Druckschrift 
Napoleon's influence on Jewish law : the Sanhedrin of 1807 and its modern consequences / edited by Walter Jacob in association with Moshe Zemer
Seite
116
Einzelbild herunterladen
  

116 Mark Washofs

denial of the existence of the Creator Himself. In this context, to say that the mehalel Shabbat befarhesya islike a Gentile makes perfect sense, since by disregarding the Sabbath and its prohibitions he denies both God and the fact of Creation. This designation, however, no longer makes sense, because the social and intellectual context in which the Jews live has changed radically. Todays non-observant Jews may ignore the halakhic prohibitions against labor on the Sabbath , but this does not indicate that theydeny the Sabbath as a religious institution or, for that matter, the existence of God . On the contrary: theyremember Shabbat even though they do not observe it, participating with evident sincerity in the ritual and liturgical aspects of the day, thereby recognizing God as Creator. Such Jews do not match the profile of the apostate who spurns Judaism andrejects the entire Torah .

The above arguments speak to the case of theoriginal

sinners, those swept up in the first stages of theinfection of non­observance. Ettlinger now applies them as a kal vahomer(4 forteriori) argument regarding the descendants of those sinners, the generationswho have neither seen nor heard the laws of Shabbat . Those generationsclearly resemble the Karaities who are not accounted as apostates, even though they violate the Sabbath , because they are simply following their ancestral custom. They are like the captive infant raised among the Gentiles. Indeed, the non­observant Jews of today enjoy a more privileged status than do the Karaites , for while the latter differ with the Rabbinite tradition on essential elements of Jewish practice(Ettlinger mentions the dispute over the circumcision procedure and the fact that the Karaites do not follow the Rabbanite laws of marriage and divorce),most of the transgressors of our time have not rejected these observances.

Ettlinger concludes his responsum by returning to his point of departure, the position enunciated by Zuckerman with which he agrees in principle. Since, as he has acknowledged, the classical