In society at large, apart from a small sector of lawyers and legal experts, most average citizens are not fully familiar with details of law, and they go about their daily activities using their best intentions and understandings. Only in unusual situations will they have to engage the services of a lawyer who will deal with their case in accordance with obscure norms known only to a select few. There is no legal requirement for citizens to make themselves familiar with laws that apply to them, but at the same time, there is an assumption that people do know the law. For this reason, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and someone can be punished even if he claims that he did not know that he was committing a crime.
In contrast, Jewish law requires that we engage in Torah study, and obligates us to teach the laws of Judaism to our children. On the one hand, Torah study is a personal obligation, but it also serves as a requirement to instill Jewish heritage so that even ordinary people will have the knowledge and background to engage in matters of law, justice and halakha (Rambam, Hilkhot Talmud Torah 1:8). This idea is based on a desire to grant the Jewish people the right to be included in scholarly discourse and in determining the halakhic agenda. In today's terms, this is a statement that the centers of power and influence in Judaism are not "occupied" and are not limited to a handful of intellectuals. The Torah is not locked in an Ivory Tower, nor is the key to unlocking the Torah only in the hands of elites. On the contrary, every Jew is permitted – and obligated – to draw from the knowledge of the Torah to the best of their ability. If only we could reach the utopian state encouraged by Jewish tradition, we could create a society where everyone plays a role and no one is marginalized.
Parallel to this fundamental concept, there are the laws that appear in our parasha, that deal with an individual who accidentally sins, creating an obligation to bring a sacrifice – a sin-offering. These laws clarify our obligation to know and be familiar with Jewish law.
“One who forgets the Torah and performs many forbidden acts, is liable to bring a sacrifice for each and every one. For example: Someone who knows that there are forbidden fats but says that this fat is not forbidden, or someone who knows the prohibition against eating blood, but says that this blood is not forbidden, is liable to bring a sin-offering for each act…” (Tosefta Shabbat 8:6).
As the Tosefta makes clear, this rule relates to someone who has forgotten the entire Torah. The main question at hand is whether he will be held responsible for actions that were done when the individual lacked the requisite knowledge of the law. We may have thought that in such a case it would be sufficient to hold him liable just once – for lacking knowledge of the Torah in general – without holding him responsible for each forbidden act. Nevertheless, the Tosefta teaches that he is held liable for each act, obligating him to bring a separate sin-offering for every sinful act, when required. We can conclude from this that the law assumes that each Jew is expected to know the Torah down to its details.
This suggestion, however, does not correspond with the continuation of the law in the Tosefta, which says, “For example: Someone who knows that there are forbidden fats but says that this fat is not forbidden.” This sounds like we are discussing a person who is familiar with the prohibitions of the Torah but does not remember its details, leading him to offer a mistaken ruling and eat forbidden fats. Thus, the mistake that leads the person to be obligated in a sin-offering is his failure to remember the law. He is negligent in not knowing the details. Those whose memories of Jewish law are faulty, will be punished.
According to the Mishna in Tractate Shabbat, someone who was entirely unaware of the details of the laws of Shabbat will still be held liable to bring a single sin-offering because of his lack of awareness. The Sages of the Talmud disagree whether he will be obligated to bring just a single sin-offering, or if he will obligated to bring a separate sin-offering for each day of Shabbat that he violated. The possibility that a person who never heard of the concept of Shabbat prohibitions should be entirely absolved is never suggested. This rule applies equally to someone who is entirely unaware of the laws of Shabbat because he was “held captive among the gentiles” (i.e., he was raised among gentiles and had no opportunity to learn about Judaism) and someone who had been aware that Shabbat existed, but then forgot (TB Shabbat 68).
There are three typologies of people who transgress and are obligated to bring a sin-offering:
1. The almost fictitious situation of the child raised among gentiles who never had the opportunity to learn about the world of values of faith and the commandments.
2. Someone who forgot the commandments and is currently unaware of their existence.
3. Someone who forgot the details of the commandments.
We cannot allow these three typologies – separation, superficiality and ignorance – to exist in our communities.
Supporting our obligation to eradicate these marginal phenomena is the clear command to study Torah. We can well understand how this obligation leads to a fully structured mechanism – a system of public education whose goal is to educate towards the commandments and Torah values. This system also imposes punitive responsibility on those who transgress. This utopian society, which the Torah clarifies through the laws of required Torah study and the laws of sin-offerings, has the potential to be a conscious, self-aware Jewish society that will not allow a single child to be outcast or banished.