[Avodah] Ikkarim Redux

[Micha Berger]

There are a number of issues being mixed here:

I- Is the halachic process appropriate?

I would answer yes -- if we limit the question to the halachic ("Brisker", as
RMShinnar put it) sphere. There are laws that do subdivide the Jewish people
based on belief and/or action and expect us to respond differently to people
in each group. We therefore have halachic in and out groups.

Most of RMS's issues are therefore not resolved by discussing what the
criterion is. The very fact that there is an us vs them means that someone
will be excluded. And the use of these categories for halachic questions means
that halachic process will get involved.

Eg: IM OCh 3:11-12. In #11, RMF pasqens that shemiras Shabbos is the criterion
for deciding who can be elected shul president. Citing the Rambam who rules
out electing koferim. A mechalel Shabbos who violates issues most of the
locals observe and know is assur may not be elected.

In #12, RMF discusses answering the berakhah of a kofeir. There the criterion
is belief in a Borei. I'm not sure it's as relevent, as RMF is making a
logical point about berakhos in particular; if the person doesn't believe in
"E-lokeinu" or that He is "Melekh haolam" then to him these are just empty
words, the berakhah was not said beSheim uMalkhus, and does not get an
"amein". So I would be reluctant to generalize from that.

But still, you see RMF addressing this division of us vs them as a halachic
question.



II- What is the criterion?

Here there are a number of criteria. And I think I am on shakier ground saying
we use one or the other.

1- The 13 ikkarim.

I still say that in practice, this (in some rather loose form) what's used.
RHS seems to hold this way in the already cited recording. However, see below.

RMS's basic disagreement to this position is that he does not feel it was
reached via valid halachic process. To recap, my feeling was that:

a- This pesaq would not be made in error due to ignorance. There is enough
obvious information that many of the ikkarim were contentious in the past from
sources like the Ra'avad for me to believe that even non-historians know the
background.

RMS says the Ra'avad (as an example) is being spun to minimize that dissonance.

b- There are teshuvos, like RASoloveitchik's about L messianism, or references
to the ikkarim in stam yeinam, that do refer to them.

IIUC, RMS replied that he thinks the term is being used idiomatically, without
a conscious thought about "the ikkarim" vs "someone who believes" in general
and therefore not necessarily used to mean these specific beliefs.

I do not think either of these responses reflect the seriousness with which
teshuvos are written in practice. This issue is not debatable, it boils down
to differences of opinion about people.

2- Some less demanding belief set

With each of #1 and #2 we get two variants:

a- The belief itself
b- Belief through rebellion

I do not know of a shitah that holds 1a, that a person must believe the
ikkarim and is an outsider even if he denies any of them due to sincere
logical error. My guess would be that more common would be a combination of 1b
(belief of the ikkarim OR honest error) and 2a (as long as that honest error
isn't about something as basic as monotheism).

As I wrote, this position sounds shakier as I continue looking at it.

3- Shemiras Shabbos

As in the above-cited IM.

3a- As an action

3b- As sufficient proof of belief. This is kind of a hybrid between answers #2
and #3. The definition of the "in group" is some less demanding belief set,
and rather than trying to be psychic, we use his shemiras Shabbos as
sufficient proof that a person believes it.

4- Kol haTorah kulah

With the above questions of whether we mean lehach'is or even letei'avon or
honest error, of whether it's the ma'aseh or the belief implied by following
through.

However, RMYG already cited Teshuvos haRadvaz (1:344), and this is also the
position of the AhS

Frankly, this is so restrictive that the ikkarim look downright liberal by
comparison.

5- There is also the RHS as recently used by RGStudent in Hirhurim
<http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2007/03/intermarriage-and-minyan.html>:
> R. Hershel Schachter (Eretz Ha-Tzvi 17:4-5) quotes in the name of R. Joseph
> B. Soloveitchik, based on Eruvin 19a, that God's covenant with Avraham
> required four things of Jews: 1) Belief in God's unity, 2) Performing
> circumcision, 3) Not intermarrying, 4) Belief that God gave to Avraham and
> his descendants the land of Israel. R. Schachter suggests that fulfilling
> these four conditions is a prerequisite for being a part of the Jewish
> people (regardless of one's personal status as a Jew). Therefore, someone
> who violates any of these conditions (e.g. intermarries) is not a part of
> the Jewish people and, if this is taken literally, should not be called to
> the Torah or counted for a minyan. I'm not entirely sure if R. Schachter
> would extend this idea that far, although see his article "Synagogue
> Membership" in the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society.

This is a different conclusion about RHS's position than that reached by
RARakeffet as discussed in their lectures.

Interesting side-note: These practice based definitions are more about
excluding mumarim than apiqursim.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha at aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter