[Avodah] Open Orthodoxy, again

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 07:59:19AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> From what I understand, YCT has given Yadin Yadin smicha to only one  
> person: Zev Farber....
...
>
> It contains lengthy citations from material Farber has published online  
> (and I apologize for not according him his title, but given that what he  
> has written, I don't see how it's possible to do so truthfully), in  
> which he denies the historicity of Avraham and Sarah, denies that  
> shivtei Yisrael were in fact common descendents of anyone, denies Torah  
> miSinai...

The actual paper, in full is at
http://thetorah.com/torah-history-judaism-introduction

As well as Yetzi'as Mitzrayim.

So aside from the question of defining kefirah, which I cannot see possibly
permitting the position here, I was wondering how many of the mitzvos that
are lema'an tizkor es yom tzeisekha meiEretz Mitzrayim and the like would
kavanah be me'aqev.

Also, I found it interesting how far R' N Helfgot's position shifted on
the subject in the past year.

Mikra and Meaning: Studies in Bible and Its Interpretation (Maggid Books,
2012), page 40:
    The more complex issue relates to people who maintain that the
    Torah is a composite work from the hand of various human authors in
    different historical settings, but that these authors were divinely
    inspired -- that is, those who view the Torah as equivalent to
    the writings of the prophets. This perspective, while arguably not
    technically rendering one as "denying the divine origin of the Torah"
    as articulated in the mishna in Sanhedrin (90a), undermines the
    uniqueness of the Torah in contrast to the rest of the Bible, as well
    as the uniqueness of the Mosaic prophesy. According to some views in
    [Ch]azal and some of the Rishonim, belief in the latter is an article
    of faith, and denial of it potentially shatters the foundation of
    the entire structure of the binding nature of Torah. There clearly
    were Rishonim, such as the Sephardic exegete Rabbi Abraham Ibn
    Ezra and the Ashkenazic pietistic scholar Rabbi Yehuda HaHasid, who
    maintained that an isolated section of the Torah was post-Mosaic,
    a gloss from the pen of a subsequent prophet. However, the notion
    of the entirely composite makeup of the Torah has no precedent in
    classical Jewish sources, and it is therefore impossible to term
    such a theological understanding as Orthodox in any meaningful sense.

And on Morethodoxy http://morethodoxy.org/2013/07/21... or
http://j.mp/1aGUiY8 written this past Sun (21-Jul-2013):
    6. The more challenging issue is the attitude towards the view
    that expands and builds upon the view of these medieval rishonim to
    include wide swaths of the Torah....

    Given all this, and my general inclusivist inclinations, I would argue
    that we not write, people who maintain this more radical position,
    out of traditional Judaism. This is especially the case given the
    fact that if I were to look at large swaths of Orthodoxy today,
    there are hundreds of thousands of Jews who believe things about
    God and His actions, or His emotions and feelings or about prayer to
    intermediaries or the nature of the sefirot that would clearly put
    them outside of the pale in the eyes of the Rambam. I, of course,
    realize that the 8th principle of the Rambam was one of the central
    points of contention between Orthodoxy and heterodox movements in
    the last two centuries and thus has greater resonance and emotional
    power. However, if we are not going to read out of orthodoxy those who
    directly violate the fifth ikar of the Rambam or his clear words in
    the Guide to the Perplexed -- Section 1:36 than I am reticent to do
    so in the case of those who do not adopt the Rambam's formulation in
    the 8th ikar, especially if they conform to the notion of the Divine
    origin of the Torah, a principle that has been rejected in-toto by
    so many modern Jews.

I think part of the issue, on a sociological level, is that there is a
consequence to yelling "apiqoreis" and "kofer" in non-rigorous settings.
Once the labels become a tool for ostracization more than objective
halachic standards (even if subject to machloqes), it becomes difficult
to apply the categories to people you know.

It's the Rambam's 8th iqar, and R' Yosef Albo's 2nd iqar, 3rd shoresh.

To explain for those who haven't seen Seifer haIqarim. RYA uses the term
"iqar" only when speaking of first principles. So he only has 3 of them.
Shorashim are those beliefs necessary to Judaism that can be derived from
the iqarim. And anafim are derived beliefs that are true, but won't make
Yahadus meaningless if one were to deny them.

So the Seifer haIqarim lists 10 articles of faith altogether, but he
covers pretty much the same space as the Rambam's 13, minus mashiach,
which the Iqarim considers an anaf. The parallel is even more pronounces
when looking at Hilkhos Teshuvah pereq 3 and the definitions of
apiqursus, kefirah and meenus -- they divide up along similar lines to
RYA's 3 Iqarim. And FWIW, of the three, wrong beliefs about the Torah
are kefirah. (An apiqoreis has a broken notion of G-d, and a min errs
in matters of hashgachah, din and le'asid lavo.)

But I think this goes beyond the bounds even according to those, like R
Melech / Dr Marc Shapiro, who define iqarim as those beliefs necessary to
logically justify shemiras Shabbos. After all, the criterion historically
hasn't been checking people's beliefs, but assuming that any shomer
Shabbos must have the right ones. I don't buy into this position, as I
think they're confusing the pragmatic check with the beliefs being
checked. But leshitasam...

But...

Farber's G-d has no way of revealing law. The whole notion of DeOraisa
gets deprecated. Derashah becomes a word-game, a way to insert ideas
the human author couldn't have intended, rather than relying on Divine
Wisdom to provide hooks for us to develop into ideas. Halakhah shifts
from RYBS's creative partnership between Hashem and man and becomes a
merely human construct.

I do not think this philosophy supports a more rigorous legal process
than the Conservative movement's. Which is, indeed, buttressed by a
variety of philospohies quite like this one.

There is nothing in his writings that makes the difference between
"taking the bad from the good" and "taking the good from the bad" on
Shabbos an expression of Divine Will. It's too nit-picky for inspiration,
if G-d didn't relay words or very specific concepts.

So I think that even if you accept RMS's thesis, it's /still/ a
clearcut case of kefirah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha at aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter