Q&A: We Neither Lower Nor Raise Them
We Neither Lower Nor Raise Them
Question
I saw that you were already asked about this not long ago, but in any case I didn’t really understand what you think.
The Shulchan Arukh in Yoreh De’ah 158:2 writes: “Heretics among Israel—namely those who worship idolatry, or one who commits transgressions out of spite, even if he ate carcasses or wore shaatnez out of spite—such a person is a denier. And regarding heretics, meaning those among Israel who deny the Torah and prophecy, it was the practice in the Land of Israel to kill them. If one had the power to kill them by the sword, publicly, he would kill him. And if not, he would contrive circumstances until he caused his death. How so? If he saw one of them who had fallen into a pit and there was a ladder in the pit, he would hurry and remove it, saying: ‘I am busy lowering my son from the roof and I will return it to you,’ and similarly in such cases.” Gloss: “See Choshen Mishpat, section 425.” “Converts who had converted themselves under duress and defiled themselves among the idolaters to worship idolatry as they do are like apostates out of spite, and they would lower them and not raise them.”
You wrote that the reality was different. Why assume that in the past people thought the God of Israel is true and His Torah is true, but said, ‘Still, I feel like being with those poor, mistaken gentiles,’ whereas today the situation is different? Today the situation is different to their disadvantage. Today it is very hard to reach the status of a captured infant. All the information is available; a person with a trace of curiosity and integrity ought to hear about the Jewish religion, and in my judgment also reach the correct conclusions (namely, of course, to observe Torah and commandments).
Today’s formerly Religious Zionist people who became secular (at least according to the sample I know) know there is religion, but they don’t have the strength to keep it, and also not to investigate. And even if there is a difference between the periods, who says that should also affect our attitude toward them? In practice they deny the existence of the Creator, the Torah, prophecy, and the truth of Moses’ prophecy, so why are they not considered deniers? To claim this is an anachronistic Jewish law is nice, but you can say that about every part of the Shulchan Arukh without giving reasons, and join our brothers who used to be religious and became secular…
Answer
A captured infant has nothing to do with lack of knowledge. There is no logic at all in defining it by knowledge. A person who knows the entire Torah and also grew up in a religious home, but now studies it the way someone studies Indian culture, is a captured infant in the fullest sense. The relevant question is whether he is coerced or not, and that is not determined by this or that fact (such as his knowledge). It is determined by awareness, not by knowledge.
The claim that if you make one change then nothing remains of the Torah, and you could say the same thing about the entire Torah, is conservative demagoguery. Apocalypse now. Every argument has to be examined on its own merits. I raised a remarkably sensible argument, and with regard to most other parts of the Shulchan Arukh you will not be able to offer a similar argument. And where you can—then yes, absolutely, I would say it there too.
And in any case, your complaint is not really against me. The Chazon Ish said that nowadays we do not apply the laws of rebuke, apostate status, and so on, because there is no one who knows how to rebuke properly. And so too Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, and nearly all the halakhic decisors who discuss captured infants. Is there any major halakhic decisor who holds that these laws you quoted are practiced today? So why don’t you ask the same question about them? What I am claiming is that those decisors mean what I am saying, except that some of them are bound to the accepted halakhic terminology and are not aware that today’s reality does not fit that terminology. But in my opinion, most of them mean my underlying principle.