Hello Rabbi
How are you? Recently, on Kan 11 there is a series called “We Will Meet Again,” which deals with the attempt to restore a broken connection between parents and their children who have returned to questioning. One of the women (the Haredi who wants to renew the connection with her son) says that, in her opinion, the desire to reunite with her child stems from a desire to try to eventually bring him back to repentance. According to her, a person who does not observe Torah and commandments, who does acts forbidden according to the Torah, “is a rotten part” (as the saying goes, perhaps she softens later in the series), and she has no interest in a relationship with him.
To my question. It seems that many (including me) would agree that when a person commits a morally serious act, rape, murder, etc., this is reason enough to cut off contact with him. On the other hand, when a person sins, this does not seem to be a good enough reason to cut off contact with him, as long as he remains a good person. I tried to find out if there is a real reason for the difference in treatment of a person who has committed a moral sin and a person who has committed a religious sin, and I was not really successful. Is this because the commandments are not important enough to cut off contact with a person who does not observe them? Or is it simply a feeling that makes one disgusted by a person who behaves immorally? What do you think about it? Happy Holidays
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps an indication of these differences, even if it is uncertain (according to what is described in the question) is that this is a behavior that is practiced only towards family members - apparently it does not abstain from collegial friendships and the like with secularism or mustard - while towards a son, when there is a disconnection, then one disconnects to the abyss. In contrast, the rigid attitude towards a moral offender is actually the opposite - softer the closer the offender is to the family. This reversal, depending on the family relationship (in religion - the closer the relationship, the harder it is. In morality - usually the closer the relationship, the easier it is) is perhaps an opening for further analysis of the motives (such as educational failure and betrayal on his part and the loss at his hands, etc.).
Furthermore, the two differences noted in the reply deal with the state and not the process, that is, with the difference (from a religious perspective) between the state of a secular person and the state of a moral offender. But it seems that the strict attitude also involves the fact that there was a change from religious to secular, while if he was essentially secular, such as a son of secular parents who converted, or if the child was adopted as an infant (somehow) by a secular family and met his real family at the age of 20, then the attitude is less strict.
Following the Rabbi's response
There is a famous saying by Maran Rabbi Kook that there is an evil person [secular who does not observe the mitzvot] and there is a bad person [morally delinquent]
Happy Holidays
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
