Reform, Conservative, etc.

Reform has an added sin beyond being non-religious, and that is distorting the Torah. At least the non-religious don't falsify our religion.

Because Reform falsifies our religion, they cause others to sin because there are those who want to be religious, and Reform tells them that their way is the way G-d wants them to be. So reform makes others non-Religious.

Other than that, falsifying the Torah is itself a grave sin. If you don't want to be religious, that's one thing, but don't misrepresent G-d.

A non-religious person can say he really believes, but he is not ready or willing to keep the Mitzvos. That's like a guy who is caught for speeding and tells the judge I'm guilty, but I have no excuse. I just wanted to get home quicker.

But the Reform are like someone who is caught speeding and tells the judge that he disagrees with the speed limit, and that the judge has no right to tell him how fast to drive.

One is guilty of speeding. The other is making a revolution against the lawmaking process.

So a non-religious Jew violates the Law. Reform rebels against it, telling people that they do not have to follow it, that it is not binding.

Look at it this way: Jews for Jesus.

They believe in the Torah as much as the Reform, or perhaps more:

1) Jews for Jesus believe in G-d, Reform does not have to

2) Jews for Jesus believe in the revelation at Mt. Sinai, Reform does not

3) J4J believe that G-d literally wrote the Torah, Reform does not

4) J4J believes in the wrong Messiah. Reform believes in no Messiah at all

5) And one more difference, between a Reform rabbi and the Pope:

The Pope wears a Yarlmuka.

So if I were to ask you if J4J are "proud to be Jewish", what would you say?

Obviously, what they call "Jewish" and what we call "Jewish" are 2 different things. Although they are 100% Jewish if they had Jewish mothers, the religion they are practicing certainly is not Judaism.

So too the Reform. They are not practicing Judaism.

I think this whole pluralism thing would be looked at in a different light if we were to include Jews for J as Judaism.

Why in the world should they be left our more than, say, Reform? They are Jews too, right?

Yes.

So why does anybody consider Reform a "branch" of Judaism and not Jews for Jesus? Jews for Jesus is much closer to real Judaism than Reform.

So we may as well ask, Which is worse: Christianity or Reform?

Well, if a Reform Jew is an atheist, and he may be, then the Christian Jew is clearly on a higher level, since idolatry is one step above atheism.

---

They can consider themselves Reform, since Reform does not have anything against people believing in G-d, but they also give them the option of not believing in G-d too, and that's a serious problem. So serious, in fact, that it takes reform Judaism out of the realm of Judaism. We do not need labels. I don't know why, if your friends keep mitzvos, they consider themselves Reform and not Orthodox, but the point is not how religious you are, but what religion it is you are practicing. Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism are two different religions, despite the label. And just as there are Jews who do not practice Judaism - such as Jews for J - there can also be Jews who do not practice reform Judaism, despite what they call themselves.

---

To say that Reform Judaism is not Judaism is not Loshon Horah more than saying Jews for Jesus is not Judaism.

The Maharitz Chiyus writes (Kol Kisvei III:p.1113) that the Reform/Conservative Jews are indeed not responsible for their misguided beliefs because that's what they were taught. But those who taught them, those who should know better, are held responsible for them and their followers.

Someone who is reform is in the same category as someone who is Jews for Jesus. Of course they are Jews no matter what. And of course we need to show them the "way." But first and foremost we have to protect their potential victims from following them. Every Jewish child molester, for instance, are also Jews. And we should get them to do teshuva. But first we have to make sure they don't destroy any more lives. And if the child molester will leave our community unless we allow him to be a kindergarten teacher, then it's sad, but goodbye.

So too Reform rabbis, who destroy people's souls. You know the Halachah is that to save someone from becoming reform you would be allowed to violate Shabbos just as if the person was going to die? Do you know that Jews are obligated to die rather than believe that the Torah is not Min haShamayim? Reform rabbis should be shown the light, true, but first and foremost we have to make sure that nobody believes what they say, that they are not really rabbis, and not practicing Judaism at all. They are just like Jewish missionaries for Jesus.

Another thing. Even though every Jew remains a Jew, if someone believes in another religion - like Christianity OR Reform Judaism - he attains the status of a non-Jew regarding all privileges. Meaning, he cannot be counted as part of a Minyan, his Brachos are not brachos (we do not answer Amen to them), and if he touches our wine we may not drink it. (All of the above is the opinion of the majority of poskim. If someone is a Tinok Shenishbah - innocently duped, totally ignorant about Judaism - there is a disagreement about this).

He remains Jewish regarding all responsibilities, but is not granted any privileges.

Our religion does include non-orthodox Jews. But their religion, meaning the one they has chosen, does not include us. And I know it's painful, but my job, and the job of all of us, is first to make sure that distinction is understood.

---

Why would Reform be considered a "legitimate" branch of Judaism and not, say, Jews for Jesus? After all, that’s their "interpretation" of Judaism, so who’s to say they’re wrong?

Obviously, just because someone calls their religion Judaism does not make it so. The Judaism that was given by G-d bears no resemblance to Reform, who do not even feel obligated to believe that G-d ever gave that Torah in the first place. You can call it Judaism, but it is not. Sorry.

And forget about the old Reform blood libel of "How can you say we're not Jewish?!"

Nobody is saying you're not Jewish. You're just not practicing Judaism. You're like a Jewish atheist or a Jewish Buddhist or a Jew for Jesus.

They're all Jewish, if they had a Jewish mother. But being Jewish is what you are. Practicing Judaism is what you do. One does not necessitate the other.

According to Judaism, Reform is simply another religion, regardless of what you call it.

---

Your actions do not have to mean something to YOU. They have to mean something to G-D.

That’s the difference between Orthodox and Reform Judaism. Orthodox Judaism follows instructions that G-D gave us. Reform ignores those instructions and instead follows instructions that they themselves concocted. So Reform is not a religion given by G-d but rather made by men.

Why would you exclude Jews for Jesus as a "legitimate" branch of Judaism? Because they believe in Jesus? So what? Why can a Reform rabbi not even believe in G-d but a J4J "rabbi" can't believe in Jesus? Maybe Jews SHOULD believe in Jesus? Who are you to say they shouldn't? If this is what "connects" them to G-d, then what's wrong? And are you so arrogant as to say only you know how to connect to G-d

Orthodox Judaism is not "my" way of worshiping G-d. I did not invent it. Hashem did. I just follow it. You are projecting the man-made nature of Reform religion onto Orthodoxy, making believe that they are both man-made and then you ask why is your concocted religion better than mine? But the answer is that we did not make up our religion. Hashem gave it us on Mt. Sinai.

Let me ask another question: What makes Judaism better than Buddhism? Or any other religion? They, too, say they are "connected to G-d".

But the reality is that your Judaism and their Buddhism has nothing to do with G-d. G-d did not give either religion

---

To a Torah-thinking Jew, it is unthinkable to look at a reform rabbi preaching his religion as anything else than a spiritual mass murderer. And joining with him is as repulsive, even more so, than joining with a physical murderer. So if you believe your cause if important enough to join with a spiritual mass murderer, you surely would have no qualms with joining with a physical murderer.

But the Hashkafically assimilated would mistakenly look at a Reform rabbi as a "peer", albeit a wrongheaded one, as opposed to an enemy. Therein lies the Hashkafic tragedy. The masses of reform Jewry who have been mislead may be innocent victims of the spiritual atrocities of their leaders; but the rabbis themselves are guilty of mass murder - worse! - and are no less dangerous to us than any mass murderers of our physical beings.

The reform rabbi today goes through training which, as twisted as it may be, gives him the opportunity to willingly reject real Judaism in favor of Reform, which makes him very responsible.

---

Sometimes rejection of one Orthodox group of another is justified and sometimes it is not. Throughout history, we have had Orthodox groups - who kept Kosher, Shabbos, and Tznius - that were B"H rejected from Klall Yisroel. Korach's group was totally Orthodox, complete with Talmidei Chachamim and 250 Heads of Sanhedrin. Yeravan ben Nevat did more damage to Klall Yisroel than anyone in history and he and his group were totally Orthodox. Shabse Tzvi, the false Moshiach, was Orthodox, and so were his followers.

You can be sure that the followers of Korach said that "we too are Orthodox" and therefore Klall Yisroel's rejection of them was sinas chinam. In fact, that is exactly what Korach meant when he came to Moshe and said "The entire congregation is holy, why do you lord it over them?"

And I am sure that young men and women of Korach's sect also claimed that those who rejected them were just infighting, and better they should go fight with Amalek or something.

While it is true that it is difficult to know, sometimes, which group is Korach and which is Moshe, it is clear that even within Orthodoxy, there are groups that we must reject. That is because Torah is a lot more than just Kashrus, Tznius and Shabbos. You can keep all of those things and yet theoretically be an idol worshipper. An Ir Hanidaschas - an idolatrous city that the Torah commands us to utterly destroy - can be totally Tzniusdik, Kosher, and Shomer Shabbos.

If you want to be BY/Yeshivish, then you can successfully be that. A BT can sometimes feel out of place, but it is not because the community does not accept BT's, rather, some people in the community are not wise or mature enough to know how to express that acceptance.

---

Conservative Judaism does NOT follow Halachah -- they say they do, but they have a totally different definition of Halachah and the Halachic process than the Torah. Orthodox Judaism's "halacha" and Conservative "Judaism's" Halachah" are only homonyms. They’re not the same.

The so-called "halakhic pluralism" of the Conservative movement, the bogus "Committee on Law and Standards" which acts as their lawmaking body with no halachic due process is merely a false way of creating new and invalid so-called "halachos".

The heretic, Mordechai Kaplan, in his "Judaism as a Civilization" decided that Religion is a human creation, and halakhah has the status of "folkways." The heretic Solomon Schechter concocts his idea of Halachic "academic freedom" - meaning, halachah is no longer halachah as we know it, but a new, grotesque imposter thereof.
That resulted in a totally non-halachic religion, part of which follows:

"Mixed seating" in synagogue; retroactive annulment of marriages; counting of women in minyanim and giving them aliyos and letting them read form the Torah; ordination of women as rabbis; chilul Shabbos: permitting driving to "synagogue"; permitting use of electricity on Sabbath; eliminating second day of holidays; Friday night davening; unauthorized reforms in the siddur; changing the cycle of Torah reading.

---

Saying that the Torah isn’t really from Hashem, but merely "divinely inspired" is meaningless. How do we know that the Torah was divinely inspired? And how do we know what authority, if any, "divinely inspired" has? Maybe this website is divinely inspired? Maybe the Pope is "divinely inspired"?
The entire "divinely inspired" thing is so ambiguous and means so little in the bottom line that anyone can say it means anything they want. And this is no surprise, since "divinely inspired" was the concoction of some relatively modern day conservative rabbis, and Jews have never thought of such an outrageous concept ever.

Why didn’t the people who were "divinely inspired", their contemporaries, and the entire thread of torah tradition down ever mention the fact that the Torah was merely "divinely inspired" as opposed to the Word of G-d, which is what it says all over. How did these Conservatives decide this? Based on what? Nothing.

If we can just chuck Halachos that we consider offensive or nonsensical why haven't any Halachos been chucked until the Conservatives decided to do it? Torah has been around for thousands of years. It makes zero sense to say that only since the advent of the Conservative movement do we understand what it really means.

And it makes no sense anyway. "Nonsensical" to whom? "Offensive" to whom? What authority does the "Conservative movement" have to decide what's offensive or nonsensical? I am offended by the Conservative movement. That, by Conservative standards, should be enough to abolish it, no? Who makes these decisions, and, most importantly, who gives any of these people the authority to decide laws and practices for other people? Like, who died and make them the boss?
The fact that Conservative Judaism does not believe the Torah is the Word of Hashem but rather "divinely inspired" whatever that means, makes it a totally different religion than Orthodox Judaism. The last time an Orthodox rabbi said this, the Conservatives freaked out and falsely publicized to the papers that we do not believe they are Jews.

Not so. They are Jews. Nobody ever said differently. Their religion, however, is not Judaism. Like Jews for Jesus, they are full-fledged Jews, but are practicing the wrong religion.

And at least Jews for Jesus believe that the Torah was given by G-d, not merely "divinely inspired".
I’m not saying J4J are better than Conservativism. I said that at least they believe the Torah was given by G-d Himself. J4J is also not Judaism, and has other problems, but this is not one of them.

---

Conservativism doesn't merely partially follow Halachah, it partially believes in Halachah. People who can't resist temptation partially follow Halachah, but they know that there is more that they are not following. Conservativism has abolished Halahcos they do not like.

Our religion says the Halachos - all of them - were given by G-d. Not merely "divinely inspired", whatever that mean (it means nothing, really). To say that the Torah, including the Halachos are not binding is to create a new religion. Sorry.

---

Saying something like the conservative movement never abolished shatnez or niddah Halacha is like saying the Christians never abolished the Torah, they just "reinterpreted" it. Conservativism has some rules that they refer to as shatnez and nidah, but there is not much more similarity between theirs and ours.

---

Conservative Judaism is clearly heresy, and not Judaism at all. They create their own baseless rules and policies and incorporate those fairy tales into what they call Judaism.

As far as “Halachah” goes, they make call it “Halachah”, but it is nothing close. Solomon Schechter concocted, as part of the Halachic process a baseless and nonsensical concept called "Klal Yisrael" (yes, Klall Yisroel) which means that decisions on Jewish Law are largely determined by the practices of Klal Yisrael. In other words, instead of people having to follow the law, the law follows the people. Of course, it is more complicated – and more messed up – than that. They have something called the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS), that decides Halachah. Sometimes this pseudo-Sanhedrim hagadol will give people a choice of what they can do, and each conservative rabbi (sic) can decide on his own. Who gave these people authority, I have no idea. And what authority they think they have – over all Judaism, over the Conservative movement – is not clear. Do they believe that the Conservative movement is correct? Then everyone should be bound to the decision of these lawmakers, since they represent the correct Torah view. But for some reason, they only claim to speak for the Conservative Movement – in other words, we’re not saying we’re right, but if you want to have our label, you have to listen to us.

That’s why Conservative Judaism is not defined. What is the status of someone who is not part of the Conservative Movement? Is he practicing Judaism? Is he wrong? Is he a heretic? Answering these questions based on Conservative philosophy generates irreconcilable contradictions and dead ends with no answers. But what can you expect? One cannot expect a coherent philosophy when you try to remake Torah in your own image.

You want to call it a new religion, call it a new religion. But calling it Judaism just doesn’t work.

The CJLS also has something called “standards”. These are more “chomur” than just plain laws.
The CJLS decides, not based on any legitimate Halachic grounds, what is considered a “standard.” But don’t worry – they only have 4 of them in the entire Torah! They are:

1. Rabbis cannot officiate at intermarriages.
2. Rabbis cannot officiate at a remarriage where the previous marriage has not been terminated according to Conservative laws
3. Rabbis cannot act as if Jewishness depends on having a Jewish father (not mother).
4. They cannot do any conversions without what they call Milah and Mikveh.

People can get thrown out of the Conservative movement (whatever that means – again, how does this effect him in any measurable way, besides a label?) for doing these things. What makes these things so special is the random, non-halachic decision of the lawmakers. Rabbis can not keep Shabbos and still be Conservative rabbis. But if they perform a conversion without a Mikveh, they can get thrown out. Go know.

They also believe - don’t ask how they got this – that “revelation” (like Har Sinai) in the form of prophecy, can happen today. I am not kidding.

---

Of course Conservatives don’t keep Shabbos, the problem is they think they do! So do the Christians, and the Moslems. They just re-define what Shabbos is. This has been the history of all deviant religious movements. They won't say we reject the Torah, they will say we just have a different hashkafa of what it means! My intent therefore is to demonstrate on their terms that their religion (Conservative Judaism) is stupid.

---

I know of Frankel's writings. They're so haphazard, baseless, and messed up it's pathetic. Pruzbul changed nothing; it means Bais Din takes over the debt, which was always an option, merely never instituted in an organized fashion. There are no changes, and there is no reason their law body has any authority. The entire thing is a fabrication out of thin air falsely attributed to Judaism.

In fact, I think I am the one who should be making the laws for Conservative Judaism. I am Jewish, too. So what right do they have more than me to make laws for people? The first law I am going to enact is that anyone who says they respect Conservative Jewry is in cherem.

Second, everyone has to post to this site 3 times a day instead of praying, since the Internet is much more in the "spirit of the times" than a shtiebel.

(I saw the RA letter on what they refer to as Taharas Hamishposhchah. Nothing there that changes anything. It's not real Taharas Hamishpochah.)

Quoting Zechariah Frankel to confirm what Conservatives of say does not defend his position. And it is, really, a pretty stupid thing for him to say. The people are not molded by the "wills of theologians and scholars", but by the will of G-d. Frankel, in true Conservative form, was scared to admit that G-d is in charge, but doesn't say clearly that He is not.

---

By Torah law, a man may have more than one wife. About 1,000 years ago, most of Klall Yisroel accepted the ban of Rabbeinu Gershom not to marry multiple wives. That was a new rabbinic restriction. However, that restriction is suspended under a handful of circumstances that may qualify under heter meah rabbonim. Don't forget, objectively, a man can marry 2 women if he wants; it was a self-imposed restriction not to. Therefore, the HMR is merely a codicil of this restriction, suspending it under certain circumstances.

And no, sorry, all 100 rabbis do not have to meet your friend. In fact, it will almost be impossible to do so, since the 100 rabbis have to come from a number of different places, as per the rules of HMR. Only the Bais Din itself needs to rule on someone’s "fitness".

The whole conservative thing is a political club rather than an interpretation of Judaism.

---

We're not talking about Conservative Jews, we're talking about Conservative Judaism. I am saying that it is not at all Judaism, but rather a freewheeling, Monty Python type of religion with no rhyme or reason, never mind any resemblance to anything that can reasonably be referred to as Judaism.

---


Those who are irreligious because they don't know any better are considered, according to many poskim, like "tinikos shenishbu". This means they are not punished for their sins, since they did not know any better.

However, if someone who doesn't believe in G-d does Mitzvos, they do not count, since to them, they are not doing a Mitvah but rather performing meaningless motions. It's like if someone let's say wants to buy a nice citrus fruit to eat and comes upon a pile of esrogim in the marketplace, and picks them up one by one feeling them for ripeness, not even being aware that it is an esrog. If they did this on sukkos they would not get a Mitzvah. If someone does not believe in G-d, all the mitzvos he does are like that.

---

I once heard from Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach ZT"L that if a Jew (a) knows he is Jewish, and (b) can become religious, and (c) the government won’t persecute him if he is religious, then he is no longer a Tinok Shenishbah and is therefore responsible for his actions.

There is a big machlokes about this. Regarding Reform, the rabbis themselves are definitely responsible for their actions, since they know enough to realize their religion is not Judaism (See Kol Kisvei Maharitz Chiyos III:p.1003); whether an average reform Jew is responsible would be a machlokes.

---

Those Mitzvos done without believing in anything are not Mitzvos. They do not train a person to believe in G-d, and if they did train a person to do the mitzvos, then they have the same status as let’s say a person put on leather straps with comic books in them, not tefillin. They don't retroactively count at all. They may help as fake training tools, but they have no intrinsic value in the slightest.
The only value is in continued education and affiliation, NOT the doing of the Mitzvah. The Mitzvah itself means nothing - it's like blowing his nose. That accomplishes nothing. But if he comes every day to Yeshiva to blow his nose, maybe something good will happen. Those who put tefillin on atheists in a one-time event and say good bye to him wasted their time; they accomplished nothing.

---

Hold off a decision on your place in regards to religiosity for the meantime and focus on getting more and more information about Judaism. Making these decisions with more information will maximize the chances of the decision being correct.

It's impossible to rely on your feelings when it comes to these things, because as we learn more and more, our perspective changes. So don't lock yourself in to any decision yet.

For example: "Something is better than nothing" in respect to Reform.

OK, if something is better than nothing, how about Jews for Jesus?

In principle, labels are wrong etc. But the question is how to properly apply the principles.

I would start by reading the book of Rabbi Avigdor Miller shlita. I do not know of any English books on the ideology of Judaism that come close to these. Start with Rejoice O Youth and then go to Sing You Righteous.

Learn a lot, and then decide where you want to be. Right now it's too early to make that decision, which is why you are lost trying to do it.

---

The maharitz chiyos writes regarding conservative that the simple people in their congregations are not responsible for believing what their rabbis taught them but the rabbis are responsible for misleading their congregants.

A person is responsible for whenever he should know better. There is a moral obligation and expectation to be objective and try to find the truth. If someone believes in a religion that makes no sense, and they are capable of seeing it makes no sense, then they are responsible if they do not.

Irreligousness

The Torah was created given by G-d, with instructions for the entire world.

Just like everyone was created by G-d, everyone is connected to the Torah, which is a reflection of G-d, the Creator.

The difference between an apple and Judaism is that regarding Judaism, even if someone does not like its taste, it still benefits him since it will give him life in this world and the next, regardless of whether he is on a level to realize that.

It is analogous to a world of poisoned apples and one healthy one. The poisoned ones may taste better, but they're still not best for you.

If someone would realize the benefits the Torah has for him, and the detriment of not following it, they surely would choose Torah.

The reason they do not realize this is either they do not know, or because there is a Yetzer Horah that was created specifically to distract people from thinking about this. This apple does not.

So in other words, those who do not like this "apple" only do so because they are blinded by the Yetzer Horah. You would be doing them a favor by not allowing them to kill themselves by rejecting it.

If someone were going to jump off a roof, would you say that for him, life is just an apple that he feels is better rejected?

Or would you say that he is not thinking straight for whatever reason.

Yes, the Torah is definitely for everyone. G-d said so, and He knows best.

---

It definitely would be much better for people not fully religious yet if they would indeed just change their lifestyle overnight. The problem is, humans are humans, and being used to a totally different lifestyle, it will be very very hard for them to do just change suddenly. It takes an almost impossible amount of self-discipline and willpower. They are more likely not to give up if they take it slowly and get used to it little by little.

It's like stopping smoking for instance - going "cold turkey" is very hard - so you cut down little by little till you are ready never to smoke again. It doesn’t mean that smoking isn’t bad for anybody - it just means that people being humans are more likely to stick with lifestyle change if it comes in stages.

---

Rav Gifter was once talking about the phrase "modern orthodox" and how people think that as long as you’re "Orthodox" that means you're "in the fold" (I don’t remember if that was the exact phrase he used, but that was the idea). It was in his son-in-law's shul in Far Rockaway. He said that the word "Orthodox" is not even a Jewish word - it's Greek, and as far as Torah is concerned it has no status whatsoever. He said that there are Torah Jews and Non-Torah Jews and that's it. We should not think of the boundaries of Torah Jews vs. non-Torah Jews in terms of Orthodox vs. non-Orthodox, but rather objectively according to the criteria of the Torah, not the man-made, synthetic definitions of "Orthodoxy."

---

The word orthodox is greek, but not disparaging. It means "The acceptable way" or "the accepted way" to do something. Check out the word "unorthodox" in English. It means "unconventional" or "untraditional".

We only call ourselves this because others do. It's not really meaningful. There are, in reality those who are committed to Torah and those who are not. While it is true that "Conservative" and "Reform" clearly are labels that indicate non-commitment to Torah, "Orthodox" is a bit more ambiguous. Officially calling yourself orthodox is saying "I am committed to the accepted, traditional, version of Torah", but everyone can have their own version of what that is. If someone were to say that sentence, you may answer with, "That's your opinion". Calling yourself "Orthodox" is just another way of expressing that opinion, which may or may not be true. So the phrase really means a lot less than people think.

---

The attitude that looking more like the goyim is a positive thing, something to strive for, is completely wrong.

Imagine yourself Lord Greystoke of the United Kingdom accidentally lost in the jungle, forced to live among the apes. You can look at yourself as royalty and make sure that you act, dress, and speak like an aristocratic human, only resorting to "ape language" and behavior where necessary to survive, or, you can lose sight of your own aristocracy, don a loincloth, swing from vines, and be proud of yourself for "looking like a normal citizen of the jungle."

And imagine your entire family having to live among the apes, and their trying do hard to maintain a sense of dignity in your lives until you get rescued, so they make sure to eat with a fork and spoon, from normal plates, dressed in normal clothes.

Then in you swing from your vine with your club and loincloth, eating on the floor with your hands like a monkey.

And when your parents ask you to please dress like a human you tell them "I am prouder of those humans who look like normal citizens of the jungle."

That’s pretty much what’s happening here. You should be proud to look like a Jew in all ways - at the very least, there should be no pride in looking like normal "citizens of the jungle." Why would there be? Such pride is a sign of some misunderstanding regarding your uniqueness as a Jew and the difference between you and what you call "normal citizens."

The second thing is, even if there would be nothing weird about wanting to look like the monkeys, and even if your parents were totally on mars, still, it would not be worth causing friction between you and them, and between you and your community, over a matter of what kind of pants to wear. The very accusation you level at them - why do they care so much about dress - can be directed with even more force at yourself. For whereas your parents do not pay a price for asking you to conform in your dress, you pay a very measurable price by insisting on dressing not the way they ask. And so not only do you prefer to dress the way you do, you are willing to go through much domestic and social aggravation to do so.

If that is due to an unwillingness to give in, you are merely spiting yourself; if it is due to the intensity of your desire for jeans and a t-shirt, you are expressing much more than a preference, but an insistence on dressing that way. Either way, it’s more than just that you like certain clothes.

---

Apikores

Not everything an Apikores writes is Apikorsus. If an Apikores writes a Sefer Torah we burn it NOT because the Sefer Torah c"v is Apikorsus – its not; it’s a regular Sefer Torah - but rather because we do not want to "recognize" the religious contributions of apikorsim, "kdei shelo lehaniach shem l'apikorsim."

As far as whether if you believe Apikorsus that automatically makes you an Apikores, the answer is not always. Here are the rules:

1) Apikorsus (a.k.a. “meenus” a.k.a kefirah – the words are often used interchangeably) is anything that is contrary to the Torah's opinion, regardless of whether it contradicts one of the 13 Ikarim or not.

2) Not everybody who says Apikorsus is himself an Apikores. As the Chazon Ish writes about a piece of Apikorsus he saw in a certain sefer: "Even though the author was a Yorei Hashem, he worshipped Apikorsus unwittingly." A similar sentiment was expressed by Rav Yosef Yedid ZTL regarding Rav Kook: "Even though there is a way to judge him a little favorably, that he himself is not a Min and Apikores ... but regardless of whether we are going to judge him to be an Apikores, for sure these words that come from his mouth are Minus and Apikorsus."


3) To be a full fledged Apikores yourself, which means we have no mitzvah to love you, - on the contrary, there is a Mitzvah to loathe you (“l’snoso”); we don’t return your lost items; your wine is yayin nesech; you lose your share in Olam Habah; you are, for all practical purposes, not part of Klall Yisroel, and you have the status of a goy regarding all privileges (even though you are still obligated to fulfill all the Mitzvos) – for that, you have to disagree with one of the 13 Ikarim, regardless of whether you are doing so on purpose or out of ignorance. That is, even if you don’t realize that you are disagreeing with them, you are still a full fledged Apikores, as Rav Chaim Brisker ZTL used to say: Nebach an Apikores is oich an Apikores "Someone who is an Apikores through no fault of his own is an Apikores nonetheless". If you knowingly disagree with anything the Torah says, meaning, you know the Torah says such-and-such, and then you say “The Torah is wrong,” you are in this category as well.

4) Even if you do not actually deny one of the 13 Principles, but merely are unsure about it, you are still a full fledged Apikores. You must be convinced of the absolute truth of these 13 Principles in order to get your share in Olam Habah and be considered part of Klall Yisroel, as per #3 above.

5) There is a disagreement between the Rambam and the Raavad regarding someone who, in the course of his Torah learning, makes an honest mistake, misunderstands something he sees in the Torah, and erroneously derives from the Torah a belief that is actually Apikorsus. The Rambam holds this person is an Apikores and the Raavad holds that he is not.

5a) Even the Ravad, however, agrees that even though the person himself is not considered an Apikores, his mistaken belief is indeed considered Apikorsus.

6) Please see my post elsewhere on the site that explains why 5a above is not a contradiction to Rav Chaim’s rule of nebach a Apikores is also an Apikores. {I don't know which post R' Mod was speaking of, but it seems to be explained below -taon}

7) Even Orthodox people who fulfill all of Torah and Mitzvos can be full-fledged Apikorsim. Said the Chazon Ish, “There are people whose homes are sufficiently kosher that you may eat the meat, the fish, and all of their food, but there’s only one food item you can’t eat: You can’t drink their wine, because their Hashkofos make it yayin nesech”. Even great Talmidei Chachamim can be Apikorsim. The Rambam states that even if a person has great wisdom and has great merits due to his Torah knowledge, he is still a full-fledged Apikores if he does not believe in the 13 Ikarim.

8) There is a belief held by many people that you have to know the whole Torah, or at least some great measure of it, in order to be an Apikores. This is a myth. There is no such thing. As long as you deny one of the Yesodei Hadas, one of the Fundemntals of our Religion, you are an Apikores. There is also a myth, believed by many, that there is “no such thing” as an Apikores nowadays. This, like the “kol haTorah kulah” myth, is a fairy tale. (Historically, they both cropped up as baseless rationalizations of religious Zionists who befriended and sometimes even raised to the stature of heroes, atheist Zionist Apikorsim. Through these wishful ideas, they attempted to remove those atheist enemies of G-d and Torah from the category or Apikorsim)

8a) In order to preempt what I have heard on more than one occasion cited as “a source” for the above myth, the Chazon Ish does not say anywhere any such thing. On the contrary, on numerous occasions he declares people to be Apikorsim, including frum Jews, as per #7 above. What he did say is that the Halachah of Moridin v’Lo Maalin – that you are allowed to kill an Apikores – does not apply nowadays, because we are not able to fulfill the prerequisite of properly giving them tochachah before hand, as well as the lack of open miracles nowadays.

9) Even though usually we have a rule that we try to be melamed zechus (judge favorably) on Jews, where an Apikores is concerned, the contrary is true. We are not melamed zechus at all. On the contrary, someone who refuses to curse the Apikorsim, is halachicly suspect to be an Apikores himself.
Slifkin, in SOT pp.105-106 is not aware of this Halachah. He did not realize there is a difference between a heretic and someone that professes heresy. He writes that no belief is heretical unless is violates the 13 Ikarim. (Even though he himself admits that interpreting certain parts of the Torah as allegorical is indeed heretical, even though he does not explain why this would be so - why would interpreting only certain parts of the Torah as allegorical violate the 13 Ikarim and not others? He also does not explain, according to him, which parts of the Torah you can allegorize and which you can’t. The reader is left to determine what is heresy and what is not according to his own imagination.)

---

According to the Rambam, “Apikores” comes from the root “hefker” meaning to devalue or unbind. The Apikores devalues the Torah and its scholars. Another interpretation: the apikores acts unbound to the Torah (Bartenura).

The classic Apikores is someone who denies the concept of prophecy in general, or the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu specifically, or who claims that Hashem does not know everything that happens on earth (Rambam Teshuva 3:8). Other various types of heretics are included in Apikores according to other Rishonim. Examples include someone who denies the coming of Moshiach, someone who purposely twists the meaning of the Torah, someone who interprets the mitzvos figuratively, someone who blatantly violates the Torah, someone who does not respect the Yomim Tovim, and other assorted types of anti-Torah behaviors. See the meforshim on the Mishna Sanhedrim 90a for details.

But there are others who are considered as bad as an Apikores, and we call those Apikorsim too. Those are people who deny the truth of the Torah, including the Oral Torah (i.e. the Mishna, Gemora, etc.), people who commit sins not for any worldly gain but rather they don’t care about the fact that it is a sin or don’t consider it a sin. (see Rambam Commentary on Mishna Chulin 1:2 and Avodah Zarah 2:5, Laws of Murderers 4:10, and meforshim ad loc).

Apikorsim are considered worse than idol worshipers, and although they are still obligated in all Mitzvos, they lose all privileges and qualifications that Jews have, and are considered Halachicly like non-Jews regarding all Halachos, such as shechitah, returning lost items, etc. They have no share in Olam Habah (Mishna Sanhedrim 90a) and when they die their relatives do not mourn for them (Rambam Laws of Mourning 1:10). We are actually allowed to indirectly cause their death (Avodah Zarah 26a).

Rav Chaim Soloveichik ZT”L (quoted in Kovetz Maamarim by R. Elchonon Wasserman) said the reason for an Apikores losing his share in the World to Come is not a punishment, but rather it is not possible to be resurrected without the merit of belief (emunah). Therefore, even if someone was never taught Torah (tonik shnishbah) he still does not merit the world to come, because although he is not punished for his not being a believer, he also cannot get credit for believing.

According to the Chazon Ish, the level of Apikores in the Gemora, where the Halachah allows us to cause his death, does not apply nowadays, since today we do not see open miracles on the same level that we used to, a denier of the Torah is not guilty to the extent that one may kill him. On the contrary, we should try to be mekarev them and cause them to do teshuva (YD 13).

The Satmar Rav ZT”L writes that an Apikores sins because he does not believe, but if someone convinces himself that he does not believe because he will otherwise feel guilty about sinning, “perhaps” he is not what Chazal meant by Apikores (Divrei Yoel Sukkah).

If a person disagrees with any of the Torah’s opinions at all (Daas Torah) he is guilty of Apikursus (Sefer Hachinuch, lo sasuru acharei levavcham, Mishna Brura Biur Halachah 1), and violates a prohibition of lo sasuru acharei levavchem. Though one would not consider him a full fledged Apikores regarding all of the above unless he either purposely disagreed with the Torah, meaning he knows the Torah believes one way and disagrees, or denies one of the Fundamentals of Judaism, even unwittingly (see Kovetz Maamarim above). The Chazon Ish once wrote about a statement in the Sefer Binah L’Itim that he considered Apikursus, “Even though the author was a Yorei Shamayim, he worshipped Apikursus unwittingly (b’shogeg)”.

The Sefer HaIkarrim (I) writes that if a person, through Torah scholarship and honest and objective Torah reasoning, concludes something different than the truth, he would not be considered an Apikores, such as Rabbi Hillel in the Gemora, who holds that Moshiach is not coming (we don’t rule like him, obviously). An honest mistake on the level of honesty and Torah objectivity of Rabbi Hillel would not qualify one as Apikores, even if badly mistaken.

So the status of Apikores depends on: (a) what you deny and (b) why you deny it.

There were rabbis who, because of their Hashkafos, were not accepted in various circles, as their beliefs were considered by others to be full fledged Apikorsus.

---

In general, if Al Tischaber L'Rosho afilu l'torah applies to a Tonik Shenishbah, which it might, because the issue is the influence it may have on you, in which case being a Tinok Shenishbah would not make a difference - the influence is the same - can you associate with an apikores or tinok shenishbah to influence them for the better?

I asked a number of Poskim about this and got different answers: Rav Elyashev told me that al tischaber does not mean because of the influence but rather because the Rasha will not listen to you, which would not apply to a tinok shenishba.

(Note: Many meforshim say that al tischaber indeed is because of the influence, so one would imagine that Rav Elyashev reasoning would not apply).

Rav Shlomo Zalman ZTL told me is indeed does apply; Rav Yisroel Yaakov Fisher told me it does not, because if so, then we would prohibit Bishul Akum of a tinok shenishba as well.

I responded saying that the Minchas Elozor indeed prohibits bishul akum of a tinok shenishba for that very reason - because of the influence, to which Rav Fisher told me he doesn’t hold like that Minchas Elozor.

So we have a Machlokes.

There is also a question regarding bitul reshus by an eruv chatzeros by a tinok shnishba. Even though ain dino k'akum, but if the issue is influence, perhaps it makes no difference and in this regard we give the tinok shenishba a similar status as any non-tinok shnishba.

It is a machlokes between the Mishna Brura and the Chazon Ish.

But in any case, when I said what I said about hischabrus l'reshayin in the case of a rally, I was referring to the other-denominational rabbinate, who were recognized as such. It was presented by the non-frum Jewish camp not as merely an "open" rally where anyone could come, but a great show of unity in that the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform congregations all got together - the rabbis worked together etc - for a multi-denominational rally.

In that sense, it clearly recognized multiple denominations of Judaism which is wrong.

In the Orthodox world it was not presented that way because it was against our policies, but that’s the way it was understood, and presented to and by the non-frum "clergy" and their congregations.


Of course, the above machlokes that I mentioned applies to a nebach Apikores. But someone who is aware of Judaism and has rejected it, we do not try to help. It's kind of like what you would tell you daughter if she asked, mommy, if I cant go into the car alone with that creepy child molester, how can I ever help him?

Sometimes people have to live with their decisions. When someone kills themselves, they are past help. And although there is always Teshuva even for apikorsim, that is like techyias hameisim, if you want an analogy, and they have to do it on their own.

Apikorsim like that are the subjects of our prayer Vlamalshinim that we pray 3x a day. Look at the translation and see. There is a fine line between our wounded, who we are willing to help even at great cost, versus our enemies, who we stay away from. The willing Apikores has crossed that line and joined the enemy. They can always come back, and change sides again, but until then, it is their choice.

---

While it is true that you get credit for a Mitzvah regardless of the motive for performing it, that is only if you believe it is a Mitzvah that you are doing.

So if I, let’s say, send away the mother bird before taking the eggs because I am on a class trip in the park and my Rebbe made me do so, I still get a Mitzvah. In this case, I know it is a Mitzvah of the Torah, I would just not be sufficiently motivated to perform it without my Rebbe bothering me.

Bit if I don’t believe in Judaism, but rather the Bird God, and I send away the mother bird not because it is a Mitzvah from Hashem but rather a command of the Bird People from Planet Bird that upon performance will usher in the Second Coming of the Bird God, then I do not get a Mitzvah. This is because I do not even think of the act of sending the bird away as a Mitzvah to begin with.

Same thing if I do a Mitzvah in my sleep. It’s the motions of a Mitzvah, but it’s not a Mitzvah.

Same thing if I am an atheist. If I don’t believe in a Commander then I do not believe that my act is a Mitzvah (commandment).

There are unacceptable deviations from proper Hashkafa, and if the deviation is sufficiently great, the person is no longer practicing Judaism but another religion. If someone believes that G-d is a pot-bellied gold statue, or He impregnated a married woman and had a child (c”v), then he not only has a Hashkafic error, but he is practicing another religion. And if he does a Mitzvah, he is not doing a Mitzvah because G-d said so, but rather because of some imaginary being who he thinks is G-d said so. His god is not G-d. And his Mitzvah is not a Mitzvah.

---

Apikorsim are a danger to Klall Yisroel; disabusing ourselves of their presence protects their victims. They are predators, and that is by their own choice. Nobody asked them to be Apikorsim.

(Incidentally, you can't just "kill" them directly - the halachah of moridim velo maalin means indirectly causing their demise).

The Chazon Ish writes that this halachah is not applicable nowadays since we don't really know how to present Judaism in a way that would make their choice to be apikorim a capital crime; it's our fault, partly, that the apikorsim are the way they are, so we can't kill them (they are never "after tochachah").

---

There is such a thing as an evil person, but so far I have not seen anyone on the boards that qualify.

These people are enemies of Hashem. They willingly and purposely deny G-d's existence, or His power, or His Torah. Basically, they argue with the Torah itself. It's not that they mistakenly believe something against the Torah, or they mistakenly think that the Torah believes something it doesn't. Rather, they know what the Torah says and they argue with it. Or, they have the ability to know what the Torah says and argue with it.

These people are called "apikorsim", or "minim". They are worse than "rishaim" - we pray for rishaim to do teshuva. These we pray simply to be gone (in the brachah of v'lamalshinim).

Can an Apikores do teshuva? Yes he can. It has happened. But if they were real apikorsim - evil incarnate - and they did real teshuva, their neshomos would not take the shock, and they would die. Their Teshuva works, and they give their life for it. The Gemara tells of people to whom this happened.

Qualifier: Some people who claim to deny the Torah don't really deny it at all. Their denial is just an excuse to be able to do the aveiros that they want to do without guilt. Their temptations mess with their head and they figure easier to fool myself into denying the Torah than to feel guilty. These may not be real "apikorsim", as their denial of the Torah is merely a result of psychological denial of their sins.

Certainly someone who out of anger, or simply a lack of Yiras Shamayim violates the Torah, is not an Apikores. He's certainly not a Tzadik, and he could be a rashah - it depends - but a rasha is still not an Apikores.

Important: The above is just a general explanation. The status of "apikores" is a halachic issue subject to myriad details and Halachos. Do not rely on the little, general knowledge contained here to determine real life status of people. For that, you have to consult a posek in real life.

---