Rape of opinions
The rabbi speaks many times about how a person who believes differently from the Jewish faith is considered a rapist.
(And I interpreted this as the opinion of the Rabbi, since there is apparently no greater rape than this.)
And I wondered whether the Rabbi's words were consistent with Maimonides (Hilchot Memariam), who considers only the children and children's children of infidels to be rapists, and found no distinction between a person who is raped in his own mind and one who, in the arbitrariness of his heart, goes against his true opinion, which is one that recognizes (or at least is content with) the contents of the faith.
I also don't understand how it is possible for a person to understand with their intellect the way they believe, and yet, with the arbitrariness of their heart, disbelieve. Is someone who proclaims heresy considered a disbeliever?
Thank you very much.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think that these things are in line with the Rambam, since he speaks of people who apostatize because of their instinct, and in this they are not forced. But their sons are already in the category of captive infants. The Rambam's assumption, as well as Chazal's, is that if a person has studied and heard our tradition, he certainly understands, and it is impossible to apostatize except intentionally. A person cannot innocently reach a wrong conclusion unless he is a captive infant who did not know and did not learn. In our generation, this is clearly not true, and therefore my words deal only with our generation. Today, it is clear that even a person who has studied and studied can apostatize innocently, simply reaching the conclusion that there is no truth in it and abandon it. Such a person, even if he knows all of Shas with Rishonim and Achramim and the books of thought and halakha, is strictly a captive infant.
I suppose there were such types in the past, but they were a minority. The presumption was that if someone disbelieved, it was intentional and not an innocent mistake (that he was a rapist). Therefore, the burden of proof was on the one who claims that he disbelieved innocently. But today, this presumption does not exist.
And finally, you asked how it is possible for a person to believe in the truth and yet deliberately disbelieve? Perhaps we can liken this to someone who knows that adultery is forbidden and yet commits adultery. It is true that heresy is in opinions and not in actions, and yet man is a complex creature. He can deliberately put himself in a situation where he convinces himself that he is an infidel. This reminds me of a verse I once saw by Rabbi Shach (I think in a book published by his grandson on the story of Noah) that Cain was a thief of the highest knowledge. And he explained the parable of a man who passes by the cords of the eruv and his hat flies out. He looks to the right and left and sees that there is no one and goes outside, quickly takes the hat and returns it to his own possession. God sees him, and he still feels that he is stealing his knowledge. It is clear to him that he is a criminal and that God sees, and yet he does it. At that moment, he may even have built a theory that he is okay and is just trying to escape people who are mistaken and think that it is a crime, and still such a person is considered a thief and not a rapist. There is room to tie this to the issue of someone who allows themselves to be raped, and that's because the things are long.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer