<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">me<br>:<br>: However, ikkarim represent a statement of the core beliefs about what<br>: is true - and while psak may determine some practical actions...
<br>RMB<br>Not at all. I'm staying the ikkarim are used in pesaq of what to do lemaaseh.<br>Who can handle my wine. Which converts should I accept. Who must I just lekaf<br>zechus.</blockquote><div><br>Being used and should be used are two separate issues. Again, this dramatically changes the notion of ikkarim. Another post of mine addresses how much they are actually used.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I am saying that some loose form of them are de facto used in pesaq. Not that<br>
that makes them true or false. But we can't say the ikkarim are open to debate<br>when we rely on them as "halachic truth".</blockquote><div><br>Part of the reason that they are used is precisely the perception that they are universally accepted - and therefore, the precedents that Marc Schapiro brings means that any psak that did not take these into account is of less value - and those of us who know the precedents can therefore rule differently....(hilchta kebatrai only when the batrai knew the kadmai...(although I still have problems applying halachic methodology to a philosophic argument...- somehow, applying hilchta bebatrai in a philosophic argument seems ludicrous.- but that's what the underpinning of this discussion leads to)
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I would also argue that this was the Rambam's intent, as he includes them in
<br>Hilkhos Teshuvah in defining terms he then uses throughout Mishneh Torah in<br>these ways. But that's secondary, since I'm talking about pesaq today, not the<br>Rambam's intent.</blockquote><div><br>Yes, the rambam would have had no problem classifying many gdole yisrael as kofrim - but most of us do..
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">While this has social impact, I'm not saying we should use that pesaq to<br>
define the sociological grouping we call O. I'm convinced for Areivim-esque<br>reasons that we need to foster the existence of "non-observant O Jews", lest<br>they join communities where traditional halakhah is kept on their agenda.
<br><br>I'm presenting the notion that we have defined for ourselves normative O<br>belief and used it lehalakhah. And not dismissing that of there being a home<br>in the O community for non-normative O Jews.</blockquote>
<div><br>But you can't have it two ways - if all those who don't hold by a particular ideology are kofrim - there isn't a home for them. <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Nor am I saying that pesaq defines metzi'us, like pechusah mibas 3.<br><br>: The problem is the application of halachic methodology to the<br>: determination of the truth - which is a radical innovation - each<br>: area has its own rules of logic and thought. halacha has become the
<br>: predominant mode of jewish expression - but it too has bounds.. Its<br>: use in philosophy is a problem not only for philosophy - but for<br>: halacha.<br><br>Not at all. I would say that the same is true for pesaq here as whenever we
<br>find a pesaq that contradicts the actual metzius. If we were to disprove one<br>of the Rambam's ikkarim somehow, we would each apply whatever our version of<br>that principle is.</blockquote><div><br>Problem of pesaq contradicting metziut normally only applies to statements of chazal - do we really apply it to shitot rishonim and achronim??? If a rishon makes a claim about metziut which we now know to be false, we don't treat it the same way as a ma'amar chazal...)
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>OTOH, he also quotes this list's membership agreement, and while I'm neither
<br>as bright as him nor as educated in the subject, I am well aware that the<br>ikkarim enjoy an acceptance today that they hadn't in the past.</blockquote><div><br>yes, as a sociological statement they enjoy an acceptance - but I thought we weren't talking about sociologically Orthodox - but on a conceptual level (in essence, you are saying that the 13 ikkarim are the hashkafic equivalent of orthopraxy - something we should uphold even if we don't necessarily believe...)
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>The book, or the opinions themselves? And wouldn't studying the opinions help
<br>you understand the sevara of the issue as a whole?</blockquote><div><br>I am one who doesn't have a problem studying books of apparent kfira. However, again, the whole issue erupted when a rosh yeshiva argued (I don't remember if in the same article, but it appeared close together) both that the 13 ikkarim were universally accepted - and that study of kfira is something that is forbidden to the amcha (basing himself, paradoxically, on the rambam) - and I think empirically, most of those who are the kfira enforcers also don't believe that one should study kfira.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">RMB</blockquote><div><br> </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
But it isn't an ikkar. The flipside of accepting the ikkarim as defining which<br>of my peers I'm to treat one way or the other is that it sets a maximum as<br>well as a minimum.</blockquote><div><br>You might - but others view them as the minimum. Once one is willing to ban positions accepted by many, there is no reason to limit it to the ikkarim..
<br><br></div>RMB<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Besides, we can learn from the fact that the gemara still quotes Rav Hillel
<br>while telling us his statement requires kaparah that one is supposed to learn<br>these rejected opinions, just like any other. Perhaps this is a proof to the<br>Ra'avad.</blockquote><div><br>This is the radbaz's proof text
<br></div></div>Meir Shinnar<br>