<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Mar 17, 2007, at 10:35 PM, <A href="mailto:avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org">avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org</A> wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px">RMB<BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">I am not sure what RMS means by "ikkarim", and I am pretty sure he hasn't</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">gotten my definition, at least to its full implications.</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">I said they have halachic import, as they are used to assess people for stam</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">yeinam and geirus. Then there is also shechitah. This includes things like</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">RASoloveitchik's lenient ruling WRT meshichtzin, which was written in terms of</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">the 12 ikkar. In addition to RHS's comment, which wasn't meant as a pragmatic</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">pesaq, but was made by a noted poseiq in a prepared public talk.</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 class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>1. The facts that poskim occasionally frame things in terms of ikkarim does not mean that they are actually normative - ikkarim are used as a shorthand for the issues of belief - but not in the formal sense that you would like to use them in.</DIV><DIV>2. RAS psak, to my mind, proves the reverse - in dealing with all the people who are ban happy, he says, essentially - that if you take ikkarim as defining kfira, they don't violate ikkarim - but doesn't go to the next level - that the ikkarim actually define kfira.</DIV><DIV>3. RHS prepared public talk is, WADR, proof that poskim may be good at what they do - but not necessarily at anything else (the MO take on da'as torah...) - and the attempt to use halachic categories in areas where they don't apply is problematic - whether that is politics or philosophy. As per our discussions, RHS's talk is highly morally problematic.</DIV><DIV>4. The rambam in hilchot gerut nowhere talks about using all ikkarim as part of the gerut process. Again, the facts that some poskim use ikkarim for gerut doesn't mean that they should - nor does it mean that they actually mean ikkarim.., as ikkarim are a shorthand. RMB mentioned only one posek he spoke with - RJL, and while RJL nominally used "ikkarim", in practice he doesn't. For stam yeynam too, he would have to show sources. I know many people who will say that the yayin of a kofer is assur, and that a kofer is one who denies the ikkarim - but know of no posek who actually does this in detail - eg, this violates precisely this ikkar, this is the limit......- and this is clearly not standard practice.</DIV><DIV>I would point out, for example, that RM Feinstein, who believed that most C rabbis were mehallel shabbat, and therefore viewed them as pasul le'edut, accepted the testimony (and marriage) of those known to be shomer shabbat - without questioning about ikkarim - even though blblical criticism is standard material. In the end, shmirat hamitzvot is determinative...</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">IIUC, RMS invokes "lo dak" on the use of language (a point he stressed more in</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">previous iterations), and where they do mean the ikkarim bedavka, the poseiq</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">involved doesn't know the true breadth of the history involved, and are erring</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">on the "metzi'us" behind the ruling.</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">I am NOT talking about how to define when someone else is to be excluded from</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">our community. I do not believe we should be in the business of excluding</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">people from a pragmatic perspective, not in the business of judging others</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">altogether from a halachic one -- except where necessary.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>but ultimately, it is exclusion - and the notion that it is necessary is a major hidddush.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Nor am I even talking about much room personal usage. After all, if I honestly</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">get to the wrong answer I am not a kofeir, if someone rebels their way there,</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">guidelines won't mean much.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>as the ultimate issue is determined not by the answer one gets, but by how one gets there, the ikkarim are no longer part of halachic material<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">I am speaking specifically of the notion that they are not ignorable because</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">halachic questions overlap with aggadic data.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>The statement that they do requires proof<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Which is why I do not understand RMS's comment:</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">...</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">: I find this realm to be quite<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>unproductive - because the fundamental</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">: assertion<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>-<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>that the discussion of the ikkarim is subject to halachic</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">: methodology - is what needs to be proven.....(and I thought you weren't a</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">: brisker...)</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">When not dealing with the halachic realm, there is no concept of pesaq, and</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">any position honestly and accurately derived from the mesorah is valid. I am</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">intentionally speaking of the halachic realm, because -- while this is</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">tangential to the Rambam's question of who is a Yisrael WRT "kol Yisrael yeish</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">lahem cheileq leOhB" -- it is invoked by acharonim to make halachic decisions.</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">But if halakhah requires that we treat them differently in these ways, we</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">can't simply relegate the ikkarim to one opinion among many -- it's the</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">opinion whose major features made it into halakhah.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>My argument is that it didn't make it into halacha legitimately - and its occurences there reflect either a shorthand or ignorance.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Every realm has its own rules - and one is on dangerous ground in using the rules of the wrong realm.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>eg, for a less controversial issue, consider esh on shabbat. There are halachic parameters defining esh. In assessing new models, one applies the halachic definitions to determine whether something (eg, incadescent light, fluorecent light, LED) is esh - and clearly, whether or not it is physically a fire is not the relevant issue. However, one has to understand the physics so one can understand which halachic principles apply....- and misunderstanding the physics makes the psak problematic.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>The ikarim were a set of statements by the rambam that summarized a philosophical viewpoint that he thought represented the minimum that a Jew needed to know ( the meaning of the arabic term the rambam uses does not refer to a blind faith - although does not refer to a detailed knowledge). The decision of their truth or validity, according to the rambam, is determined not by halachic methodology - but by methods that aim at the truth - and halachic decision making is geared at reaching a decision, but not necessarily the truth (abbaye isn't wrong - that is the fundamental issue of elu ve'elu....) - and modern halachic thinking, with the emphasis on leshitato and being yotze as many shittot, fundamentally accepts that every major position reflects a different truth - and halachic decision making therefore does not declare that truth to be wrong. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>. That is my statement. The application of halachic methodology to determine what is the minimal set of knowledge - but now formulated as beliefs - strikes one as fundamentally wrong - as wrong as determining the age of the world by halachic methodology, or as determining the proper way to build a bridge by halacha...</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Now, this is not a statement a la misinterpreted Mendelson that there are no fundamental truths - someone who believes that there is no god, or in a dualistic universe, or that moshe forged the torah- would not be accepted in the community, and if asked to explain why, a posek might well say the ikkarim. However, my point is that the precise boundary has not ever been closely defined by the ikkarim - and there is not that close debate one finds in other areas, such as hilchot shabbat. eg, for the fifth ikkar - there are poskim who hold that various piyutim are kfira because of tfila lemalachim. However, I know of no posek who holds that who also holds that those who say those piyutim are kofrim - and, for example, the wine (to use the halachic example that you gave of why one needed to define ikkare emunah) of a chasidische hashgacha is therefore assur, or a ger who says them, his gerut is questionable. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>It has far more been defined by the sense of rebellion against beliefs of the community - and the attempt to preserve the community - which is why , sometimes, issues unrelated to the ikkarim are used by some. There is a realization, perhaps implicit, perhaps explicit - that while the ikkarim do, in some shorthand, provide a summary of important ideas - halachic debate is not the right way to decide their details. It is the wrong methodology. Halacha does not determine truth - it determines obligations.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>This is especially true as most poskim, both today but also historically, lacked philosphical training - and a posek who lacks philosophical training is as ill equipped to pasken on ikkarim as a posek who lacks knowledge of physics is to pasken on electricity on shabbat.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">IOW, I am no Brisker. (In fact, I consider the perpetuation of Brisk into an</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">era where there is no culture of "Erev Shabbos Jews" to be the primary problem</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">underlying most of the O community's imperfection. Halakhah uber ales only</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">works in conscious thought when everything else is provided culturally on a</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">preconscious/unconcious/subconscious [don't know the terms well enough to</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">choose] level.)</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Still, it is only in the halachic realm that the question of mandate has</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">meaning. Noting that there is halachic impact means that side of things can't</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">be ignored. A Brisker would say it's the only meaningful question. But one</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">needn't be a Brisker to say it is an essentual question.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV>the fact that only in the halachic realm that the question of mandate has meaning means here that the question of mandate has no meaning - and I think close reading of the halachic literature bears this out.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">So, what do I think are the 13 ikkarim as utilized in halakhah? I'm not sure.</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">There is plenty of gray area subject to machloqes. But then, we use kezeisim</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">as a unit of measure even though the range of possible values is greater than</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">a factor of 2 from smallest pesaq to largest. (All of the pesqim I know of are</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">larger than archaeological consensus. But I would assume by now someone</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">utilized digs on Har haBayis to form a new shitah.)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>elu ve'elu divre elokim chaim has never applied to ikkare emunah - while it applies in shiure zetim ( he follows the tzlach's shitta, and I follow a different shitta - elu ve'elu. He follows what I think is kfira - that is not elu ve'elu...</DIV><DIV>The fact one is unable to define what the 13 ikkarim used in halacha are means that they are not used in halacha. It isn't that they are subject to machloket - a la size of zetim. There is a large literature that deals with the issue of zetim - and dealing with at least some of the other shittotl. It is that you can't find halachic literature that will deal in a comprehensive fashion with the machloket on ikkarim and try to set the boundaries, in awareness of the existence of other positions. The grey zone exists because no one actually uses them. It is possible, that as a response to RM Schapiro's book, some will try to formulate such a literature - but that is no the current norm -nor, I would argue, would such a formulation be legitimate.<BR><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">So my claim is limited in both domain (a narrow applicability) and range (a</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">wide set of possible outcomes). But I think it still has import. If we</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">actually pasqen (e.g.) that Jews who do have messianic beliefs at odds with</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">the 12th ikar can't handle our wine, then there really is a line keeping such</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">people from ever feeling or being considered fully "there". RAS implies as</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">much when he says that meshichtzin don't qualify rather than denying there is</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">anything for them to qualify for. We may try to make them welcome, but as</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">RMShinnar noted, it will be tough going.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>People have paskened many things. There are psakim that people who deny aggadot hazal or da'as torah or the authorship of the zohar or... are all kofrim - none related to the ikkarim. everyone has a line - but that line is not truly based on ikkarim.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">RMShinnar writes "the rambam would have vigorously fought against the idea</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">that<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>universal acceptance implies truth" and "a doxa is quite different than</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">statements of hilchot shabbat - and has always been treated differently." But</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">I'm talking about "hilkhos Shabbos", not doxology or determination of truth.</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Which is why I feel I am not getting the idea across.</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">I would then add that one can legitimately derive communal-definitional</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">implications from the halachic development, which is closer to the role of</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">doxology. Not in the sense of you must believe X to be Y, but in practice, you</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">wouldn't be treated by other O Jews the same as most of them without such</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">belief.</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">BTW, R Zvi Pesach Frank required yayin mevushal when having tinoqos</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">shenishbe'u at the table, not only rebellious koferim. At an OU program on</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">wine and grape juice, RHS recommends being chosheish for this when having</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">unobservant seder guests. (Despite RYBS's reluctance to use mevushal for 4</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">kosos.)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>tinokos shenishbu are an issue for mehallel shabbat befarhesya - which is the commonly cited reason for questions about wine. The whole question whether today's non Orthodox have the full din of a tinok shenishba, or merely a similarity to it, is one that was frequently debated here in the past - but I am not sure that the question of ikkarim factors into it - and to the extent that it does, it is because the non O may lack truly fundamental beliefs - going far beyond any debate over the range of the ikkarm (so again, not because they don't fully believe in the 13th ikkar or 12th ikkar)</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>The fact that the O community does not treat someone as Orthodox is a sociological issue rather than halachic - and while RMB is right on the sociology, the question whether that is positive or not is a different one. The fact that RHS doesn't follow RYBS is no surprise.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">One last question for RMS: Since you don't believe one is supposed to use even</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">a loose definition of the ikkarim even in this halachic context, the question</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">of the width of opinion is more on yourself. I am saying that there is a</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">near-universal consensus around (although not actually at) a certain point.</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">What then is a kofeir? Which guests at your table wouldn't you serve</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">non-mevushal wine to? If one denies the 13 ikkarim serving in this role,</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">doesn't one need to have some other set of beliefs in order to know what to</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">do?</FONT></P> </BLOCKQUOTE>As above, I don't deny the existence of chovot halevavot - but question the emphasis on the details. A universal consensus that can't be defined doesn't exist.<BR></DIV><DIV>(your defnition sounds perilously close to a known judicial definition of pornography ...)</DIV><DIV>Now, even RM Schapiro would admit that there is universal acceptance of some issues - but the resultant set of criteria are actually quite small ( IIRC, he brings down a gra in Tikkune Hazohar that requires only two items...). I would argue that any position accepted by any major figure is automatically within the techum. Furthermore,I think that the radvaz's position is normative - the essence is the motivation and nature of the error - rather than the specific error. Errors reached through reason, or education, even faulty - are not kfira. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>The converse side of focusing on the ikkarim leads to morally problematic relations with the rest of am yisrael. To cite your source of RH Schachter's speech, by focusing on the ikkarim, he concludes that what does it mean to be a Jew who doesn't believe in the ikkarim - one can't sell them hametz on pesach, or use them on a shabbes, goy - but would be expected to fight in wars voted on by those who believed. The focus on the ikkarim leads to a distortion of our relationship with am yisrael - and we have a greater obligation that we act right than that they believe right.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Meir Shinnar</DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>