Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 019

Monday, October 23 2000

• RE: tinok shenishba
• Sukka on Shemini Atzeret

In response to my posts on TSN

RYGB wrote
> And (I told you to look further!), In IgM YD 4:91:6 RMF pretty much 
> explicitly makes the point that I have made already several times, using 
> the TsN sevoro yet, again, calling them many times in a short teshuva:
> Kofrim."

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
> WADR, this is a related (but different issue) to the original issue that
> we were discussing.  There are several separate issues; 

> 1)  Is a TsN considered a rasha? 

RYGB responded
>Yes. This is what I have attempted to prove, I believe suceessfully. I
>believe you continue to err in equating "rosho" with judgmentalism. It is
>not. It is not. It is the super-category that includes Mumarim, Mechalelei
>Shabbos, Posh'im, and garden variety Resho'im. Once more, their mitigation
>as TsN requires us to love them, save them and support them as if they are
>"Yehudim Kesheirim."

 
Let us therefore eliminate the discussion about today's hilonim and discuss
the classical case of a tinok shenishba.  I think it is clear that the
poskim have treated him as either in the category of an anus or a category
of a shogeg, and therefore the halachot of mehallele shabbat, mumarim, and
reshaim do not apply.  


Sources:
tashbet 3:47, discussing that the rambam held that a min no longer has a din
of ach, and allows being malve beribbit, unlike a tinok shenishba

maharil 79, discussing, says that anusim are considered like a tinok
shenishba and are all their days like yisrael gmurim and (of special
interest) are not called  meshumadim

radach, 31, talking about anusim who have the power to flee, says that
anyone who is not a tinok shenishba and thinks that it is permissible to be
over an avera he is karov to mezid  (he is talking here about avoda
zara...),clearly implying a TsN is different

avne nezer eh 223  (dealing with regard to issues of whether the fact that
the yabam is a mumar paters from halitza - here the issue is very clearly
whether a tinok shenishba has the status of a mumar or not, because it has
nothing to do with mitzva we have to be mekarev him and save him, only
whether he has the status of a mumar) if so he isn't a mumar, as anyone who
is considered a tinok shenishba is not a mumar( citing the rambam in hilchot
mamrim)

melamed lehoil yd 2;115, dealing with burying someone close other jews,
objecting to the reasoning of another tshuva, which was based on the
principle of eyn kovrin rasha etzel zaddik, and then said that you couldn't
say that the individual was a tinok shenishba and therefore not a rasha
(again, as this is after death, this does not apply to our general attempts
to be mekareve a TsN, but deals with their intrinsict status)

seride esh 2:10, about a youth whose father was mehallel shabbat, and did
not do mila on the boy, and now wants to do a bar mitzva for the boy and
give him an aliya. He says that there is no problem.  Furthermore, with
regard to mila, the boy is dome to a tinok shenishba, so therefore he has no
din of a mumar leorla.  Therefore, al pi din, one is allowed to honor him
(!!!), although, halacha lema'ase, whether that should be done is up to the
judgement of the local mara d'atra whether that would help or hinder attemts
at kiruv.

With regard to Rav Moshe:(the citation, as clarified with RYGB, was to
OC:4:91)
	There is a distinction between several different issues.
1) Extent to which a TsN is hayav for his actions - a question of shogeg
versus anus.and R Moshe says they do not ahve the onesh biyede shamayim.


2) Extent to which, for certain status, such as being an ed, one requires
not only no negative, but also a positive kiyum.  For edim, this has been a
question through the years for example for the Karaite community, whether
their edim are kasher and so their marriages (but not gittin( are kasher.
Rav Moshe clearly paskens (see for example eh 1:82) that a TsN, because he
lacks yirat shamaim and fear of consequences, is passul le'edut.

3)  Even if they are not hayyav, they have opinions that are kopher.
Therefore, there is danger in close association, as one might get
contaminated.  ( I am not sure that they have the status of kopher for other
thing)(the issue of the danger is clear in his language, as when he brings
the rambam about being mekarev the karaites, he adds velo chol adam ra'uy
laze

4) Question to the extent that current non Shomre mitzvot are actually a
TsN, (in most of his language he uses dome leTsN) - Rav Moshe clearly holds
(whcih is the svara of the Radbaz with regard to the Karaim) that those who
have contact with the dati community but reject it (see for example EH 1:82)
do not have the status of a TsN

Moed tov
Meir Shinnar

> Does anyone know of any other rational for not eating in the Sukkah on Sh A?

Harry Maryles brings out a very logical reason why one should not eat
in a sukkah on Shemini Atzeret, which I admit I have never heard.

In fact, the bal tosif argument is a lot better than the two reasons
I've heard justifying not eating in a sukkah on Shemini Atzeret.

1) Apparently, not eating in a sukkah on Shemin Atzeret is a chassidic
custom, which started when those Hasidim who wanted to eat with the
rebbe on Shemini Atzeret had a problem because they were mitztayer by
crowding into the sukkah. Hence, a heter was granted and the custom
began not to eat in the sukkah during this time.

2) I've also heard the argument that one can be lenient on eating in the
sukkah on Shemini Atzeret because it might interfere with simchas yom tov.

I think the gemara is pretty clear that one should eat in the sukkah on
Shemini Atzeret, though.

I'm interested in the different customs on Shemini Atzeret day that I've 
witnessed: I know some who don't eat at all in the sukkah, some who make 
kiddush in sukkah but don't eat the meal there, and some who make kiddush and 
eat in the sukkah.  Any thoughts as to why the laws for the day of Shemini 
Atzeret would be different than the previous night?

Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT

[I read the reason given in (1) in Nefesh haRav, but I assumed RYBS was not
being serious. -mi]

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]