[Avodah] R' Angel & Geirus Redux

[Michael Makovi]

>  It would be helpful if you gave "specific citations" instead of vague
>  recollections.

>  1) Could you please give a citation that a tinok shenishba "bears no
>  guilt". You might want to see a teshuva written by Rav Henkin on the subject
>
>  The following is an excerpt written by R'  Gil Student.
> http://www.yasharbooks.com/2004/11/tinok-she-nishbah.html
>
>  "In the forthcoming volume 4 of /Bnei Banim/
>  <http://www.yasharbooks.com/2004/11/Bnei%20Banim.html>, R. Yehuda Henkin
>  adds his voice to this discussion with an essay on this subject (essay
>  no. 7 in PDF format
>  <http://www.yasharbooks.com/2004/11/bnei%20banim%20excerpt2.pdf>).
> R' Daniel Eidensohn

Thank you for that teshuva.

I had already brought Einaim Lirot (EL) which brings many sources.
Looking at what Rabbi Henkin writes, EL is apparently following davka
the Rambam/Shulchan Aruch shita - I recall EL citing the Shulchan
Aruch that an eruv made with a Karaite is a kosher eruv, whereas an
eruv made with an apostate "Orthodox" Jew is pasul, so this
presumption of mine (that EL = Rambam/SA) seems sound.

I also brought Rav Kook and Rav Hirsch, who seem to follow this shita too.

The Chafetz Chaim and Hazon Ish also rule like this, and Rabbi Henkin
says "most mainstream halakhists tend to follow the view of the Hazon
Ish" even if "the final halakhah is still a matter of controversy".

So with all due respect to Radbaz, Minhas Elazar, Shevet ha-Levi, and
Reb Moshe, I feel more comfortable siding with "most mainstream
halakhists", especially Ravs Kook and Hirsch, to whom I am much closer
than I am to Reb Moshe.

I cannot remember where else I have read on this issue, but it
shouldn't be surprising that they all have followed the nonobservant =
tinok she'nishba shita, given its apparently popularity (according to
Rabbi Henkin).

Now, I will admit that it is indeed a good question, what
distinguishes and Essene from a Karaite from an R/C-Jew. Why is the
former supposed to be b'meizid and the latter two b'shogeg - I'm not
completely sure, and I will say, "tzarich iyun". But I have not a
doubtful bone in the my body that whatever the first two are, there is
no way on earth that I can possibly be convinced that the last of the
tree is anything but shogeg ha-shogegim. Having myself gone through a
Reconstructionist Sunday school program, I can testify to anyone who
requests, exactly what these children think, and exactly what they are
taught.

One anecdote will suffice for now: a student had asked about Kabbalah,
and the next week, the teacher brought a printout from
http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm. At the line, "Kabbalah and Jewish
mysticism, were traditionally not even taught to people until the age
of 40, when they had completed their education in Torah and Talmud,"
one student burst out, "Well, we've finished our Jewish education [we
were all 16-18 years old, i.e. several years post bnei-mitzvah], so
that means we can learn Kabbalah!" I personally was flabbergasted, and
gave an impromptu remark to everyone regarding the vastness of Jewish
literature, from Chumash to Tanach to Mishna to Gemara, and the
students all looked at me, *completely* uncomprehendingly, and when I
had finished, they resumed right from where they had left off prior to
my interruption. They had ABSOLUTELY no notion of the tiniest inkling
of what "Jewish civilization" really is. I doubt any of them had even
even read an entire perek of chumash; in Sunday school, we used a
chumash-digest textbook for crying out loud - never once did I see an
actual bona-fide chumash in the classroom! I DARE anyone to make a
case that this is anything but the most pathetic and blithe ignorance,
and I DARE anyone to declare it anything but shogeg.

Now, let me tell you the effect of this ignorance: as shown, these
children honestly think they already know Judaism! They honestly think
that they are scholars and have completed a rigorous course in
Judaism! It has been noted too many times, that these children, in
their ignorance, honestly think they know Judaism, and so they abandon
it, due to its apparent emptiness. They seek out left-wing secular
ideologies, eastern mysticism, whatever; but they never EVER seek out
Judaism, for they honestly think they already know it.

For a vivid example of this, see From Central Park to Sinai. The
author recounts that after he realized the emptiness of secularism, he
spent a decade looking for G-d, but it never occurred to him to look
into Judaism, because he already "knew" how empty it was. Oh, he
trekked across Europe and read book after book on various religions,
but he *never* investigated Judaism.

So even if any of them have the chance to learn about Judaism, they'll
spurn it without thinking twice, in their pathetic ignorance. They
honestly think they know what Judaism is, b'emet mamash b'emet. I
CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH.

A mashal: A person can be infected with an illness, and have the
infection so little, that he never shows symptoms, and yet he
nevertheless gains immunity. This is what happens with these youth.
They never actually learn even the tiniest crumb of Judaism, but they
think they have learned a large lot, and so they have a natural
resistance against learning more - the fact that there is more to
learn is simply not on their radar. Oh, yes, there is a large world
out there, full of new things to learn, but thank G-d I already know
everything there is to know about Judaism!

Thus, to expect them to be open to receiving the truth upon contact
with an Orthodox Jew, is incredible in my eyes. With all due respect
to Reb Moshe, I find the idea laughable.

Furthermore, I doubt any of them had actually met an Orthodox Jew in
his or her life. Sure, the communities of Kemp Mill and White Oak and
Potomac and such were not too far away for those who wanted to find
them, but for those who had no interest, who where blithely learning
in public school, ten lifetimes could pass without ever meeting an
Orthodox Jew.

And even if they had met such a Jew (unlikely), and even if he had
been the wisest, most enlightened person they had ever met (unlikely,
given that he's going against hundreds of wise enlightened gentiles),
and even if they had had chance to engage him in lengthy discussion
(unlikely; if they had met an Orthodox Jew, it was probably at the
supermarket checkout counter), they still have to overcome the
prejudices of having been steeped in the latent American culture and
R/C Jewish culture for all their years. As I have said, I don't think
there is any explicit anti-Orthodox propaganda anymore. Instead, there
is passive long-term absorption of American culture and R/C Judaism,
and profound immunizing ignorance.

And moreover, this Orthodox Jew, they will probably immediately,
subconsciously, brand him as outdated and backward. Right there. Right
from the get go. Immediately go any chance whatsoever of winning them
over with his wisdom, without the greatest effort on his part.
Immediately upon making his acquaintance, they've already set up
barriers against him personally, as an individual. It is
discrimination, yes it is.

How many barriers Reb Moshe believes are so easily overcome!

> However, R. Henkin objects to extending this concept beyond its current
>  application

Its current application is to justify the sins of those who don't know
any better. The only extension I can think of, is to justify the sins
of those who DO know better, which is absurd. Exactly what is Rabbi
Henkin getting at here?

> or to using this status as a justification for non-observance.

What does he mean by "justify"? If he means, "to provide a post-facto
excuse for the non-observant, to declare them sinners but in excusable
and lamentable ignorance", I would say that if TsN cannot do anything
but this.

If TsN does not justify non-observance, what does it do? Chazal seemed
to use TsN to do davka this, to declare Jewish children taken captive
by gentiles, as innocent and b'shogeg.

So what does Rabbi Henkin mean?

> Most importantly, one should never think of himself as a
>  /tinok she-nishbah/ because this only becomes an excuse for sinning."

Obviously, one can never excuse himself as a TsN - how could one
possibly do so? By definition, one ignorant enough to be a TsN, does
not know how ignorant he is, nor does he know what a TsN is. If he
does know how ignorant he is, or if he does know what a TsN is, he is
too knowledgeable to be a TsN, and he knows it too.

A Jew raised amongst gentiles - he does not even know what he is
ignorant of - ask him how much hilchot Shabbat he knows, and he'll ask
you what Shabbat is. OTOH, I know baalei teshuva that still know
almost nothing, but they've learned enough to know that there's a
Talmud and a Shulchan Aruch sitting on the shelf, full of things they
still need to learn. They can of course sin b'shogeg, but he's not a
TsN - if you tell him that he just did melechet borer, he'll either
ask, "Which melacha is that?" or "How is what I just did borer?".
Either which way, he obviously has some modicum of knowledge.

>   2) Furthermore I haven't seen any source that the rabbis of Reform and
>  Conservative are considered tinok shenishba.  Do you have any such source?

No I do not. But I have never seen a source that distinguishes their
rabbis from the lay. Presumably, most or at least many of their rabbis
are as ignorant as the lay.

Now, Rabbi Berkovits, as cited previously, says that their leaders are
sincere and honest in their intent to preserve Judaism, however
misguided and wrong they are. This seems to be identifying their
rabbis with TsN.

But even without REB, the fact that every source I have seen
identifying R/C with TsN, says R/C b'klal and not R/C laypeople to the
exclusion of R/C rabbis, seems therefore to be saying that ALL R/C,
lay and rabbis, are all TsN.

Now, there may be R/C rabbis who were raised Orthodox - my
Reconstructionist shul had davka such a rabbi. So in what category he
falls, is a very good question. Maybe he is b'meizid, or maybe he had
a pitiful Orthodox education growing up - I don't know; tzarich iyun.
I could, in fact, give his email to anyone who wants to ask him.

But on the whole, I'd say that most R/C rabbis are probably as
ignorant as their flock. Obviously, they have greater book learning -
most must have learned at least the Chumash and a small amount of
Gemara. But it was all learned in HUC with tremendous prejudice, and
that's on top of the prejudice they absorbed growing up - is it
difficult to presume that these rabbis had great textual learning but
the same notions and prejudices as they had had prior to their
learning?

An anecdote: at my yeshiva (Machon Meir), two C rabbis came some years
back, for reasons I cannot fathom; I believe (but may be wrong) that
they were actually sent by their congregation. So they learned
(apparently, they were some of the best students here), and when they
returned to America, they insisted on a mechitza and were ousted from
their congregation. So obviously, they learned SOMETHING at Machon
Meir that they didn't learn at JTS - I rest my case.

Mikha'el Makovi