Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 112

Thu, 27 Mar 2008

• 1. Skipping Korbanos (Dov Kay)
• 2. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 3. Re: Parshas Parah (Simon Montagu)
• 4. Zeh laZeh, Zeh baZeh (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 6. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (chana@kolsassoon.org.uk)
• 7. Re: geirim (Michael Kopinsky)
• 8. R' Marc Angel - conversion & mitzvos (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 9. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 10. Re: geirim (kennethgmiller@juno.com)

RSBA wrote:  <<Which reminds me something I once heard about a bit of
a tummel which tookplace in a BHMD in BP, when the "chassidish" BT skipped
Tachanun.A "yeshivish" mispallel got quite upset, but the BT replied 'and
what aboutyou "Litvaks"'? 'How come your regularly skip saying
"korbonos"'?Is this correct? And if so, what indeed, is the reason for
this?>>
 
Much of "korbanos" in modern siddurim was a later additions my mekubbalim,
eg pitum haketores.  Straight minhag Ashkenaz just says parashas haTamid,
eizeihu mekoman and R. Yishmael (the minimal mikra, mishna and talmud
following immediately after birchos haTorah, which are recited after
birchos hashachar).  So a Litvak or Yekke who restricts himself to these
sections is not skipping korbanos.  However, I have been in Hungarian shuls
where the shatz is expected to say everything printed in the siddur,
including the akedah.  I believe Sephardim to do the same.
 
That being said, RSBA will be aware that the Lakewood Kollel in Melbourne
officially skips all of the korbanos and goes to straight to R. Yishmael
after b'rochos.  One of the avreichim there once told me that he had looked
far and wide for a source for this, but couldn't.  I can only guess that
they reckoned that the avreichim don't need their mikra, misha, talmud
dosage then, because they will be learning all day in any event (cf
Lakewood not saying chazaras hashatz for mincha).  However, given that it
goes against the words of the Shulchan Aruch, this is quite surprising.  
 
Does anyone know what they do Lakewood?
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kay
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Windows Live is here
http://www.windowslive.co.uk/get-live
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080326/7c37b816/attachment-0001.html 

R' Michael Makovi wrote:
> Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (keep his experience in kiruv in mind, IMHO),
> Handbook of Jewish Thought, vol. 2. Now, I will say right now, I have
> NOT looked up the sources from the footnotes.
>
>   
That is a problem - since despite R' Kaplan's greatness in Torah and 
kiruv - I often find little correlation between what he writes as a 
summary at the top of the page and the copious notes at the bottom of 
the page. Also here what is clearly stated at the top seems to 
contradict the notes on the bottom. For example note 140.

"However, a person who has been brought up in a nonreligious
environment 139 where he never had the opportunity to learn about
Judaism, 140 is like a child who was abducted by gentiles, 141 and is
not considered to be doing wrong purposely." 


140. For example, the children of the Karaites; cf. Yad, Mamrim 3:3;
Hagahoth Mordecai, Yevamoth 107; Yoreh Deah 159:3. Others count later
generations of Karaites as apostates; cf. Radbaz, Mamrim 3:3; Sifethey
Cohen, Yoreh Deah 159:6, 266:17, 267:59; Choshen Mishpat 175:33; Yad
Avraham, Yoreh Deah 159:3; Mishnah Berurah 55:47; Teshuvoth Rabbi
Aaron ibn Chaim 113, 125; Teshuvoth Mabit 2:38;  Teshuvoth Rabbi
Betzalel Ashkenazi 3 (end). Other sources seem to indicate that the
later generations of Karaites were worse than the earlier ones; cf.
Tosaftoh, Avodah Zara 26b s.v. Ani; Rosh Avodah Zara 2:7, from
Yerushalmi, Avodah Zara 5:4 (34a). See also Rambam on Chullin 1:1.


Consequently you still haven't cited a single posek to suport your position.

An additional source indicating the lack of innocence of tinok shenishba 
is from Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach.

*Minchas Shlomo (3:19): Saving tinok shenishba on Shabbos? *Perhaps it 
is correct to say that also a tinok shenisba amongst the non?Jews is not 
to be saved or killed since his whole life he considers himself to be a 
non?Jew and he doesn?t believe that he is a Jew even if he is told 
directly. Therefore he will transgress the entire Torah inadvertently 
(shogeg). Perhaps it is better that he should die than to live 
mistakenly as a non?Jew. Thus this would not be comparable at all to the 
the cases of a deaf person, crazy person or baby who are lacking 
intelligence [which seems to be the view of the Ginas Veradim 3:1]. It 
never occurred to me not to have mercy on a man like this who was 
captured amongst the non?Jews and therefore considers himself to be a 
non?Jew. Furthermore there is absolutely no doubt that it is in fact a 
mitzva to bring him close to Judaism and to have him repent and other 
similar things. However my interest is for the case where it is clear 
that he will remain with the thought that he is not Jewish and will 
therefore conduct himself in all his deeds as a non?Jew. For example a 
child that no one in all in the world knows he is a Jew ? except for the 
one who is now able to raise him from the pit. Futhermore if this man 
were very old and traveled to a distant country from where he could not 
return and reveal that this child is a Jew. In such a case even though 
his sins were completely inadvertent (shogeg), nevertheless it is 
possible that it is better for him to die rather than to live.  Then he 
should not be saved even during the week. However I am undecided on this 
issue because it is possible that G?d would want this unfortunate man to 
live and therefore it would be a mitzva to save his life. The 
Rambam(Hilchos Mamrim 3:3) doesn?t present any contradiction to this 
idea. Consequently we need to decide in such a case where it is almost 
certain that he will conduct himself all his life as a non?Jew that 
perhaps Shabbos should not be profaned to save his life and that this is 
not an example of sofek pikuach nefesh.

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net>
> wrote:
> > There is a machlokes amongst the Poskim whether the reading of Parshas
> Parah
> > is a Torah obligation today.
> > ri
>
> What I'm curious about: It says of Parshat Parah "zocher", and the
> Gemara says that zocher means read it from a Sefer Torah.
>
> But if so, we have five other zochers in the Torah (see your Artscroll
> siddur after Shacharit - page 176f in the Nusach Ashkenaz), but in
> only two of the six zochers do we read anything from a Sefer Torah.
>
>
I was going to say that in all these cases we read the pesukim themselves
from the Sefer Torah during the annual cycle.

But this prompts the inverse question: why do we need Parshat Zachor? We
read the same pesukim every year in Parashat Ki Tetze, why aren't we yotzei
from that?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080326/4372feb7/attachment-0001.htm 

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:31:30AM EDT, Jonathan Baker wrote to Areivim in
a discussion of a letter that contained "kol yisrael areivim zeh lazeh":

:> Clearly not.  If he was an Areivimite, he would have known to write zeh
:> BAzeh, not zeh lazeh.

: Not necessarily.  According to REMT
: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2008q1/005962.html
: it's a girsaos issue - the gemara & midrash say "bazeh", Rashi in a couple
: of places says "lazeh", which according to Gilad Gevaryahu on mail-jewish,
: is a more natural Hebrew construct.

As for the girsaos issue... While this doesn prove the point, girsasos
in the Ein Yaakov are usually the result of greater care than those in
the Vilna Shas. And so, "bazeh" has that increase in likelihood.

Also, while our girsaos of Rashi have "lazeh", the Ohr haChaim has a
piece that only works with "bazeh". Rashi's comment doesn't depend on the
choice of preposition. Therefore, we don't really have strong evidence
that this was actually Rashi's girsa. Just that if it were changed from
"bazeh" to "lazeh" it would have to have happened in numerous places.

I have no idea if the following is true, but this is what seems to me
most likely. Kol Yisrael areivim zeh baseh was the original. And the
meaning was "all of Israel are one mixed into the other." As the Ohr
haChaim meant it. A statement about Jews as interconnected and even
intermingled parts of the corporate Kelal Yisrael.

This is how the Ohr haChaim explains Moshe Rabbeinu's loss of peh-el-peh
quality nevu'ah for 38 years of the midbar. Because BY, by sinning,
lowered their own souls and thus the areivus that is Moshe's neshamah.

However, as RJB says in the name of RGG, it doesn't scan as well. It's
more natural to assume that "areivim" means "guarantor" and therefore
"lazeh -- for one another". If someone isn't introduced to the more
mystical idea that our souls overlap, they would faster just assume the
gramatically "corrected" version of "lazeh".

That is far more likely than a shift from the straightforward "la-" to
"ba-". Again, IMHO.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

It seems clear from this letter of Rav Dovid Hoffman - that he also 
views the ignorant as sinners who are degraded by their sins. The are 
not viewed as innocent and blameless.

*Rav Dovid Hoffman[1] <#_ftn1>(Melamed l'Ho'il Orach Chaim 1:29): 
Question: * In our minyan there are one or two people who openly violate 
Shabbos ?and they don?t even make kiddush or havdala. Is it permitted to 
count them as part of the minyan? *Answer: *The Pri Megadim (# 55) and 
Aishel Avraham (O.C. 55:4) write that a person who openly violates 
Shabbos can not be counted as part of the minyan. This is also the view 
of the Chacham Tzvi (#38). And even though it seems from the Sheilas 
Yaavetz (1:49) that all sinners are counted for a minyan as long as they 
haven?t been banned ? nevertheless he doesn?t say explicitly that one 
who openly violates Shabbos is included in the minyan. Perhaps he would 
agree that they are not counted in the minyan. Furthermore the Netziv 
(Meishiv Davar (#9) prohibits counting them in a minyan. The Magen 
Avraham (O.C. 199:2) writes that a person who is openly wicked is not 
counted in the group for berchas hamazon. I saw in the Rashban (#90) 
that that is only for someone who sins in a rebellious manner to cause 
anger and in our day sinning is not done to cause anger. This is a 
strange explanation since  we know if the sin is done to cause anger for 
any transgression they are not included as is stated by the Pri Megadim 
(O.C. 55) cited before. It is also cited in this Rashban that since 
 those who use violence have become common, we don?t have the power to 
prevent a cohen such as this from performing the priestly blessing. 
Mahari Assad (14:50) is quoted as saying that the Shabbos violators 
today ? as long testimony has not been given against them in beis din 
while they are present that they have profaned Shabbos in the presence 
of 10 Jews ? wine is not prohibited by their touch. That is because 
there are many achronim who say that the principle that a Shabbos 
violator is considered as transgressing the entire Torah ? is only by 
rabbinic decree.  We can conclude from all these sources that according 
to the letter of the law a person who openly violates Shabbos is not 
counted as part of a minyan. However in modern times the practice is to 
be lenient in this matter especially in Hungary and surely in Germany. I 
remember that once a man who keeps his store open on Shabbos became a 
mourner and he was one of the members of our congregation Adas Yisroel. 
He went to lead prayers in our synagogue ? however the gabbai knew how 
to placate him and persuade him not to lead the prayers because the 
congregation would have protested against this. This man then went to a 
different synagogue and even though the gabbai of that synagogue is an 
observant G?d fearing man ? he allowed this mourner to lead the prayers. 
When I asked the gabbai why he didn?t stop him he replied that it was a 
long standing practice not to prevent those who keep their stores open 
on Shabbos from leading prayers. Since the rabbis of that place were 
distinguished and yet they didn?t protest against this minhag- they 
obviously knew how to justify this practice. Perhaps they relied on the 
view of the Binyan Tzion (#23) who writes ?Shabbos violators in our time 
are considered a little as tinok sheniba amongst the non?Jews. That is 
because due to our many sins the majority of Jews in our country are 
Shabbos violators. Their transgressing of Shabbos is not meant as a 
rejection of fundamental principles of our faith.? I was also told in 
the name of the Sho?el u?Meishiv that Jews from America are not 
disqualified because of their Shabbos violation because they are like 
tinok shenishba amongst the non?Jews. I also found similar 
justifications to be lenient in the comments of R? Akiva Eiger (Y. D. 
264).  However look at the Pri Megadim and Sefer Chasidim (#668) ? 
Anyway someone  who wants to be lenient and count these Shabbos 
violators in the minyan has authorities to rely on. However if you can 
go to another synagogue, without causing embarrassment, it is obviously 
better than relying on this hetair and you will be able to pray with 
virtuous men. There is also another factor for being lenient because in 
our days it is not called violating Shabbos publicly since most people 
are Shabbos violators. To view their actions as indicative of a degraded 
state would make sense only if the majority of Jews were virtuous and  
the minority were arrogant in violating this prohibition. Then they 
would be rejecting the Torah by their Shabbos violations and proudly 
acting in a degenerate manner as well as separating themselves from the 
Jewish people.  However since due to our many sins the majority of Jews 
are transgressors, they are benefiting from their degradation and the 
individual thinks that he is not doing such a great sin and feels no 
need to violate Shabbos in secret. Therefore his public violations are 
equivalent to private violations in previous generations. In fact it is 
the religious who are called today the ones who are different while the 
transgressors view their behavior as normative. **


------------------------------------------------------------------------


??? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?????, 
?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ????? ?????.  *?????*: ????"? ??' 
?"? ???? ????? (??"? ??:?) ?' ????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????. ??"? 
????' ??? ??? ??' ?"?, ??? ??????? ???? (?:??) ???? ??? ?????? ?????? 
????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?"? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? 
????? ????? ??? ???? ??????. ????? ?"? ????? ?? ???"? ???? ??? (??' ?) 
?????. ??' ???"? (??"? ???:?) ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ????. 
 ?????? ???"? ???"? (??' ?') ????? ??? ??"? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? 
?????? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? (??' ??"? ???"? ??' ?"?) ????? ??????? 
????? ??' ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ????"? ??"? (??"? ??' ?"?), 
?? ???? ?? ???"? ???"? ??? ?????? ??? (??? ?' ?? ?"?) ????? ????? ???? 
???? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????. ??"? ??? ??' ??"? ????? 
????"? ??"? ???? ??? ????????? ??"?, ??? ???? ?"? ??"? ???"? ???? ?"? 
??' ?' ?????? ????? ??????? ?"? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??"? ????? 
???? ?' ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????, ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? 
???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???"? ???"? ????? ????. ????? 
??? ??"? ???"? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ?????, ?? ???? ??? ?????? 
???? ?? ???? ??????? ????"? ???? ?????. ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? 
???? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??????, ??? ??? ?????, 
???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??????, ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? 
??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??, ???"? ??? ?? ???? ?????"? ?? ???? 
?"?, ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???"?, ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????, 
????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????, ??? ?? ??? ??? ?"? ???? ????? ??????? 
???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????, 
????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ???, ????? 
????? ?"? ?? ????? ?"? ???"? ???? ???? (?????? ??' ?"?) ?????? ??? 
??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ??????, ???? ?????"? ??? ????? 
?????? ????? ??? ??, ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ???"?, ??? ???? 
?? ??? ??"? ????? ???? ???? ?"? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????? 
???????? ???? ?????? ?"? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???? 
??????. ??"? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??"? ??"? ??' ??"? ????"? ????? ????, 
??? ?' ??"? (?"? ??' ??"? ?"? ?"? ?'), ??' ??? ?????? ??' ???"? (???? ?? 
???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ???"? ??"?). ???' ??? 
????' ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??????, ?? ?? ????? ???? 
????"? ??? ??? ?????? ???, ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??, ?????? 
?? ????? ?????. ??? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???????, ???? 
????? ????? ??, ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????, ?????? ?????? ????? ????? 
????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????, 
??? ???? ????"? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??????, ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? 
????? ?? ?? ??"? ????? ?????, ??????' ??? ??????, ?????? ?????? ?????? 
?????? ?????? ????????, ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ????.

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

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:17 AM, SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote:

> rom: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
> quoting:
> <<Indeed - ALL gerim are not going to be able to keep all the mitzvot at
> first - like a bar mitzvah.
> >>
>
> What exactly is the mitzva of bar mitzva?


I don't think that's what RET meant.  I understood him as saying, "Just like
a 13-year old boy will follow every s'if of shulchan aruch, so too geirim
will not follow every s'if of shulchan aruch."

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080327/10d37183/attachment.html 

R' Marc Angel's Tradition essay on conversion and the view of Rav Uziel 

<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/rmaGeirus.pdf>. 

I had said:

> [Rabbi Eidensohn,] you're now asking how they're still TsN even after they learn a smidgen > of Torah.

>  Rabbi Eidensohn, please excuse me for my impudence, but I'm going to
>  ask you for a source that tries to give a sevara to establish that a
>  person is no longer a TsN once he has some knowledge, but does not yet
>  know that he is chayav b'Torah u'mitzvot. You've given a source that
>  holds by this sevara - viz. Reb Moshe. What I'm asking for, is proof
>  of the validity of this sevara itself. Because the evidence of nature
>  seems to hold otherwise.

I'll add a remark: Unless I am mistaken, Chazon Ish and Rav Kook, et.
al., the shita that today's nonreligious are TsN, in contradistinction
to Reb Moshe - these former poskim all seem to hold that they are TsN
even though (and I am willing to bet a billion dollars) every single
one of Israel's nonreligious Jews knows that Orthodox Jews don't eat
pork chops and don't drive cars on Shabbat. Now, there are a LOT of
things they don't know (my friend at yeshiva told me that many
Israelis honestly think that a kippa seruga indicates a Reform Jew),
but of these two facts, I am SURE that ALL Israelis knows them.

In the Talmudic TsN, it is very possible (though not necessarily the
case) that the TsN knows NOTHING of Judaism; it is likely that he
knows Jews don't eat pork, but it is all the same very possible that
he doesn't know; the Greek historians did in fact show a staggering
amount of ignorance of Judaism (thinking the kodesh ha-kodashim
contained an idol, etc.). So if someone wants to make a case that the
Talmudic TsN knew NOTHING, I could not attempt to prove him wrong.

But in today's non-religious Jew, it is absolutely positively known
that they know that Orthodox Jews don't eat pork or drive cars on
Shabbat. They also know that Orthodox women don't dress provocatively.
So Chazon Ish and Rav Kook, et. al., when they described today's
nonreligious as TsN, were implicitly saying that one can be a TsN even
if he knows something of Torah - I can only suppose that they presumed
that "knowledge of Torah" to disqualify someone as TsN, includes
enough knowledge to conceivably gain a conviction that the Torah was
given at Sinai, etc., and not merely enough knowledge to know a few
random halachot, or even to know that Jews hold that Sinai happened.
Rather, they must have enough knowledge for these laws and this
conviction of Sinaicity to bear weight in their eyes. And if we were
to hold like Rabbi Kaplan, we'd go even further: then one is a TsN
even if he were to become a BT. But at least, according to Chazon Ish
and Rav Kook, it seems that one is a TsN even when he knows something,
as long as he hasn't yet been convinced that Torah is true.

Mikha'el Makovi

Someone wrote:
> Indeed - ALL gerim are not going to be able to keep
> all the mitzvot at first - like a bar mitzvah.

R"SBA asked
> What exactly is the mitzva of bar mitzva?

There is no "mitzva of bar mitzva". My understanding of the first comment
was simply to say that a bar mitzvah is like a ger, in the sense that he is
suddenly obligated to do all the mitzvos, and that is an unreasonable
burden.

But I think the comparison is an unfair one, because the father of the bar
mitzvah (or, if there is no father, then beis din, IIRC) is obligated to
teach him *all* the mitzvos which he will have to do. Thus, the halachik
system is set up in such a way as to insure that the boy is NOT suddenly
thrust into a situation that he is not prepared for.

In sharp contrast, there is no similar halacha regarding a ger; nowhere do
the seforim say that the ger must be taught ALL the mitzvos that he'll have
to do. But this actually strengthens the argument that the first writer was
trying to make: If we have sympathy for a bar mitzvah boy who has
difficulty with mitzvos that he's been learning about for years, then we
should certainly have sympathy for a ger who might have first heard about
mitzvah XYZ only very recently.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on online masters degrees and make up to $150K/ year
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3nNjcwLFlLYMCny1KNC7R8lMXNyl6KD0qDlV9RVYckNiFbX0/




------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 112
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."