[Avodah] Ikkarim Redux

[Micha Berger]

Taking a step back...

I am not sure what RMS means by "ikkarim", and I am pretty sure he hasn't
gotten my definition, at least to its full implications.

I said they have halachic import, as they are used to assess people for stam
yeinam and geirus. Then there is also shechitah. This includes things like
RASoloveitchik's lenient ruling WRT meshichtzin, which was written in terms of
the 12 ikkar. In addition to RHS's comment, which wasn't meant as a pragmatic
pesaq, but was made by a noted poseiq in a prepared public talk.

IIUC, RMS invokes "lo dak" on the use of language (a point he stressed more in
previous iterations), and where they do mean the ikkarim bedavka, the poseiq
involved doesn't know the true breadth of the history involved, and are erring
on the "metzi'us" behind the ruling.

I am NOT talking about how to define when someone else is to be excluded from
our community. I do not believe we should be in the business of excluding
people from a pragmatic perspective, not in the business of judging others
altogether from a halachic one -- except where necessary.

Nor am I even talking about much room personal usage. After all, if I honestly
get to the wrong answer I am not a kofeir, if someone rebels their way there,
guidelines won't mean much.

I am speaking specifically of the notion that they are not ignorable because
halachic questions overlap with aggadic data.

Which is why I do not understand RMS's comment:
...
: I find this realm to be quite  unproductive - because the fundamental
: assertion  -  that the discussion of the ikkarim is subject to halachic
: methodology - is what needs to be proven.....(and I thought you weren't a
: brisker...)

When not dealing with the halachic realm, there is no concept of pesaq, and
any position honestly and accurately derived from the mesorah is valid. I am
intentionally speaking of the halachic realm, because -- while this is
tangential to the Rambam's question of who is a Yisrael WRT "kol Yisrael yeish
lahem cheileq leOhB" -- it is invoked by acharonim to make halachic decisions.
But if halakhah requires that we treat them differently in these ways, we
can't simply relegate the ikkarim to one opinion among many -- it's the
opinion whose major features made it into halakhah.

IOW, I am no Brisker. (In fact, I consider the perpetuation of Brisk into an
era where there is no culture of "Erev Shabbos Jews" to be the primary problem
underlying most of the O community's imperfection. Halakhah uber ales only
works in conscious thought when everything else is provided culturally on a
preconscious/unconcious/subconscious [don't know the terms well enough to
choose] level.)

Still, it is only in the halachic realm that the question of mandate has
meaning. Noting that there is halachic impact means that side of things can't
be ignored. A Brisker would say it's the only meaningful question. But one
needn't be a Brisker to say it is an essentual question.

So, what do I think are the 13 ikkarim as utilized in halakhah? I'm not sure.
There is plenty of gray area subject to machloqes. But then, we use kezeisim
as a unit of measure even though the range of possible values is greater than
a factor of 2 from smallest pesaq to largest. (All of the pesqim I know of are
larger than archaeological consensus. But I would assume by now someone
utilized digs on Har haBayis to form a new shitah.)

So my claim is limited in both domain (a narrow applicability) and range (a
wide set of possible outcomes). But I think it still has import. If we
actually pasqen (e.g.) that Jews who do have messianic beliefs at odds with
the 12th ikar can't handle our wine, then there really is a line keeping such
people from ever feeling or being considered fully "there". RAS implies as
much when he says that meshichtzin don't qualify rather than denying there is
anything for them to qualify for. We may try to make them welcome, but as
RMShinnar noted, it will be tough going.

RMShinnar writes "the rambam would have vigorously fought against the idea
that  universal acceptance implies truth" and "a doxa is quite different than
statements of hilchot shabbat - and has always been treated differently." But
I'm talking about "hilkhos Shabbos", not doxology or determination of truth.
Which is why I feel I am not getting the idea across.

I would then add that one can legitimately derive communal-definitional
implications from the halachic development, which is closer to the role of
doxology. Not in the sense of you must believe X to be Y, but in practice, you
wouldn't be treated by other O Jews the same as most of them without such
belief.

BTW, R Zvi Pesach Frank required yayin mevushal when having tinoqos
shenishbe'u at the table, not only rebellious koferim. At an OU program on
wine and grape juice, RHS recommends being chosheish for this when having
unobservant seder guests. (Despite RYBS's reluctance to use mevushal for 4
kosos.)

One last question for RMS: Since you don't believe one is supposed to use even
a loose definition of the ikkarim even in this halachic context, the question
of the width of opinion is more on yourself. I am saying that there is a
near-universal consensus around (although not actually at) a certain point.
What then is a kofeir? Which guests at your table wouldn't you serve
non-mevushal wine to? If one denies the 13 ikkarim serving in this role,
doesn't one need to have some other set of beliefs in order to know what to
do?

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