Thank you very much, Rabbi Woltwax, ברשות הרב מרא דאתרא. I'd like to begin by giving a conceptual framework or perspective on tonight's topic and then to proceed from there, Im yirtzeh Hashem, to consider some very actual applications and concrete instances where one has to navigate a course in terms of dealing with non-observant family members. There is in general a mitzvah even before one focuses on family members, on nuclear family, of course there is a mitzvah, Ve'ahavta l'rei'acha kamocha, where we're commanded to love every Jew without exception. The Baal HaTanya points out in his sefer that the Gemara even applies this pasuk, Ve'ahavta l'rei'acha kamocha, even when dealing with resha'im, even when dealing with someone who's liable for misas beis din, one who has incurred the death penalty at the hands of beis din, which is no small feat. The way we pasken, in order for someone to incur misas beis din, so he has to receive hasra'ah. To receive hasra'ah means that he was warned before committing the aveirah that this is an aveirah which carries with it a chiyuv misah. So we pasken that not only does he have to receive such a hasra'ah, but עד שיתיר עצמו למיתה. His reaction has to be על מנת כן אני עושה, that not only am I aware of it, but he's doing it lehach'is, he's doing it in particular because this is assur and the Torah says he's chayav misah, על מנת כן אני עושה. So for a person to incur chiyuv misah, he has to be a real lehach'isnik, he has to sin egregiously. And אף על פי כן, the Gemara in Sanhedrin talks about applying Ve'ahavta l'rei'acha kamocha to such a person. The Baal HaTanya, I'm not sure that he quotes the Gemara, but the Baal HaTanya assumes it in his discussion of Ve'ahavta l'rei'acha kamocha. So Ve'ahavta l'rei'acha kamocha is something which is all-encompassing. More specifically, the Gemara also has a klal from the pasuk in Parshas Bechukosai, V'chashlu ish b'achiv, ish ba'avon achiv. The Torah says in Parshas Bechukosai literally that a person will stumble over his brother, V'chashlu ish b'achiv. The Gemara darshens, it's not that the pasuk is describing that one will stumble over his brother's feet, but it means ish ba'avon achiv, that a person will stumble on account of the sins of his brother. And this is the source for the famous dictum of Chazal: מלמד שכל ישראל ערבים זה בזה. This is where the Torah establishes the principle of mutual responsibility and interdependence. Now it's very interesting to consider the application which the Rishonim have of this klal. There is a din that generally speaking, in order to be motzi someone else with a mitzvah, in order to make Kiddush on behalf of someone else, so one has to have the same level of obligation as the other person. Hence, a katan can't be motzi a gadol, a minor can't be motzi someone who's over bar or bas mitzvah with Kiddush, because the bar or bas mitzvah is obligated min HaTorah, the katan is only at best, at most, obligated m'derabbanan mi'ta'am chinuch. Okay, because Hapotur min hadavar can't be מוציא את הרבים מידי חובתן. Now nevertheless, the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah has a din of yatza motzi. The din of yatza motzi is that even if I've already said Kiddush, let's say Friday night for example, even if I've already recited Kiddush and someone else comes who has not yet made Kiddush or heard Kiddush, if for whatever reason he or she doesn't want to make Kiddush for himself or herself, so I can say Kiddush a second time. So the Rishonim are bothered with a question: but at this point, I'm no longer obligated to say Kiddush, so it shouldn't be possible for me to be מוציא את הרבים מידי חובתן, for me to facilitate someone else being yotzei by saying Kiddush a second time, because at this point I'm no longer obligated. So the Rishonim answer by invoking this principle of the Gemara in Shavuos of מלמד שכל ישראל ערבים זה בזה. So it's fascinating. So what one sees is that כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה is not simply some kind of similar to ahavas Yisrael, similar to tochachah, some kind of independent albeit very fundamental principle. But כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה, if I'm obligated in ahavas Yisrael, that doesn't allow me to be motzi you with Kiddush. In order for me to be motzi you with Kiddush, I have to be obligated in the mitzvah of Kiddush. You see from the application which the Rishonim make of this principle of כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה is that it's built into every mitzvah. My obligation to make Kiddush is not just that אני את נפשי הצלתי, that I'm supposed to make, I'm supposed to make Kiddush. No, my obligation to make Kiddush is that every Jew should make Kiddush. That's my obligation. Hence, even if I've already said Kiddush, if there's one other, if there's another Jew anywhere who hasn't made Kiddush, so I'm still obligated in my mitzvah of Kiddush. And if I'm in a position to facilitate his or her hearing or saying Kiddush, so then I'm obligated to do so. So the arvus is the notion of interdependence and mutual responsibility is built into every mitzvah. It's an intrinsic part of every mitzvah. So the imperative to be concerned with the welfare of others, before we even come to family members, the imperative is one which is basically built into every mitzvah. Now this universal sense of responsibility for one's fellow Jew, this interdependence doesn't at all eclipse or blur the importance or significance of the family unit according to the Torah. We know in Hilchos Tzedakah, the klal is that when it comes to giving tzedakah, לאחיך לעניך לאביונך בארצך, that in terms of prioritizing how one allocates whatever funds one has available for giving tzedakah, so there is precedence is given to relatives and the closer the relative, so the greater the priority that that relative has. Rav Chaim Kanievsky in his sefer Derech Emunah quotes from the Chofetz Chaim in Ahavas Chesed that this is true not only for tzedakah, but basically for any type of tovos, anything which bein adam lechavero that a person has an obligation to do, whether it's lending money or any type of chesed, so this hierarchy of לאחיך לעניך לאביונך בארצך, that the first priority are family members and within that, the closer the relative, the greater the priority, applies to all mitzvos bein adam lechavero. The haftarah Yom Kippur morning at Shacharis from Sefer Yeshayahu has a pasuk in it so the Navi Yeshayahu castigates Klal Yisrael for fasting and missing the point of the taanis. And then the Navi goes on to say what type of taanis Hakadosh Baruch Hu wants us to observe. הלא זה צום אבחרהו. This is the prototype of a fast day Hakadosh Baruch Hu says that I choose. And the pasuk will be familiar to all of us from Yom HaKippurim. הלא פרס לרעב לחמך to extend to the hungry your bread, ועניים מרודים תביא בית and bring into your home the poor downtrodden people, כי תראה ערם וכסיתו when you see a person who's not clothed properly so give him, provide him with clothing, umibsarcha lo sisalam. And literally from your flesh and blood don't turn away. Don't make yourself, don't ignore the need of mibsarcha, of your relatives. The Tzitz Eliezer has an interesting comment about this. He's trying to say pshat in something the Minchas Elazar, the gaon from Munkatch practiced. And he says that he thinks that the Minchas Elazar understood as follows: דן מזה הגאון ממונקאטש דמכל שכן שמצינו שאמר בזה בנוגע לגשמיות,
that the mitzvah of mibsarcha lo sisalam is referring specifically in context to physical needs, gashmius. However, דן מזה הגאון ממונקאטש דמכל שכן שיש בזה מצות מבשרך לא תתעלם בנוגע לרוחניות.
If a person is supposed to have special sense of responsibility and a special sense of connection and not only responsibility, but a special sense of connection to one's family member and that should be manifest in devarim gashmiyim in terms of attending to physical needs, so kol shekein that that's true when it comes to spiritual, ultimately, ultimately to cater to one's emotional and spiritual needs is certainly a greater service and of greater and importance than mere physical needs. So there certainly is an imperative to maintain and to nurture family ties and the all-encompassing universal obligations of ahavat yisrael and כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה notwithstanding, so the Torah very much emphasizes and attaches great importance to the family unit. So with that in mind, let's perhaps consider some actual situations and questions that arise in terms of interacting with family members who are not observant. One common question which comes up is the issue of inviting someone who's not shomer shabbos to come for a shabbos or yom tov seudah given the prospect that their taking you up on their invitation may entail chillul shabbos or chillul yom tov. So this is a diyun in the poskim, let's say with regard to the Seder or on shabbos, we'll see there are some different variables in the question. Rav Shlomo Zalman was asked the question by the hanhala, by the administration of Ohr Somayach in Yerushalayim. And so he was responding when the invitation is kiruv, kiruv oriented. And he said as follows, that as long as the invitation is extended in such a way that the invitation doesn't require or even encourage chillul shabbos, dehaino, if the person lives within easy walking distance, the person lives five minutes away. Okay, so then you're free to invite him to come shabbos night, shabbos day for the seudah, there's no reason that that invitation insinuates any chillul shabbos. But let's say realistically that's not the case. The person lives three, four miles away. There's no realistic chance that the person's going to walk. So then Rav Shlomo Zalman says that if the invitation's extended, you know, we'd love to have you for shabbos, so come Friday night and you tell them what time licht bentchen is, come by licht bentchen and then we have plenty of room for you and you'll stay over shabbos and we very much look forward to having you. So Rav Shlomo Zalman says as long as the invitation is sincerely posed in such a fashion, even if the result of the invitation is that the person says, no, no, we'll come for the Friday night meal but we're not going to stay over, and the result will be that they are going to drive home, Rav Shlomo Zalman says that's okay, as long as the invitation isn't an invitation to chillul shabbos, it isn't insinuating that there should be any chillul shabbos in response to the invitation. Again, it's not pro forma, it has to be real. We would have to have the lodgings to provide and the invitation has to clearly be made in that way, but as long as it's made in that way, so Rav Shlomo Zalman says that it is mutar. Now it's important to realize that Rav Shlomo Zalman's psak is intended as a heter in the sense that Rav Shlomo Zalman is not saying that it doesn't bother us that the guy's going to drive home. What Rav Shlomo Zalman is talking about is if there's an occasion that you need or want to have the person come. Again, whether it's because you want to be mekarev them by exposing them to a seudas shabbos, you want to be mekarev them by exposing them to davening in shul, or it's a family member and there's some reason why you need to invite for this shabbos, so Rav Shlomo Zalman says that this is mutar. This in fact is mutar. But to sort of create the occasion and create the need where you then have to rely on Rav Shlomo Zalman's solution, I don't think he has that in mind. So let's say if let's say that one comes from a non-observant family and to make a shabbos bar mitzvah means that even though again everyone will be offered lodgings, everyone will be offered a place to stay for all shabbos, but they're not going to take it. And the result is going to be is that the grandparents and the uncles and the aunts and everyone is going to be coming and being mechalel shabbos, so Rav Shlomo Zalman isn't intending as far as I understand him, he isn't intending to say that you can create the situation in which you then need to rely on his guidance and his psak. Rav Shlomo Zalman is saying the situation is there. Again the situation is there because we want to expose them to Shabbos. So we want them to come and enjoy a Shabbos meal. We want them to be in shul. We want them to taste a Shabbos davenen. So the situation is there, the need is there. So Rav Shlomo Zalman says, here's the psak, this is the din. This is what's mutar, this is what one can do. But to create the need and then rely on this solution, it's not clear that Rav Shlomo Zalman has that in mind. So if one knows that let's say someone a couple comes from just to take an illustration, a couple comes from both of them come from non-observant backgrounds. So the relatives none of them are as of yet observant. To make a Shabbos Bar Mitzvah means that again even if the invitation is extended as Rav Shlomo Zalman described, there's just going to be a lot of chilul Shabbos. So besides everything else, what kind of simcha is that? What kind of Bar Mitzvah is that? So better have the Shabbos component will be for the community. Have a Shabbos component, not that a person has to forgo the Shabbos component. You have the Shabbos component. But the celebration where people who live outside the community are going to be invited, so let that happen during the weekday. Now on Yom Tov there is an extra wrinkle, there's another halachic issue which has to be taken into account in terms of inviting non-observant family members or anyone non-observant on Yom Tov. And that is as follows. On Yom Tov it's mutar, as we all know melachas ochel nefesh is mutar. It's mutar to cook on Yom Tov. אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש, the Torah says in Parshas Bo, הוא לבדו יעשה לכם that whatever you do for the purpose of cooking so that's and the like and food preparation so that is permissible on Yom Tov. Now the Gemara darshens הוא לבדו יעשה לכם, that alone can be done on your behalf. So the Gemara darshens lachem velo lechutim. That melachas ochel nefesh is only mutar for a Jew, it's not mutar for a non-Jew. Not mutar for a non-Jew. Now the halacha has a category that if you have someone who's a mumar lechalel Shabbos, a person who habitually desecrates Shabbos and he does so bemezid willfully and he does so befarhesya publicly, so the Gemara has a category of mumar dino ke'akum, that in certain areas in halacha we treat this person as losing his privileges of being a Jew because of that flagrant violation of Shabbos. That mumar dino ke'akum, that if he's a mechallel Shabbos again bemezid willfully and befarhesya publicly, so he forfeits some of the privileges of being a Jew. So we're not going to let him touch uncooked wine, we're not going to let him serve as a shochet, v'chulu. So the question is now when it comes to Yom Tov where we're cooking on Yom Tov as well, so the Mishna Berurah says that the din of mumar dino ke'akum would apply in this context of lachem velo lechutim and that one would not be allowed to cook on Yom Tov for someone who has this unfortunate status of being mumar dino ke'akum. Then it gets possibly even more complicated because the Gemara has the following din. The Gemara says, leave aside the consideration of mumar dino ke'akum for a moment, let's talk about an actual Gentile. The Gemara says that a person can invite a Gentile over to his house on Shabbos but not on Yom Tov. Why? Because the Gemara says on Shabbos where you can't do melacha for yourself, we're not concerned that you're going to do melacha for the Gentile. You're not going to do anything for him that you can't do for yourself. But on Yom Tov where you're allowed to do melacha for yourself, on Yom Tov you're not going to be cheshboning to make the tea in such a way that it doesn't involve bishul. You're going to very likely be doing melacha when you make the tea on Yom Tov. So the Gemara has a gzaira that a person is not supposed to invite a Gentile on Yom Tov because gzaira that one might do melacha on behalf of the Gentile which is which is assur. So the question is so now if we compound the issue that lachem velo lechutim, if mumar dino ke'akum applies in that context also, so does it mean that not only can one not do melacha on their behalf but one can't even invite? So the answer is that according to Many many gdolei haposkim, the whole thing is a non-starter. The whole question is a non-starter. But there is a very very important psak from the Aruch Laner and Rav David Zvi Hoffman amongst others, but many other gdolim as well, not only the gdolei Ashkenaz, but other parts of Europe as well, that bizman hazeh we almost don't have, perhaps don't have at all, someone who qualifies for this status of mumar dina ke'akum. And the reason the poskim give is that both the willfulness as well as the public nature of the chilul Shabbos doesn't really happen bizman hazeh. What does that mean? When we say that if a person bemezid is mechalel Shabbos, that he then has this status of being mumar dina ke'akum, it means that if he's mechalel Shabbos bemezid, it doesn't just mean that he knows that observant Jews don't put on lights on Shabbos, that they don't drive on Shabbos. No, it's not enough to know that. It's not enough to know that the Shulchan Aruch says not to do it. He has to know that the Shulchan Aruch is something authoritative. If the person was brought up in such a situation with nebach, no background, so maybe he knows, he heard, maybe he even heard of Rabbi Yosef Karo and he knows there's a code of Jewish law, but he doesn't understand or appreciate that this is authoritative. So you can't classify what this person is doing as chilul Shabbos bemezid. You can't say that that's willful. Rav David Zvi Hoffman says and what's more, even the befarhesia element, it's not clear that we ever have that bizman hazeh. Because what befarhesia represents is not just the fact that a minyan of Jews may observe his chilul Shabbos, but what it represents is a certain brazenness in being mechalel Shabbos. A person's willingness to be mechalel Shabbos publicly, it bespeaks a certain brazenness. Says Rav David Zvi Hoffman, okay, so once upon a time when baruch Hashem so most רובם ככולם של כל ישראל היו שומרי שבת, so then to be mechalel Shabbos befarhesia was an indescribable expression of chutzpah, of brazenness. Bizman hazeh that unfortunately things are reversed, that we live in an olam hafuch where the majority of Jews unfortunately are not yet shomrei Shabbos, so you don't really have the befarhesia, you have literally that it's in public, but the brazenness which the befarhesia is intended to represent you don't really have. So for that reason many many poskim say that we don't really have anyone who fits this bill of mumar dina ke'akum and therefore in terms of inviting on Yom Tov we wouldn't encounter any of these problems. Again, all things being equal, one would the wine which one would have at the table should be yayin mevushal. In terms of when necessary, so then we invoke this line of reasoning. When there's a very simple alternate solution, so one should invoke that as well. So given that under certain circumstances uncooked wine is not supposed to be touched by a non-observant Jew, so on such occasions it certainly is the proper thing to do, to be using yayin mevushal, not to be using yayin she'eino mevushal. Now it's important also that as much as the halacha and Torah values and stresses maintaining family relations and again, first of all umivsarcha lo titalem, that imperative as well as willy-nilly there's always an element of kiruv to maintaining family relations, that the non-observant relatives should enjoy a relationship with the observant relatives, one cannot foresee what effect, what influence that can have, but there are other factors which need to be weighed as well. For instance, we're talking about inviting non-observant family members let's say to the Seder. But what happens if if one will invite one's entire immediate family, so then the majority are non-observant and the whole tone and tenor of the Seder is going to get lost. Just again, perhaps with the best of intentions, but the non-observant family members. don't know enough to appreciate what the focus should be at the Seder and instead of being an evening of intense Avodas Hashem, Le'sapeir B'Nisim V'Niflaos to reinforce all the fundamentals of our faith, so it's gonna turn into some kind of family reunion. So one has to, it has to be done B'Chochmah. The fact that there are solutions and that one can legitimately and in many circumstances should invite family who are not yet observant, but it has to be weighed against other things. If the result is that the, for instance, that the Seder is going to be lost, so then one has to look for other occasions to cement and to maintain family relations. Similarly, when there are children involved, so one also has to make the Cheshbon. It's impossible to be very specific about this because it depends very much on the particulars of any given situation. But one also has to factor what the effect is on the children. At the very least, certainly when children are old enough, it should be explained to them that, not through any fault of their own, but the way that we don't do things this way because it's against the Torah, but אף על פי כן, we're maintaining family relations and we love our family members but there shouldn't be any insinuation of some kind of pluralism in maintaining family relationships. A couple of other just concrete situations. But let's say a Simcha is happening in a Conservative or Reform temple. So Reb Moshe has a Tshuvah about this in Iggros Moshe. And Reb Moshe says that Me'Ikar Hadin, if the Simcha is happening at a time when there are no services going on, so it doesn't occur to anyone that anyone entering the premises is doing so to participate in the services, so he says Me'Ikar Hadin it's Muttar and even if the Chuppah is going to happen in the sanctuary. He says Me'Ikar Hadin it's certainly Muttar. Reb Moshe says in terms of an Adam Chashuv, he says an Adam Chashuv perhaps as a Middas Chasidus would try to avoid it because at the end of the day his actions can be misconstrued to somehow or other conferring a legitimacy upon this institution. But he says given that it's a Middas Chasidus for a Tzorech Gadol, even an Adam Chashuv, even a distinguished person, a rabbinic personality, even he would using his judgment would be lenient if there's need. Certainly to go to the Simcha of a very close family member presumably is something that Reb Moshe would classify as a Tzorech Gadol. What about being Mechabeid with, again let's say at a wedding, with one of the Sheva Brachos a relative who's not observant? So Reb Moshe has Tshuvos about this as well. He talks in particular about Aliyos. And Reb Moshe quotes that there is a Din, the Gemara in Gittin has, the Rambam quotes in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, if you have a Yisrael who's, if you have a Jew who's a heretic and he writes a Sefer Torah, so it has no Kedushas Sefer Torah whatsoever. The Rambam explains it has no Kedushas Sefer Torah because all the Shemos Hashem to him are meaningless. When he writes Bereishis Bara Elokim, so the word Elokim doesn't mean anything, it doesn't carry any specific significance and it's therefore not Miskadeish Bi'Kdushas Hashem. So Reb Moshe reasons that the same is true when saying a Bracha. That in order to say a Bracha it has to be meaningful when a person says השם אלקינו מלך העולם, if he doesn't believe that, if he doesn't believe Rachmana Litzlan he's an atheist, he doesn't believe, if he doesn't believe in what he's saying so then the Bracha is no Bracha. So Reb Moshe says it's not a requirement that the person be observant in order to be able to say a Bracha, be it to get an Aliyah, be it to say a Bracha under the Chuppah, but he has to believe in Hashem. So then how can he say such a brocha? One of the most painful situations which arises is that of intermarriage rachmana litzlan. Unlike most of the preceding scenarios that we considered where there are very correct and valid solutions, in intermarriage is one in which there's very little latitude, if any. Ultimately it needs to be understood, just by way of having perspective on this, it needs to be understood that every relationship which we have has to be in light, in the shadow of one's relationship with Hakadosh Baruch Hu. There's no such thing as having any relationship in life which is independent, which is absolute, which is independent of one's relationship with Hakadosh Baruch Hu. When the Torah describes that the Mishkan was in the center and everyone camped around the Mishkan, what it meant was, yeah, so this was my neighbor, but at the center of of all human relationships has to be Hakadosh Baruch Hu, has to be Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Nothing can ever, no relationship is independent of that. It also needs to be understood that even though we withhold judgment of people, but we are called to judge actions. Objectively, intermarriage represents the destruction of of the Jewish people rachmana litzlan. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Issurei Biah that אל יהי עון זה קל בעיניך, that the that the sin of intermarriage don't don't treat it lightly, even though there's no missas beis din. Beis din is not empowered to give capital punishment for intermarriage because the Rambam says יש בו הפסד שאין בכל העריות כמוהו, that the that the devastating consequences of of intermarriage are unparalleled. And because of that, as an aveira it's something singular. The Rav zecher tzaddik livracha consistently without exception did not allow not only to to attend the intermarriage even if it's of a sibling. And sometimes you have cases rachmana litzlan children grow up in non-observant family, two sisters, two brothers, they're very close growing up, one of them finds one of them finds emes and the other one unfortunately has not yet found it and and intermarries. But without exception, there's no no one's judging the other person, but objectively, objectively, what intermarriage represents is rachmana litzlan the destruction of the Jewish people. And even if, I mean it's certainly the case when a when a Jewish man marries a gentile woman, so the children right away first generation aren't going to be Jewish. It's true that that when it's reversed, that when a Jewish woman marries a gentile man, so the children will be will be Jewish, but not for very long. Not for very long. All all studies of reform Jews from two, three generations ago, so maybe the first generation they're still Jewish, but they ultimately are totally lost. And because of that, the Rav was very very adamant. Once that there was a case where there was a dispute between a someone was getting married. So the father of the chosson and the grandfather of the chosson, both of whom were very close with the Rav, had a dispute. The father of the chosson had a nephew, the chosson had a cousin who was intermarried. So the grandfather of the chosson and the intermarried one wanted that the that the other einikel who was intermarried should be invited to the wedding, Mr. and Mrs., he and his and his gentile and gentile wife. And the father of the chosson said how can we invite an intermarried couple even if it's family notwithstanding. So they they brought their disagreement to the Rav and the Rav said right away that of course you cannot invite. To invite an intermarried couple means to acknowledge intermarriage. To invite Mr. and Mrs. means that one is acquiescing in the sense of acknowledging intermarriage regardless of what liability that Hakadosh Baruch Hu decides the the intermarried partner may have, but objectively, objectively it represents the destruction. It doesn't make a difference what the liability the person has is; just objectively, it represents, again, the destruction of the Jewish people, Rachmana litzlan. And if, not only can one not attend an intermarriage, but one can't acknowledge it in any way, even to the point of inviting such a couple, thereby acknowledging their union. The same is, again, not only to a Simcha, but even socially, any type of recognition of the union of an intermarriage is not allowed. Even professionally, as a therapist, as a marriage counselor, and an intermarried couple would come for marriage counseling, so one would have to turn them away because our religious convictions is that the marriage shouldn't be saved, that it isn't something where the therapist should be helping them salvage their marriage. Okay, many other applications. Hakadosh Baruch Hu should help us, should give us the guidance to always navigate to the right path.