[Avodah] R' Angel & Geirus Redux

[Chana Luntz]

RMM writes:

> Gevalt, is this what we were arguing?? Oy va voy, I misunderstood what
> we were arguing about!
> 
> The Gemara in Shabbat perek 7 itself argues whether a TsN is b'shogeg
> (R' Akiva, Rav and Shmuel) or ones (Munbaz, R' Yochanan and Reish
> Lakish). 

I think you are misunderstanding the modern discussion regarding tinuk
shenishba, which is actually brought within a discussion of the concept of
mumar.

To understand the discussion, you need to examine two concepts, one is a
"mumar l'hachis" and the second is a "mumar l'teyavon".  I think somebody
once translated l'hachis as "out of spite", which does give some of the
flavour of it.  It is perhaps easier to understand the concept of a "mumar
l'teyavon" as somebody who acts contrary to halacha because his desires
overwhelm him (eg the bacon smells too good and he couldn't resist), not
because he davka wants to act against the halacha.  Once this concept is
understood, it would seem the easiest way to understand the concept of a
mumar l'hachis is as the opposite, somebody who acts davka against the
halacha and not because his desires overwhelm him.

Now the Shulchan Aruch brings in Yoreh Deah siman 2 s'if 5:

"A mumar l'hachis even in respect of only one matter or one who is a mumar
for idolatory or who violates the shabbat publically ... Their din is like a
non Jew".

As can be seen from this, somebody who is a mumar for idolatory or who
violates the shabbat publically even if it is not done l'hachis would seem
to fall within the category of being like a non-Jew.

Now it is from the general formulation that you get to various halachos.
Because if somebody's status is like a non Jew, then it would seem to follow
that they a) don't count for a minyan; b) their shechita is not kosher and
c) wine they touch is forbidden.

But it gets worse.

The primary gemora upon which the Shulchan Aruch I just quoted to you is
based is found at Chullin 5a.  While that gemora starts out discussing
shechita of people like a mumar for idolatory, it brings its proof text from
a braisa that reads as follows:

"we accept korbanos from the sinners of Israel [poshei yisroel] that they
may do teshuva with the exception of a mumar who offers libations of wine to
idolatory and one who violates shabbas b'farhesia".

In the course of the discussion it is made clear that those who are a mumar
for adolatory and/or violate shabbas b'farhesia fall into the same category
as one who denies the entire Torah.

Obviously this would seem to beg explanation.  That given by Rashi there in
Chullin is that this is because one who offers to idolatory denies HKBH and
one who violates shabbas denies His acts (ie ma'aseh breishis) so doing such
acts constitute a fundamental denial of Hashem.

And similarly the Rambam in hilchos shabbas perek 30 halacha 15 states "that
shabbas is a sign between HKBH and us forever.  Therefore one who violates
other mitzvos they are in the category of the wicked of Israel.
But one who is mechallel shabbas befarhesia behold he is like who worships
idols and both of these are like a non Jew in all respects"

Getting back to the gemora in Chulin, the strong implication from this
reference to the korbanos and teshuva is that one who offers libations of
wine to idolatory or who violates shabbas b'farhesia cannot in fact do
teshuva. And in fact the Rambam poskens in hilchos oved chochavim in perek 2
halacha 5 that not only one who is a mumar l'oved kochavim is a non Jew in
all respects that "we do not receive v'ain mekablin otum b'teshuva l'olam
[we do not ever accept them as repenting].

The Lechem Mishna there on the Rambam questions this Rambam on the grounds
that the Rambam at the end hilchos teshuva perek 3 says that everyone can do
teshuva .  He suggests a resolution to the stira.  He says that it is
possible to do teshuva for aveiros of this nature, but they are of such a
great magnitude and it is so difficult that anybody who truly did teshuva
for them would die in the process (as we see from various stories in the
gemora where people did sincere teshuva and their souls left their bodies as
a consequence). Hence the point is that *we do not accept* any person as
having done teshuva for such aveiros, because any person who had really done
teshuva for such aveiros would no longer be alive, and if they are alive
they can't have done teshuva.
And the reference in hilchos teshuva is not to what we accept, but what HKBH
accepts - so that yes, HKBH may accept such teshuva but we cannot.

Note that while here the Rambam does not specifically mention one who
violates shabbas b'farhesia, the Kesef Mishna there refers to such
violations in quoting the supporting source for this Rambam (ie the gemora
in Chulin referred to above) and the general common language makes it clear
that this category too would fall within that of ain mekablin.

Now, I am not aware of any Rav on this planet that holds this as halacha
l'ma'aseh today with regard to today's non religious Jews.  As should be
obvious from what I have described above, if one follows this position, bang
goes the modern chozer b'teshuva movement.  That is, large portions of this
list and just about every minyan and family (even the most choshuve these
days) are made up of people who according the Rambam cannot have their
teshuva accepted, have the status of non-Jews, cannot be counted in a minyan
etc etc.

So... How do we get out of the problem.

There are varied approaches.

A) Tinuk shenishba: perhaps the most widespread approach is that adopted by
Lubavitch, the Chazon Ish and others that today's non religious Jews do not
fall within the category of the Shulchan Aruch described above, ie they are
not a "mumar l'chillel shabbas b'farhesia" as defined there.
That, they argue requires real knowledge and applies to somebody (eg like
Elisha ben Abuya in the Talmud) who really knew what was at stake and
violated it anyway.  Today's Jews, they argue, are rather in the category of
those captured as infants who do not understand what it is that they are
violating.  This is notwithstanding that they may know about the concept of
shabbas and be knowledgeable in many of the halachas.  In fact, people like
the Kaf HaChaim, who relies on this approach (see Yoreh Deah siman 119 s'if
katan ) argue that it is only applicable to those who in fact turn up to
shul and daven (ie affirm their acceptance of Hashem) and then later go
violate shabbas.  While it is only those that stay away  totally and violate
shabbas who remain in the category of a mumar l'chachis.  (although note he
excludes from this leniency those that go out in public in their motor cars!
who according to the Kaf Hachaim continue to fall within the category of a
non Jew in all respects).  This view of course can be further explained by
use of the Rashi on the gemora that I cited above, ie that what is really at
stake is about a denial of Hashem's act of ma'aseh Breishis, and that
today's non religious Jew (even in contrast to those in the time of the Kaf
Hachaim), no matter what they know about shabbas and its halachas, are
certainly not intending that by their acts of driving their car (or
whatever) to be denying the Creation and the Creator of the world nor do
they even understand the link. 

The issue at stake is not a question of shoegeg versus meizid.  As people on
this list have mentioned, in general that is, in the absence of korbanos,
for HKBH to decide.  But whether or not somebody is a mumar l'hachis is
something we need to decide, because of the halachic implications.  

However, because of the discussions you refer to in the gemora regarding
shogeg versus ones, once the terminology of tinuk shenishba is used, it is
arguable that these concepts will be at least implicitly dragged along with
it.  And I do think that a number of the more kiruv orientated organisations
have taken this concept and run with it.  It is on this that it seems to me
that, at least partially, your argument with RDE rests.  RDE keeps pointing
out that nowhere in any of the teshuvos is there any indication that a
modern day tinuk shenisba is to be considered anything less than a mumar
l'teiavon, ie all that has been achieved by this language is to take such
people out of the category of mumar l'hachis.  And to the contrary, there
appears to be language that supports a mumar l'teiavon reading.  Your best
argument to the contrary is to say that these teshuvos are not accidentally
using gemora terminology, namely tinuk shenishba, which carries with it an
understanding of shogeg versus ones machlokus, and hence indeed the kiruv
organisations understanding of these teshuvos follows.  Especially as one
could do it more in the manner of Rav Moshe as outlined in b) below.  This
is why people who do not feel comfortable with this implication, try to
argue that the terminology of tinuk shenisbha is being misused (as in the
gemora it is only used to describe somebody who really knows absolutely
nothing).

The problem with that argument is that you end up accusing some modern day
heavy weights - starting with the Binyan Tzion and including Rav Ovadia
Yosef of misusing the terminology - as it is quite clear that they are using
it to describe people who are aware of the existence of Orthodoxy and quite
a lot of the basics.  That, to my mind, is untenable.

So what people like RDE are doing is arguing from within various teshuvos to
try and show that the way these heavyweights are using the terminology it is
so far and definitely no further. Whereas your argument would be that they
don't need to go further for the purposes of the teshuvos, but that the
implication remains (as evidenced by the common understanding).  I suspect
it is a bit of the one and a bit of the other, which is the approach that
RMB took to the sources that RDE  brought.


B)Today's mumar l'chillel shabbas b'farhesia is the equivalent of a mumar
l'teyavon as per other aveiros - ie that today the reason Jews violate
shabbas tends to be linked to parnasa or other ta'avas and that therefore
the traditional halachas do not apply.  This appears to be the position
adopted by Rav Moshe Feinstein in Iggeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 3 siman
12 (in discussing giving aliyos to the Torah - note that Rav Moshe allows
the counting of such Jews into a minyan on other grounds, in Orech Chaim
chelek 1 siman 23 - ie on the basis that minyan is based on the meraglim)
This would seem deliberately to not be as far reaching an approach as that
described above (which suggests that the approach above is to be understood
in a more farreaching manner), but it is still a reading down of the
situation.  The argument that Rav Moshe appears to be advancing (although it
is written rather shorthand) is that those Jews today who do believe in HKBH
cannot be said to be denying the actions of HKBH by not keeping shabbas, but
rather are doing it out of their own desire for money or comfort, and hence
despite what seems to be the plain meaning of the text that it does not
matter why a person is violating shabbas publicly, in fact it does indeed
matter, and that only if that person is effectively doing it l'hachis is a
problem of the magnitude of treating them as non Jews.   On that basis he
does allow the calling up of such Jews to the Torah.  

On the other hand he does *not* allow the calling up of C/R Rabbis on the
basis that they are doing what they are doing not because of desires for
money or comfort, but because they have made an ideological choice to reject
the Orthodox understanding of HKBH and his Torah, and hence it is a real
denial of HaShem.  Whether Rav Moshe would still consider R/C rabbis to fall
within this category today - one could no doubt argue.  However, I suspect
he would.  My impression is that - unlike the approach in A) above, which
might regard R/C, including their Rabbis, as ignoramus's - Rav Moshe took
them seriously as indeed, as they claim, having a different ideological
approach to Judaism.  And to him that ideological approach spells heresy.
He exempts the laity on the grounds not so much of ignorance - but of having
chosen to be where they are because it offers to make thier life easier, ie
so they can pursue the desires of their heart like career.  On the other
hand, an R/C rabbi has made the ideology of R or C his career. He has, after
all, dedicated his life to this ideology.  And that, to Rav Moshe spells
heresy.

For completeness:

C)The mukzak approach: Another approach turns on the "b'farhesia" aspect of
all this.  On this point, many of the classic merforshim [commentators]
already say that in order for there to be a violation b'farhesia it needs to
be in front of 10 Jews (see eg the Kaf Hachaim on this - and the discussions
about whether the person in question counts as one of the Jews, and whether
women count as one of the Jews etc). Now you can take this slightly further
and say that since what we are doing here is effectively converting this
person from a Jew to a non-Jew (ie making their status like a non Jew) that
is in many ways the equivalent to a non Jew becoming a Jew, and until the
testimony is given in front of beis din and the necessary evidence produced
that they did it in front of 10 frum Jews no conversion in status takes
place and therefore they stay the status of a Jew and can be counted for a
minyan etc.  [And of course, today, no beis din today will sit on this
matter, because of the multiple aveiros of these generations].

This last is a form of innocent until proven guilty, perhaps.  It is perhaps
easier if you are also the type to assume that everybody driving in their
cars is on some sort of pikuach nefesh mission.  But again, we are not
getting into the blame game, we are dealing with the question of what to do
if a person shows up and wants to join your minyan (and you don't hold like
Rav Moshe) or if he touches your wine, etc etc, not with the issue of
blamelessness at all.

> Mikha'el Makovi

Regards

Chana