<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">RMB<br>There are a number of issues being mixed here:<br><br>I- Is the halachic process appropriate?
<br><br>I would answer yes -- if we limit the question to the halachic ("Brisker", as<br>RMShinnar put it) sphere. There are laws that do subdivide the Jewish people<br>based on belief and/or action and expect us to respond differently to people
<br>in each group. We therefore have halachic in and out groups.</blockquote><div><br>The fact that we have halachic in and out groups is correct. The issue is whether people have used the ikkarim per se as the halachic criteria - and whether the ikkarim should be subject to that halachic process - and that is the issue.
<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;">Most of RMS's issues are therefore not resolved by discussing what the<br>
criterion is. The very fact that there is an us vs them means that someone<br>will be excluded. And the use of these categories for halachic questions means<br>that halachic process will get involved.</blockquote><div><br>
However, ikkarim per se - have rarely been used in a halachic process - in the sense that so far, you have not been able to cite a detailed process.<br><br>Remember, historically, until the 19th century, it was quite simple - it was quite easy to determine who were us and who were them - because it was an act of conscious identification or conscious rebellion. All discussions of the ikkarim are tempered by this.
<br><br>this is why, to choose an ikkar which is less controversial that it is frequently violated - the fifth ikkar, even though there were many poskim who worried about the fifth ikkar halacha lema'ase - and insisted on changing or omitting piyuttim - I am not aware of any posek, even those who nominally accepts the ikkarim as defining a kofer or a mumar - who views anyone who says machnise rachamim as a kofer whose wine can't be drunk..
<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;">Eg: IM OCh 3:11-12. In #11, RMF pasqens that shemiras Shabbos is the criterion
<br>for deciding who can be elected shul president. Citing the Rambam who rules<br>out electing koferim. A mechalel Shabbos who violates issues most of the<br>locals observe and know is assur may not be elected.</blockquote>
<div><br>I am not denying that there is a halachic issue of us versus them - although, especially today, it is far more complicated than it ever was .<br><br>That is a practical issue of deciding who is a kofer - but it is not based on the ikkarim. Hillul shabbat befarhesya is clearly mentioned in the poskim - but the problem has been, as the binyan tziyon noted, that today being mechallel shabbat befarhesya is fundamentally different than before - the rishonim don't have any idea of someone who would go to a hashkama minyan on shabbat so he could open up his store. In the past, being mechallel shabbat befarhesya was an act of rebellion against the community - understood that way both by the individual and by the community. Today, that isn't so - and you know the struggles different poskim have of trying to define this notion
<br>(and, as RC Luntz had once pointed out, halacha lema'ase, today no one treats being mechallel shabbat lefarhesya in the classical sense - because almost everyone approves of kiruv activities directed at these mechallelley shabbat befarhesya)
<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;">In #12, RMF discusses answering the berakhah of a kofeir. There the criterion<br>
is belief in a Borei. I'm not sure it's as relevent, as RMF is making a<br>logical point about berakhos in particular; if the person doesn't believe in<br>"E-lokeinu" or that He is "Melekh haolam" then to him these are just empty
<br>words, the berakhah was not said beSheim uMalkhus, and does not get an<br>"amein". So I would be reluctant to generalize from that.<br><br>But still, you see RMF addressing this division of us vs them as a halachic
<br>question.</blockquote><div><br>yes, the division is - but it is based on very concrete halachic issues and meaning of words - rather than the philosophical bases of ikkarim.<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;">
II- What is the criterion?<br><br>Here there are a number of criteria. And I think I am on shakier ground saying<br>we use one or the other.<br><br>1- The 13 ikkarim.<br><br>I still say that in practice, this (in some rather loose form) what's used.
<br>RHS seems to hold this way in the already cited recording. However, see below.<br><br>RMS's basic disagreement to this position is that he does not feel it was<br>reached via valid halachic process. To recap, my feeling was that:
<br><br>a- This pesaq would not be made in error due to ignorance. There is enough<br>obvious information that many of the ikkarim were contentious in the past from<br>sources like the Ra'avad for me to believe that even non-historians know the
<br>background.<br><br>RMS says the Ra'avad (as an example) is being spun to minimize that dissonance.<br><br>b- There are teshuvos, like RASoloveitchik's about L messianism, or references<br>to the ikkarim in stam yeinam, that do refer to them.
<br><br>IIUC, RMS replied that he thinks the term is being used idiomatically, without<br>a conscious thought about "the ikkarim" vs "someone who believes" in general<br>and therefore not necessarily used to mean these specific beliefs.
<br><br>I do not think either of these responses reflect the seriousness with which<br>teshuvos are written in practice. This issue is not debatable, it boils down<br>to differences of opinion about people.</blockquote><div>
<br>No, it is debatable and provable. To go back to one of your examples, the size of a zayit I can find multiple debates in the literature. When someone uses a term in a specific halachic sense - it means that the term has a known meaning to which one can refer - and that the posek is referring to a known meaning. Halacha is not open ended - and halachic terms have specific meaning - although poskim can debate about which particular meaning to give a term in a given context.
<br><br>You concede that one is talking about the ikkarim in some loose sense - and I am saying that that statement means that one is not talking about the ikkarim in a halachic sense. If one says that denying the ikkarim is kfira - one has to be able to point to a specific version of the ikkarim that the posek has accepted as defining kfira. Even if one accepts your position that poskim can argue about the precise definition of ikkarim - and have different definitions - there is no such discussion in the literature.(the closest is the attempt of the Minchat Elazar to show that tefillot to malachim do not violate the fifth ikkar - and that actually has a different aim) - and therefore the ikkarim are not a halachic term.. The lack of such definition, and your agreement that the ikkarim as defined by the rambam or in the siddur are not the actual version - means that they are being used loosely. Again, to use the canonical example - do you think RAS thinks people who say barchuni leshalom are kofrim. If not, which version is he using?? That is what I mean that people are using it idiomatically - because both of us agree that we can not point to a version of the ikkarim that is meant - nor to a significant halachic literature that actually discusses the precise definition of the ikkarim.
<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;">2- Some less demanding belief set<br><br>With each of #1 and #2 we get two variants:
<br><br>a- The belief itself<br>b- Belief through rebellion<br><br>I do not know of a shitah that holds 1a, that a person must believe the<br>ikkarim and is an outsider even if he denies any of them due to sincere<br>logical error. My guess would be that more common would be a combination of 1b
<br>(belief of the ikkarim OR honest error) and 2a (as long as that honest error<br>isn't about something as basic as monotheism).</blockquote><div><br>the rambam probably holds 1a - but not most others. There is the brisker notion of nebbich epikoros - but again, it is not applied systematically to the ikkarim. However, your statement about 1a means that you accept the radbaz's shitta.
<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;">As I wrote, this position sounds shakier as I continue looking at it.</blockquote>
<div><br>yes.......<br>Again, the primary issue has always been rebellion against the community and the authority of the torah. That is why you can find halachic literature labeling people as kofrim for a variety of beliefs that are quite removed from the ikkarim - but, in that community, is viewed as rebellious - whether that is about the authorship of the zohar or recent literature about aggadot hazal. The question is the seriousness of the label - but the understanding was the deliberate self distancing of people from the community.
<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- Shemiras Shabbos<br><br>As in the above-cited IM.<br><br>3a- As an action<br>
<br>3b- As sufficient proof of belief. This is kind of a hybrid between answers #2<br>and #3. The definition of the "in group" is some less demanding belief set,<br>and rather than trying to be psychic, we use his shemiras Shabbos as
<br>sufficient proof that a person believes it.</blockquote><div><br>You miss 3c - because the classical halachic literature viewed mechllel shabbat befarhesya as being hutz lamachane - and an act of rebellion against the community.
<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;">4- Kol haTorah kulah<br><br>With the above questions of whether we mean lehach'is or even letei'avon or
<br>honest error, of whether it's the ma'aseh or the belief implied by following<br>through.<br><br>However, RMYG already cited Teshuvos haRadvaz (1:344), and this is also the<br>position of the AhS<br><br>Frankly, this is so restrictive that the ikkarim look downright liberal by
<br>comparison.</blockquote><div><br>The question is of course against rebellion - the same basic issue. If I don't keep shatnes because it is difficult - I am perhaps a mumar lete'avon, not a kofer. If I don't keep shatnes because I think it is an outmoded law designed against avoda zara in the distant past - I am rebelling, and am a kofer (by the AhS and Radbaz). If I have some faulty halachic logic why it no longer applies - I am wrong and over, but not a kofer....it isn't restrictive.
<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;">5- There is also the RHS as recently used by RGStudent in Hirhurim<br><<a href="http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2007/03/intermarriage-and-minyan.html">
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2007/03/intermarriage-and-minyan.html</a>>:<br>> R. Hershel Schachter (Eretz Ha-Tzvi 17:4-5) quotes in the name of R. Joseph<br>> B. Soloveitchik, based on Eruvin 19a, that God's covenant with Avraham
<br>> required four things of Jews: 1) Belief in God's unity, 2) Performing<br>> circumcision, 3) Not intermarrying, 4) Belief that God gave to Avraham and<br>> his descendants the land of Israel. R. Schachter suggests that fulfilling
<br>> these four conditions is a prerequisite for being a part of the Jewish<br>> people (regardless of one's personal status as a Jew). Therefore, someone<br>> who violates any of these conditions (e.g. intermarries) is not a part of
<br>> the Jewish people and, if this is taken literally, should not be called to<br>> the Torah or counted for a minyan. I'm not entirely sure if R. Schachter<br>> would extend this idea that far, although see his article "Synagogue
<br>> Membership" in the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society.</blockquote><div><br>The fact that you are not sure is further proof of the primary aggadic nature of this version. Remember that Rav Chaim broke with other gdolim in insisting that someone who on principle did not mal his children or himself is still part of klal yisrael..., so I highly doubt that this was RYBS's criteria..
<br><br>Again, there is a sense that being part of am yisrael requires some identification with being part of am yisrael - but defining this is not one on which there is a tremendous halachic literature - suggesting that it isn't a halachic issue. As discussed elsewhere, some of us have major moral issues with RHS's views on these issues.
<br>Meir Shinnar<br></div></div><br>