AviraDeArah: Thanks for the reply.
I’m sorry, but I do not see the logic behind the points you made regarding Miriam and regarding Kuzari, but given that I’ve made my argument and you have made yours, we can leave this to other readers to compare what each of us said and judge for themselves.
As for your definitive and unqualified statement “We don’t find a machlokes in the rishonim regarding the veracity of the ikkarim,” this is an argument from authority — we must accept this as true because YOU are the one saying it.
As to the vast amount of scholarship that documents otherwise, your answer is that the writers are “Zoologists and Sensationalists.” In other words, we should not examine their citations, nor consider those citations on their merits.
And this is because the ones who compiled them are “Zoologists and Sensationalists.”
OK.
(That’s how appeals to authority work — and why they’re so attractive to many of us. Makes life a lot easier.)
When you say that once we concede that there has never been a mahlokess about HASHEM’s having a guf (let’s say that’s true, that there’s no mahlokess), then it follows that similarly there was no mahlokess about ANY of the other Ikkarim, this is simply not logical.
And it’s contrary to available evidence, well-documented in a book by one of the “sensationalists,” among other places.
However, I realize it’s a good debating point: Attack on one issue (Guf) and then through association, think you’ve thereby knocked down everything else the author wrote.
Anyway, Chag kasher v’Same’ach to everyone and should any readers wish to examine these issues further, Google is your friend.
This is my last post on this issue, as the back-and-forth could go on forever. I’ve made my points and AviraDeArah has made his.
Kol Tuv.