[Avodah] Fwd: ikkarim redux

[Meir Shinnar]

RDMI

WADR, I think you are missing RMB's point.  There are specific

l'maaseh inyanim for which it is necessary to define k'fira.

Whether you want to, for example, accept the geirus of a beis din

that understands the parameters of k'fira differently than you do

is a real question, but outside the scope of this post.  What RMB

is claiming is that b'zman hazeh in places where it is l'maaseh

necessary to define k'fira, some version of the ikkarim is used.  I

am willing to grant that it is conceivable that there are

exceptions to this, but I haven't seen any, and you haven't brought

any.


1.  The issue whether kfira as a halachic criteria, rather than as a
philosophic one, is one properly addressed by halachic criteria - or that
one should be quite leery of such labels - is not answered by the fact that
some poskim do - the main point of my post.  While radbaz is not a
contemporary posek, he is a very major posek who rejects the halachic
approach endorsed by RMB - and he is someone, from a halachic perspective
(if one does want to use halachic criteria) one can be somech on (and see
later about the CI)
2) The issue of gerut is quite different than the issue of kfira -
thecriteria that bet din uses in order to accept one into
the club are not necessarily the same as the ones that one would use to
define kfira in other halachic circumstances.
eg, rav shlomo goren has a tshuva about whether someone who wants to undergo
gerut - fully accept ol malchut shamayim and ol mitzvot, however, does not
accept the notion of am yisrael - feels himself bound to all shomre mitzvot,
but not otherwise - that person would not be accepted as a ger - and while
brit avot (a la RYBS is important), it isn't quite the same as kfira.
The notion of some version related to the thirteen ikkarim as defining
sociologically what most of the community believes is something that even
Marc Schapiro acknowledges -  and a large part of gerut, in additional to
accepting ol malchut shamayim, is joining the community and its standards -
which is quite different than defining it as real kfira.

3) The other main issues where kfira may have a halachic role are ones where
there are actually few tshuvot, especially by major poskim, to justify RMB's
position.  eg, a kofer can't be counted in a minyan - but, AFAIK, most
poskim don't have a problem counting people who do not believe in theikkarim
and are therefore, according to people here,  kofrim.  eg, most non O will
accept biblical criticism and a major human component in the writing of
humash, but that hasn't been an issue (and if we accept the hazon ish's
position about people today being quasi tinokot shenishbu as also applying
to kfira - which I think that he did, and which would be, in essence an
adoption and extension of the radbaz's criteria - that kfira which is in any
way caused not by willful rejection, but by secondary causes - whether
faulty reasoning or the pressure of general society , is not kfira - we are
in essence saying that kfira doesn't have a practical halachic dimension in
our times - and we are left with the philosophic dimension).

4) Again, until recently, there was a tremendous reluctance to label as
kfira a position endorsed by someone recognized as a major figure in themesora (
and for many, even for minor figures - the comment of the ra'avad
abouthagshama) - something that other posters have recognized.

Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070228/1759e8db/attachment-0001.htm>