As we have explained over the course of the last few weeks, the main focus of Chapter 2 of Pirkei Avot is on Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and his five students. Each of these great sages taught critical lessons that would forever serve both as the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism as well as the continuation of the chain of Mesorah, of our tradition. Mishna 18 provides the last teaching of this set of Rabbis from Rabbi Elazar ben Arach. As you may recall, it was about Rabbi Elazar ben Arach that we find a description in Mishna 10 outlining how great of a sage he truly was: “If all of the Sages of Israel would be on one side of a scale…and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach on the second side, he would outweigh them all.” It is for that reason, as well as others, that his teaching in Mishna 18 must be studied carefully and with great depth.
Perhaps what stands out the most about Mishna 18 is the first, and albeit sudden, introduction to Pirkei Avot of the notion of the ‘Heretic’ or in Hebrew the ‘Apikoros’. Rabbi Elazar ben Arach teaches that we must “Know what to answer a heretic, an Apikoros.” Before trying to delve into the message from Rabbi Elazar ben Arach, it is critical to understand what we mean by a ‘heretic’ an Apikoros. In other words, what makes someone a heretic in Judaism?
The most famous (and likely first) example of the use of the word Apikoros in Rabbinic literature can be found in the 10th Chapter of the Mishna Sanhedrin (Mishna 1). The Mishna describes how all Jews, even those that were executed by the court for their transgressions, have a portion in the World to Come. However, the Mishna continues and writes that there are three individuals for whom there is no portion in the World to Come: One who denies that the idea of Resurrection is from the Torah, One who claims that Torah is not from Heaven, and an Apikoros. So serious is the charge of being an Apikoros, a heretic, that such a person is lumped together with those that deny resurrection and the divinity of the Torah. As the Mishna describes, all three of these individuals are denied a portion of the World to Come. Yet, if that is the case, that the Apikoros truly is an undeserving individual outside of the community, we are left with an enormous question. How are we to understand the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Arach to. “Know what to answer a heretic”? Would it not be better to ignore such a person? To not dignify them with a response? What good could possibly come from engaging with an Apikoros?
Interestingly, there are a number of different words in which we see the Rabbis of the Talmud use to refer to a heretic. In fact, the words, ‘Min,’ ‘Apikoros,’ ‘Kofer,’ ‘and ‘Mumar’ are all used throughout Rabbinic literature to refer to someone that acts in a heretical way. Of these many terms, the one that is most well known and used most often, is the term of the ‘Min.’ In fact, each and every day in the Shemoneh Esrey prayer, the Silent Amida, the 12th blessing is devoted to the wiping out of the Minim, the heretics:
Let there be no hope for informers, and may all the heretics and all the wicked instantly perish; may all the enemies of Your people be speedily extirpated; and may You swiftly uproot, break, crush and subdue the reign of wickedness speedily in our days. Blessed are You L-rd, who crushes enemies and subdues the wicked (translation from Chabad.org)
The Minim created such a challenge for the Rabbis of the Talmud that the Rabbis were forced to add this extra blessing beseeching G-d’s help in combatting the Minim, the heretics of the world.
Perhaps most fascinating about this 12th blessing is that it was not originally a part of the 18 blessings that make up the Amida prayer. It is the Gemara in Brachot (28b-29a) that describes how Shmuel HaKatan stood up and answered the call to write this prayer against the Minim. It is quite remarkable that this prayer continues to be recited each and every day, three times a day as part of our prayers.
While there are other terms as outlined above that also can be used interchangeably to refer to a heretic, for the purpose of this discussion, we will focus exclusively on the words ‘Min’ and ‘Apikoros.’ If both of these words are translated to mean ‘a heretic,’ why use two different words? Said differently, why do we need two (or really many) different words to describe a heretic? What is the difference between a Min and an Apikoros?
The Gemara in Sanhedrin (99b-100a) offer a number of different explanations of what we mean by an ‘Apikoros.’ Some suggest that an Apikoros is one who insults a Torah scholar, or one who insults his neighbor in the presence of a Torah scholar. Others suggests that an Apikoros is one who with disrespect towards the Torah. On the other hand, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (38b-39a, 91a, and 99a) suggests that a Min is one that denies G-d’s unity, believes in an independent divinity of evil, denies Israel’s chosenness, or even denies the coming of the Messiah.
As an interesting side note, many have identified the term ‘Min’ that is used as part of the 12th blessing of the Amida (see above) to refer to Judeo-Christians. In fact in the Cairo Genizah two copies of this prayer as composed by Shmuel HaKatan include references to both the Minim as well as the Notzrim (the Christians). This would help better understand the lack of anti-Christian prayers as part of the daily Jewish rite. In a similar vain, the root of the word Apikoros is likely related to the Greek philosopher Epicurus, a philosopher whose views contradicted Jewish values and scripture. Yet despite this seeming obvious connection, as we saw above, the Gemara goes out of its way to define and translate the word Apikoros as being related to the root P.K.R. which relates not to the Greek philosopher but rather to the notion of disrespect.
All that being said, the Rambam, Maimonides, perhaps gives us the clearest distinction between an Apikoros and a Min. In his Mishna Torah, Hilchot Teshuva (Chapter 3), the Rambam writes:
Halacha 7
Five individuals are described as Minim:
a) One who says there is no God nor ruler of the world;
b) One who accepts the concept of a ruler, but maintains that there are two or more;
c) One who accepts that there is one Master [of the world], but maintains that He has a body or form;
d) One who maintains that He was not the sole First Being and Creator of all existence;
e) One who serves a star, constellation, or other entity so that it will serve as an intermediary between him and the eternal Lord.
Halacha 8
Three individuals are described as Apikoros:
a) One who denies the existence of prophecy and maintains that there is no knowledge communicated from G-d to the hearts of men;
b) One who disputes the prophecy of Moses, our teacher;’
c) One who maintains that the Creator is not aware of the deeds of men.
According to the Rambam, the difference between a Min and an Apikoros relates to the fundamental belief of their heresy. A Min is one that outright rejects G-d or puts their faith in another G-d. Such a viewpoint is heresy. On the other hand, an Apikoros believes in G-d, however, denies and is skeptical about the relationship between man and G-d in this world. Perhaps, this can explain why the term Apikoros has morphed into a more general term for a heretic. What seems to be clear from the words of the Rambam is that he has taken many of the comments brought down in the Talmud and defined them in more abstract terms. From that perspective, we can better appreciate Rambam’s greater focus on philosophy and basic Jewish beliefs.
Seen from this perspective, the rest of Mishna 18 in Pirkei Avot becomes clearer. In addition to knowing how to answer a heretic, Rabbi Elazar ben Arach also teaches that one must be diligent in Torah study as well as to know for whom we ‘work’ and that G-d will pay us our reward for our toils. As we have seen, an Apikoros is one that rejects some of the most basic and fundamental tenet of our tradition. The only way to truly answer such a person is to be well versed in two primary areas—Torah study and an understanding of the system of reward in this world. It is precisely these two areas that can best combat the Apikoros as defined by the Rambam that rejects both the holiness of the Torah and its prophecy as well as the system of reward and punishment in this world. Rabbi Elazar ben Arach can therefore be seen as not teaching three distinct and unrelated ideas, but rather as teaching one central idea—how to deal with heretics.
Yet, what stands out the most from this Mishna of the teaching of Rabbi Elazar ben Arach is his emphasis on engaging with the heretic. Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld in his Pirkei Avot commentary emphasizes that we must engage with the heretic as a way of standing up for G-d. He writes:
First of all, we must stand up for the sake of G-d. Don’t ignore them—even if to our minds their arguments don’t even warrant a response. We must not give even the most fleeting impression that others’ arguments have any validity—or that they know how to translate our own Torah better than we. Even if we know their arguments are contrived, based upon mistranslations, or quoted out of context, don’t let anyone entertain that we had no response. Make it crystal clear that we know better.
Rabbi Rosenfeld articulates that we must engage and “answer the heretic” as a means of upholding the sanctity of G-d and the holy Torah.
For the modern Jew, however, perhaps we can offer another perspective. Today, many Jews throughout the world choose to live in an enclosed and insulated society. They choose to live a life of Jewishness that does not come in contact with the many outside secular and perhaps negative influences that the modern world offers. These Jews choose to live in homogenous communities away from non-Jews and anything that might challenge their beliefs. That being said, such a lifestyle does not even apply or particularly interest the modern Jew. For us modern Jews, Rabbi Elazar ben Arach’s teaching holds tremendous weight and value. For the modern Jew, Rabbi Elazar ben Arach is teaching of the importance of not only engaging with the outside world, but also with the more challenging sometimes heretical, Apikoros part of the world. Rabbi Elazar ben Arach teaches that Jewish life is not lived in the bubble of insulated community. Rather, Jewish life must be lived out in the real world where our faith may be challenged. Living and engaging with the Apikoros outside of an insulated environment does not diminish our faith, but rather strengthens our faith. In fact, the Rambam in his commentary to the Mishna of Pirkei Avot writes that the Apikoros that the Rabbi Elazar ben Arach is referring to is a non-Jewish Apikoros. If that is the case, then insulating oneself in an enclosed Jewish community, would prevent one from truly fulfilling the teaching of this Mishna and realizing the beauty of our faith—that we must “know how to answer an Apikoros.”
Rabbi Marc Angel in the Koren Pirkei Avot writes, “A faith unchallenged is an ignorant and blind faith. A faith that seriously contends with threating views and that tackles the questions of heretics is ultimately a stronger and healthier faith.” The theological and even heretical challenges that we encounter living as modern Jews only enhances and adds depth to our belief. What could therefore possibly be a better teaching from Rabbi Elazar ben Arach as he with his students and contemporaries prepared to live a post-Temple life outside of Jerusalem? Engagement with the rest of the world is inevitable and is an important part of the beauty of our faith. May we always hold dear our core beliefs and values such as the importance of diligent Torah study when we engage with the world.