<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>: Part of the reason that they are used is precisely the perception that they<br>: are universally accepted - and therefore, the precedents that Marc Schapiro
<br>: brings means that any psak that did not take these into account is of less<br>: value - and those of us who know the precedents can therefore rule<br>: differently....<br>RMB<br>But they did! You open the Rambam, the Raavad is right there, defending those
<br>who assign a bodily form to the Creator.</blockquote><div><br>They were aware that the raavad was willing to defend those believing in hagshama. You are well aware that the standard yeshivish take on the raavad is that there weren't any real rabbanim of stature who actually held in hagshama. There is a difference in taking a position that everyone of stature holds is wrong, but some argue doesn't rise to kfira, and saying it is kfira - and taking a position that someone of stature held and declaring that to be kfira. That's where Marc Schapiro come is - that he shows that many people who are normally considered bar samcha held positions that the ikkarim crowd would declare kfira - didn't merely defend those holding them as being wrong but held them themselves...
<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<br>:> in these ways. But that's secondary, since I'm talking about pesaq today,<br>:> not the Rambam's intent.<br><br>: Yes, the rambam would have had no problem classifying many gdole yisrael as
<br>: kofrim - but most of us do..<br><br>How is this in response to what I wrote? I am talking about what we hold<br>lehalakhah today, you're talking about people who lived during the days of the<br>rishonim. I tell you what... If I find a bottle of wine that was handled by R'
<br>Moshe ben Chasdai of Taku, we'll argue then if the pesaq would hold<br>retroactively.</blockquote><div><br>My point is different - yes, the rambam is quite willing to pasken hilchot deot, and doesn't quite care about his opposition, and whom he classifies. All the paytanim with prayers to malachim, even possibly the sefirot (a la 14th century rav who said no difference between saying hashem is 10 and hashem is 3) - all kfira
<br><br>However, today's psak process is quite different, not just in hilchot deot - and in general, we are loathe to declare someone wrong - even if we pasken against him (as in all the diyukim leshitato etc..) - and the psak you presuppose would exactly do this - because you can't argue leshitato and elu ve'elu in kfira...
<br><br><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;">You're accusing me of condemning R' Yosef haGelili for eating his chicken with
<br>cheese.</blockquote><div><br><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>: But you can't have it two ways - if all those who don't hold by a particular
<br>: ideology are kofrim - there isn't a home for them.<br><br>This is an Areivim issue. If I had more to say than the observation that I<br>miss how the seifa follows from the reisha, I would reply there.</blockquote>
<div><br>We can discuss it further on areivim. However, few people are willing to be part of a community that views them as heretics, even if not formally excommunicated - but they are willing to be part of a community that doesn't accept their ideas - but doesn't ban them and is on some level willing to discuss them.
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">amar chazal...)<br><br>Nu, so that in itself would be the resolution of what to do if one of the
<br>Rambam's 13 were to be proven false. Ani maamin be'emunah sheleimah that's not<br>going to happen.</blockquote><div><br>let me give a related fact - well known psak of rav moshe that the perush attributed to rav yehuda hachasid was a forgery - because the plain meaning violates the eighth ikkar - and we now have enough evidence that it wasn't a forgery. (rav moshe wasn't willing to say nu, rav yehuda hachasid held in kfira, as some are..) - now that it isn't a forgery, how do we deal with it?
<br><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;">:> OTOH, he also quotes this list's membership agreement, and while I'm
<br>:> neither as bright as him nor as educated in the subject, I am well aware<br>:> that the ikkarim enjoy an acceptance today that they hadn't in the past.<br><br>: yes, as a sociological statement they enjoy an acceptance...
<br><br>YOu say "yes" and then miscast what I said. I'm talking about pesaq.<br>Halachically speaking, they enjoy an acceptance. It's what most poseqim rely<br>upon.</blockquote><div><br>I am arguing that the acceptance is more sociological than halachic - the basis of it is more that everyone in our community clearly accepts it and there is no controversy - rather than an actual halachic argument - and the transmutation of sociology into psak is a real problem. (it isn't far different than psaks about wearing hats.....- but there at least, there do exist psakim arguing for a real basis...)
<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;">Your defense seems to be that these poseqim are simply ignorant of the history
<br>of Jewish philosophy, and therefore that acceptance doesn't have halachic<br>weight. If I understand correctly, there is no point to discuss that issue<br>further.<br><br>However, do you have any support for that statement? As I mentioned before,
<br>one of the ikkarim is shown to be a machloqes on the standard tzuras hadaf<br>alongside the Rambam. And while it's easy to point at those trying to continue<br>Vilozhin and Brisk and talk about how they never study machashavah. But they
<br>aren't the sum total of contemporary poseqim.</blockquote><div><br>I would just point out that in the entire discussion of Marc Schapiro's book, over many threads and years, no one has ever mentioned any posek who has seriously discussed the issues raised in the book - nor pointed to any psak that has such a discussion - it has merely been, well, poskim ignore his book, they use ikkarim,they have used ikkarim for hundreds of years, so his book is irrelevant. Furthermore, normally psak does require strict parameters (I sort of keep shabbat would not cut it with most...) - and it is of interest that no one has been able to define exactly what variant of the ikkarim is actually universally accepted - suggesting that yes, for most poskim (at least those who deal with these issue) do lack a philosophical sophistication. Let me know of any exceptions...
<br><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
<br>:> which of my peers I'm to treat one way or the other is that it sets a<br>:> maximum as well as a minimum.<br><br>: You might - but others view them as the minimum. Once one is willing to ban<br>: positions accepted by many, there is no reason to limit it to the ikkarim..
<br><br>First, how is that a halchic argument? Second, who are the "many"? I would bet<br>that RMShapiro himself believes the loose version of the ikkarim I am speaking<br>of. He denies their being necessary for his self-identification as O, I heard
<br>nothing about his denying their truth.<br><br>:> Besides, we can learn from the fact that the gemara still quotes Rav<br>:> Hillel while telling us his statement requires kaparah that one is<br>:> supposed to learn these rejected opinions, just like any other. Perhaps
<br>:> this is a proof to the Ra'avad.<br><br>: This is the radbaz's proof text<br><br>I miss how this helps your position. The Radvaz is saying that someone can<br>hold a non-normative position and yet still not be a kofeir. It doesn't widen
<br>the definition of normative. </blockquote><div> Remember, the whole contention was that while the truth of statements might be up to debate, poskim have used certain criteria for halachic determination on the status of the individual - and the radbaz undermines that contention - by arguing, in essence, that the halachic issue of kfira is determined by the process and motivation of the individual, rather than the fact content of the statement - so the halachic process doesn't have to deal with the truth of a given statement. The radvaz also rejects the notion that something that didn't make some one a kofer back then makes him one now....
<br>It therefore dramatically widens the range of those who are welcome in the community - even though I have a certain conception of the truth that they don't . The entire notion of normative beliefs is therefore quite different
<br>Meir Shinnar<br> </div></div><br>