[Avodah] halachos of tahara

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 07:51:41AM -0500, T613K at aol.com wrote:
: I don't know if a non-believer's Tefillos are good or not -
: can such a person be a Shaliach Tzibbur? What constitutes
: non-belief? Apikorus? Mumar? (not my area of expertise)

RMF allows counting the rank and file C or R Jew towards a minyan, on
the grounds that they are tinoqos shenishbe'u. The Satmar Rav would not
count them, but I think that for most of us participating in an email
discussion, the Igeros Moshe carries the day.


If we look at Hil' Teshuvah 3:6-8, we find the Rambam includes 12 of the
13 iqarim in his definitions of apiqoreis, min and kofer. (I have asked
before what happened to bi'as hamashiach, why it's less of a halachic
issue than [eg] belief in techias hameisim. I don't recall anyone posting
an answer.)

A min denies the basic notions about G-d: there is a Creator, He is One,
He has no body, etc...

An apiqoreis denies matters related to revalation: nevu'ah, nevu'as
Moshe Rabbeinu, the Torah, and the like.

A kofeir is someone who denies Divine Justice, including ol mitzvos,
sechar ve'onesh, techiyas hameisim.

(Torah ends up split, then. The notion of getting the Torah is an issue of
apiqursus, denying the notion that the Torah contains binding behavioral
implications would be a kind of kefirah.)

I noted the similarity of this split with the iqarim in Sefer haIqarim
in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/ikkarei-emunah.shtml
I also discuss what is a difference in word usage -- I believe the
Rambam uses the word "iqar" to refer to the same concept that the Iqarim
would call either an iqar or a shoresh depending on whether it stands
on first principles (an iqar) or stand on iqarim (a shoresh). When
you look at things that way, the differences between their lists is
slight. (Particularly in the Hil' Teshuvah version, since the Iqarim
makes bi'as hamashiach an anaf, not a shoresh -- a conclusion from a
necessary belief, not one that is necessary itself.)

While on the subject, R' Dr MS might enjoy the Tif'eres Yisra'el's
(TY) list of iqarim (in the Rambam's sense) in his commentary on Avos
3:15. The mishnah is another list of things that deprive someone of his
place in olam haba. The TY shows how each act is the denial of a step
in the logcal chain that begins with "there is a G-d" to "I have to
obey halakhah". Thus, his notion of iqarim revolve around which beliefs
justify observance.

All of which probably doesn't apply to the vast majority of today's C
or R Jews, as we are generally meiqil to follow the Radvaz that to be
a min/kofeir/apiqoreis one has to believe in meenus/kefirah/apiqursus
through an act of rebellion, not because of an honest logical error or
being a tinoq shenishba (TSN). Few C or R Jews today rebelled against a
solid chinukh; and the CI might be questioning (we debated this in the
past) whether a "solid chinukh" as required to be a one of these kinds
of heretic is even possible today.

Still, I think that the tefillah of a TSN who believes in meenus couldn't
be be valid, as the person can't be praying to the proper notion of
HQBH. He lacks the ability to daven.

But does the typical C or R Jew deny those iqarim? Even someone who denies
nissim would be an apoqoreis, not a min. It would seem that belief in
Deism, or a G-d who only intervenes by inspiring people, is not denial
of the basic Essence of what we believe the One to Whom we pray is. Both
the Iqarim and the Rambam classify it under a different category.
The typical C&R believes meenus and kefirah. But apiqursus? I don't think
so.

And I think that's pretty much where Rav Moshe is coming from, although
he doesn't write with my more philosophy-oriented angle.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
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