Volume 48 Number 47
Produced: Thu Jun 9 6:15:30 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Public Sabbath Desecrators (3)
[Mark Steiner, Chana Luntz, Mark Steiner]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:08:32 +0300
Subject: RE: Public Sabbath Desecrators
Let me rephrase my point.
In the case of a Gentile, as Chana correctly asserts, there is a direct
connection between the proihibition of wine and the fear of
intermarriage. (Prof. Haym Soloveitchik in a recent book argues the
contrary to this, but this connection is asserted by the poskim, and I
believe that Chana is correct.)
In the case of a Jew who publicly desecrates the sabbath (MSB) there is
no such connection. Each of these prohibitions, if there is one,
derives separately from the FORMAL analogy of a MSB to a Gentile.
Furthermore, as Chana and I agree, there is no prohibition of
"intermarriage" in the case of a MSB. We do not extent the FORMAL
analogy so far.
It follows, therefore, that the citation of the wine laws in the
discussion of the status of a Jewish MSB is irrelevant and confuses the
issue. Also, the discussion of marriage laws in the discussion of the
status of wine handled by a MSB is irrelevant. Each law must be decided
separately and on its own merits.
(1) Let us take the issue of lending money at interest. As Chana knows,
there is a controversy about the status of a converted Jew, whether he
is treated as Christian for the purpose of these laws. Some rishonim
held that it is strictly forbidden to lend such an apostate at interest,
because he is "fort a yid," as we say in Yiddish. Others held that the
penalty for apostasy is so strong that it supersedes the prohibition to
lend money at interest to a Jew.
I would like to see such a controversy among the classical sources about
a MSB. Did anybody ever hold that one could lend money to a MSB at
interest? (I don't know the answer, but would welcome enlightenment
from the list.)
(2) Here is another question: is a MSB in the classical sources
incompetent (a) to give a get? (b) to give halitzah? Again, I don't
have time to research the issue right now, but I would be surprised if
there were "sources" giving a positive answer to these questions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <Heather_Luntz@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:14:33 +0100
Subject: RE: Public Sabbath Desecrators
Quoting Mark Steiner <marksa@...>:
> Let me rephrase my point.
> In the case of a Gentile, as Chana correctly asserts, there is a direct
> connection between the proihibition of wine and the fear of intermarriage.
> (Prof. Haym Soloveitchik in a recent book argues the contrary to this, but
> this connection is asserted by the poskim, and I believe that Chana is
> correct.)
Note by the way that while we both agree, I suspect that we also both
agree that it is linked to the individual and not his children. If a
particular non Jew happens to have only Jewish daughters (because their
mother is Jewish let us say) who may be perfectly eligible for marriage,
that does not make his wine permissible (or him himself eligible for
marriage).
> In the case of a Jew who publicly desecrates the sabbath (MSB) there
> is no such connection. Each of these prohibitions, if there is one,
> derives separately from the FORMAL analogy of a MSB to a Gentile.
> Furthermore, as Chana and I agree, there is no prohibition of
> "intermarriage" in the case of a MSB. We do not extent the FORMAL
> analogy so far.
I think this is where we disagree. I do not believe that there is any
prohibition on the intermarriage with the children of an MSB or a bone
fide Jewish idol worshipper for that matter, but I cannot see how we
cannot extend the formal analogy to the individual themselves. Lets
deal with the latter case (ie the bone fide Jewish idol worshiper) for
the moment, because that is really what we are discussing here and
everything else derives from that.
OK, so we have a bone fide Jewish idol worshipper who shows up and wants
to get married (lets face it, in the time of the Ran, unlikely, but you
never know). You appear to believe that a Rav will marry him, and
should marry him. I do not.
Why?
Well, beside for the obvious oddity that I have yet to see a chuppah
where the chossen and/or kala does not touch the wine (and yes, this can
be solved by using mevushal wine, but the very role that wine plays in a
chuppah provides part of the link to intermarriage that we have
discussed above), there are other problems here:
a) A chosson is mekadash the kala "k'das Moshe v'Yisroel". What does it
mean to say that a person who totally denies Hashem and his Torah is
expected to make that statement, and the kosher eidim are expected to
witness such a statement. Do you really believe that a Rav/eidim should
be putting themselves into a position where they are witness to a
statement which is known to be effectively a lie on the part of the
individual making it? A person whom it is agreed that their brocha is
not a brocha, but kosher eidim are to be required to hang onto their
every word to make sure they make a statement of kedusha correctly and
so they can verify that fact?
b) Part of the essence of a wedding is the sheva brochas, which involve
invoking the name of Hashem in the context of the mitzvah that is being
performed. Is it appropriate to invoke the name of Hashem in
circumstances where the mitzvah is being performed by a mumar of the
whole Torah? Can it really be called a mitzvah? It seems to me there
are serious questions of invoking Hashem's name l'vatala that no Rav
should want to get into.
c) It is a mitzvah to be mechabed [honour] the chossen, who is
homilitically (and in some regards halachically) regarded as a melech
for the day. Is it ever appropriate for a Rav to allow somebody who is
a denier of Hashem and his Torah to be put in the category of a melech
whom one is required to be mechubed and whose sameach [happiness] it is
a mitzvah to provide?
d) The Torah itself describes marriage as the entering into of klal
Israel. There is nothing that I can think of that more fundamentally
negates any description of a person as like a non Jew (formally or
otherwise). It therefore strikes me as difficult to describe any person
who is allowed to enter into the klal by virtue of marriage as being
like a non Jew in any fundamental respect whatever we say about wine and
minyan (one does not need to be counted in a minyan to be a Jew, I am,
of course, not counted in a minyan and I do not believe that discounts
me as a Jew). If we are FORMALLY treating a person as like a non Jew,
to the extent that we discount their shechita, because they are not
considered in the parsha of shechita, we discount their brochas, and we
treif their wine, then, it seems to me, that has to apply to being
unwilling to marry them at the very least l'chatchila (and even query
whether they are sufficiently in the parsha of kiddushin for their
statement vis a vis kidushin to be an effective statement - but that at
most is a bideved question, not a l'chatchila one).
> It follows, therefore, that the citation of the wine laws in the
> discussion of the status of a Jewish MSB is irrelevant and confuses
> the issue. Also, the discussion of marriage laws in the discussion of
> the status of wine handled by a MSB is irrelevant. Each law must be
> decided separately and on its own merits.
The reason I do not think it is irrelevant is because I do think there
is a general and quite strong link between wine and intermarriage of the
individual in question (but not necessarily of their children as the
case of the non Jew with Jewish children illustrates above).
> (1) Let us take the issue of lending money at interest. As Chana knows,
> there is a controversy about the status of a converted Jew, whether he is
> treated as Christian for the purpose of these laws. Some rishonim held that
> it is strictly forbidden to lend such an apostate at interest, because he is
> "fort a yid," as we say in Yiddish. Others held that the penalty for
> apostasy is so strong that it supersedes the prohibition to lend money at
> interest to a Jew.
>
> I would like to see such a controversy among the classical sources about a
> MSB. Did anybody ever hold that one could lend money to a MSB at interest?
> (I don't know the answer, but would welcome enlightenment from the list.)
>
> (2) Here is another question: is a MSB in the classical sources incompetent
> (a) to give a get? (b) to give halitzah? Again, I don't have time to
> research the issue right now, but I would be surprised if there were
> "sources" giving a positive answer to these questions.
In practice, of course, this is something that happens every day and is
accepted as valid every day - but again, this to my mind is part of the
reality that we do not treat modern day MSB's as being in the same
category as a genuine Jewish idol worshipper.
The more serious question is whether a genuine Jewish idol worshipper is
sufficiently in the parsha of gitten v'kiddushin that their get/halitza
is a get/halitza? The thing about gitten and chalitza is that virtually
by definition the situation is bidieved because of the aguna issues -
and I would have thought therefore the correct way to get around it was
by using "in the alternative" type logic. That is, *if* in fact they
are sufficiently in the parsha that their get is a get and/or their
chalitza is a chalitza, then the get/chalitza will be valid if given,
and if in fact they are sufficently outside the parsha that they are
like a non Jew in every respect, then, in the case of chalitza there is
no zika (ie it is as if there is no brother) and in the case of
kiddushin - well maybe the kiddushin was never valid in the first place
and if it was maybe it is as if the Jew who did that kiddushin died. I
would therefore have thought that m'safek the get/chalitza should be
arranged and that should be enough (although clearly if there are other
brothers who do not fall within this category the other brothers should
do the chalitza to avoid the safek).
However, this kind of bideved does not exist in circumstances where a
Rav agrees to be mesader kiddushin (and in fact agreeing so to do is
more likely to put one into one of the safekos listed above).
Therefore, as mentioned, I cannot see any justification for a Rav
agreeing to marry somebody unless they know for sure they are in the
parsha of gitten and kiddushin (and certainly in many places, including
here in London and in Israel, great lengths are gone to to makes sure
that the person really does have correct Jewish ancestry, and no
marriage is permitted to take place under halachic auspices if there is
any doubt about that). The very fact that all the investigation is into
the parentage of the individuals, and not into their sabbath observance,
to my mind says a lot about the view that is taken of the known modern
phenomonon of public sabbath desecration.
Regards
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 23:53:23 +0300
Subject: RE: Public Sabbath Desecrators
Chana seems to feel that I offered an opinion whether a rabbi can
officiate at the wedding of a MSB according to halacha. Let me repeat,
all I'm saying is that the answer cannot be derived from the wine laws.
(By the way, a friend of mine at college who wanted to be observant, but
did not fully believe in the principles of Orthodox Judaism, had serious
problems about drinking his own wine...he later became Orthodox and
solved this problem)
For this reason, a decision that a MSB today is treated as a Jew for
certain purposes, would not necessarily mean that his wine is permitted.
Remember that wine was prohibited mainly because of the issue of
idolatry (libation), intermarriage is almost a side issue. Thus, the
laws of Gentile wine, even today when we have no actual libations,
follow FORMALLY the rules of yayin nesech (wine becomes forbidden by
touching, even today, though the only fear is supposed to be
intermarriange--so what difference does contact make? Why would a
waiter touching my wine raise a specter of intermarriage? Answer: it
doesn't, formally, the rules of wine remain analogous to the rules for
idolatrous offerings. This explanation is given by the Tosafot to Avoda
Zara). One could therefore imagine a posek distinguishing different
contexts.
One point I definitely disagree with Chana is in her use of an
expression "kvetch out a heter" in referring to the opinions of gedolei
hador who have treated the modern MSB or even heretics differently from
what is prescribed in the shulhan arukh, and I would be very happy if
she would withdraw this phrase from circulation. Both the Hazon Ish and
Reb Chaim Brisker held that some (if not all) of these laws do not apply
today, and both of these gedolim were known to be unyielding in their
zealotry when they felt that basic principles of faith were being
challenged.
Usually the argument is given that modern MSB or nonbelievers are
somehow better than their forebears in Talmudic times and must therefore
be treated more gently.
Yet both the Hazon Ish and the Brisker Rov argued just the opposite--it
is the decline of our generation which makes the difference. For
example, the Hazon Ish points out (on the gemara stating that capital
punishment was abolished whern murder was rampant) that capital
punishment can have its effect as a deterrent only when it is rare; in a
violent society, capital punishment just increases the violence. This
strikes me as Talmudic reasoning at its deepest.
The "Brisker Rov applied this exact idea (independently, of
course--everybody knows there was a serious divergence between their
halachic methodologies) to the case of heretics. The following story is
well documented: a young Bundist revolutionary was imprisoned by the
Czarist regime for shooting a revolver at the pictures of the Czar, and
sentenced to death on Yom Kippur. This boy had lit cigarettes on
shabbos and blown smoke in Reb Haym's face as he walked to shul. The
regime set a huge ransom for this boy, and naturally the rabbonim and
lay leaders of Brisk were in no mood to cough up this sum--he is even
worse than a non-Jew, they said; good riddance.
Yet Reb Haym insisted that he must be saved. The laws in the Talmud to
the contrary presupposed the educational effect of capital punishment.
Just as the Hazon Ish, he added that this can only work if the number of
atheists is few. Today, he said, there are so many apikorsim, that "one
more apikores or one less makes no difference." Once this is said, the
status of the Bundist reverts back to that of an ordinary Jew who must
be saved at all costs. Reb Haym therefore locked all the shuls in Brisk
and did not allow them to say Kol Nidrei uintil the huge sum was raised.
As a matter of fact, Reb Haym was so engaged in saving the life of a Jew
who blew smoke into his fact on shabbos, that he didn't have time to
eat, and fasted two days.
Did this mean that Reb Haym would drionk the Bundist's wine? I doubt
it...And neither, I think, would the Hazon Ish..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 48 Issue 47
