Volume 55 Number 70
Produced: Mon Sep 10 21:26:17 EDT 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Halakhic reasoning vs. reward/punishment calculations (4)
[Chana Luntz, Keith Bierman, Daniel Wells, Chana Luntz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <chana@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:15:07 +0100
Subject: Re: Halakhic reasoning vs. reward/punishment calculations
Daniel Wells writes:
>In my humble opinion since kol israel areivim zeh lezeh, if you push
>for a union that will cause a Jew to sin thru cohabitation with a goy
>or with a niddah, then surely you are just as guilty and will have what
>to answer for in the next world, that's if you are not struck down
>first by a modern day Pinchas as he attempts to rid the world of the
>Zimri's and Cozbi's.
>According to the majority opinion in the Gemara, mitzva shehitkayma al
>yedei avera, posula
I don't understand how you can characterise the introduction of two non
observant Jews as being a mitzvah shkitkayma al yedei avera.
I do agree that, if the woman is in niddah at the time that they have
relations, then there is a strong argument for a mitzvah haba b'averah -
the mitzvah of pru u'rvu is being performed in a manner that involves an
averah.
But I rather think Nachum Klafter's statement earlier in his post is
more correct "It is not a case of lifnei iver. It is not a case of
mesayeya lidei ovrei averah. It is not even a case lifnei d'lifnei."
>In other words there is no mitzva if the end result will be an aveira.
The key issue here, it seems to me, and in the original discussion as
per Jay F Shachter is the "will" in the above statement. There is an
assumption in this statement about any two individual, albeit non
observant, Jews, that they *will not* do teshuva - at least to the
extent of the woman going to mikvah (and this is not even allowing for
the chance that she might go swimming unintentionally in a vadai mikvah,
such as the sea).
The halacha is that if a person is mekadesh a woman "al manat sheani
tzadik" [on condition that I am righteous] even though he is a rasha
gamor [a complete evildoer] she is considered married because perhaps he
had a thought of teshuva in his heart (Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer siman
38, si'if 31).
A person who is not prepared to introduce two non observant Jews,
because they might get married and then might have relations while she
is in niddah is ruling them out of doing teshuva. He has no faith in
the ability of klal yisroel to do teshuva. He has set himself up as
judge and has judged l'chova. That, to my mind, is why the statement
quoted in the name of Rav Kamenetsky makes a great deal of sense. The
classic manhig yisroel was, of course, Moshe Rabbanu, and given the time
of year it is, it is well worth dwelling on his faith in the Jewish
people at the time of the chet haegel in the face of arguments that
would write them out of history. A manhig yisroel has to believe in the
capability of those he leads to improve (and I have heard it said that
that is what Moshe's sin was when he struck the rock, he demonstrated
that he no longer had that faith in the Jewish people, and so could no
longer be the one to lead them).
This is of course different from the case of the married Jewish woman or
the non Jew. If the Jew or Jews involved did do any form of teshuva,
the result would be that there would no longer be any involvement with
the married Jewish woman or with the non Jew. On the other hand, if the
two single Jews did teshuva, then the ideal result would still be a
marriage, just a marriage with taharas mishpacha in it - and the
introduction would be, on all accounts, a mitzvah.
Shabbat Shalom
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Bierman <khbkhb@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 07:20:49 -0600
Subject: Halakhic reasoning vs. reward/punishment calculations
On Sep 7, 2007, at 4:02 AM, Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
> Daniel Wells <wells@...> wrote:
>
>> We have the Conservative movement allowing on Shabbos, the driving to
>> Shul but forbidding the driving to the football match thus hoping to
>> engender allegiance to their heritage. What actually happens in many
>> C homes is that shul is missed and the football or golf gets that
>> allegiance.
>
> This is a ludicrous statement. Do you honestly think that someone who
> feels that a teshuva is necessary in order to drive on Shabbat would
> also be someone who would skip shul and go to football or golf and use
> a teshuva as their rationale for being able to do so? People who do
> not attend shul in order to go to football or golf are not people who
> would take teshuvot seriously, assuming they'd even heard of them at
> all.
Both Daniel *and* Janice have good points.
*Serious* Conservative Jews do not leap from one limited leniency to
outright abrogation of the mitzvot (Janice's point). And there *are*
serious committed jews in the Conservative movement.
Sadly, most people are neither that serious nor that well educated (and
the movement does it's members a disservice by not focusing on such
issues more) and thus there are people who fail to realize that driving
on Shabbat is assur (forbidden) *except* for a very limited heter.
Indeed, I recall a schul meeting at one Conservative Schul were one of
the members made a point about how committed they were to the Schul that
they drove past no less than three other Schuls each Shabbat to get to
the one where the discussion was being held. That they were committed
was clear; but that they'd totally missed the point went unremarked upon
(assuming anyone other than myself even appreciated the point).
The Driving ruling was based on poor reasoning (to put it mildly) and
worse, history has amply demonstrated that it was *wrong* (not only
halachically but it's resulted in opposite the intended effect). I say
this as both a past and present member of the Conservative movement (in
between times, I helped found an Orthodox synagogue and while attended
synagogue was not formally affiliated with any movement for years).
The Israeli Masorti movement has done a much better job of making
sensible rulings. Sadly one can't join a Masorti synagogue in the US; at
least not that I've run across.
Keith H. Bierman <khbkhb@...>
<speaking for myself*> Copyright 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Wells <wells@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:42:48 +0300
Subject: Re: Halakhic reasoning vs. reward/punishment calculations
I don't understand how you can characterise the introduction of
two non observant Jews as being a mitzvah shkitkayma al yedei
avera.
I do agree that, if the woman is in niddah at the time that they
have relations, then there is a strong argument for a mitzvah haba
b'averah - the mitzvah of pru u'rvu is being performed in a manner
that involves an averah.
You have answered your own question.
Kiyum of the kiddushin (establishment of the marriage) is with the first
cohabitation. But until she tovels in a mikveh she is still a niddah ie
mitzvah haba b'averah.
>In other words there is no mitzva if the end result will be
an aveira.
There is an assumption in this statement about any two individual,
albeit non observant, Jews, that they *will not* do teshuva - at
least to the extent of the woman going to mikvah (and this is not
even allowing for the chance that she might go swimming
unintentionally in a vadai mikvah, such as the sea).
The chances of "teshuva" between kiddushin and the first Bia is I
presume is highly unlikely.
As far as sometime later "that she might go swimming unintentionally in
a vadai mikvah, such as the sea)" is a not a consideration since its
highly unlikely there will not be a hatzizah between her body and the
sea.
A person who is not prepared to introduce two non observant Jews,
because they might get married and then might have relations while
she is in niddah is ruling them out of doing teshuva.
What comes first, the horse or the cart! Would you be prepared to
introduce an unemployed known ganav to the manager of the bank because
he may just do teshuva?
This is of course different from the case of the married Jewish
woman or the non Jew. If the Jew or Jews involved did do any form
of teshuva, the result would be that there would no longer be any
involvement with the married Jewish woman or with the non Jew. On
the other hand, if the two single Jews did teshuva, then the ideal
result would still be a marriage, just a marriage with taharas
mishpacha in it - and the introduction would be, on all accounts,
a mitzvah.
Its important to distinguish between that of an introducer who is fairly
convinced that an aveira will take place because of him, and that of two
seculars who of their own accord decide to get hitched. Then they alone
are responsible for their own sins. Also its not the mesader kiddushin's
job to check if they are shomer shabbat, its not his job to check if
they will keep the purity laws.
To marry a goy is kofer b'Ikkar, ie making a primary blanket statement
of non compliance with Jewish Law, however the marriage of two seculars
does not necessarily imply that.
However I have heard it reliably said that if yid is a complete tinok
shenishba and does even know that he is jewish, then it may be better
that he marries a goy and let his descendents become goyim, rather than
inform him and thus make him culpable for his aveiros. Obviously this a
case where there is little hope that he will do teshuva.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <chana@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 19:22:35 +0100
Subject: RE: Halakhic reasoning vs. reward/punishment calculations
RDW writes commenting on my post:
> >I don't understand how you can characterise the introduction
> >of two non observant Jews as being a mitzvah shkitkayma al
> >yedei avera.
>
> >I do agree that, if the woman is in niddah at the time that
> >they have relations, then there is a strong argument for a
> >mitzvah haba b'averah - the mitzvah of pru u'rvu is being
> >performed in a manner that involves an averah.
>
> You have answered your own question.
> Kiyum of the kiddushin (establishment of the marriage) is
> with the first cohabitation. But until she tovels in a mikveh
> she is still a niddah ie mitzvah haba b'averah.
Eh? I was always taught that there are, as per the Mishna in Kiddushin,
*three* ways that a man can be mekadesh a woman, kesef, shtar and biah
[money, document or relations], not that the other two need biah as
well. You seem to be suggesting that without biah there is no kiyum of
the kiddushin - which would seem to mean that if somebody else where to
have relations with her they would be patur from being mekadesh an
eishis ish. Rather I think you will find that kiddushin is kiddushin
whether or not they have biah hours, weeks or months after that
kiddushin.
> > >In other words there is no mitzva if the end result will be
> > > an aveira.
>
> >There is an assumption in this statement about any two
> >individual, albeit non observant, Jews, that they *will not*
> >do teshuva - at least to the extent of the woman going to
> >mikvah (and this is not even allowing for the chance that she
> >might go swimming unintentionally in a vadai mikvah, such as
> >the sea).
>
> The chances of "teshuva" between kiddushin and the first Bia
> is I presume is highly unlikely.
Firstly, my guestimate of the time between introduction (which is the
key matter we are discussing) and kiddushin in the case of a pair of non
religious is probably in the vicinity of two years.
Secondly, as mentioned, the kiddushin and the first biah may well be
hours, days or months apart, you just don't know. Particularly if your
non frum couple, does not, as frum couples do, hang around for sheva
brochas, but catches the evening flight out to that beach resort, then
the chances of the first swim preceeding the first biah might be quite
high.
Thirdly, you are discounting the ability of many Orthodox rabbis to
pursuade the couple that mikvah for the woman is part and parcel of them
doing the marriage (in Israel of course you cannot get a Rabbanut, ie
State recognised) marriage without a mikvah certificate).
But Fourth, and this is precisely why I brought the case of somebody who
places a tnai on the kiddushin that he is a tzaddik. The chances of a
rasha gamor doing (or being able to do) teshuva in the limited time span
between his status being assessed and the kiddushin being deemed chal is
extremely unlikely. Far more unlikely than that somehow, intentionally
or unintentionally, the woman has been in a kosher mikvah. But we never
give up hope of teshuva (and, I think the sources will all say, neither
does Hashem, so in that regard it is imitatio dei).
> As far as sometime later "that she might go swimming unintentionally
> in a vadai mikvah, such as the sea)" is a not a consideration since
> its highly unlikely there will not be a hatzizah between her body and
> the sea.
I see you disagree with Rav Moshe.
> A person who is not prepared to introduce two non observant Jews,
> because they might get married and then might have relations while she
> is in niddah is ruling them out of doing teshuva. What comes first,
> the horse or the cart! Would you be prepared to introduce an
> unemployed known ganav to the manager of the bank because he may just
> do teshuva?
There are specific haalchic issues mandating disclosure. I don't see
any problem in introducing such a person to the manager of the bank so
long as I also told him that he was a known ganav. At that point it is
up to the bank manager to decide whether to give him a chance or not
(which, if he does, I suspect will involve some hard talking). Not
telling the bank manager is clearly an issur.
> This is of course different from the case of the married Jewish woman
> or the non Jew. If the Jew or Jews involved did do any form of
> teshuva, the result would be that there would no longer be any
> involvement with the married Jewish woman or with the non Jew. On the
> other hand, if the two single Jews did teshuva, then the ideal result
> would still be a marriage, just a marriage with taharas mishpacha in
> it - and the introduction would be, on all accounts, a mitzvah. Its
> important to distinguish between that of an introducer who is fairly
> convinced that an aveira will take place because of him, and that of
> two seculars who of their own accord decide to get hitched. Then they
> alone are responsible for their own sins.
Leaving aside any question of marriage being a mitzvah, the issue of at
what point one is forbidden to aid a person to do an aveira is a
halachic topic dealt with under the rubric of lifnei iver. It is dealt
with extensively in the halachic literature. You seem to be extending
that issur well beyond its normal halachic definition. Can you please
source this. Or is this about your "gut" feeling?
> Also its not the mesader kiddushin's job to check if they are shomer
> shabbat, its not his job to check if they will keep the purity laws.
Why, according the the classic definitions of one side and two sides of
a river, is his position any different from that of an introducer?
> However I have heard it reliably said that if yid is a complete tinok
> shenishba and does even know that he is jewish, then it may be better
> that he marries a goy and let his descendents become goyim, rather
> than inform him and thus make him culpable for his aveiros. Obviously
> this a case where there is little hope that he will do teshuva.
Would you say that it should be different if the tinok shenishba is in
fact a tinoket ie a woman?
Shabbat Shalom (and I really must go light, it is candle lighting time)
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 55 Issue 70
