[Avodah] R' Angel & Geirus Redux

[Michael Makovi]

>  I do not understand the focus on *seeing* a religious Jew. Why would seeing a religious
> Jew put a person into the category of "he should've known better than to violate halacha"?
> R' Akiva Miller

>  > You seem to saying that until they are truly gedolei Torah
>  > they can not do any sins deliberately. Which probably means
>  > that maybe some of the members of this list might be
>  > capable of deliberately sinning - but surely not most. This
>  > might be consistent with a mussar approach - but I don't
>  > think it fits in with the poskim.
>  > R' Daniel Eidensohn

I didn't say they had to be gedolei yisrael to be meizid. What I said,
however, is that it seems to me (IMHO) that in order to for him to
cease to be a TsN, he has to cease to be shogeg in the fact of Sinai
etc. If he learns a random halacha or happens to meet a few religious
Jews (Reb Moshe), he won't have learned enough to be convinced that
Torah is min ha-shamayim.

That is why I do not understand the notion of Reb Moshe that the
moment he meets a religious Jew he is no longer TsN. What could have
reasonably changed in his yedia? First, there are many wise and
upstanding gentiles and non-religious Jews. Second, even if he meets a
religious Jew who is the most wise and upstanding person ever, you
still have to give him enough knowledge to know that Sinai occurred.

If I find a random TsN on the street and yell "Guess what? The Sabbath
is on Saturday, and if you rub a piece of leather between two poles,
you're liable for memahek!", and suddenly he's not a TsN??!! Where in
that exchange did he cease to be shogeg in the fact that the Torah was
given from G-d?

And even if I yell to him, "The Torah was given by G-d!!", I haven't
given him enough information to prove it someone who didn't already
know it. In order to not be shogeg, **in anything**, a person has to
learn enough that he known it before, he wouldn't have done it. (Or
rather, a reasonable person wouldn't have done it. If someone knows
about karet but still violates Shabbat, he's being stupid and he's
being meizid. Thus, an FFB who goes off the derech is presumably
meizid.) If Shimon violates Shabbat because he didn't know it was
karet or because he didn't know it was a melacha, then when you tell
him the new information, he'll respond, "Oy va voy, I never would've
done it!". That is why a meizid is not (in a particular act) and a
mumar cannot be (ever, whether meizid or shogeg), a shogeg - because
even if you tell him that he did wrong, he doesn't shav from his yedia
- for him, there's no "had you known...".

What if I went to a shogeg b'karet Orthodox Jew and told him,
"According to Conservative halacha, you get karet for that melacha",
and let's say Conservative halacha is correct here. Well, I haven't
yet told him enough to know that violating Shabbat gets him karet.
Since he's an Orthodox shogeg, he will only listen to Orthodox
opinions, and learning that Conservatives say karet, isn't enough to
prove to him. So he hasn't yet learned enough that had he known he
wouldn't have sinned, and IMHO, he's still shogeg.

So for a TsN, who is shogeg (in everything), to cease to be TsN, which
is to say, cease to be shogeg, shouldn't you have to give him enough
information that a reasonable TsN (again, even if he himself is
masochistic, we go by the rov) would exclaim "Oy va voy, I never
would've...!!"?

So IMHO, he can't simply learn a single halacha. He has to learn
enough for the average person to be convinced that Sinai happened. How
much is this? I don't know, but a suspect it is a LOT.

And perhaps this is why Rabbi Kaplan said that no matter how much he
learns, he is ALWAYS TsN. Because how do you define how much
information is enough for the average reasonable TsN to conclude,
rationally, that Sinai happened?

And I agree with R' Akiva Miller that "Where are the defining limits?
I don't know. But do I *need* to know? Let Hashem decide  these
things." With nonreligious Jews today, how can we really know whether
they are meizid or not? How can we really know what their upbringing
was? How can we really know how pervasive the secularism was? We
can't. Things are too open and uncertain. Therefore, I say, be machmir
on the d'oraita of not accusing a shogeg of being meizid (obviously,
you could just as well argue be machmir on the d'oraita of not
accusing a meizid of being shogeg).

I don't know about Tzadukim and Kara'im. I've never met one, so I
cannot argue between Rambam and Ridbaz whether they are shogeg or
meizid. I am inclined towards Rambam that their descendants are
innocently following erroneous teachings, but I've never met a Karaite
and I cannot be sure. I definitely have never met a Talmudic era
Tzaduki or Essene to know why they weren't TsN. But I DO know
nonreligious Jews today - I was one.

That is why I'd be willing to tell G-d to His face that I simply
disagree with Reb Moshe. Because it is as if Reb Moshe told me that
which my own eyes tells me is wrong. I KNOW as surely as I know that
the sky is blue, that one cannot be expected to do teshuva just by
meeting a religious Jew or learning a few random halachot.

>  But isn't the opposite extreme [of needing to be a gadol in order to be meizid] equally
> absurd [as the idea that one must know absolutely positively nothing to be shogeg]?
>
>  If a person can be a meizid even though he falls short of being a Gadol BaTorah, so too it
> should be possible be a Tinok Shenishba even though he falls short of being a total
> ignoramus. IOW: If there are areas of Torah that a person is not yet expert in, and he counts
> as a meizid despite that, then it follows that there can be areas of Torah which a person *is* > slightly acquainted with, and he still counts as a Tinok Shenishba.
>
>  Where are the defining limits? I don't know. But do I *need* to know? Let Hashem decide
> these things.
>
> R' Akiva Miller

I would take a different tack. As I say above, meizid means knowing
enough that you know better than to do what you did. Therefore, one
doesn't need to be a gadol - knowing that smoothing leather and
rubbing the dirt floor in my house smooth are both assur on Shabbat is
enough; I don't need to know (I just learned this sugya) that "ha-shaf
bein ha-amudim" has a machloket between Rashi (smooths the dirt
between the pillars) and Rabbenu Chananel, Ramban, Tosafot, Ran, Rosh,
Rambam, based on Yerushalmi (stretches the leather between two pillars
and smooths it, or rubs the leather against the pillar (Rosh girsas
*al gabei* ha-amudim)).

And shogeg means being ignorant enough that you sinned, but had you
known more, you wouldn't have sinned. (Again, really, we are going by
the rov; if one guy is so stupid that he doesn't mind karet, and so
even had he known karet he still would have sinned - he's still
meizid.)

I prefer my argument to yours, particularly because there's a
machloket in Shabbat between Munbaz and R' Akiva about whether a
shogeg can have yedia. Munbaz says yes, R' Akiva no. Now, "yedia" here
may mean more than a miniscule almost insignificant smidgen of yedia,
so it may be that when you say that a shogeg can have a bit of yedia,
even R' Akiva would agree. I don't know. But your argument is
dangerously close to opening yourself up to the accusation that you're
simply following the rejected opinion of Munbaz. But according to my
model of shogeg and meizid, everyone will agree that even R' Akiva is
happy.

Mikha'el Makovi