[Avodah] ikkarim redux

[Meir Shinnar]

>
>
> : 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....
> RMB
> But they did! You open the Rambam, the Raavad is right there, defending
> those
> who assign a bodily form to the Creator.


They were aware that the raavad was willing to defend those believing in
hagshama.  You are well aware that the standard yeshivish take on the raavad
is that there weren't any real rabbanim of stature who actually held in
hagshama.  There is a difference in taking a position that everyone of
stature holds is wrong, but some argue doesn't rise to kfira, and saying it
is kfira - and taking a position that someone of stature held and declaring
that to be kfira.  That's where Marc Schapiro come is - that he shows that
many people who are normally considered bar samcha held positions that the
ikkarim crowd would declare kfira - didn't merely defend those holding them
as being wrong but held them themselves...

:> 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..
>
> How is this in response to what I wrote? I am talking about what we hold
> lehalakhah today, you're talking about people who lived during the days of
> the
> rishonim. I tell you what... If I find a bottle of wine that was handled
> by R'
> Moshe ben Chasdai of Taku, we'll argue then if the pesaq would hold
> retroactively.


My point is different - yes, the rambam is quite willing to pasken  hilchot
deot,  and  doesn't quite care about his opposition, and whom he
classifies.  All the paytanim with prayers to  malachim, even possibly the
sefirot (a la 14th century rav who said no difference between saying hashem
is 10 and hashem is 3) - all  kfira

However, today's psak process is quite different, not just in hilchot deot -
and in general, we are loathe to declare someone wrong - even if we pasken
against him (as in all the diyukim leshitato etc..) - and the psak you
presuppose would exactly do this - because you can't argue leshitato and elu
ve'elu in kfira...



You're accusing me of condemning R' Yosef haGelili for eating his chicken
> with
> cheese.




...
> : 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.
>
> This is an Areivim issue. If I had more to say than the observation that I
> miss how the seifa follows from the reisha, I would reply there.


We can discuss it further on areivim.  However,  few people are willing to
be part of a community that views them as heretics, even if not formally
excommunicated - but they are willing to be part of a community that doesn't
accept their ideas - but doesn't ban them and is on some level willing to
discuss them.

> amar chazal...)
>
> Nu, so that in itself would be the resolution of what to do if one of the
> Rambam's 13 were to be proven false. Ani maamin be'emunah sheleimah that's
> not
> going to happen.


let me give a related fact - well known psak of rav  moshe that  the  perush
attributed to rav yehuda hachasid was a forgery - because the plain meaning
violates the eighth ikkar - and we now have enough evidence that it wasn't a
forgery.  (rav moshe wasn't willing to say nu, rav yehuda hachasid held in
kfira, as some are..) - now that it isn't a forgery, how do we deal with it?


:> 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...
>
> YOu say "yes" and then miscast what I said. I'm talking about pesaq.
> Halachically speaking, they enjoy an acceptance. It's what most poseqim
> rely
> upon.


I am arguing that the acceptance is more sociological than halachic - the
basis of it is more that everyone in our community clearly accepts it and
there is no controversy - rather than an actual halachic argument - and the
transmutation of sociology into psak is a real problem. (it isn't far
different than psaks about wearing hats.....- but there at least, there do
exist psakim arguing for a real basis...)

Your defense seems to be that these poseqim are simply ignorant of the
> history
> of Jewish philosophy, and therefore that acceptance doesn't have halachic
> weight. If I understand correctly, there is no point to discuss that issue
> further.
>
> However, do you have any support for that statement? As I mentioned
> before,
> one of the ikkarim is shown to be a machloqes on the standard tzuras hadaf
> alongside the Rambam. And while it's easy to point at those trying to
> continue
> Vilozhin and Brisk and talk about how they never study machashavah. But
> they
> aren't the sum total of contemporary poseqim.


I would just point out that in the entire discussion of Marc Schapiro's
book, over many threads and years, no one has ever mentioned any posek who
has seriously discussed the issues raised in the book - nor pointed to any
psak that has such a discussion - it has merely been, well, poskim ignore
his book, they use ikkarim,they have used ikkarim for hundreds of years, so
his book is irrelevant.  Furthermore, normally psak does require strict
parameters (I sort of keep shabbat would not cut it with most...) - and it
is of interest that no one has been able to define exactly what variant of
the ikkarim is actually universally accepted - suggesting that yes, for most
poskim (at least those who deal with these issue) do lack a philosophical
sophistication.   Let me know of any exceptions...


:> 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..
>
> First, how is that a halchic argument? Second, who are the "many"? I would
> bet
> that RMShapiro himself believes the loose version of the ikkarim I am
> speaking
> of. He denies their being necessary for his self-identification as O, I
> heard
> nothing about his denying their truth.
>
> :> 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
>
> I miss how this helps your position. The Radvaz is saying that someone can
> hold a non-normative position and yet still not be a kofeir. It doesn't
> widen
> the definition of normative.

  Remember, the whole contention was that while the truth of statements
might be up to debate, poskim have used certain criteria for halachic
determination on the status of the individual - and the radbaz undermines
that contention - by arguing, in essence, that the halachic issue of kfira
is determined by the process and motivation of the individual, rather than
the fact content of the statement - so the halachic process doesn't have to
deal with the truth of a given statement.   The radvaz also rejects the
notion that something that didn't make some one a kofer back then makes him
one now....
It therefore dramatically widens the range of those who are welcome in the
community - even though I have a certain conception of the truth that they
don't .  The entire notion of normative beliefs is therefore quite different
Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070228/3eb78732/attachment-0001.htm>