Conference taveng::bagels

In the strictest sense of the word, its very hard to become an Apicores.

The first mishna of the last chapter of Sanhedrin (Perek Chelek) states that 
an Apicores has no share in the world to come.  The Gemara explains that, among
other things, Apicorsim deny the priciple of Tichiat Hameisim - Revival of the
Dead.  

(why the rabbis picked Tichiat Hameisim as their test is another topic)

In later use, the term Apicores came to mean an knowledgable person who knew 
what the halacha demanded of him and why, but chose to disobey *on intellectual
grounds* (as opposed to one who disobeys because of a lack of self-control).  
To be called an Apicores was complementary - in a way.

There is an old joke about a non-believer who proudly called himself an 
Apicores, until the Rabbi told him, "You don't know enough to be an Apicores - 
you're just an am-ha'aretz (an igorant fool)." 

(its much funnier that it looks here - beleive me)

    I hate the usual definition for apicores.  If you turn to the word in
    your Alcalay you will find the definition of the word to be one who
    questions, I see nothing wrong with that in Judaism.  If you want to
    call someone a heretic than use the term kafir.
    
    --David

Re: .1
  I was once "officially promoted" from atheist to apicores by my
Rabbi.  I had been describing myself as an atheist, and she (I believe intending
it as a compliment) said that my reasons for not being a believer were rooted 
in Jewish tradition (at least in part of it).

  I know of several others who don't believe in an after-life, or a deity that
can affect the course of history, and are nevertheless religiously active in 
their Temples/Havurot, even leading services sometimes.

re 1021.2 -->  -< Kafir, not Apicores >-

I don't mean to be picky, but I believe the word is "kofer" (denier).
I only point this out since Kafir is a South African (Afrikaans?)
racial epithet.

Good word, though...

Sid

               
    Re: .2
    
    >If you turn to the word in
    >    your Alcalay you will find the definition of the word to be one who
    >    questions,
    
    That's certainly not the traditional interpretation of the word, as
    it is used in the Talmud, as Lou pointed out. Nevertheless, the term
    is bandied about alot, and as with any word that is over-used, it
    begins to lose not only its effect, but its very meaning.
    
    Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook addressed the issue of modern-day
    non-observance in a famous responsum. He refers to a Talmudic
    commentator [Tosaphot], who differentiates between sins committed
    with malicious intent [le'hachis], and those committed because of
    a simple lack of self-control [yitzro te'kafo], the former being
    viewed much more severely, as Lou referred to earlier.
    
    He extends the logic and posits that non-observant Jews
    in our times can almost never be labeled "apikorsim," or "koferim"
    for that matter. The reason is that we live in such an open, secular
    society that one requires almost super-human self-restraint *not*
    to be influenced to discard "out-dated" observances and beliefs
    (this he terms "zerem ha-zeman tekafum" - modernity has swept 
    entire generations off their feet). This he applies not only to
    Jews with little or no Jewish background (as is the case with the
    great majority of Jews today), but even to those who may have studied
    a great deal - the enticements of Western society are simply too
    much to withstand for the average person.
    
    Rabbi Kook's apology notwithstanding, bowing to one's base desires
    is not inevitable. The Talmud tells of R. Amram Chasida, who once felt
    compelled to commit a transgression. R. Amram dug a hole for each
    of his feet, and cried out, "THE HOUSE OF AMRAM IS ON FIRE!" His
    scholarly associates came running, but they saw there was no fire. 
    When rebuked, Rabbi Amram the Righteous retorted that his soul was 
    indeed aflame, and the fire could only be extinguished by the 
    presence of others, in front of whom he would feel shame (Rashi's
    explanation).
    
    Certainly, not everyone has the courage to do what R. Amram did.
    On the other hand, I believe his actions speak directly to the
    issue that Rabbi Kook referred to. R. Yossi, in his moment of
    weakness, felt that the only way to overcome his desire was by
    surrounding himself with role models to whom he could look for
    support -- in short a support system. In order to overcome the
    undeniable "zerem ha-zeman" of which Rabbi Kook speaks, the
    times demand an rock-solid educational and societal infrastructure
    in which Jewish values are transported from the ivory-tower into
    everyday life.
    
    Jem

    re: .4
    
    As I pointed out to a colleague in mail, the Afrikaners or the British
    or whomever might have used Kafir as a racial epithet, but the word
    means heretic in Arabic.  Yes, in Hebrew we use Kofer, as in Kofer
    b'icar.  However both stem from the same root.
    
    --David

    re "kafir", a nit:
    
    I believe it means "unbeliever", in the sense of "never was a Moslem"
    as "pagan" does from the Christian point of view rather than "heretic"
    as in "of the same faith but schismatic".  The Arabic root would be
    k-f-r, but I don't have my Arabic dictionary handy--I'll try to
    remember to check it tonight.
    
    Anyway, the Arab traders on the east coast of Africa called the local
    non-Moslem natives Kafirs.  The Europeans wound up picking up the same
    term (with the same more or less pejorative connotation).
    
    In the recent past, the small populations of non-Moslems still in
    Afghanistan were called "Kafirs", and their area "Kafiristan".  I
    saw a movie made by a Danish expedition to that area in college.
    
    			-John Bishop