Q&A: Regarding Lecture 9 in Conceptual Analysis: Is Going Off the Religious Path Undefined, Like Returning in Repentance?
Regarding Lecture 9 in Conceptual Analysis: Is Going Off the Religious Path Undefined, Like Returning in Repentance?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Is going off the religious path also undefined, like returning in repentance? Does going off the religious path also happen in the sense that something happens to me and then I change my way of thinking, and as a result my behavior as well?
Best regards,
Nathan
Answer
I’m not sure I understood the question. It is indeed a change, and that is also a change. But the comparison is to someone who returns in repentance, not to a penitent, of course (I discussed this in detail in Column 367). Someone who returns in repentance changes a system of values and conceptions, and so does someone who goes off the religious path. By contrast, a penitent is supposed to act proactively, that is, to decide on his own initiative that he needs to return to his roots (to act in accordance with his beliefs). About that I said that it seems impossible. By contrast, in the case of someone going off the religious path, neither of those two parameters applies: he is not returning proactively (rather, he arrives at new insights), nor is he returning to his roots (since it is not true that in the past he believed in secularism and acted out of temptation, and now overcomes his temptation). Therefore there is no problem with your being someone who goes off the religious path, but there is a problem with your being a penitent.
Discussion on Answer
In the lecture I explained that a penitent is impossible because of weakness of will, and someone who returns in repentance is impossible because of the reversal involved (it happens to him and is not done proactively by him).
And you definitely can’t criticize someone who went off the religious path after conducting a serious examination and reaching that conclusion. At most, you can criticize him for being sloppy in his examination or for not examining things at all. You didn’t miss anything.
At 1:10:22 in the lecture: “In this sense, being someone who returns in repentance is also impossible. It isn’t logically defined.” Maybe this is where I got confused between someone who returns in repentance and a penitent.
So a penitent who changes his set of values by himself, proactively, is impossible, because otherwise the change has already happened. That leaves only someone who repents because of an external influence, and not proactively, and he is called someone who returns in repentance. So there is nothing to get excited about in the fact that he returned, that he went from secular to religious, because it happened to him, and he shouldn’t get credit for it.
My question is whether someone who goes off the religious path can be criticized for it. Is it also just something that happened to him (he was influenced by someone), and then his set of values changed, and therefore there is no basis for complaints against him / punishing him? I’m probably missing something.