Q&A: One Who Causes Sin Is Worse Than One Who Kills
One Who Causes Sin Is Worse Than One Who Kills
Question
Hello Rabbi. I saw that you once responded to this question, but you never really addressed it seriously. And I’d like to ask whether you could address it seriously. You said you were willing to address any question on the podcast with Jeremy Fogel.
The Holy One, blessed be He, created us with demands written in the Torah, and as I understand it (and I think also as you understand it), the divine command is more binding than anything else. Therefore Abraham had to bind his son. If so, I understand that it is more terrible for a person to leave religion than for a person to die; more terrible that Abraham would leave Isaac alive than that he kill him.
Someone who does not listen to the divine command is rebelling against the purpose for which the Holy One, blessed be He, created him. Someone who dies is not rebelling. Nothing is more important than obedience to the divine command. And consequently nothing is more terrible than disobedience.
I can understand that our emotions hurt more when someone dies, but that is a problem that exists in us because of a lack of tangible faith.
In short, do you think it is more terrible that someone die or that someone leave religion?.
I think there are very many people (mainly Haredim) who would think this way, and therefore I again ask that you address the question seriously, the way Ben-Gvir should be taken seriously. Thank you
Answer
I didn’t say that I was willing to address every question. I said that I support people being allowed to raise any argument and position. That is different in at least two respects: 1. I was speaking about reasoned positions, not every statement. 2. I do not see myself as obligated to address every position and argument that comes up. I only oppose silencing people.
Still, I’ll briefly address your question. The divine command does not require us to perform a set of actions; otherwise the Holy One, blessed be He, would have created us programmed and without free choice, carrying out exactly what is required. The command requires us to choose that set of actions. Long live the enormous difference between those two formulations.
Someone who obeys the divine command not out of choice and the forming of his own position is not fulfilling God’s will. Someone who chooses otherwise is immeasurably better than him in terms of being a chooser, even though in his actions he is less good.
Beyond that, even if in my opinion this is the most important thing, I am not supposed to make decisions for others. They are supposed to decide for themselves. Therefore, even if you were right that leaving religion is the gravest thing, the decision must still be left to the person himself.
And finally, someone who, if arguments were presented to him, would leave, is not truly a believer even now. He is simply deceiving himself that he believes. What value is there in that?
All this is before we even get into basic fairness, that every person should be allowed to form a position. Fairness too is a very important value.
And as a side note, according to the Beit Yosef, the medieval authorities (Rishonim) are divided over whether one desecrates the Sabbath for spiritual danger (for example, when they take your son for forced conversion among the gentiles). But for saving a life, it is obvious that one desecrates the Sabbath. So the hierarchy you established between the situations does not stand the test of Jewish law. You can bring quotations in all sorts of directions.
And by the way, I do not take Ben-Gvir seriously. If you’re quoting me, you should first listen to what I actually said.
Discussion on Answer
Why should it be more important? I don’t know how to answer such a general question without relating to the consequences.
By the way, I wrote here in the past that, simply put, this is the dispute in Yoma 85, in the passage about desecrating the Sabbath to save a life: one who bases it on “Desecrate one Sabbath for him so that he may keep many Sabbaths” (Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya) holds that the value of the Sabbath overrides the value of life (life is for the sake of the Sabbath). And one who bases it on “and live by them” (Shmuel) holds that life is more important (the commandments are for the sake of life).
I wrote that it is better to die because it is better to leave the world and not cause harm than to remain in it and cause harm. That seems to me like simple logic that doesn’t require proof. Just as it is better to leave school than to cause myself destruction during my education, or any other example.
And I explained to you why you are mistaken (in my opinion). That’s it, I’ve exhausted it.
Thank you. I won’t write more. Just one last sentence: Shmuel, who says life is more important as you explained because the commandments are for the sake of life—
after all, you argued (in the debate with Yaron Yadan, and also in the debate with Elper, I think) that it cannot be that morality is the purpose for which we were created, because morality is only a way to manage proper life, and there is supposed to be something inherently greater than life itself that is our purpose. Isn’t that so? And if so, Shmuel’s reasoning is not understood.
Search here on the site for a discussion of this passage. Although that is the simple reading of the dispute, there I explain that it cannot be meant literally. Beyond that, the question of what is more important from our perspective is not identical to the question of why the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world.
Even on the level of simple logic, the commandments are so that we may live, and then be able to choose and serve God. To lose life for one commandment is not reasonable in any case. And finally, there are three commandments that override life.
First, I apologize for the inaccuracy regarding what you said.
In addition, I want to be more precise and change my wording a bit; I didn’t manage to convey the exact point of my question.
I’m not talking about how it is preferable to act in a case where I’m faced with the two options of causing someone to sin or killing; I want to talk about values. My claim is: “It is better to die than to leave the path of Torah.” And I’m not talking about whether it is okay to give space to arguments that would cause a person to leave, or how one should act as a result of my claim in relation to other people.
Just as it is better to leave school than to stay there and become more ignorant, so too: it is better to die than to leave the path of Torah. Better not to remain in the world than to remain in it and cause damage.
And even if we see that saving a life overrides most commandments, a person who has left the path of Torah is likely violating transgressions about which one must be killed rather than transgress.
And despite your preface, I would be very glad if you would answer me: why is it not a correct claim, in your opinion, that it is better to die than to leave the path of Torah? (Just the principled claim, without referring to the possible consequences that may follow from it.)