The most problematic ruling relating to an apikorus is the law that he is to be "cast into a pit and not rescued." The Chazon Ish has a well-known ruling on this matter which is based on the understanding that this law is meant to achieve certain social objectives:
It seems that the law of casting [an apikorus] into a pit only applies at a time when the blessed One's providence is manifest, e.g. at a time when miracles were common, and heavenly voices were heard, and the righteous of the generation were under personal providence evident to all, and the heretics were particularly perverse in turning their passions to lust and wantonness. At that time destruction of the wicked served as a fence for the world, for all knew that leading the nation astray brought calamity into the world, and it brought plague, and warfare and famine into the world. But in a time of concealment, when faith is gone from the common people, the act of casting into a pit does not repair the breach, but rather it adds to it, in that it appears to them as an act of destruction and violence, God forbid. And since its entire purpose is to repair, the law does not apply when it does not lead to repair. It falls upon us to bring them back with chains of love, and to stand them in a ray of light as much as we can. (Chazon Ish, Hilkhot Shechita 2, 16)
The law of "casting down and not rescuing" is meant to repair the
generation, and therefore, at a time when it will not lead to repair, but rather
make things worse, the law is not applied.[8]
Chazon Ish , yes. Rav Kook , yes. But not hareidim in general, and not the Eidah.
ReplyDeleteIn fact , Rav Goldvicht ztl was approached by the Tzioni yeshiva, KBY, to be their head. He asked the Brisker Rav whether he could tech ther, and was told NO. He asked the Chazon Ish, and the CI said "if they want Torah, you must teach them". Do you see the difference? the CI was a Gadol who cared for the entire Klal. Not all Chareidim take this view, and certainly not the anti-zionists.
N.B Kerem b'yavneh is not even chilonim, it is frum , orthodox bochrim who are Tzioni.
In this article, it says:
ReplyDelete"
According to Rav Kook, even a person who grew up in a religiously
observant environment and shed his faith on his own may have a status parallel
to that of a child who had been taken captive! Rav Kook develops the definition
of anus in this context, arguing that a person who grows up in a time
when heresy has turned into the norm is defined as an anus. As opposed to
the Chazon Ish and the Rambam, who relied on existing halakhic
structures, and argued that they are based on the law of anus, Rav Kook
relates to the law of ones as an independent consideration. Rav Kook,
however, does not specify the ramifications of this
definition."
it reminds me of the "trick" that R' Riskin uses for mishkav zachar anusim (no pun intended).
If you accept Rav Kook's interpretation, doesn't the Riskin trick also work?
This is very interesting indeed:
ReplyDelete~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Hagahot Maimuniyot emphasizes that it is only a wicked person
"who does not accept rebuke" regarding whom there is a mitzva to hate.
There are those who have developed this point, relying on it in order to exclude
today's chilonim from this category. The Gemara in Arakhin (16b)
cites the words of Rabbi Elazar b. Azarya: "I wonder whether there is anyone in
this generation who knows how to offer rebuke." The Chazon Ish
(Shechita 2, 28) writes in the name of the Chafetz Chayyim that in
our day there is a mitzva to love the wicked, because in our day they are
regarded as being in the state of pre-rebuke, because there is nobody who knows
how to offer rebuke in proper manner. The Chazon Ish also draws from this
a stringent conclusion. We saw above that the Chazon Ish argues that
fundamentally anyone whose ritual slaughter is disqualified – his widow is
exempt from yibbum. He adds, however, that in our day, we cannot rely on
this, because among other reasons, "by us it is pre-rebuke, for we do not know
how to rebuke, and we judge him like anus (one compelled by circumstances
beyond his control)."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does anyone go by the CI on this? (or CC)
Old story: the talmid comes to his rebbe and says "Look, I can't go on. I've been thinking about this and I just don't believe anymore. I'm going to become an apikorus." The rebbe asks "How long have you been learning for?" "15 years!" says the talmid. The rebbe shakes his head. "And you think you know enough to become an apikorus?"
ReplyDeleteToday's chilonim aren't apikorsim. Either they simply don't care because being Jewish doesn't mean much or they really do believe a secular life well-lived in support of the State makes one a good Jew.
Hareidi population growth
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ynetnews.com/article/byjxjkody?fbclid=IwAR3dGIDlrCnC3wtGwJbzYDJk4vWcQOyNhqbaJWFgwaRxStxkxLXk-w5dFmE
For some, the minute you mention Tzioni, you exclude the possibility of Orthodoxy since no good Orthodox person would be one.
ReplyDelete