Q&A: Conception of Divinity
Conception of Divinity
Question
Hello Rabbi, today I had a lively discussion about the definition of an apikores (heretic). There is Maimonides’ principle about the negation of God’s corporeality, and the Raavad’s protest against Maimonides that great figures erred and conceived of God in corporeal terms. It sounds like the Raavad is arguing that even though those great figures were mistaken in their conception of God, they still are not considered heretics because of that.
Another example is the Talmudic discussion about the future messiah, where Rabbi Hillel says that there will be no messiah. I wonder whether Maimonides would define him as a denier of the faith.
My rabbi argued that only once the people accepted Maimonides’ principles upon themselves did they become binding Jewish law, and only then, if and when a person denies a certain principle, is he considered a heretic. But if he denied a certain principle before the principles were accepted as “Jewish law,” then it is merely an error. I did not accept that claim, and he attacked me and argued that if I think everyone who conceives of God differently is really a heretic, then apparently most of the ignoramuses who conceive of God differently from me are heretics. I would be happy to hear your opinion.
Answer
I think this discussion is childish and entirely meaningless.
See column 74: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%95-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A1/
As a rule, any view a person forms to the best of his understanding is not subject to value judgment. That is what he thinks. Only if a person adopts some view that he himself does not think is true because of his evil inclination, or perhaps when he does not make a serious effort to examine it, can you come to him with complaints.
You can try to persuade such a person that he is mistaken, but to tell him he is a heretic is a meaningless statement. After all, that is what he thinks. What do you want him to do? Of course, if you think differently from him, then in your view he is mistaken. But that is just a tautological definition. Do you think that a person who thinks differently from you should be killed or thrown into a pit? That is utter nonsense.
Beyond that, there is no halakhic ruling in matters that concern facts and worldviews. Jewish laws are norms, and as such one can demand that a person act contrary to what he thinks because he accepts the authority of halakhic ruling. But with regard to beliefs and facts, if you tell him he is a heretic, what is he supposed to do with that? Think differently from what he himself thinks? At most he can say it with his mouth, but the fact remains that this is what he thinks. You can only try to convince him.
And in general, to see Maimonides’ principles of faith as correct or binding because they were “ruled as Jewish law” is complete nonsense. Either you agree with them or you do not. And if you do not agree with them, you are neither a heretic nor mistaken. Maybe Maimonides was mistaken? Maybe those who “ruled” like him were mistaken?
Discussion on Answer
As a rule, if a person thinks there was a revelation at Mount Sinai in which God gave us the Torah, then regardless of who God is, his prayer can join with anyone else’s. Why does it matter how you describe God? You are praying to the same one who created the world and gave the Torah. And if you do not describe Him correctly, then you made a mistake. So what?
The Spinozist conception is just atheistic wordplay. Monotheism is the accepted view, no?
It matters because he is not praying to my God (but rather to a different God who also gave the Torah to you, Israel). I seem to remember that you wrote that you have a problem praying with Chabad Hasidim because of the conception of contraction not in its plain sense…
It is the same God who created the world and gave the Torah. If people are mistaken in describing Him, that has no importance. You write a bill of divorce for the sake of a woman, and you know only her name without recognizing her personally. That still counts as written for her sake.
My problem with the Chabad people is subjective and intuitive, because there is a cult-like atmosphere there. Beyond that, contraction does not matter to me (they are just confused. So what?). And of course there is the fact that they direct their prayers to the Rebbe and insert him into the prayer. Besides, the conception of contraction not in its plain sense is equivalent to atheism, not to a mistaken description of God. But as I said, in my view it is just confusion.
The question is whether, the moment a person conceives of divinity differently from me, I can regard him as a denier of the faith (I of course do not expect him to change his opinion because of that), or whether we would need a substantially different conception in order to define him that way—for example, the Spinozist conception or the monotheistic one. There is also a practical implication as to whether I count such a person for a prayer quorum.