fairly and squarely within category a) due to their mechallel shabbas 
b'farhesia into category b).  Not into category c) which is why I 
believe you were originally correct, but into category b).  The usual 
context of this discussion is a) counting in a minyan (for those not 
following Rav Moshe's understanding); b) duchening (including Rav 
Moshe); c) aliyos (including Rav Moshe).  

Now Rav Moshe, as we have seen, specifically does not include within 
this group Rabbis from R/C, who remain in category a) but does seem to 
include the laity.  As can be seen from the context, however, we are 
not talking about people who are completely ignorant about Judaism - 
rather we are talking about people who know enough to show up to shul, 
and know enough to know what an aliya or duchening is - certainly not 
your classic tinok shenishba as used in Shabbas.  In fact the people 
the Binyon Tzion and later Rav Ovadiah describe not only go to shul on 
shabbas, such people then come home, make kiddush (beyond the ability 
of your average R/C that) and only then go to work/turn on the 
television/drive to the beach etc.  

And the language used in all of these teshuvos to matir 
duchening/aliyos etc of a person who would seem on the face of it to be 
a mechallel shabbas b'farhesia is tinok shenishba.

>From our perspective the issue is primarily whether we can aid them 
to do teshuva

If they are mechallel shabbas b'farhesia, and you do not adopt this 
tinok shenishba language, it is questionable on what basis you are 
permitted to do that -especially as the sources say it is impossible.

>They are not given a free pass that exempts them from mitzvos. 

On this I agree.  The language in the teshuvos talks about people's 
taivos, just like every aveyran. People have taivos to not explore the 
truth, just as they have taivos in other directions.  The proof of the 
pudding is that a Reconstructionist Sunday School class can, inter 
alia, produce an RMM.  If he can do it, why can't the rest of them?  
And if they do do teshuva, then, so long as we are talking about 
category b), their past averos are considered obliterated.

Regards

Chana



______________________________________________
Save money and enjoy your Broadband - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/services