Q&A: A secular Jew as a "captured infant"?
A secular Jew as a "captured infant"?
Question
Regarding the prohibition on benefiting from an act done on the Sabbath intentionally, what is the status of actions done by secular Jews?
A. For example, paving roads and the like,
B. In things where the rule of waiting "the amount of time it would take to do it" does not apply, such as photographing events on the Sabbath.
C. Is a secular person living in the country, a classic secular Jew, (not an atheist, but one who acts for convenience/desire), a traditional Jew—does he have the status of an unwitting sinner, or of a "captured infant"?
(I saw something in the video in the previous responsum, where Rabbi Edelstein mentioned in the name of the Chazon Ish that they have the status of a captured infant. But he also mentioned the issue of inadvertence, so I asked.
Thanks in advance.
Answer
A. An act done by a secular Jew is considered an act done on the Sabbath in every respect. The fact that a secular Jew is a captured infant does not change that. However, he is not considered intentional, but rather coerced / unwitting, and therefore the laws of an act done on the Sabbath unwittingly apply here (see section 318).
B. One should remember that some of these acts (like roads) were not done only for me. As for photographing events, that too was apparently not done especially for you.
C. I do not know how to answer that general question. If, in your assessment, he truly does not think that this is binding on him, then he is a captured infant. A traditional Jew is of course in a much worse position than a secular Jew in this regard. A captured infant is a type of unwitting sinner (close to being coerced), since according to Jewish law we rule that he brings one sin-offering for each category of sin.
Discussion on Answer
A. Thank you, I’ll look into it.
B. Not long ago we talked about the categorical imperative—doesn’t it have a place here?
C. Why is a secular Jew living among religious Jews of his people, and who does not think they are raving idiots, not obligated at least to try a little and see whether maybe they are right? How is he different from a captured infant who is unaware that there is such a thing as Judaism, or who sees Judaism as just one religion among many, simply because he was born in China, and he feels no connection to this remote people that he barely heard about in half a sentence that he comes from there because his mother is Jewish?
As for the Religious Zionists.
With the Mizrachnikim, does he view them (presumably) as fools, in which case one should discuss what their status is regarding acts done on the Sabbath? Or as offenders acting out of desire…?
Tam, regarding C.
A child is deeply influenced by the education and values he received. An ordinary person continues in his parents’ path, even when he examines other paths.
And there is no greater proof than the fact that an overwhelming majority of people born religious remain that way, and likewise regarding secular people. Clearly education has an influence.
Therefore it does not have to be exactly the case of a captured infant among the gentiles who never encountered Jews at all; the guiding principle exists here too.
Honorable Rabbi Reuven Zilberstein,
According to what you say, is there then no place for the concept that ignorance of the law is no excuse?
The guiding principle is different, and I referred to that. Regarding traditional Jews: a person who believes there is a Master of the house, and on Yom Kippur is careful not to eat, ought to look into the other things for which he repents on Yom Kippur. In my opinion that is binding.
Another issue that needs clarification according to your approach is: what sense does it make to punish a person who acts according to what he saw in his home and did not think to go beyond that? The question applies also to the Nazi Germans, and likewise to Arab states and various militias.
Tam,
The concept of ignorance of the law applies where the law exists. It is a norm imposed by human beings who punish someone living in their society, because within a society that has established a certain way of life, every member is expected to know the norms of that society.
Regarding traditional Jews, the discussion is indeed somewhat different, and one must look further into the definitions, distinctions, and implications. I was speaking about a completely secular Jew.
As for Nazis and the like, one indeed has to examine each person according to his situation. Indeed, I do not judge Nazi children and the like. As the wisest of all men said: "The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, but the Lord tests hearts." I do not presume to know each person’s inner content.
However, according to that ridiculous video, one should discuss the status of the Mizrachnikim even more than that of the secular Jews. Are they captured infants or unwitting sinners? (Certainly not intentional sinners, since they are not Haredi.)