At what cost Kiruv?

"yisroel af al pi sh'choto"...
to what extend does this apply, do we have to try to bring them back? there are some places in jewish literature that we see a stronger language towards sinners and places where its not so strong, in the chasidik books we have different approaches as well, we get a total diffrent approach for example from the kotzker chasidim then the breslov chasidim (one of many examples) some of the baalei musar even had different approaches, some will shunned the baal aveira and some will try to be mekarev, is there a RIGHT way?

The observation that different Chasidishe seforim have different "approaches" is akin to someone going around to schools and homes and remarking that he saw different approaches to dealing with children. One parent was scolding; another was vehemently defending his child to the principal; another was siding with the principal; one parent was being lenient; another was strict; one was giving the child medicine; another was giving the child candy.

Here’s the rule with the Chasidishe Seforim: Each Rebbe custom tailored his teachings to what was best for his specific Talmidim. This means (a) what they needed in terms of their own Madreigos, as well as (b-) what was best for them according to the roots of their Neshomos.

An example of (a) could be if let’s say certain Chasidim were too soft when it came to protesting against wrongdoers, the Rebbe would emphasize to them the indignation they should feel against sinners; if another Rebbe’s Talmidim were overzealous, the Rebbe would teach them about the love they must express for sinners.

As far as the second criterion - (b -) – we know for example that each of our Avos had a different Midah – Avrohom = Chesed, Yitzchok = Gevurah and Yaakov = Emes. Each one of us also have a Midah, or a combination of Midos, which we can refer to as the Shoresh of our Neshomos, and it would be wonderful if we would know what our Shoresh HaNeshomos are, because then we’d be able to know what our métier in Avodas Hashem is in this world; we’d be able to know our specific mission. Like Avrohom knew to use Chesed, and Yitzchok, Gevurah.

The Rebbes knew this about their Talmidim. In fact, it’s a great thing when the roots of the Neshomos of the Talmidim match the roots of the Neshama of the Rebbe. But in any case, the Rebbe would tailor his teachings according to the Shoresh Nishmoseihem of the Talmidim. So to use the Avos again as an example, an Avrohom would be taught to employ chesed and a Yiztchok would be taught to employ gevurah.

But it does not mean that the approach taught by the Rebbe was meant for everyone equally.

And not only did the Rebbe tailor his teachings to the specific soul-roots of the Talmidim, but he also tailored his instructions to the appropriate time-specific and place-specific Avodah as well. Our Avodah on Purim is not the same as our Avodah on Tisha Bav, and each specific moment, and each specific place, has a certain special Avodah. We today have no idea of any of this, but the Talmidei HaBesht did, and they tailored their instructions for their Talmidim accordingly. (See also here).

This is why you will not be able to find even two Minhagim that Chasidim have all taken from the Baal Shem Tov. Even though they were all Talmidim of his, their Derech in Avodah was developed according to the specific needs and soul-roots of each individual Talmid. In fact, there were great Rebbes whose Minhagim varied from day to day, due to the time-specific nature of their Avodah.

And this is the reason you will find different approaches to sinners (and to many other things as well) in different chasidishe seforim.They are not meant to describe what everybody’s approach should be, but rather the approach of the specific Talmidim of the Rebbe at that specific time.

In other words, just because the Kotzker Rebbe gave hisTalmidim a specific approach does not mean that the Kotzker Rebbe would suggest that approach to you.Same with Rav Nachman. Same with every Rebbe. Their approaches were not meant for everyone. They were custom tailored specifically for their own Talmidim, based on various spiritual criteria. You have no way of knowing which approach you should take unless you know those criteria as they apply to you.

The same thing, though in a different way, and to a lesser extent, applies to the Mussar Seforim. Every Mussar school had an approach,which may or may not be the best for you. In any case, you need to know who the Rebbi was talking to. He may or may not talk the same way to you.

If you want a functional protocol for how to deal with Rechokim, you’re going to have to obtain it from Chazal and the Poskim. Here’s the story:

Regular frum people who commit Aveiros – struggling Jews who are weak and often lose the battle against the Yetzer Horah, but are not flagrant violators – we do our utmost to help them do Teshuva. All the more so a regular frum Yorei Shamayim who has lost or is losing a specific battle with the Yetzer Horah. Such people are our top priority. And preventing a frum person from going off the Derech is considered Pikuach Nefesh literally and is subject to the same Halochos of Pikuach Nefesh as those engaged in saving a person’s physical life. I explained this in a teshuva here.

Reshayim – People who regularly flagrantly violate theTorah, and certainly those who are not religious. It is a tremendous Mitzvah to get these people to do Teshuva. However, we are not allowed to befriend them, even in order to help them do Teshuva. As Chazal say: אל תתחבר לרשע אפילו לקרבו לתורה.

Apikorsim – People who do not firmly believe in theTorah’s Ikarim, even if they are religious, and certainly if they are not, are simply not part of Klall Yisroel. They lose their status as Jews (that is to say, they retain all obligations of Jews, but they lose all privileges), and we are not concerned with them doing Teshuva. We don’t even pray for them to do Teshuva. We pray for their demise. Sinners, even intentional ones, are the wounded of our people, but Apikorsim are the traitors. ישראל אע"פ שחטא ישראל הוא does not apply to them. Regarding such people Dovid HaMelech said: הֲלוֹא מְשַׂנְאֶיךָ ה' אֶשְׂנָא וּבִתְקוֹמְמֶיךָ אֶתְקוֹטָט

Tinokos Shenishbu – Someone who would presumably be religious if he could, but never had the chance. Classic case is a Jew who was captured by the gentiles – he doesn't even know he is Jewish. Many (although not all, and perhaps not even most) poskim rule that the unenlightened masses of non-religious Jews, which comprise the majority of Jews nowadays, are in this category. Their exposure to Judaism is so insignificant, if anything at all, that they are incapable of becoming religious.

It is a great Miztvah to be Mekarev these people. However, whether we befriend them in order to do so is subject to debate. If the reason we do not befriend Reshayim even to be Mekarev them is because we are concerned they will influence us, that reasoning could arguably apply to a Tinok Shenishba as well. The behavior of a Tinok Shenishba may be identical to that of a Rasha – it’s just that a Tinok Shenishba is not culpable for his behavior, whereas a Rasha is. But since it is the behavior that causes the influence, not the culpability, the danger of being influenced that keeps us from being Mekarev the Rasha should apparently apply to the Tinok Shenishba as well.

It’s complicated, and many years ago I discussed this at length with several Gedolim. Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach ZTL told me that being Mekarev a Tinok Shenishba needs to be done at arm’s length for the above reason, and that Hischabrus with a Tinok Shenishba, even for the sake of Kiruv, is not permitted. The example he gave me was that we can invite him to our home for a Shabbos meal but we should not go to a ball game with him (however, he added that many non-frum Jews nowadays are not in the category of Tinok Shenishba. If they (a) know they are Jewish, and (b-) know that they have the option of being religious, and (c ) the government will not persecute them if they become religious, then, he said, if they say they still do not want to become religious, they are no longer in the category of Tinokos Shenishbu).

Rav Yisroel Yaakov Fisher ZTL disagreed. He said that the prohibition of Hischabrus LeReshayim does not at all apply to a Tinok Shenishba, as they are not in the category of Reshayim. He said “According to that svara,Yayin Nesech of a Tinok Shenishba should also be prohibited.” I answered that the Minchas Elazar in fact holds that way because of this very reason. Rav Fisher replied that אין הכי נמי according to the Minchas Elazar it would be prohibited, but he disagrees.

Rav Elyashev shlita also held that there is no prohibition of Hischabrus when it comes to a Tinok Shenishba. He told me that the reason for the prohibition of Hischabrus LeReshayim for Kiruv is only because the Rasha will not listen to the Mekarev. And since we see that Tinokos Shenishbu do sometimes listen, the prohibition does not apply.

That having been said, it is unquestionably reckless, and therefore assur, for someone to engage in Kiruv without ensuring that he himself will not be influenced. This is true regardless of how important Kiruv is, and how much we need to love our non-religious brothers. It is a tremendous Mitzvah to save someone from a burning building, but firemen will correctly stop anyone from doing so, even if it means physically restraining them, unless they are professionals with the proper training and equipment.

Nobody is immune to negative influences. Even the sage R. Zeira prayed to Hashem that he not be influenced by the Reshayim that he was Mekarev (Brachos 16b – see commentary of Iyun Yaakov). Kiruv is a big Mitzvah, as is saving people from burning buildings, but proper training and equipment is imperative.

thanks a lot rabbi.
1) why/to whome were the chasidishe seforim writen to?
2) what about someone who things that what he believes is the torah view (but is mistaken)?
3) what about someone who didnt learn (but had the opourtunity to) which catagory does he fall into?
4) isnt there a shitah (or writen somewhere) that whoever is a baal aveira (any aveira) constantly b'meizid is considerd an apikores?

thanks a lot rabbi.
1) why/to whome were the chasidishe seforim writen to?

Written“for.” For the students (Chasidim) of the Rebbes. Of course, this doesn’t mean they are irrelevant to us, but it means we have to know how to take them. It’s like, for example, a medical student observes an experienced doctor in action in order to learn from him. He sees the doctor prescribing valium to one of his patients. The student can learn a lot from how the doctor determined what medicine to give, and how he prepares the medicine and how he deals with the patient etc. but it does not mean that because the doctor prescribed valium to his patient, that the student needs to prescribe that exact same medicine to his.Same thing with the Chaisdishe seforim. There is a lot to learn from them, but they are the writings of a doctor prescribing to the particular soul needs of his people. Their medicine may be good for us or may kill us, depending on what our particular soul needs are. We are not supposed to blindly copy the behaviors of Tzadikim without knowing whether that behavior makes sense for us.

In fact, the Chidushei HaRim did not learn any Chasidishe Seforim because of this – he only learned from his Rebbeim. (An exception he said were the Seforim of theChozeh, who he said wrote generically for all of Klall Yisroel, not just his students.)

Fora full treatment of this topic, listen to this shiur.

2) what about someone who things that what he believes is the torah view (but is mistaken)?

It depends. If he could have known the real Torah view by putting in more effort or being more objective or admitting his own limitations in understanding, then he is held responsible as if he were a Meizid. If he had no chance to understand things differently, because he was objective and thorough, yet still made a mistake, he is not responsible.

The Rambam says this in More Nevuchim to explain why someone is considered an Apikores if thinks the Torah says Hashem is physical due to his mistaken understanding of the Torah’s anthropomorphic descriptions of Hashem. It’s simple: He should have learned theTargum.

The Raavad disagrees and holds that such a person is not an Apikores. The Raavad may mean:

(a) Even if a person could have known better by looking at the Targum, since at the end of day he really thought the Torah says that, he is not an Apikores.

(b.) The reason he is an Apikores is because he could not have known better. He is not expected to read the Targum, since there are rabbis who told him Hashem is physical, he can be reasonably excused for believing these rabbis (that is an alternative reading of the phrase “gedolim vetovim mimenu” in the Raavad – i.e. There were people bigger than the Apikores himself who believed that and misled him).

... or perhaps something else.

It should be noted that the Raavad does not exempt someone form the status of Apikores unless he is willing to accept the Torah's opinion on the matter. In other words, this person who is mistakenly thinks that Hashem has a nose would quickly and gladly change his opinion if he were to be shown that the Torah really says he is wrong. The only reason he believes Hashem is physical is because he thinks the Torah says so. So his belief is really a Mekach Taos – if he’d know what the Torah really holds, he’d gladly change his mind. In fact, it is possible that this person himself if left on his own would conclude that Hashem is in fact not physical, but because the Torah (to his mind) says differently, he is willing to subordinate his opinion to what he thinks is the Daas Torah. This person has full Emunah in “whatever the Torah says.” It’s just that if you ask him about the details of what the Torah says, he’d be mistaken.But he still has a generic Emunah and is willing to accept the Torah's opinion.

But for someone who does not believe in the Torah altogether, or does not care what it says, even if such a person is a Tinok Shenishba, there is no source in the Raavad to exempt him from being an Apikores. The Raavad was talking about someone who has a generic belief and willingness to accept whatever the Torah says. Such a person is not an Apikores according to the Raavad, even if he is mistaken about the details.But someone who has no Emunah and is not willing to accept something because the Torah says so, there is no source in the Raavad that such a person is not a simple Apikores.

See also Pischei Teshuva YD 99:5, who brings a machlokes between the Tzemach Tzedek and the Teshuvos Bais Yaakov about someone who relies on the heter of his rabbi to do something, and it turns out his rabbi was wrong. Is such a person considered having done an aveirah? The Tzemach Tzedek holds that unless the person got his heter from one of the "בעלי הוראה מפורסמים" he is considered as if he did the sin on purpose.If the heter was not given by one of the בעלי הוראה מפורסמים, you use it at your own risk. If it turns out the heter was wrong, you're 100% responsible, and not a shogeg. If however it was one of the well-known Baalei Horaah that misguided you, then you are considered a shogeg. The Bais Yaakov holds differently - that as long as someone honestly thought that what he did was permitted, even if he heard it from a random friend, he is considered a shogeg.

3) what about someone who didnt learn (but had the opourtunity to) which catagory does he fall into?

See #2 above.

4) isnt there a shitah (or writen somewhere) that whoever is a baal aveira (any aveira) constantly b'meizid is considerd an apikores?

Depends. You're talking about a מומר. He is considered like a non-Jew only if he is either (a) a Mumar lehachis, even if he only violates one aveirah, or (b.) He violates a majority of the Torah.

A Mumar lehachis means that he violates the Torah not because he is weak and follows his taavos, but he simply doesn't care what the Torah says. This means he does not believe. When presented with two pieces of food, one Kosher and one non-Kosher, of equal quality and taste, this kind of Mumar will not care to eat the Kosher one over the non-Kosher one. This kind of violation of the Torah, even one time, takes a person out of Klall Yisroel.

The other Mumar (which is called a "Mumar Letayavon") violates the Torah because he gives in to his Yetzer Horah. Such a Mumar, when faced with the choice of eating Kosher or non-Kosher of equal quality and taste, will always eat the Kosher, since there is no incentive for him to violate the Torah in such a case. This Mumar is considered part of Klall Yisroel unless he violates the majority of Mitzvos.

We may also add the Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesyah, who is also considered not part of Klall Yisroel.

L'Chvod Rabbi Shapiro, Shlita:

Not that we're trying to be Mekarev them, but regarding the 4 types of Richokim mentioned in your first post in this thread:

1) Which category would a homosexual be in, if he were raised as a Frum Jew and then C"V decided to practice homosexuality?

2) Which category would a homosexual be in, if he is Jewish, but he was never raised with a Jewish education and C"V decided to practice homosexuality?

Thank you.

L'Chvod Rabbi Shapiro, Shlita:

Not that we're trying to be Mekarev them, but regarding the 4 types of Richokim mentioned in your first post in this thread:

1) Which category would a homosexual be in, if he were raised as a Frum Jew and then C"V decided to practice homosexuality?

2) Which category would a homosexual be in, if he is Jewish, but he was never raised with a Jewish education and C"V decided to practice homosexuality?

Thank you.

1) It depends what you mean by "practice homosexuality." If the person in question knows what he is doing is wrong but he gives in to his urges, then he has the same status as anyone who does any sin of equal severity. He knows it's wrong, he says it's wrong, but he just gives in to his Yetzer Horah. Such a person is not an Apikores. He would be considered a Mumar Ledavar Echad.

If however he is one of those who preaches there is nothing wrong with Mishkav zochor, thereby disagreeing with the Torah, he has the status of an Apikores.

2) Such a person is not frum altogether and he is subject to the same status as all unenlightened Jews.

What is a person considered if he "keeps" the Torah but is modern, like not Tznius and not careful with Kedusha things, and just keeps Kashrus and Shabbos? Also what about someone who has weird ideas about Judaism because they were turned off and is no longer frum ?

What is a person considered if he "keeps" the Torah but is modern, like not Tznius and not careful with Kedusha things, and just keeps Kashrus and Shabbos? Also what about someone who has weird ideas about Judaism because they were turned off and is no longer frum ?

Well "weird ideas" is kind of ambiguous, and there is a wide range of places between "not tznius and not careful with kedusha things" and "just shabbos and kashrus" (for example - do they put on Tefillin?).

So here's the story: If, for whatever reason, someone does not totally believe in the 13 Ikarim, he is an Apikores. Similarly, if he knowingly disagrees with something that it says in the Torah - anything at all - he is an Apikores. That may coincide with what you call "weird ideas about the Torah."

If he believes 100% in the Torah but has no interest in doing certain Mitzvos or a Mitzvah, he is a Mumar Lehachis.

If he believes 100% in the Torah but does not fulfill a particular Mitzvah because he is not willing to put in the effort (but if it would come easier for him he would fulfill it) then he is a Mumar L'Tayavon.

See above for the status of each of those.

Rabbi Shapiro,

 

Do you approve of frum people working in childrens' kiruv camps, such as camp Nageela or Oorah? The work they do is tremendous and many of the campers and their families become more observant as a result of the programs.

I have nothing against it. Whether it is the best choice is a chinuch question regarding the individual bochur.