[Avodah] ikkarim redux

[Meir Shinnar]

>
> me
> :
> : However, ikkarim represent a statement of the core beliefs about what
> : is true - and while psak may determine some practical actions...
> RMB
> Not at all. I'm staying the ikkarim are used in pesaq of what to do
> lemaaseh.
> Who can handle my wine. Which converts should I accept. Who must I just
> lekaf
> zechus.


Being used and should be used are two separate issues.  Again, this
dramatically changes the notion of ikkarim. Another post of mine addresses
how much they are actually used.

I am saying that some loose form of them are de facto used in pesaq. Not
> that
> that makes them true or false. But we can't say the ikkarim are open to
> debate
> when we rely on them as "halachic truth".


Part of the reason that they are used is precisely the perception that they
are universally accepted - and therefore, the precedents  that Marc Schapiro
brings means that any psak that did not take these into account is of less
value - and those of us who know the precedents can therefore rule
differently....(hilchta kebatrai only when the batrai knew the
kadmai...(although I still have problems applying halachic methodology to a
philosophic argument...- somehow, applying hilchta bebatrai in a philosophic
argument seems ludicrous.- but that's what the underpinning of this
discussion leads to)

I would also argue that this was the Rambam's intent, as he includes them in
> Hilkhos Teshuvah in defining terms he then uses throughout Mishneh Torah
> in
> these ways. But that's secondary, since I'm talking about pesaq today, not
> the
> Rambam's intent.


Yes, the rambam would have had no problem classifying many gdole yisrael as
kofrim - but most of us do..

While this has social impact, I'm not saying we should use that pesaq to
> define the sociological grouping we call O. I'm convinced for
> Areivim-esque
> reasons that we need to foster the existence of "non-observant O Jews",
> lest
> they join communities where traditional halakhah is kept on their agenda.
>
> I'm presenting the notion that we have defined for ourselves normative O
> belief and used it lehalakhah. And not dismissing that of there being a
> home
> in the O community for non-normative O Jews.


But you can't have it two ways - if all those who don't hold by a particular
ideology are kofrim - there isn't a home for them.

Nor am I saying that pesaq defines metzi'us, like pechusah mibas 3.
>
> : The problem is the application of halachic methodology to the
> : determination of the truth - which is a radical innovation - each
> : area has its own rules of logic and thought.  halacha has become the
> : predominant mode of jewish expression - but it too has bounds.. Its
> : use in philosophy is a problem not only for philosophy - but for
> : halacha.
>
> Not at all. I would say that the same is true for pesaq here as whenever
> we
> find a pesaq that contradicts the actual metzius. If we were to disprove
> one
> of the Rambam's ikkarim somehow, we would each apply whatever our version
> of
> that principle is.


Problem of pesaq contradicting metziut normally only applies to statements
of chazal - do we really apply it to shitot rishonim and  achronim??? If a
rishon makes a claim about metziut which we now know to be false, we don't
treat it the same way as a ma'amar chazal...)


>
> OTOH, he also quotes this list's membership agreement, and while I'm
> neither
> as bright as him nor as educated in the subject, I am well aware that the
> ikkarim enjoy an acceptance today that they hadn't in the past.


yes, as a sociological statement they enjoy an acceptance -  but  I thought
we weren't  talking about sociologically Orthodox - but on a conceptual
level  (in essence, you are saying that the 13 ikkarim are the hashkafic
equivalent of orthopraxy - something we should  uphold even if we don't
necessarily believe...)


>
> The book, or the opinions themselves? And wouldn't studying the opinions
> help
> you understand the sevara of the issue as a whole?


I am one who doesn't have a problem studying books of apparent kfira.
However,  again, the whole  issue erupted when a  rosh yeshiva argued (I
don't remember if in the same article, but it appeared close together) both
that the 13 ikkarim  were  universally accepted -  and that study of kfira
is something that is forbidden to the amcha (basing himself, paradoxically,
on the rambam) - and I think empirically, most of those who are the kfira
enforcers also don't believe that one should study kfira.

RMB




But it isn't an ikkar. The flipside of accepting the ikkarim as defining
> which
> of my peers I'm to treat one way or the other is that it sets a maximum as
> well as a minimum.


You might - but others view them as the minimum.  Once one is willing to ban
positions accepted by many, there is no reason to limit it to the ikkarim..

RMB

> Besides, we can learn from the fact that the gemara still quotes Rav
> Hillel
> while telling us his statement requires kaparah that one is supposed to
> learn
> these rejected opinions, just like any other. Perhaps this is a proof to
> the
> Ra'avad.


This is the radbaz's proof text
Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070228/1c3bc63b/attachment-0001.htm>