Apostate from a rational conclusion

Thank you very much.

Whenever I studied this issue, I thought like the Abarbanel that the Rabbi brought among the sources, and apparently it's simple. For example, if someone is being worked on whose goal in life is to eat crackers with wine, then he's screwed. Maybe it's not his fault that he was cheated, but in the end he spends his whole life doing meaningless things (or committing crimes). And if a person puts his hand in the fire unintentionally, it will go out even though there is no wrongdoing on his part.
All that the Rabbi disagrees with is a mistake in understanding the plain text of the Scriptures, which according to the Rabbi is not a sin and will be accepted by the Rabbis, and the Maimonides thinks it is serious to be called a sin (that's why he brought it up in that chapter in the lesson), but a person who is completely wrong and does not believe in the Torah, even the Rabbis agreed that he is a sin, and it is irrelevant if he is guilty.
Of course the rabbi will argue that then God is immoral, but according to the Ramban, a covenant is a lack of existence, not necessarily a reward, so there is no problem (and the Ramban's interpretation of his words is narrow). Besides, to the same extent, one can argue that it is immoral for a person to put out a fire in the above case.
Why doesn't the rabbi accept this?
Thank you very much!!

I haven't gone through the sources, so I don't know what to say about them. In short, I'll say that in my opinion there is no punishment for what happens in rape. It's clear that if a person doesn't believe, then he doesn't believe, and of course he won't receive a reward for it. Rape is not the same as rape.

According to Maimonides, existence is not automatic. The mind is only a potential for achieving intelligence and existence after the death of the body. By achieving it, he achieves the existence of the mind, and not that he harms his soul because he suddenly repented.
That is, knowing the truth is the key to the preservation of the mind.
His words are based on an interpretation of the words of Alexander of Aphrodisias, which are themselves an interpretation of the words of Aristotle on the soul (de anima). Such existence is very ambiguous.
Therefore, a person who has not achieved intelligence, that is, truth, does not depend on whether he was wrong or not concerned with it in the first place.

There are also Platonic approaches where there is also no significance whether he was wrong or not. As in his work Phaedo, where it is mentioned that a person who lives according to the desires of the body who strives for pleasures, his soul strives to return to the world and not separate from the body, and therefore will reincarnate again and not reach its place.

To understand why they believed this, one must deeply understand the philosophical methods by which they were influenced. These approaches are much less accepted today. Even among other religions that were also influenced by them. Although remnants of them remain here and there (even among secular thinkers).

According to the classical approach, a person is judged, and there is definitely room to check whether he denied or rebelled or was truly wrong and then he is raped.

Interesting, but I don't think it's related to the philosophical method on which Maimonides was based, but rather to the simple concept that just as putting your hand in fire causes physical harm whether you intended it or not, so a bad deed or bad thought causes mental harm (and that is itself reward and punishment).
Therefore, the dispute between Maimonides and Rav is not necessarily about who is wrong in his eyes, but rather a dispute about how terrible the incarnation of God is.

It doesn't matter if a person is raped or not,
Reward and punishment are determined by actual actions.
Even if educationally they try to say that motives are more important, in practice what matters is the action.

According to the last posak, one receives a reward for the act of a monkey in vain.

But the concept that Maimonides relied on leads to this. If you believe that there is a law above, then of course the intention behind things is more important and certainly a person who is misled will not be held liable.
In halacha, we also see that those who are mistaken and those who are mistaken are exempt (although those who are mistaken need atonement).

If the concept is more “scientific” and the person is not the center and everything operates in a deterministic way, then it does not matter whether a person is mistaken or not. Maimonides”s concept sees the reality that everything is determined by physical and metaphysical laws as interpreted by Aristotle's commentators. Therefore, there is no law above and there is really no reward and punishment but rather the results of choices in the world.
There too, there is a place for a person who is mistaken or those who are mistaken. But it is more about actions and less about achieving enlightenment. (And in truth, we see in Chazal that those who are mistaken and those who are mistaken are exempt).
Simply put, a person who has not achieved understanding and has not acquired wisdom does not unite with the active mind and therefore has no existence. The commandments do not guarantee at all the union with the active mind, but rather provide a framework that makes it easier. Whether by maintaining order in society or by distancing oneself from things that may cause a person not to engage in understanding.
Likewise, a person who has committed a transgression does not mean that he will not necessarily achieve understanding. In fact, a person like Aristotle achieved much more than any other person according to Maimonides and did not keep the commandments (and according to his view, there is really no metaphysical difference between a Jew and a Gentile, except that the Jews chose to sanctify the mind and have a Torah that directs them to this).
This existence is also vague and it is not at all clear whether it is individual. If two people have acquired a certain wisdom, what remains is the same wisdom and not the same people.

Maimonides is also not sure about this approach in several places, and in one place in the Mishnah Torah he believes that the soul is eternal in any state and cannot cease to exist. In fact, this disagreement is between the commentators of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Timotheus, who interprets Aristotle's words that the active intellect is a reduced model of the active intellect and has an existence of its own.
Maimonides seems to believe in the vast majority of places like the commentators of Alexander. But rarely do we see other quotes.

According to Maimonides, fulfillment is terrible because such a person follows the lie and does not grasp the truth. That is, such a person does not achieve enlightenment.

And note that this is also a conclusion that a person reaches regardless of how he calls it. The words are not the main thing, but only identifiers through which things can be given names. In practice, a person can say that he believes or believes this, but in fact has reached a different conclusion. And a person may say that he does not, but in fact he believes the same thing (for example, "The sun shines every morning and the word "Sun" is written with 3 letters, it is not the same "Sun". One is a word that we later give meaning to, and the other is a body that exists in space. In logic and the construction of formal languages, this matter is of great importance).
In fact, from what I have seen, most people are fulfilling (according to the Maimonides' method) even if they claim that they are not. In fact, any attribution of an attribute to God is a fulfillment, and therefore the attribution of attributes must be seen through negation.