Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What is the basis for a blanket allowance of halachik compromises by organizations involved in kiruv, if any?

The purpose of this question is to see if there were responsa that give blanket allowances regarding kiruv (as I've heard there are).

share|improve this question
Can you give some examples (without mentioning the names of the respective organizations, to avoid potential problems of lashon hara)? – Alex Feb 24 '12 at 15:37
@Alex I can only tell you what I've seen: to give one example is in regard to laxity with kol isha wherein an event may have either mixed (co-ed) singing or even a group a women singing in front of men. – none Feb 24 '12 at 15:47
The basis for allowing co-ed singing will likely be something in that part of Shulchan Aruch; the basis for other (what you call) "compromises" will likely be something in another part of Shulchan Aruch. I'm closing this as overly broad. If you want to emend it to it's about some specific "compromise" or neatly defined class of "compromises" and ping me back with a comment with @msh210 I'll be glad to reopen. – msh210 Feb 24 '12 at 17:05
@msh210 The purpose of the question was to see if there were piskei teshuva that gave blanket heteirim regarding kiruv (as I've heard there are). I'm not sure if that changes anything. – none Feb 24 '12 at 17:38
I can't imagine. Piske t'shuva that allow a kiruv organization to feed pork to potential baale t'shuva if it thinks that'll help them return? But if that's your question, then please edit it to say so explicitly and ping me as above and I'll be glad to reopen. – msh210 Feb 24 '12 at 18:11

It appears that one of two things occurred when you wrote your question: either you are bothered or puzzled by the things kiruv organization do, or hopeful that they have some heter. I will say that the blanket heter that you are conceiving of does not exist. Though there can be found specific examples and certain "loopholes" to certain halakhic issues, the general reason for what kiruv organizations do are not solely based on those heterim. The general consensus among kiruv organizations is that in order to bring them closer certain compromises are made. It is a decision both on the part of the organization and on the part of the rabbis running it. Many a time do rabbis have to face such decisions. A classic one would be allowing a non-shomar shabbat congregant read from the torah or be the shliakh tsibbur. Classically halakha does not allow this (even if there MIGHT be way of reinterpreting halakha), but rabbis had to allow it in order to maintain their congregation, to be kind and fair, and to conform to the reality we exist in. all this said, there is a limit and a balance involved. Sometimes the balance can be lost, but the hope is that it will be achieved. If you want, I can find something that validates what I just said, but I have spoken to several kiruv organizations and heard many rabbis say this.

share|improve this answer
i'm sure you're right, what i was hoping for is somewhere that a talmud chacham puts this sort of thinking down in writing with sources to back its validity. it's very easy to always say 'these are the times we live in, and so we must compromise' but there is a shikul ha'daas that should go on and I would be interested in understanding it more. – none Mar 1 '12 at 4:19
So the quick answer is no. No there isn't a written down shikul daat. But there need not be one. Rabbis always had to conform to the realities of the community. A good halakhic concept that encasilates this is שאין גוזרין גזירה על הצבור אלא אם כן רוב צבור יכולין לעמוד בה. This is not to say that whatever the community wants goes, but that the rabbi considers his people in his decisions. The kiruv organizations and the rabbis running it realize this and as such they try to consider all the possibilities. – David Nagar Mar 1 '12 at 13:10
In short, a shikul daat is unnecessary in such a communal and emotional issue; compassion for the people is the major factor working. The yoke of halakha can't weigh heavily in this situation or else these people will run away. As said certain considerations must be made. No outright halakha is being broken, but loopholes and kulot are utilized – David Nagar Mar 1 '12 at 13:16

There really is NO heter to compromise on Halacha when doing Kiruv period.

Howerver when dealing with non-frum people there is a lot of thought that goes in to dealing with them and their Halachic issues.

For Example: lets say you have someone who lives far away from your Shul, and you know he is driving to Shul, you do not have to tell him not to drive (if you know he won't listen to you), unless he specifically asks you about it.

It is important to remember that we are trying to bring them closer to Torah, not Torah closer to them.

share|improve this answer
Thanks for your recent answers and welcome to Mi Yodeya. I hope you stick around and enjoy the site. Note that citing sources is very valuable: otherwise we have only your word to take for what you say, and, no offense, but most of us don't know you. – msh210 Aug 20 '12 at 18:07

I am unaware of blanket heteirim but perhaps the discussion regarding inviting a non-orthodox person for shabbos knowing she will drive may shed some light here. Based on this post it would seem that:

An additional consideration is the concept of committing a minor sin in order to save someone from a more severe sin. We do not ordinarily permit such a violation, R. Akiva Eiger (Glosses to Yoreh De’ah 181) argues that lifnei iveir is an exception. You may violate lifnei iveir, you may cause someone else to sin, in order to prevent him from committing a more severe sin. This seems particularly relevant to a Shabbos invitation which may inspire the guest toward greater religious observance.

However, R. Ya’akov Ariel points out that in R. Akiva Eiger’s case, the other person is definitely saved from a greater sin. In our case, the invitee may not be religiously inspired and may have otherwise stayed home and done nothing. On the other hand, the guest will definitely violate Shabbos in the future. Perhaps we can permit lifnei iveir for the chance to prevent these definite violations in the future just like we violate Shabbos to save someone’s life so he can observe Shabbos in the future.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.