"Know what to answer a heretic" (Ethics 2:14)

Moshe Ben-Chaim

Rabbeinu Yonah explains Rebbe Eliezer's quote above as follows: "Know how to respond to heretics, so others will not see you fail, and think the heretic is correct...ultimately profaning God's name." Maimonides quotes the Talmud that teaches an additional lesson: debate idolatrous heretics but not Jewish heretics. For debating the Jewish heretic strengthens them [probably as they are more adept at perverting quoted texts]. Maimonides quotes King Solomon who says that heretics are irreparable. (Proverbs 2:19) It does appear this is so, as the heretic has habituated his thoughts towards twisting Torah sources. Thus, any further attempt to correct him through discourse will also be twisted. He will face the worst fate the Talmud warns of, "Those who reject the Torah as God-given have no afterlife". (Sanhedrin 90a)

How might we respond when asked by someone who rejects Revelation at Sinai and who is knowledgeable of the Torah when he says "Prove the Jewish God". I would respond as follows:

"There is a staggering number, and a high intellectual calibre of those universally-accepted Jewish minds who have accepted the Jewish God, based on Revelation at Sinai:

Maimonides

Nachmanides

Rashi

Sforno

Tosfos

Ibn Ezra

Samson Raphael Hirsch

Judah HaLevi

Kuzari

The Talmudic Rabbis

The Prophets

Kings David and Solomon...

...the list goes on of the wisest of men;  men who have written brilliant works like Proverbs, Psalms, Koheles, all possessing intellectual greatness attested to by today's leaders, and great thinkers gone by like Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Yosef Soloveitchik, z"tl. These minds dwarf us. And the Kings dwarf them.

Regarding Revelation at Sinai, Maimonides goes so far as to say "our own eyes saw it, and not a stranger" to impress how latter generations equate to the eye-witnesses regarding this proof of the Jewish God. 

As you are well aware of the broad, orthodox acceptance of Sinai as proof, I have two questions for you:

1) Whether you agree or not...what specific element of the account of Revelation at Sinai caused these countless, superior minds to accept this as proof of the Jewish God? 

2) If you are suggesting that all of the aforementioned thinkers made an identical error regarding Revelation at Sinai, please explain what you judge their error to be.

The following is an example of how non-believers and heretics respond: That might have impressed me back in high school. Giving a list of names doesn't prove anything. I'm sure the Muslims can also list a bunch of brilliant minds who accepted the Koran; is that proof? Maimonides can write whatever he wants...does that prove the event happened specifically in the manner the Torah states? They accepted the account because they all grew up with these tales as their culture, in the same way that all brilliant minds in other religions accept their stories as being the truth. It's the error of accepting a story based on cultural acceptance and not based on conclusive evidence.

My response: You contradict yourself, as you too were taught these stories, yet you don't accept them. Evidently, free will is alive and well.

You also avoid the facts, for if you read these thinkers' words explaining why they each accepted Sinai, you would realize it is not as you conveniently suggested, without opening their books. Read the Kuzari for example. You will quickly retract what you imputed above.

Once you have read the writings of a number of those thinkers I cited above, tell me if you still feel they all accepted Sinai based on cultural belief, or on reasoning. Then tell me what's wrong with that reasoning, unless you now accept Sinai based on the rationality of their writings."

Anatomy of a Heretic

Heretics and non-believers typically shift topics. They suggest that the ancient thinkers didn't have the science we have today. Of course, that plays no role in historical transmission: eyewitnesses and speech are all that's required. After resisting a request to respond to initial questions, we abandon our discussion. For a discussion can only continue, if both parties hear and respond to the other's words. 

It is astonishing how egotistical one can be. Heretics feel capable of not only rejecting someone like Maimonides as functioning out of peer pressure, but they collectively dismiss all these great minds as making foolish errors. All of them, and despite their brilliant writings. These include prophets and world leaders, who the world attested to their wisdom. Yet a nobody, with no resume, feels superior to these leaders.

Understand the heretic's approach. First, he ridicules, "That might have impressed me back in high school."  In doing so, he feels this strengthens his spoint. He is operating from an emotional standpoint, not a rational one. But our response must be related only to truth, meaning the facts and proper reasoning and not the person, if we are to allow truth and proof to triumph.

Avoiding the Facts

Heretics suggest these thinkers succumbed to the emotional appeal of the masses or simply followed their culture without analyzing their beliefs. They deny the volumes of writings authored by these Jewish leaders, suggesting they accepted Sinai blindly. So we respond by showing them they do not have the facts. Asking a heretic to quote the words of these thinkers will force the heretic to admit his first position was wrong: they in fact accepted Sinai out of clearly written rational arguments, not cultural appeal. 

Additionally, we engage a very effective maneuver. We show him what he is doing: not succumbing to the Jewish view! If he can resist being blinded by cultural stories, why can't others?!  Thus, from his own actions, the heretic is caught in a contradiction. So it is important not only to address his words, but to also monitor his steps and contrast his actions with his claims.  

This heretic's first and primary corruption is that he disregards facts; he is not searching for truth, but desires to justify his free lifestyle. If truth does not propel his decisions, then it can only be emotion...

Escapism

The heretic will change the topic when he sees he has no answer. So we must be firm and repeat a question until he addresses it. When he has no response, we then pronounce this to him, asking also why he is avoiding the issue by changing topics. Make it known to him what he does, as he does it. Do not feel compelled to respond to new issues or questions he raises, until he admits error on the current issue. This is crucial when an argument might have a few steps, where each subsequent point relies on validating or rejecting a previous point. Do not allow him to escape any question.

Doubts do not Revoke a Proof

"Where is all the evidence of 2 million Jews dwelling in the desert for 40 years?" 

The heretic will run from issue to issue until he finds one that may not be answered. Since he is desperate to be relieved of Torah obligations, he justifies irreligious life with flawed thinking. He feels one unanswered question justifies a rejection of all else that has been proven. To this, we might ask him as follows: "If there existed a judge who proved the right decision on hundreds of cases, but one time a question was raised on one of his cases, would we then say all cases now lack proof?" Of course, all other cases stand firm as proper judgments. An unanswered question does not affect the other cases. In fact, it would be wise to assume the questionable case will bear-out a correct verdict, since the judge has a perfect record. We should side with the track record.

Similarly, lack of evidence of the Jews in the desert – part of Jewish history – does not revoke the remaining, universally transmitted Jewish history. It doesn't even disprove that very history in the desert. It's a question, that's all. One which may soon be answered. And the very act of this heretic attacking Sinai's truth from a different matter – 40 years of wandering – exposes his inability to invalidate Sinai internally. 

Furthermore, lack of evidence is precisely a "lack" and not a positive. Meaning "proof" is not derived from a doubt. "Proof" exposes all other possibilities as impossible, and this is not something "doubt" does. Doubt merely poses a question, but is not exhaustive in nature. Therefore, doubt cannot prove.  But the heretic and the fool are seeking an out, so they latch on to anything...

This method – grabbing at straws – is also seen in the heretic's "numerous" arguments. Heretics will throw at us many issues. I have also heard it suggested that based on the varying "writing styles" (I still don't understand this one) this proves the Torah was slowly written by various writers over many years, until we have the Torah we have today. But again such theories ignore the facts, as there is no version that Torah was written by many writers, or in a piecemeal fashion. In fact, there exists only one transmitted version for how we received the story of the Jews and Revelation at Sinai. 

Knowing how to answer the heretic means we not only expose his ignorance of facts, but we also comment on the contradictory steps he takes. At times we may not even need to answer his questions. As we expose his flawed or contradictory premises and steps, the heretic is shown to be wrong. His arguments are dismantled, and there is in fact nothing to answer. So know how to answer the heretic, but as the Talmud teaches, do not engage the Jewish heretic.