Q&A: A Captured Infant
A Captured Infant
Question
Hello,
Why does a captured infant, and a convert who converted among gentiles, bring a sin-offering? After all, they are completely under duress.
Answer
As is well known, this is a dispute among the Amoraim. In my estimation, the Sages saw these infants as inadvertent sinners with respect to one matter (the entire Torah), and therefore they bring fewer sin-offerings than an ordinary inadvertent sinner in a single lapse of awareness. In their case, there is one lapse of awareness covering every type of transgression.
I think that in their times it was supposed to be obvious to any reasonable person that there is a God and that one is obligated to fulfill His commandments, so the question was only which commandments they are. So someone who grew up among gentiles is considered an inadvertent sinner, because he does not know that the commandments are the ones we have. He should have investigated and arrived at the correct conclusion (on the assumption that one who investigates would probably reach it). Nowadays, of course, that is not the situation, and therefore the presumption changes. Even if one investigates, he will not necessarily arrive at the “correct” conclusion. Therefore, one can argue that today their status is one of duress. So the concept of a captured infant does not really capture our situation today, and I have already written about this in the past (and also in the trilogy).
Discussion on Answer
I don’t know Your Honor. Do you mean that my explanation is what seems difficult to you? 🙂
I didn’t understand the difficulty. That is exactly what I wrote: someone who knows there is a God and just doesn’t know the commandments is an inadvertent sinner, not someone under duress—to the exclusion of someone who does not know at all that there is a God and that there are commandments.
Haha, you made me laugh…
What I mean, Rabbi, is: why should such a person be considered an inadvertent sinner and not under duress? According to the rationale you gave—that he is expected to investigate—such a person doesn’t know that he is supposed to investigate. As far as he is concerned, what they told him is Jewish law.
Every person is supposed to know that he needs to investigate the truth. But if you’re laughing, that’s already good. Laughter is good for your health. Good luck.
The Rabbi’s sense of humor is always amusing. What I mean, Rabbi, is that if you are a gentile and they tell you that there is no Sabbath in the Torah, why would you try to check whether they misled you? From your perspective, the rabbi told you what Jewish law says, and you rely on him. Don’t you agree with me?
They don’t tell you that there is no Sabbath; they tell you that there is no Torah. If there is a God and there are commandments, it is reasonable that you would try to find out what He commanded and what His commandments are. Remember that we are speaking here about an inadvertent sinner, not someone under duress. When you forgot that today is the Sabbath, you are considered an inadvertent sinner. Why? Were you supposed to check? That is what you thought.
Who revealed to the Rabbi that “even if one investigates, he will not necessarily arrive at the ‘correct’ conclusion,” and therefore this is duress? What is the Rabbi’s source for this shift from inadvertence to duress?
We can see with our own eyes that many intelligent people do not accept the arguments in favor of faith.
I didn’t understand why a source is needed here: for the fact that someone under duress is exempt? Or for the fact that such a thing is called duress? Both are obvious.
For the fact that such a thing is called duress. We only find inadvertence in such a case.
Duress in knowledge is also duress. See Shevuot 26 (“the person in an oath”—excluding one under duress). And many others like it. And likewise the well-known Radbaz about duress in matters of belief.
Sorry for the repeated request, but I’d be happy if the Rabbi would point me again to the location of the Raavad. Thank you.
Do you mean the Radbaz?
Add him too… (:
Anyone who says that a person with free choice can force himself is invited to an interrogation at my place…
danke schön
I didn’t understand anything. What are you asking for? Please, no riddles.
By mistake I thought the Rabbi wrote Raavad. I want the location of the Radbaz. And if there are others who hold his view, I’d be happy to have those too. Thank you.
Is there no Google on the internet? Radbaz responsa, part 4, siman 187
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1375&st=&pgnum=109
Happy is the f for whom it is so
Thank you.
It is hard for me to accept your explanation, since even someone who knew there is a God—a convert who converted among gentiles—but just did not know that the Sabbath is forbidden, is still obligated to bring a sin-offering.