Q&A: An Unintentional Heretic
An Unintentional Heretic
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael, a0I had a conversation with another rabbi about unintentional error in matters of faith and religious tolerance, and I would be glad to hear your opinion on the subject. Here are the main arguments that came up in the conversation:The background is that I sent Rabbi So-and-so a question about the view of person X regarding biblical criticism. Rabbi So-and-so said about X that he is basically a complete heretic, and I replied to him: “Regarding X, I did not mean to say that he undermines Torah from Heaven. I only said that someone reading his books could on his own reach far-reaching conclusions regarding this principle of faith. As I understand it, he reconciles the findings of biblical criticism with the principles of faith in various ways (similar to Rabbi Breuer’s approach of aspects). In any case, Maimonides wrote in Mishneh Torah, Laws of Repentance, chapter 3, halakha 6: ‘And these are the ones who have no share in the World to Come, but are cut off and lost, and are judged for the magnitude of their wickedness and sin forever and ever: the sectarians, the heretics, those who deny the Torah, those who deny the resurrection of the dead, those who deny the coming of the redeemer, apostates, those who lead the many to sin, those who separate themselves from the ways of the community, one who commits sins defiantly and publicly like Jehoiakim, informers, those who cast fear upon the community not for the sake of Heaven, murderers, slanderers, and one who reverses his circumcision.’Recently I learned of an objection to this halakha in the responsa of the Radbaz, 4:187, who said that one who errs in one of the fundamentals of religion because of his faulty inquiry is not considered a heretic, since because he thinks that what emerged from his investigation is true, he is under compulsion and exempt.”The rabbi answered in this connection: “By the way, there is no remedy at all in the words of the Radbaz (most opinions do not agree with him; Rabbi Chaim of Brisk said that there is no such thing as inadvertence in matters of belief, because a miserable heretic is still a heretic), but even the Radbaz removes from him the title of heretic while still leaving him mistaken. As far as clarifying the truth is concerned, there is no difference at all, because the reason the Radbaz lowered him from the status of heretic is because of the laws of compulsion, not because there is any side on which he is right. So the words of the Radbaz are really, really not relevant to the discussion at all.”I responded to him with Nachmanides’ commentary on the following verses:And if you err, and do not observe all these commandments that the Lord spoke to Moses, all that the Lord commanded you through Moses, from the day that the Lord commanded and onward throughout your generations; then it shall be, if it was done unintentionally by the eyes of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bull for a burnt offering, for a pleasing aroma to the Lord, with its meal offering and its libation according to the rule, and one male goat for a sin offering.(22) ‘And if you err and do not do all these commandments’ ad ad this passage is obscure in its meaning, and the plain-sense commentators will err in it by saying that this is a sacrifice for one who did not do what he was commanded to do, and did so unintentionally. But their words are empty wind, for if so there would be an obligation to bring a sacrifice for every positive commandment in the Torah whenever one failed to fulfill all of them and erred in one of them, and there would be a punishment of excision for anyone who does not fulfill all of them when he intentionally transgresses one of them, for the verse says: ‘all that the Lord commanded you.’ Furthermore, it says here: ‘and it was done unintentionally from the eyes of the congregation,’ for their error was in an act that they did, not that they sat and did nothing; and likewise ‘that person who acts with a high hand’ (verse 30). Rather, its meaning is that you err and do not do what God commanded, but instead do the opposite. Or it may mean that you err and do not perform His commandments in that which He warned you not to do, for prohibitions are also called commandments, as it says: ‘if a soul sins unintentionally from any of the commandments of the Lord regarding things that shall not be done’ (Leviticus 4:2).Now the obligation of this sacrifice for the inadvertent sin of the congregation differs from the sacrifice stated in Leviticus, for there the obligation is to bring a bull as a sin offering, while here it is a bull as a burnt offering and a goat as a sin offering. Therefore our rabbis had to say (Horayot 8a) that this sacrifice is for the inadvertent sin of idolatry. Yet the wording of the verse, if we do not remove it from its plain meaning, would say: if you err regarding all the commandments and transgress everything that the Lord commanded you through Moses, so as not to do anything of all that He commanded you, then you shall offer this sacrifice. That is why it does not mention here, as it does regarding sin offerings, ‘one of all the commandments of the Lord.’According to its plain meaning, then, this is a sacrifice for one who has apostatized from the entire Torah unintentionally, such as one who goes and joins one of the nations to act like them and no longer wishes to be included among Israel at all. And all this would be unintentional ad ad for example, in the case of an individual, a child captured among the nations; and in the case of a community, where they think that the time of the Torah has already passed and that it was not meant for all generations. Or they might say, as is mentioned in Sifrei (Shelach 115): Why did the Omnipresent say not, ‘Let us do and receive reward’? We do not do, and we do not receive reward ad ad like the matter that Israel were saying and asking Ezekiel, as it is said: ‘Men of the elders of Israel came and sat before me’ (Ezekiel 20:1). They said to him: Our teacher Ezekiel, if a slave has been sold by his master, has he not left his authority? etc. Or they might forget the Torah. This indeed happened to us because of our sins in the days of the wicked kings of Israel, such as Jeroboam, when most of the people forgot the Torah and the commandments entirely, and likewise as is described in the book of Ezra regarding the people of the Second Temple period.This is the force of the wording of the verse: that the inadvertence mentioned here concerns the Torah and the commandments as a whole. Therefore our rabbis singled out one commandment such that by erring in it one departs from the community of Israel and from all the commandments among them, namely idolatry. And the meaning of the verse would be: ‘if you err’ ad ad to go after other gods; ‘and do not do’ ad ad anything of all the commandments of the Lord. For one who acknowledges a deity other than Him has already nullified, in his own eyes, everything that the honored Lord commanded, whether positive commandments or prohibitions; for if there is another god besides Him, then reverence of Him and His commandments and all obligation in them are nothing.This passage came to complete, in Torat Kohanim, the law of the inadvertent sin of idolatry, for this book completes the laws of sacrifices, as I explained at the beginning of the book. And it was inserted here because they rebelled against the word of the Lord and said, ‘Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt’ (above 14:4), to be there in Egypt as they had been before, without Torah and without commandments. Thus this passage came to inform them that even in the case of idolatry, the unintentional sinners will obtain atonement, but those who act with a high hand, the Lord will cut them off; and I have already explained this excision in the section Acharei Mot (Leviticus 18:29).It seems possible to see from here that Nachmanides holds that even the Holy One, blessed be He, recognizes inadvertence in matters of belief, even in very severe things like idolatry, to the point that He forgives a whole congregation for it by means of one sin offering. That is, even the Holy One, blessed be He, shows religious / theological / philosophical tolerance out of consideration for human error. So who are we not to take account of the theological / philosophical errors of others and judge them as outright heretics, when in fact they would only be obligated in a single sin offering? And Nachmanides emphasizes that only those who act with a high hand ad ad them the Lord will cut off.The rabbi replied: The phrase ‘the Holy One, blessed be He, shows religious tolerance’ is a foreign shoot in our vineyard. ‘Whoever says the Holy One, blessed be He, overlooks things ad ad his intestines will be overlooked.’ There is no place for tolerance; there is place for measure for measure. And for every sin done unintentionally one brings a sin offering, and this does not reduce the gravity of the sin but defines it exactly as it is. That itself is proof for Rabbi Chaim of Brisk’s words, that even an unintentional heretic is still a sinner, since a sin offering is brought for a sin ad ad and not like one who wants to say that there is no such concept as inadvertent sin in matters of belief. I would be glad to hear your opinion on this issue.
Answer
One has to distinguish here between tolerance and pluralism. Factually, someone who is mistaken is mistaken, and what difference does it make whether he is inadvertent or intentional? Error is judged by comparison to the truth, not by the motives of the one who errs. Therefore, a stupid heretic is still a heretic (Rabbi Chaim of Brisk. My Yiddish is weak. I hope I quoted it correctly). But regarding blame, of course there is a difference between them. Blame depends on the offender’s motives, not on what he did. Therefore the words of Rabbi Chaim and the words of the Radbaz are not even close to one another. There is no dispute between them, and one cannot disagree with this. What one could say is that those who err are really intentional deep down and not inadvertent as it appears on the surface, but that is nonsense, of course.
And regarding blame, which as stated depends on the offender’s motives, one must distinguish between inadvertence and compulsion. One who sins inadvertently is liable for a sin offering, while one under compulsion is exempt from everything. And with regard to every inadvertent sinner, one must ask whether his error was under compulsion (in which case it is ordinary compulsion and not inadvertence) or whether there is an element of negligence in it, in which case he has the status of one who sinned inadvertently. The discussion begins with a child captured among the gentiles, about whom the Amoraim disagreed, and in Jewish law he must bring one sin offering for each type of inadvertent sin (but not for every act, as with an ordinary inadvertent sinner). It still requires further analysis whether in our day atheists are in the category of children captured among the gentiles or something even lower than that (not blameworthy at all).
a0
In the end, I do not see any room here for any argument. It is obvious that one who is mistaken is mistaken regardless of his motives. And by the same token, regarding blame there is certainly dependence on the motives and reasons for the mistake. One who errs through negligence is an inadvertent sinner, and without negligence he is under compulsion. Only one who errs intentionally is a heretic in the criminal sense. a0
Discussion on Answer
You have to remember that the view of the Sages, and also of Maimonides, was that heresy is necessarily intentional, because the truth seemed self-evident to them. Only a child captured among the gentiles could be considered under compulsion, and even that was a startling innovation from their perspective. So they did not bother distinguishing between inadvertent and intentional. But today the situation is, of course, completely different.
But as I wrote to you at the outset, even if Maimonides were to say this for our times ad ad then the conclusion is simply that he is mistaken. That’s all.
All this assumes that this punishment is given because of wickedness. But it is possible that this punishment was given to them not because of their wickedness, but in order to prevent the consequences (harmful influence on society). In other words, the individual is sacrificed (punished though he bears no guilt) in order to protect society. That too is not relevant today for many reasons, but in any case it says nothing whatsoever about wickedness.
I tried to argue in my remarks against the prevalent attitude in religious society toward people who express views that sound “heretical” ad ad that once they say them, they fall into the category of “cast down and not raised up,” and are treated as abominations. And Maimonides too seems to adopt a strict approach toward heretics and sectarians when he says:
A. One who does not believe in the Oral Torah is not the rebellious elder spoken of in the Torah, but is rather included among the sectarians, and his death is at the hands of any person. [B] Once it has become known that he denies the Oral Torah, they cast him down and do not raise him up, like the other sectarians and heretics and those who say that the Torah is not from Heaven, and informers and apostates. All these are not included in Israel, and they require neither witnesses nor warning nor judges; rather, anyone who kills one of them has performed a great commandment and removed a stumbling block.
B. [C] When does this apply? To a man who denied the Oral Torah on the basis of his own thought, and things that appeared to him, and who followed his frivolous opinion and the stubbornness of his heart, and denied the Oral Torah first; and likewise all those who err after him.
C. But the children of those erring people, and their descendants, whom their fathers misled and who were born into heresy and raised in it ad ad they are like a child captured among the gentiles and raised by them in their religion, and he is under compulsion. And even though afterward he heard that he was a Jew, and saw Jews and their religion, he is still like one under compulsion, because he was raised in their error. So too these who hold to the ways of their fathers who erred. Therefore it is proper to bring them back in repentance and draw them in with ways of peace until they return to the strength of the Torah; one should not rush to kill them.
That is, it seems that according to Maimonides there is no such thing as an inadvertent heretic. In his view only one under compulsion (a child captured among the gentiles) is exempt, while one who errs inadvertently is judged like one who sins intentionally (“and likewise all those who err after him”). It may be that Rabbi Chaim of Brisk means that although the heretic is an unfortunate inadvertent sinner, he still has the legal status of a heretic (that is, they cast him down and do not raise him up), which fits with the words of Maimonides, although I have not gotten to the bottom of his intent.
Against this, the words of the Radbaz seem to disagree when he says: “One who errs in one of the fundamentals of religion because of his faulty inquiry is not considered a heretic, since because he thinks that what emerged from his investigation is true, he is under compulsion and exempt.” This is what I rely on when I object to a criminal attitude toward heretics, even if I do not agree with them and think all their views are based on error. Because I think many of them believe their views are the truth, and therefore I do not see any malicious intent here, and therefore I do not think they should be cast down and not raised up.
Nachmanides’ interpretation of the verses above also seems to be lenient regarding an inadvertent heretic, especially a congregation of inadvertent heretics ad ad perhaps like the Reform community, or the secular community, or the Karaite community, etc. (when he says “in the case of a community, where they think that the time of the Torah has already passed and that it was not meant for all generations,” or “they might say, as is mentioned in Sifrei… Why did the Omnipresent say not, ‘Let us do and receive reward’? We do not do, and we do not receive reward”). That is, Nachmanides is speaking not only about people born into a certain dogma, but also about people who underwent a change of outlook during their lives.