Q&A: Better That They Remain Unintentional Sinners Than Become Deliberate Sinners
Better That They Remain Unintentional Sinners Than Become Deliberate Sinners
Question
When is this said?
Does it mean that the moment I learned the Talmudic passage I lost the privilege of violating this Jewish law? Or does it become some kind of general after-the-fact principle?
How do the Sages decide when to say this? Is it just a practical matter — that this seems to them like a law that is too hard for people to keep, and therefore they will continue to violate it even afterward?
How is a private individual supposed to exercise judgment about when to say this and when not to?
Answer
You have no privilege to violate any Jewish law whatsoever. This instruction was said to the person rebuking you, not to you. The discussion is whether it is preferable for him to rebuke you or preferable that he not do so (in practice, this is said only regarding rabbinic prohibitions. See Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim, the laws of the eve of Yom Kippur). Nobody said that you have a privilege to violate prohibitions.
The judgment depends on your assessment of whether they will accept your rebuke or not. If they will accept it, then you should always rebuke. If they will not accept it — for a Torah-level prohibition one should still rebuke, but for a rabbinic prohibition one should not. However, if it is completely clear that they will not accept it, there is room to be lenient and not say something that will not be heard. But that is not because of “better that they remain unintentional sinners”; it is because one should not say something that will not be heard.
Discussion on Answer
Even in cases that the Talmud states explicitly, one still has to use judgment according to the time and place. And if you are in such a situation and, in your assessment, they actually will listen to you — then you must rebuke.
If some will listen and some will not, in my opinion one should rebuke. The concern about worsening the sin of some cannot override saving the others. We do not tell a person, “Sin so that your fellow may benefit.” And certainly not when they are doing it deliberately and not listening to rebuke (see Tosafot, Shabbat 4a).
“Not saying something that will not be heard” is meant to prevent conflict, not to reduce the severity of the transgressions. “Better that they remain unintentional sinners” is meant to reduce the severity of the transgressions.
Thank you very much.
I’m still trying to understand the Talmud’s reasoning: on what basis did they write, regarding a certain law, that it is preferable not to protest because “better that they remain unintentional sinners”? Is this just a period-specific interpretation of the state of that law in their generation, and nothing more? It doesn’t say anything to a rabbi who lived then in a different city, and really it has no general validity.
I already answered that.
You didn’t answer; you only answered from the perspective of the person learning this law — what effect it has on him.
I’m trying to understand how it makes sense that someone writes in the Talmud — which is a book intended for everyone — about a certain law that one should not protest those who violate it because “better that they remain unintentional sinners.” Whom did he have in mind on the basis of whom he made that determination? The people of his city? His whole generation? One secular person who doesn’t care? His grandmother? What was enough for him to establish such a thing?
I answered that too, explicitly. I’m done.
Alright.
If there’s anyone here who understood and can explain it to me, I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
Maybe you could just copy and paste the line where you answered the question, so I can understand what you’re referring to?
I spelled out the considerations underlying such a decision. My assumption is that this is what was done in the Talmud as well.
Ah, okay, thanks.
I was working from the assumption that there should be a difference between someone who wrote this as a general rule about a specific case — which would mean that he assumed something about the public at large — and the person learning it.
What about cases where the Talmud explicitly said not to protest because “better that they remain unintentional sinners” — is that a kind of assessment that it was clear to them that nobody would listen? Or is it because some would not listen? (What happens if there is some widespread phenomenon that people want to protest against, and they know only some will accept it — should they protest or not?)
Is “not saying something that will not be heard” not rooted in the same idea as “better that they remain unintentional sinners”?