Dealing with religious dissenters Part II

During the period of the 2nd Temple the Chachamim and Zadokin disagreed on many biblical mitzvohs. Depending on the group controlling the sendhadrin, decisions relating to the proper interpretation and execution of mitzvohs at times swung from one point of view to the other. One example of such a transition is given in the following story in megilas taanis chapter 10 (“megilas taanis” is a 2nd temple work that is cited, referenced and quoted in mishna and gemara many times. Mesachtes Rosh hashana (18b) discusses when the holidays mentioned in megilas taanis ceased to be observed)

“On the 28th of Tevet the assembly was properly seated: When the zadokin were seated in their sandhedrin, KingYanai had queen Shalminin sitting by him, and no other Yisrael other then Shimon ben Shetach sat with them. And they were asked for response and laws but could not bring proof from the torah. Shimon ben Shetach said to them: Whoever can bring proof from the torah is fit to sit on the sandhedrin but whoever can not bring proof, is not fit to sit on the sendhadrin. One time an issue requiring action occurred and no one could bring proof from the torah with an exception of an old man who babbled at him. He said to him give me time and he went and sat alone. When he realized ho could not bring a proof from the torah, on the next day he was too embarrassed to come and sit on the great sandhadrin and Shimon ben Shetach elevated one of the students to sit in his place. He said, a sandhedrin can not have less than seventy-one. So he did every day until he removed all of the Zadokin and sat a sendhadrin of yisreal according to his thinking. That day that the sendhadrin was removed and sandherdrin of yisreal was seated was made a holiday.”

This story offers interesting insights into the early period of the zadokin. And it also clearly states that the Sanhedrin was under the complete control of the Zadokin. This situation may have been a result of the fact that with the exception of “Shimon ben shutach”, all the chachamim had previously been killed by “Yanai” (kedushin 66a). We do find many stories in the gemara where zadokkin openly disagreed with the chachamim and holidays were declared when the chachamim’s position were validated, i.e.

1. 1st to 7th of Nissan – Karban tamid must be brought from public monies
2. 8th day of Nissan – “Mimmachrat hasshabas” does not mean Sunday
3. 14th of tamuz – capital punishment and meaning of “eye for an eye”

However, it is not clear in these cases who dominated the sandhedrin. If it was the zadokin, why was the final ruling according to the chachamim? If it was the chachamim majority, why would their victory result in a yom tov? Perhaps the answer lies in Rashi’s comment on the significance of the days recorded in Megilas Taanis (Ros hashana 18b):
Rashi’s description that these days were days in which miracles occurred seem appropriate for the 28th of teves story since the single handed expulsion of the zadokin from the sandhedrin by “shimon ben shutach” could not have been anticipated. What, however, was the miracle in the other days we have listed? Perhaps this implies that in those days as well, the zadokin were in the majority but the chachamim were able to mobilize enough support amongst the zadokin to get their point of view adopted. Perhaps, a comparable example would be concerning “semicha” (beitza 20b) on yom tov. The issue had been hotly debated for a very long time and one day when “bais shamai” was in the majority of the senhadrin , they tried to push through a decision that ruled in their favor. However, one of the chachamim in their own group “bbuba ben buta” was convinced that bais hillel was correct on this subject and maneuvered that the final decision be rendered according to them. It is thus possible that even with a majority of zadokin, a sincere effort on the part of the chachamim could have convinced enough zadokin sanhadrin to rule according to the chachamim. This truly would have been a reason to rejoice.

The rambam discusses the attitude towards the zadokin at length in many places and the repercussions they face because of the danger they pose for jewish society. Yet, despite his disconnect with their philosophy, he does not deny the Jewishness of the zadokin and the rights they derive from it. In a variety of different halachos where jewish idolaters and their ilk are given the status of gentiles, the rambam has zadokin maintaining their jewish identity. For example in “schita” ramabm bans non-jews, people who openly violate shabbas and deniers of torah from slaughtering an animal even in the presence of a jew but still asserts that zadokin are different (Hilchos schita chapter 11, 9:4) he admittedly does not allow zadokin to slaughter animals ”unsupervised” , but that is not because they are not jewish, but because their laws are different than ours. And he furthers rules that they are countable for “minyan” and their “kedushin and get” are valid.

Based on all of the above, it is clear that we must not confuse groups with whom we have serious philosophical differences with groups that are non-believers. While rambam at times argues for serious repercussions for the former group, he at no time writes them off as not being members of the Jewish faith and repeatedly stresses they maintain their Jewish rights and privileges.

Concluding remarks

We began this analysis to see how dissenters to the fundamentals of the Jewish faith are to be treated, and it is pretty clear from the rambam, that they must be treated respectfully, not ostracized and can be relied on in many aspects if they agree with our halacha on the point. While we debate whether current “non-orthodox” groups are truly people of faith, or are respectful of our chachamim, it seems true that most people in the spectrum of today’s orthodox world, from left-wing to centrist, to modern orthodox, seems suitable candidates, according to the rambam regardless of any views they believe on a certain specific issue: to be denigrated; to have their schita outlawed; to not be included in a minyan; to not be included in a construction of an eiruv. The fact that they deviate in certain matters of “Hashkafah” from what some of our accepted chachamim have deemed proper, is no reason to demonize them. Not agreeing with the opinions of chachamim is not equivalent to disrespecting them.