Answering the Apikores

רבי אלעזר אומר הוי שקוד ללמוד תורה ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורוס ודע לפני מי אתה עמל ונאמן הוא בעל מלאכתך שישלם לך שכר פעולתך.

(Avos 2:14) “Rabi Elazar (ben Arach) says: Be diligent to study Torah and know how to respond to the Epicurean. Also know before Whom you are striving; that your Taskmaster is trustworthy when it comes to paying the wages of your effort.”

What does it mean to “respond the the Apikores?” The Mishnah gives us no clue as to exactly how to respond, but simply says that steady and diligent learning will be sufficient enough for the individual to provide the needed rhetoric. This still leaves us with a few good questions that we may have to find answers for ourselves, from within the context of the Mishnah and/or from other sources.

Firstly, why are we interacting with the Apikores at all? Under what circumstance does one ever have to deal with the Apikores? Does this mean that one is require to take proactive steps to disprove or debate Apikorsim? Why can’t we just tell him or her to “gey bluzzen?” The Mishnah, from its plain language, seems to say that we are speaking to the Apikores directly, and therefore our answers must be specifically tailored for his mentality.

Then we have the problem of goals. Are we trying to convince the Apikores that Torah is true, or are we simply putting up a good defense of Torah, without any concern for his thinking? Are we really only trying to convince ourselves? What is Rabi Elazar’s objective? Do we want the Apikores to do teshuva, or just go away? Are we trying to save him or others?

Culture Clash

The next problem is more one of definition that interpretation. In modern terminology, the Apikores is a catch-all phrase for all sorts of non-practicing, anti-Torah, non-observant, and even misguided Jews. Yet, the word Apikores comes from the word Epicurean, which was a specific philosophical movement among the many that permeated Hellenistic societies.

Epicureanism, along with Stoicism, was one of the dominant philosophies of the Rabi Elazar’s era, being commonly practiced and preached from around 300 BCE until the rise of Christianity some 400 years later. It was this Hellenistic and hedonistic ideal of life and ethic that collided head-on with ancient Judaism under the rule of the Alexander and subsequent Greek and Syrian rulers. I will limit the explanation to the three major tenets that contradict Torah and Rabbinic teaching:

1) All natural phenomena are explained mechanistically. (No gods or providence required.)

2) Personal happiness is more important that communal goals. Happiness is the highest good.

3) Death is the end of consciousness/existence.

Though Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) himself denied being a kofer b’ikar, his vision of gods as being detached and aloof from everything, is considered by many to be a thinly veiled attempt to hide his atheism. I tend to agree. Perhaps they only serve as symbols for how men should conduct themselves, more as proto-men than as gods, much like other philosophies of the era. Epicureanism seems to embody all the different types of kofrim and mumarim into one catch-all philosophy, so it isn’t hard to see why Rabi Elazar would single out the Epicurean over and above the Am HaHaretz, the Stoic, or the Tzeduki. In light of this understanding, we discover that Rabi Elazar answers all the questions about this ‘response’ within the Mishnah itself.

Short & Sweet

The key word here is ‘shakud’ meaning diligence. There are other words that Rabi Elazar could have used here, but didn’t. For example, he could have said “hevey zahir” (be careful). ‘Shakud’ has a specific connotation. Torah is not to be limited to a mental exercise or an obligation to fulfill, but requires an emotional commitment, a deep and abiding love for Torah study and mitzvos. It is not enough to apply the brain or even the body, but the heart must be carried along as well. This is the same Rabi Elazar, who when asked about qualities and character flaws, focused his answers on Lev Tov or Lev Ra. It is interesting to note that the Epicureans also believed the heart, rather than the mind, to be the seat of mind and wisdom, and perhaps this is why devotion to Torah serves as the only response to the influence of Epicureanism.

Rabi Elazar offers the response commensurate with Epicurean beliefs. “Know before Whom you toil” is a response to the naturalistic and somewhat hedonistic tenets of Epicureanism, and remembering that “the wages of the effort” will eventually be paid addresses the issues of afterlife and Providence. There really is no debating the Apikores directly. The emotional commitment to Torah is the only protection against outside influences. Rabi Elazar fights fire with fire.

The Benefit of the Doubt

Most religious writings and Rabbinic responsa that cover heresy, heretics, and the various types of heresy do not speak directly to the heretic, unless perchance a heretic comes to read them, and even then, the message is about the heretic rather than to the heretic. There are many assumptions made as the reason why this person left the derech, consisting mostly of unqualified psychological misdiagnosis, and warnings to the still faithful on how to avoid or shun the heretics altogether. As a Kofer/Apikores, I am not offended by any of those things, as they are perfectly normal responses to what are perceived attacks upon or attrition from a set, rigid social structure. It occurs in politics, within families, and among all groups, cliques, and subcultures. I don’t take any attacks as personal.

Rav Elchonen Wasserman o’h said that uncontrollable Ta’avos are what ultimately drive the person away from HaShem. This sort of fellow is called a mumar letayavon (MLT). The MLT, in his wish to avoid any feelings of guilt or remorse for his aveyros, envisions a word with no eternal culpability or recompense. Essentially, the Apikores shut his eyes really tight and makes believe that HaShem isn’t there, or that the Torah isn’t true. The resulting denial of Heavenly Authority allows the MLT to act as he pleases and follow his desires wherever they may lead. In psychology, it is akin to a disassociative disorder, where a person compartmentalizes his actions and conscience, never connecting the objective moral/ethical standard to his own behaviors. Rav Elchonen, much like the Chofetz Chaim, Chazon Ish and Rav Kook, sought to give the modern day heretic the benefit of the doubt, and urged compassion and love as a response, rather than the harsh and bitter threats of death, golus, and cherem that we find in the Torah and Halacha. Lubavitch, Breslov, and other kiruv movements echo these sentiments. The heretic of today is considered to be too much under the influence of science, media, communications, advertising, and the fast world of ideas and pleasures that comes with a higher living standard and more leisure.

A Broad Brush

Love and friendship are all fine and good, and I’m sure that the average secular or non-orthodox Jew might very well fit into this catergory of modern day Tinuk Shenishba, seeing that his only contacts with Yiddishkeit are of the watered down or Hollywood variety, and do not resemble authentic Judaism in any way. Yet, how does this work for the Yid with a yeshivishe or chasidishe chinuch? How can he possibly be tinuk shenishba? At best, he would have to fall under the category of MLT, and in fact, that is exactly where Rav Elchonen puts him. I don’t feel that is 100% accurate.

As in the post by Rachack (see my response there), the typical position taken is that anyone who leaves Torah, denies God, or refuses to do mitzvos must be blinded by some stronger outside influence that masks the ‘truth’. There is the assumption that either the person suffers from deep depression, an overwhelming urge for something ossur, or had a very bad upbringing. I have no doubt that in some cases this is very true. When they blame, they always shift that responsibility from the ideal to the individual. It never occurs to the Orthodox Jew that his beliefs could possibly be misguided or questionable. It is for this reason that the various sorts of kofrim and apikorsim are lumped together. From the religion’s standpoint that makes sense, but from our perspective it appears to be a wholly inaccurate generalization.

I know heretics of many types, some of them coming from the religious Judaism, others from Catholicism, and even a few from Islam. Our stories are quite similar and at the same time quite different. The similarities are the drive for free thinking and a skepticism that requires us to check with reality before accepting ideas as truths. On the other hand, the influences that led each of us to the point of free thinking, or gave the us courage to do so, may have come under different and sometimes traumatic circumstances. It is not easy to leave the life you were born into, or the faith you so zealously followed unless some powerful influence, mental or emotional, played a strong enough role in your socialization to cause this rift between faith, family, and a community.

There is no brainwashing going on either. It’s not as if we have converted to Yoshkeism, or the Hari Krishnas. Those who exchange one delusion for another don’t get much respect from us. I have found a philosophy of life and thought that suits my tastes and makes sense to me, but no one forces it upon me. If anything, my personal philosophy remains at odds with the outside world as much as it does inside the shtetl. There is no one holding a gun to my head or professing the benefits of Apikorsis into my ears, and there is no organized effort to wean people away from Yiddishkeit, unless one considers the entire world of science, philosophy, and history to be attacks on Yiddishkeit.

I see the world in the same way I see my former beliefs, searching out truths and falsehoods in the same manner. I am no more susceptible to media hype, political indoctrination, or womanly wiles than I would be to a mussar shmooze or a blatt gemara. The Apikorsim are the ones who are least likely to suffer brainwashing, and we seem to have this uncanny ability to see through facades and ask all the right questions. We are people who just refuse to play along. That refusal has its price and it’s a steep one.

All You Need Is Love (Sometimes)

It is for this reason that the words of Rabi Elazar are so profound and timeless. There really isn’t any way to reach the Apikores except through the appeal to his sense of community and compassion. Reaffirm your beliefs and maintain your sincerity. We are not heartless robots or beasts driven mad by unbridled passion. We respond to love, to reason, and affection. This is also something to take note of when confronting those still within the Kehilla who are holding Sefeykos or falling into batlanus or worse. Be careful though, we can tell when you’re sincere and when you’re faking. If you are not a ‘Shakud Lilmod Torah’, you’d be better off avoiding the Apikores.

Kol Tuv