Accidental Epikurs
Hello Rabbi Michael, I had a conversation with another rabbi about being mistaken in religious views and religious tolerance and I would be happy to hear your opinion on the matter. The following are the salient arguments in the conversation: The background to this is that I sent a question to Rabbi X about the opinion of person X on biblical criticism. Rabbi X said that he is, in essence, a complete heretic, and I answered him: “Regarding X, I did not mean to say that he undermines the Torah from heaven. I only said that the reader of his books can reach far-reaching conclusions on his own regarding this principle of faith. In my understanding, he reconciles the findings of biblical criticism with the principles of faith in all sorts of ways (similar to Rabbi Breuer’s method of examination). In any case, Maimonides wrote in Mishna Torah, Laws of Repentance, Chapter 3, Halacha 6: “And these are they who have no share in the world to come, but are cut off and perish, and are judged for the greatness of their wickedness and sin, forever and ever: the heretics, and the Epicureans, and the heretics in the Torah, and the heretics in the resurrection of the dead, and the heretics in the coming of the Redeemer, and the disbelievers, and the sinners of the multitude, and those who withdraw from public ways, And he who commits flagrant offenses in public, such as the Jehoiakim, and the moralists, and those who terrorize the public for no reason, and those who shed blood, and those who slander and those who pull out their foreskin.” I recently learned of a ruling on this halacha in the Radbaz’s response, 4, Kapaz, which said that someone who errs in one of the tenets of religion due to his own lost knowledge is not considered a heretic, because he thinks that what he has learned is true, he is an anos and exempt.” The rabbi replied in this context: “By the way, there is no cure in the words of the Radbaz (which most opinions do not agree with, Rabbi of Brisk said that there is no mistake in opinions, since a poor heretic is also an heretic) but the Radbaz also removes the title of heretic from him but leaves him as a heretic. From the perspective of the clear truth, there is no difference, because the reason the Radbaz reduced him from the rank of heretic is because of the laws of Onsin and not because there is any side that is right, so the words of the Radbaz are really, really Not at all relevant to the discussion.” I responded to him with the Ramban’s interpretation of this verse: “And you shall be careful not to do all these things which the Lord spoke to Moses: All that the Lord commanded you by the hand of Moses from the day that he commanded you, and it shall be a statute throughout your generations: and they shall be in the sight of the congregation, and they shall be a statute for ever, and they shall do them.” The whole assembly shall offer one bull as a burnt offering for a sweet savour, and one ram for a sin offering, and one ram for a sin offering: (22) And if you err and do not do all these commandments – this section is obscure in its meaning, and those who are of the opinion of the simple mind err in saying that it is a sacrifice for one who did not do what was commanded to be done and was mistaken. And their words are words of the Spirit, for if so, there would be an obligation to offer a sacrifice for all the positive commandments in the Torah when one did not keep all of them and was mistaken in one of them, and there would be an obligation to cut off all of them when one intentionally transgresses one of them, because the Scripture says (verse 23) everything that the Lord has commanded (him) to you. And he also said Here (verse 24) And if in the eyes of the congregation it was done by mistake, because you erred in the deed that you did, not that they sat down and did not do it, and so it is with a high hand that you do it (verse 30). But the reason is that you err and do not do what the Lord commanded, but you do the opposite. Or does it mean that you err and do not keep His commandments in what He warned you not to do, because the motives for not doing will be called commandments, as He said (Leviticus 4:2) because you will sin by mistake in all the commandments of the Lord that you will not do: And here is the obligation of this sacrifice in the error of the congregation different from the sacrifice mentioned in the parashat Leviticus, because there it is obligatory to bring a bull for a sin offering (verse 15) and here a bull for a burnt offering and a goat for a sin offering, and therefore our rabbis were forced to say (Horiyot 8:1) that this is the sacrifice for the error of the 7th. And the language of the Scripture, which we will not take out of its plain meaning, says, “If you transgress all the commandments and transgress all that the Lord commanded you by the hand of Moses, that you do not do anything of all that He commanded you, you shall offer this sacrifice.” And for this reason it was not mentioned here when it is said of the sin offerings, “one of all the commandments of the Lord”: And behold, this is as it is meant, a sacrifice that is changed from the whole Torah by mistake, such as one who goes and clings to one of the nations to do as they do and does not want to be in the whole of Israel at all. And all this will be by mistake, such as if there were an individual who was a baby who was taken captive among the nations, and in the crowd, such that they would think that the time of the Torah had passed and that it had not existed for generations to come. Or they will say, as mentioned in my book (Shelah Ketu), “Why did the place say, ‘We do not do it and do not take a reward,’ as the matter that the Israelites used to say and ask Ezekiel, as it is said (Ezekiel 20:1), “There came some of the elders of Israel and sat before me, and they said to him, ‘Our Master, Ezekiel, is there a slave whose master sold him not going out of his possession,’ etc. Or they will forget the Torah, and this has already happened to us in our sins (because) in the days of the wicked kings of Israel, such as Jeroboam, who completely forgot the Torah and the commandments, and when it came to the people of the Second Temple in the Book of Ezra. And this is the use of the language of the Scripture that this oversight mentioned here is in the Torah and the commandments in general, and therefore our rabbis singled out for them one commandment that, due to its oversight, went out of the whole of Israel and all the commandments in them, and that is idolatry. And the measure of the Scripture will be, and if you err – to follow other gods, and do not do – any of the commandments of the Lord. For whoever acknowledges a god other than Him has already nullified in his sight everything that the honorable Name has commanded, whether in the commandments of what to do or in the commandments of what not to do, because if there is a god other than Him, fear Him and His commandments and all the obligation in them is nothing. And this is the passage to complete in the Torah of the Priests the law of the oversight of idolatry, because this book will complete the laws of sacrifices as I explained (at the beginning of the book). And it entered here because they disobeyed the word of the Lord and said, “Give me your head and return from Egypt” (above 14:4), to be there in Egypt as they were at first without Torah and without commandments. And here comes the parasha, to inform them that even Baaz will atone for those who are mistaken, but those who do it with a high hand will be cut off, and I have already explained this recognition in the order after death (Leviticus 18:29): It can be seen from this that the Ramban believes that even the Blessed One recognizes the mistaken in opinions, even in very serious matters like Baaz, to the extent that He forgives it for the entire congregation, for the sake of one sin offering. That is, God, the Blessed One, also demonstrates religious/faithful/philosophical tolerance out of consideration for the errors of humans, so who are we not to consider the religious/philosophical errors of others, and condemn them as complete heretics, since they only owe one sacrifice. And the Ramban emphasizes that only those who do it with a strong hand will be cut off by God. And the rabbi responded: The style “God demonstrates religious tolerance” is a foreign song in our garden. “Everyone who says God, the Blessed One, and the Torah, will be given more than his share.” There is no place for tolerance, there is a place for measure against measure and for a sharp and for a sin, a sin offering is inadvertently brought, and this does not devalue the sin, but defines it exactly as it is. And he himself is the evidence for the words of Rabbi of Brisk that even Epicurus, by mistake, is a sinner, since a sin offering is brought for a sin. And not as someone who wants to say that there is no such concept as a sin by mistake in opinions. I would be happy to hear your opinion on this issue.
A distinction must be made here between tolerance and pluralism. In fact, whoever is wrong is wrong, and whether he is mistaken or intentional is not. A mistake is examined in comparison with the truth and not by the motives of the one who is wrong. Therefore, Na’abich Apikors iz hoch Apikors (Rabbi Chaim of Brisk. I am weak in Yiddish. I hope I quoted correctly). But with regard to blame, there is clearly a difference between them. After all, blame depends on the motives of the perpetrator and not on what he did. Therefore, the words of Rabbi Chaim and the words of Radbaz did not come close to each other. There is no disagreement between them and it is impossible to dispute this. What can be said is that those who are wrong are actually wrong in their depths of soul and are not mistaken as it seems superficially, but this is nonsense of course.
As for guilt, which, as mentioned, depends on the motives of the perpetrator, a distinction must be made between negligence and rape. The negligence is liable for a sin, and the rape is exempt from anything. And for each negligence, it must be discussed whether his negligence is rape (in which case it is ordinary rape and not negligence) or whether there is a dimension of negligence in it, in which case he is subject to the law of negligence. The discussion begins with the infant who was taken, about which the Amoraim differed, and according to the law, one sin must be brought for each type of negligence (but not for every act like an ordinary negligence). And another question is whether atheists today are in the category of infants who were taken or something lower than that (not guilty at all).
Ultimately, I see no room for any argument here. It is clear that someone who errs is wrong regardless of their motives. And it is equally clear that guilt certainly depends on the motives and causes of the mistake. Someone who errs negligently is an accident and without negligence is a rapist. Only someone who errs intentionally is a heretic in the criminal sense.
I tried to argue in my words against the prevailing attitude in religious society towards people who voice opinions that sound like “pagan” opinions, and since they voice them, they are considered “followers and not upholders” and are despised. And it seems that Maimonides also takes a strict approach towards Epicureans and Menes, saying:
a. He who does not believe in the Oral Torah is not an old man from the sight stated in the Torah, but he is among the Menes, and his death is at the hands of any man. [b] Since it has been made known that he is a disbeliever in the Oral Torah–followers and not upholders, like the other Menes and Epicureans and those who say there is no Torah from heaven and the moralists and the apostates: all of these are not among the Menes of Israel, and they do not require witnesses, warnings, or judges; rather, whoever kills one of them has performed a great commandment and removed an obstacle.
[3] In what way are these things said, concerning a man who abjured the Oral Torah from his own mind, and from the things that seemed to him, and followed his own easy mind, and the whims of his heart, and abjured the Oral Torah first; and so are all those who err after him.
3 But the sons of those who err and the sons of their sons, whom their fathers rejected and were born with favors, and raised them upon him - for they are like a baby that was taken captive among the Gentiles and the Gentiles raised him in their religion, for he is a rapist; and even though he later heard that he was a Jew, and saw the Jews and their religion - for he is like a rapist, for they raised him in their error. Thus are those who hold to the ways of their fathers who erred. Therefore it is fitting to return them to repentance, and to draw them to the ways of peace, until they return to the firmness of the Torah; and no one should hasten to kill them.
In other words, it seems that from the perspective of Maimonides, there is no situation where Epicurus is mistaken. From his perspective, only a forced (a baby who is captured) is exempt, and a mistaken person is judged as if he were intentional (and so are all those who err after him). It is possible that the words of R. Chaim of Brisk mean that even though Epicurus is a poor mistaken person, he still has the judgment of Epicurus (i.e., he is reduced and not increased), which is consistent with Maimonides' words, although I did not delve into the depth of his intention.
It seems that the words of the Radbz disagree with this, saying: "He who errs in one of the principles of religion because of his lost knowledge is not considered an infidel, because he thinks that what has arisen in his knowledge is true, he is forced and exempt." This is what I base my argument on when I speak out against the criminal treatment of heretics, even if I disagree with them, and think that all their opinions are based on error. Because I think that many of them think that their opinions are the truth, and therefore I do not see any malicious intent here, and therefore I do not think that they should be lowered or raised.
The Ramban's interpretation of the verses above also seems to be apt to make Epicurus mistaken, and especially a group of Epicurus mistaken, perhaps like the Reform group or the secular group or the Karaite group, etc. (in saying "in such a crowd that they will think that the time of the Torah has passed and that it has not existed for generations to come" or "they will say, as I mentioned in my book (Shelach Ketu), why did the place say, "We do not do and do not receive wages without reward,") meaning that the Ramban is not only talking about people who were born into a certain dogma, but also about people who changed their perception during their lives.
It should be remembered that the view of Chazal and Maimonides was that heresy was necessarily intentional, because the truth seemed obvious to them. Only a baby who was captured could be considered raped, and this was also a sensational innovation for them. Therefore, they do not bother to distinguish between accidental and intentional. But today the situation is completely different, of course.
But as I wrote to you at the beginning, even if Maimonides were to say this to his day - then the conclusion is that he is simply wrong. That is all.
All of this assumes that this is a punishment given due to wickedness. But it is possible that this punishment was given to them not for their wickedness but to prevent the consequences (a harmful effect on society). In other words, the individual (who was punished for not committing an injustice) is sacrificed in order to preserve society. This is also irrelevant today for many reasons, but in any case it says nothing about wickedness.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
