>>Who says he doesn't have the din of a koifer? And if he doesn't, why
>>can't he touch your wine? There are heterim regarding tinok shenishba
>>but they all deal with circumstances. In the purest sense of the word,
>>a TS most definitely has the din of a koifer (haray hu kinachri). That
>>was precisely R' Chaim Brisker's chidush in the Rambam; nebach en apikorus
>>iz fort en apikorus.
And I wrote:
> This is not necessarily so. Many Poskim state that there is no din of
> stam yeinam on wine with which a tinok she'nishba came into contact. See
> Nishmas Avraham YD 133:1 for a long discourse with many marei mekomos.
And he wrote:
I don't have a Nishmas Avraham handy but I would be very surprised if
their were any sources that were matir stam yeinam, shechita or anything
else for a TS that formally announced that he did not believe in G-d. R'
Chaim didn't and neither did R' Moshe. In fact, R' Moshe holds that even
if a Jew keeps some mitzvos like hanachas tefillin, but is a michalel
Shabbos bifarhesya, his wine and shechita is still assur even though he
doesn't necessarily have the din of a koifer because we can be toleh that
he is doing it l'tayavon (he needs the parnassa). Kal vachomer if a person
had a full din of a koifer would we say that his wine is yayin nesech.
And now I write:
When did we up the ante to someone who "*formally* announced that he did not believe in God?"
But since you do not have a NA, I will cite the original Hebrew sources on my blog (can't do it here). This is not to say I would pasken this way but to demonstrate that there are mekilim.