<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>RMShapiro gives historical evidence. That only has an implication on the din<br>
if you are to argue that the poseqim, not the hoi paloi, made a decision based<br>on a false understanding or ignorance of those facts.<br><br>The truth is that we do not have many beqiim in aggadita and machashavah<br>today. But to say that there is no one in the pyramid of rabbis who do rely on
<br>the ikkarim lemaaseh who knows the late acceptance of the ikkarim is beyond<br>me. Simple example: R' Aryeh Kaplan wasn't duped into believing the centrality<br>of the ikkarim by ignorance over the historical debate.
</blockquote><div><br>R Aryeh Kaplan, while writing about the 13 ikkarim, never made, IIRC, the halachic claims that you make. Again, everyone agrees that in some sense, something related to the ikkarim is some shorthand for major Jewish beliefs - the question is their halachic status. The fact that no one has discussed the issue in halachic terms, coming to grips with the contrary data, is evidence...
<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 either way, at this point we've moved the discussion into a realm I find
<br>more productive. Not the history of the ikkarim, but analyzing their halachic<br>import in light of halachic methodology.</blockquote><div><br>I find this realm to be quite unproductive - because the fundamental assertion - that the discussion of the ikkarim is subject to halachic methodology - is what needs to be proven.....(and I thought you weren't a brisker...)
<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>: My point is different - yes, the rambam is quite willing to pasken hilchot
<br>: deot, and doesn't quite care about his opposition, and whom he<br>: classifies. All the paytanim with prayers to malachim, even possibly the<br>: sefirot...<br>: However, today's psak process is quite different, not just in hilchot deot -
<br>: and in general, we are loathe to declare someone wrong - even if we pasken<br>: against him (as in all the diyukim leshitato etc..) - and the psak you<br>: presuppose would exactly do this - because you can't argue leshitato and elu
<br>: ve'elu in kfira...<br><br>I'm missing why the Rambam's opinion of the limits of his ikarim are any more<br>relevent than the historical question of their dispute.</blockquote><div><br>Than what is relevant? However, my point is that subjecting the ikkarim to halachic psak requires a fundamental rethinking of the very nature of halachic discourse - especially modern halachic discourse. saying that leshitato, he is an epikores - is quite different than saying leshitato this is not hillul shabbat...
<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;">We're talking about whether there is a core underlying the ikkarim as per<br>
Peirush haMishnayos, Ani Maamin and Yigdal that is used to define lehalakhah<br>who is a kofeir. Not whether the Rambam would be happy with current pesaq, nor<br>whether the Radvaz or Raavad would.</blockquote><div><br>Why? The question is whether this is a legitimate question..
<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>Nothing. Any more than we would overturn precedent and pasqen like a Me'iri.
<br>In fact, RMF's inability to believe shows how tightly held the ikkarim are by<br>poseqim.</blockquote><div><br>1. but there is no precedent - RMF was essentially arguing that no rishon could possibly have argued this - not that this was a shitta that was nidcha. It would have been one thing for RMF to argue, nu, rav yehudah hachasid held that, fine - but for us it is kfira - but he resolutely refused to use that argument.....
<br>2. There is a difference between holding tightly to ikkarim - and fighting against perceived challenges - and he was fighting against Conservative Judaism and biblical criticism.... A very different issue.<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>:>: 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<br>:> rely upon.</blockquote><div><br>Most require more data - which has not been presented. Most poskim will use the 13 ikkarim as a shorthand - but the deliberate, detailed use has not been documented.
<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 arguing that the acceptance is more sociological than halachic - the<br>
: basis of it is more that everyone in our community clearly accepts it and<br>: there is no controversy - rather than an actual halachic argument...<br><br>First, "every one our community clearly accepts it" has halachic import.
</blockquote><div><br>In some cases - not in others - and the rambam would have vigorously fought against the idea that universal acceptance implies truth . the term everyone, as well, is an exaggeration - but a shorthand - but one enough to undermine the assertion.
<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;">Second, the basis of it is that "all of our dayanim, poseqim, and kashrus
<br>agencies" accept it. The question then becomes your opinion of the quality of<br>their knowledge of the issues. I think I already sufficiently showed that they<br>certainly knew and know enough to know the basic problem, if not every source
<br>dug up by RMShapiro -- the Raavad takes care of that question. And I also<br>argued that the acceptance is not limited to the gedolei haposeqim who skip<br>over the aggaditos.</blockquote><div><br>You have provided no evidence. Again, the ra'avad does not take care of the question , as commonly understood in the yeshiva welt - the raavad provides data that positions that were universally rejected by the "gdolim" but were not viewed as kfira could become kfira - not that we now hold a major rishon to be a kofer....
<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;">The Meshech Chokhmah may have had what we today call a mainsteam hashkafah,<br>
but RMShKmD certianly knew his rishonim on aggaditos. It can't simply be cast<br>in terms of questioning the quality of current leadership, the acceptance at<br>this point goes back centuries.</blockquote><div><br>evidence?....(it seems it comes from the Hunting of the Snark - What I tell you three times is true....)
<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>: I would just point out that in the entire discussion of Marc Schapiro's
<br>: book, over many threads and years, no one has ever mentioned any posek who<br>: has seriously discussed the issues raised in the book - nor pointed to any<br>: psak that has such a discussion - it has merely been, well, poskim ignore
<br>: his book, they use ikkarim,they have used ikkarim for hundreds of years, so<br>: his book is irrelevant....<br><br>This is an interesting complaint. If his book is insufficient to reopen the<br>halachic question, why would their ignoring the book be the least bit
<br>indicative?</blockquote><div><br>It suggests ignorance and polemicism. IT has been suggested (and by R A Rakeffet..) that the insistence on the ikkarim as defining the community (as R H Schechter did in a lecture, where he argued that the only ones who have a right to determine public policy regarding safety in Israel, whenever that impacts the gvulot - are klal yisrael in eretz yisrael - and klal yisrael are those who believe in the ikkarim ( a stunning rejection of the entire notion of brit avot), and the rest are Jews - but that means we can't sell them chametz (and presumably are useful as cannon fodder for the decision of klal yisrael...) - that this insistence was a deliberate response to RM Schapiro - but there hasn't been any intellectual response - because (and this is my take) they don't have an answer - but a belief that academic work is irrelevant.....
<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;">: Furthermore, normally psak does require strict
<br>: parameters (I sort of keep shabbat would not cut it with most...) - and it<br>: is of interest that no one has been able to define exactly what variant of<br>: the ikkarim is actually universally accepted....<br><br>
Normally the edges of pesaq are subject to machloqes, and they are here too.<br>The Besht and the Gra debated the limits of the 5th ikkar. Kayadua, the Gra's<br>position goes so far as to assur the third verse of Shalom Aleikhem, whereas
<br>Chassidim make baqashos of a deceased rebbe at his qever. The concluding<br>tefillos said after Rav Nachman's Tiqun Kelali was eye opening to me -- and,<br>frankly, made me very uncomfortable.<br><br>So there is a core that is agreed upon, but machloqes over the details. Kind
<br>of like "sort of keep[ing] Shabbos" when making tea on Shabbos...</blockquote><div><br><br>and as no one can truly define the core, except that whatever I believe in is not excluded by it??<br>a doxa is quite different than statements of hilchot shabbat - and has always been treated differently.
<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>Yes it does. It has to deal with BOTH issues -- a kofeir is someone who
<br>believes in kefirah because of a rebellion against normative Torah.</blockquote><div><br>No, a kofer is someone who rebels - which is why the notion of kefira has been expanded by some - because the actions invovled (eg, rejecting aggadot hazal) are viewed as rebellious.
<br>In the recent Slifkin discussion, RM Sternbuch is cited as having said that while what Slifkin said is kfira, he is not a kofer - and this attitude, which is quite prevalent - completely undermines the notion that the ikkarim are part of the halachic debate...
<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;">don't . The entire notion of normative beliefs is therefore quite different
<br><br>I am not disputing who we should welcome in the community. I am a big believer<br>in a broad tent, and think we should include mechalelei Shabbos befarhesia in<br>our definition of O -- as long as they believe the Torah they aren't observing
<br>calls for shemiras Shabbos. There is no other camp that would allow them to<br>retain this unmassaged definition of Torah, so we make them at home in ours.</blockquote><div><br>So what is the halachic status of the ikkarim??? People are accepted in the community who don't accept 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;">A short while later, at 6:53 pm, he wrote:<br>: 1. The issue whether kfira as a halachic criteria, rather than as a
<br>: philosophic one, is one properly addressed by halachic criteria - or that<br>: one should be quite leery of such labels - is not answered by the fact that<br>: some poskim do - the main point of my post....<br><br>During "shalashudis" in shul, I asked R' Jack Love what he thinks. RJL is a
<br>poseiq, and what may be of interest to this chevrah, he teaches responsa<br>literature and the art of pesaq at YCT. He is also far from ignorant of the<br>issues raised in RMS's book or of the full variety of O (and non-O) hashkafah
<br>-- in fact, he read both the article and the book, R' Parnes's reply, etc...<br><br>Lehalakhah, he does require belief in something that can be kvetched into the<br>13 ikkarim for geirus and would in theory for wine as well. However, he thinks
<br>that lemaaseh anyone who believes in the Ikkarim's 3 ikkarim probably<br>qualifies too, hand-waving (this was a conversation, not sitting down with<br>texts) over a mapping similar to the one I give in<br><<a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/ikkarei-emunah.shtml">
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/ikkarei-emunah.shtml</a>>.</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;">
That said, RJL was loathe to apply such criteria except when required for a<br>decision lema'aseh. If there is no reason to brand someone a kofeir, why<br>bother? Even if a geirus seemed "iffy", he didn't think one should revisit it
<br>until someone was looking to marry the person (or her child).</blockquote><div><br>at the end of the day - the 13 ikkarim are not normative and binding. (No one here has claimed that no beliefs are normative - even RM Schapiro did not claim that.)
<br>I would add that RYSE, in the Langer case, didn't seem to care about shabbat or kashrut to determine the status of the child....<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;">
If would seem that the criteria, while valid lehalakhah, are divorced from<br>finger pointing and tzitzis checking. Or deciding who we should welcome to our<br>community.<br><br>: While radbaz is not a
<br>: contemporary posek, he is a very major posek who rejects the halachic<br>: approach endorsed by RMB - and he is someone, from a halachic perspective<br>: (if one does want to use halachic criteria) one can be somech on (and see
<br>: later about the CI)<br><br>True. Someone today could rely on another rishon about what is normative and<br>how much rebellion is kefirah. That doesn't make the dominant pesaq wrong, or<br>any less truly the pesaq of pretty much everyone.
</blockquote>no - he rejects that the ikkarim are subject to halachic debate...<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">: 2) The issue of gerut is quite different than the issue of kfira -
<br>: the criteria that bet din uses in order to accept one into<br>: the club are not necessarily the same as the ones that one would use to<br>: define kfira in other halachic circumstances.<br><br>And wineries?</blockquote>
<div><br>How many wineries check 13 ikkarim? Would a brisker not drink the wine of a hasidische hashgacha because it violates the 5th ikkar (according to them)?<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><br>And I include rabbanim who know the Raavad and thus that the Rambam's ikkarim<br>weren't universally believed in his day.</blockquote><div><br>that isn't how the ra'avad is understood in RW circles...
<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;">: 3) The other main issues where kfira may have a halachic role are ones where
<br>: there are actually few tshuvot, especially by major poskim, to justify RMB's<br>: position. eg, a kofer can't be counted in a minyan - but, AFAIK, most<br>: poskim don't have a problem counting people who do not believe in the ikkarim
<br>: and are therefore, according to people here, kofrim....<br><br>Umm... Tinoqos shenishbe'u. </blockquote><div><br>People who would not count people who drive to shul on shabbat - and therefore don't accept the notion of tinokot shenishbu, do not ask questions about the 13 ikkarim ....- and one can be reasonably certain that one who is not frum does not believe the eighth ikkar (even if believed that it has divine origin)
<br><br><br> Meir Shinnar<br></div></div>