[Avodah] Ikkarim redux

[Meir Shinnar]

> RMB
> I was going to let this go, but there were a couple of points on  
> which I think
> RMS misunderstood me in a way that didn't let me let go.

I was also going to let it go...
>
> On Tue, March 27, 2007 8:58 pm, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
> : However, ikkarim per se - have rarely been used in a halachic  
> process - in :
> the sense that so far, you have not been able to cite a detailed  
> process.
>
> I explicitly listed what I saw as two objections from you on this  
> point:
>
> First, that no one really applied the process to decide on the  
> ikkarim,
> Second, that even those who used the words "13 ikkarim" used it  
> idiomatically
> to mean emunah, and not this particular list.
>
> IIRC, you gave me the 2nd response when I cited teshuvos about  
> meshichtsin and
> stam yeinam. (Both were lehaqeil, FWIW.)
>
> But to this I question whether teshuvos are written that ca
>
> : Remember, historically, until the 19th century, it was quite  
> simple - it was
> : quite easy to determine who were us and who were them - because  
> it was an :
> act of conscious identification or conscious rebellion.  All  
> discussions of :
> the ikkarim are tempered by this.
>
> Now you have me confused... The ikkarim you were saying weren't  
> discussed in a
> halachic context you are now saying were discussed with an  
> assumption of
> conscious rebellion? Are you referring to discussion in a different  
> context?
> If so, how does the assumption of rebellion impact our discussion?
  on occasion ikkarim are mentioned in a halachic context - but more  
in the context of an assumption that everyone agrees - as a  
statement .  eg, the ra'avad's tshuva about how intellectual error  
does not lead to kfira mentions that this even applies to the  
ikkarim.  They are used in a halachic context - but more as a  
shorthand, but without a specific discussion of the precise details  
of the ikkarim - and the radvaz's tshuva would imply that even  
thought the ikkarim are presumed as correct belief, not believing in  
them has no specific halachic status - it is the rationale for  
disbelief that is important - and therefore the ikkarim go back to  
the philosophic realm....

My point was that halachic statements that can be found about the  
ikkarim are in general statements about dividing "us" from "them" -  
and until quite recently, that division was fairly easy to make - and  
those who were part of "us" as generally understood, even if they  
were thought to violate an ikkar emunah - were still part of us.  The  
use of ikkarim was as a shorthand for ikkare emuna - but someone who  
was trying to be "us" was in general forgiven for errors in emunah  
far greater than someone of "them" would be allowed.

To give a more recent example.  RA Soloveichik's psak about  
meshichistin has been discussed.  Assume RD Berger's nightmare comes  
true, and a group of Jews for Jesus comes along and says that they  
don't believe in J as god - but that they believe in him in exactly  
the way that RAS's psak says it was ok for the meshichisten to  
believe.  Would we accept them?  One issue, of course, is sincerity -  
and there is tremendous hava amina that this is not their true  
belief.  But assuming that they are truly sincere, would we accept  
them?  And I think that the answer is quite clear - we wouldn't -  
because acceptance of J for a Jew is an act of rebellion that puts  
them out of the community - even though they may not technically  
violate the ikkarim - while chabad is still part of our community...


>
> : this is why, to choose an ikkar which is less controversial that  
> it is :
> frequently violated - the fifth ikkar, even though there were many  
> poskim :
> who worried about the fifth ikkar halacha lema'ase  - and insisted  
> on :
> changing or omitting piyuttim - I am not aware of any posek, even  
> those who :
> nominally accepts the ikkarim as defining a kofer or a mumar - who  
> views :
> anyone who says machnise rachamim as a kofer whose wine can't be  
> drunk.
>
> Because few (outside of the Darda'im and extreme Granikim) would  
> hold that
> narrow definition of the 5th ikkar. But we all agree that  
> worshipping Moshe
> Rabbeinu, the eigel (to replace him), the keruvim, the Chaldean  
> deity Kerub
> (an ox whose wagon carried messages between earth and heaven), the  
> two oxen
> outside Malkhus Yisrael's temples, or Yeishu, is not Jewish.

but on an intellectual level it is quite difficult to hold by  
anything other than a narrow definition - and it is quite clear that  
the rambam, as per his anthropology in hilchot avoda zara about dor  
enosh, holds that most of the justifications people use for prayers  
to malachim.  The main reason we don't use the narrow reason is  
because we are aware of everyone who has either just recited - but  
also of those who composed - these piyutim - and for most of us, they  
are part of the community - and therefore what they did has to be  
acceptable.  If rabbenu gershom me'or hagola wrote piyutim to  
malachim, then it must be within the range of acceptability - even if  
we may not personally understand or approve.   given that, one can  
either say that we do not believe the fifth ikkar - or we can  
radically reinterprete it - but, as you are well aware, and even  
bring examples, this is quite difficult to do.....



>
> But the same could be argued in the reverse: We ask people to say  
> tehillim for
> us, or a rav to give us a berakhah. Not considered violating the  
> 5th ikkar.
> What if the rav is deceased, is it so different to ask his neshamah  
> for the
> same berakhah? And is a niftar's neshamah so different than asking  
> a mal'akh?
> Don't you say "Borchuni leshalom mal'akhei hashalom"?
It is considered not to violate the fifth ikkar because it is  
commonly done, and therefore can't violate the fifth ikkar....


>
> So, the 5th ikkar's edges, like those of many dinim, are blurry. We  
> can all
> agree that violating the 5th ikkar in some fundamental way crosses  
> the line,
> but beyond that -- we all have our own lines.
>
> That's how this "loose sense" is typical halakhah. It's like  
> agreeing that
> someone who eats a kezayis bemeizid on YK is oveir, without being  
> able to
> agree whether the amount a particular person ate was a kezayis. The  
> CI would
> be meiqil on him.

again, you ignore my main point,  Points where the dinim are blurry  
are typically points where there is a large halachic literature that  
tries to define the edges - and while there are disagreements, poskim  
try to lay down a line.  This is not the case in ikkarim - where this  
shakla vetarya of what exactly are the precise bounds of the ikkarim  
does not exist - and whatever discussion occurs normally is that the  
boundary really isn't the ikkarim, or that this doesn't really  
violate the ikkarim - rather than a precise definition that this is  
kfira - and dealing with the implications of all the contrary  
opinions.  It is this lack of literature that is the proof that this  
was not viewed as a halachic concept - which would be subject to this  
shaqla vetarya.
>
> We accepted the ikkarim to the extent of incorporatingd it into the  
> siddur in
> two places. For that matter, to the extent that two poets thought  
> it central
> enough to warrant poetry. Well before the modern era in which  
> RMShapiro thinks
> we erred on this point. And even those who objected to limiting the  
> doxology
> just to the ikkarim (not looser restrictions, tighter!) only  
> managed to get
> rid of Ani Maamin -- Yigdal remains in every siddur from Frankfurt  
> to Teiman.
>
> A change in the siddur too requires halachic process.

the incorporation of piyutim into the siddur was never  a halachic  
process  - it was far more minhag..

However, you conflate two separate issues.  Do the 13 ikkarim  
summarize in some sense important Jewish ideas - yes.  Saying them in  
yigdal is a way of stating them.  Does that mean that they have  
halachic status, that not believing them  has halachic consequences?   
That is quite a leap - and would need much further proof.....

Do the ideas of any piyut incorporated into a standard siddur or  
machzor now have legal status that rejecting them is now problematic???
Meir Shinnar

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070329/2eec4191/attachment-0002.htm>