[Avodah] losing 'nishba' status

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

R' Daniel Eidensohn quoted Igros Moshe Even HaEzer 1:82 (pp 215-216):

> Nevertheless as long as they haven't repented and remain in 
> their mistaken ways they are not superior in general to non-Jews
> since we see that heretics are considered to have left the Jewish
> people since they are not observing the Jewish religion. Therefore
> as long as they continue their mistaken understanding and behavior
> they are not included in the Jewish people.

This logic applies to a Jew who has chosen to consider himself a non-Jew. I do not see how it would apply to a Jew who continues to consider himself as part of the Jewish people, but simply does not understand the concept of being obligated to do the mitzvos.

> Therefore even if you consider them to be tinok shenishba
> amongst the non-Jews because of the heresy which has become
> widespread in the world -- G-d save us -- and they are just
> being influenced by their environment- nevertheless they are
> invalid witnesses because they are not better than non-Jews.

This does not bother me at all. In order to be a valid witness, it is not sufficient that one happens to be Jewish; he must also be trustworthy, and I have no problem with allowing this presumption for a G-d-fearing Shomer Mitzvos, and denying it for someone who is not G-d-fearing.

> In fact, however it is reasonable to say that these children of
> heretics are not considered in the category of tinok shenishba
> amongst the non-Jews since they live in places where religiously
> observant Jews are found and also because their ancestors believed
> in G-d and His Torah and they were influenced to follow in the
> mistaken ways of their parents.

With all due respect to Rav Moshe and RDE, this is an assertion, not an explanation. Just because one's "ancestors believed in G-d and His Torah", why should that affect whether or not the descendant is a Tinok sheNishba? In fact, even in the classical case of a baby who was actually captured by non-Jews, isn't it true that his "ancestors believed in G-d and His Torah" as well?

> In fact they had the option of following in the influence of
> the religiously observant and their ancestors and a son is more
> influenced by his ancestors. If so they are in effect freely
> choosing the bad path and they through their evil thoughts are
> caught up in evil and they have misled themselves.

This is really the crux of it all. How can this possibly be a "free choice", when one side never got a fair hearing?

Imagine the following court case: Side A can tell the judge whatever he wants. Side B can say nothing directly to the judge; if the judge hears anything of Side B's arguments at all, it will be censored and filtered and presented by Side A. Would anyone consider this fair?

"They have misled themselves" -- This is a valid translation. (It's the last three words on pg 215: "V'havi to'eh atzmo.") But I do not understand how he can say this. It is NOT they themselves who did the misleading, as I see it. It is parents and the society who did the misleading.

> And I saw in the Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim 3:3) that he writes, "And
> what is our case that the person is considered a full heretic and
> should be killed? It is a person who follows after his lightheaded
> thoughts and after the desires of his heart and denies the Oral
> Torah just as Tzadok and Baysos did first and similarly all those
> who mistakenly followed after them."

But the people we are talking about did NOT deny the Oral Torah. They couldn't! They never heard of it!

> Thus we see that even those who mistakenly followed after Tzadok
> and Baysos even though they themselves were not heretics. However
> after they were captured by the words of Tzadok and Baysos and
> followed after them and did not follow after the good observant
> Jews - they are considered as those who initiated heresy. The
> reason is simple because they also saw righteous and observant
> people and they were able to follow after them and nevertheless
> they went after the wicked and therefore they are considered as
> having deliberately sinned.

I'm sorry that I cannot comment on this, because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the stories of Tzadok and Baysos. (Although I am smart enough to figure out that this is where we get the terms Tziduki and Baitusi from.)

> Thus is it with our present case. These people also see righteous
> and observant people and they are able to follow after them.
> Nevertheless they are caught to go after the wicked and are thus
> intentional sinners and are like those who initially denied the
> Torah and therefore they are included amongst those who should be
> lowered into a pit and not rescued and are therefore worse than
> non-Jews and they are invalid as witnesses as I have explained.

Just because they are ABLE to follow after the righteous and observant Jews, how does that turn them into intentional sinners?

If I see a righteous person from a non-Jewish religion, does that obligate me to investigate his religion? No? Then why should I be obligated to do so if he is from a Jewish religion, but one which is of a different sort than mine?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e929657d33f9594a3cst03vuc