<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>RTK</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">As RMS has stated several times that there is no universal acceptance<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>of the<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">13 ikkarim in our sources, I wonder a) which of the 13 are not<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>universally<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">accepted as binding and b) which of the 13 he personally does not<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>believe. <SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Also I wonder when he says that the ArtScroll's acceptance of the<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>13 ikkarim is<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">a "minhag taut" -- I wonder what exactly is the taus that<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>ArtScroll has<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">made, in his opinion?</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV>I am surprised at RTK, normally a close reader - </DIV><DIV>a) I have never said anything about my personal belief - I think reducing it to the personal is problematic - so I wonder where she got the idea. If she wants to know, I believe in 14 ikkarim - the thirteenth + ibn ezra's vehamalach ben ha'adam ve'elokav hu sichlo (or, to rephrase, ani ma'amin be'emunah shlema shehatora lo machricha lih'yot shoteh) - something I am sure the rambam would have fully agreed with (and is also relevant to other threads - such as understanding vashti's tail)</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>b)I have never said anything about Artscroll and the Ikkarim - I was talking about the acceptance of the artscroll siddur by the community(again, please read what I said), and, as said there, I don't think this is an appropriate forum for the discussion of artscroll.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>c) What we have been talking about is something else.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV> 1) RM Schapiro documented that there wasn't universal acceptance of the 13 ikkarim - not merely not acceptance of them as defining the ikkare emunah, but people who were cholek on their validity - this is in his article and book.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>No one has mounted a serious refutation of that point - but instead, people have argued that that diversity of opinion, while recognized as having existed, is halachically irrelevant - because every posek today uses them - and the discussion was over the truth and implications of that assertion.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>However, no one, post RM Schapiro, has seriously denied the point that there wasn't universal acceptance of the ikkarim.</DIV><DIV>If RTK wishes to mount a challenge to this assertion, let her...</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV> 2) Even if one says that the 13 ikkarim are binding, few people hold that they are binding in their initial form and meaning - There are very few who truly hold that the 13 ikkarim (available in every Orthodox siddur, as another poster wished to remind those of us so ignorant as to question what they mean...) are truly binding as written - in that they would write out those who disagree.... one example that most are modeh to is the issue of prayers to mal'achim - but there are many other issues (eg, a mekubal who holds that the ari reached a greater understanding of the chochma haelokit than moshe rabbenu, or someone who holds kipshuto of an opinion in the gmara that the last eight psukim of the torah were written by yehoshua - there are relatively few who would say that they have the status of kofer - and there are many others - and so people have talked about a loose variant of the ikkarim that is binding - while no one has actually been able to formulate the precise variant - that would include everyone that they want to include - which the whole concept rather strange.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>This has been compared to saying that the shulchan aruch is binding - true, but not quite, as we frequently follow other opinions - but saying this about dogma changes the whole notion of dogma...</DIV><DIV>Of course, RTK may be able to formulate a linguistically precise universally accepted version, but, unless one defines the universe quite narrowly, that is quite an endeavor.....</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Meir Shinnar</DIV></BODY></HTML>