- This topic has 94 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
If someone challanges a Chazal, does that make him an apikorus? Does anyone know a source in S”A or Rambam for that?
If someone said the rabbis were wrong to institute the brocha of Shelo Asani Isha, does that make him an apikorus? (Maare makom?)
I’m not sure if there is a source that states that he is an apikorus. However there are enough sources that state that someone who defies Chazal or their teachings are deserving of death.
Challenging a chazal in order to gain understanding is not an apikoros but simply someone who wants to understand.
Depends. Not hoding like Hazal on aggadot or science is one thing. Saying that a wall that is all doorways is still a wall, or that clapping on shabbat is ok because Hazal’s gezerot are bound by context makes a person an apikores, no different than the Conservatives.
I believe chassidim allow clapping on Shabbos, though I don’t know their rationale.
They don’t have much of one. Other than the fact that their rabbis do it, and chas ve chalila, their rabbis would be in error (the Minhat Elazar holds like this).
Biology
“If someone said the rabbis were wrong to institute the brocha of Shelo Asani Isha, does that make him an apikorus?”
Possibly. Does it make him an arrogant buffoon? DEFINITELY!
Well we can ask questions and challenge but our questions cant be our basis. Like “i dont understand blah and im asking around but yeah i still believe in all this”
No that does not make him an apikorus.
Rationale for clapping on Shabbos can be found in a ?????? in ???? ???? ?? ?.
RD: Really? You’re calling Tosfos Conservative? You’re an arrogant moron who thinks you know better than Rishonim. No wonder you learn at Hadar.
What precisely do you mean by “a Chazal” and by “challenge”?
^ surprised the mods let that nivul peh through the system.
Anyway, Chazal argued with each other all the time bizman hagemara. Rambam and Raavad disagreed on nearly everything. The Rema’s minhagim differed from the beis yosef’s, but we still value and treasure both- they are mamash on the same page!! Many respectable rabbonim burned moreh nevuchim- are they apikorsim for disagreeing with rambam? Vilna Gaon said Rambam was very misguided. He also put all chassidic rebbes in cherem.
My point is, arguing and challenging are integral parts of Judaism and the halachic system. When we stop arguing and challenging, we will eventually stop coming up with chiddushim and new ways of applying age-old wisdom to our own times. However, all arguing must be done in the spirit of ‘machlokes l’lsheim shomayim.’ regarding the shelo asani beracha, most of the people arguing for its removal are certainly not arguing l’shem shomayim. However, they haven’t violated any of the ikkarei emunah, so what is the havah aminah for saying they are apikorsim? There are girsos that have one beracha as she’asani yisrael, and several poskim even rule you should say that one beracha, which will allow you to not say the other ones, which could be levatalah. With that much confusion, you cannot go outright and call them apikorsim
They don’t have much of one. Other than the fact that their rabbis do it, and chas ve chalila, their rabbis would be in error (the Minhat Elazar holds like this).
Where is that Minhat Elazar?
And RD OT…does the letter “C” not work on your keyboard?
How did Sam2 get his post through?
In the 3 Weeks, no less.
(Not that I disagree with your basic premise, S2, but what language!)
Must be the heat.
Seems like we’re all getting on each other’s nerves round here lately.
Apparently the Shulchan Aruch rules that hand-clapping is forbidden on Shabbos, but the Rema says that some are lenient.
Rema mentions two possible grounds for leniency: 1) not wanting to inform people of their transgression if they aren’t going to stop clapping (making it an intentional transgression), 2) the fact that tosafos said that the reason behind the prohibition is no longer relevant.
You guys missed the point. RD was referencing that Tosfos that Midwesterner cited. He is saying that Tosfos are Apikorsim (Chalila! It hurts just to type that) for thinking that they can say the G’zeirah doesn’t apply in that way. It’s arrogance and it’s idiocy. Millions of Talmidei Chachamim over nearly a thousand years have pored over each and every letter of each and every Girsa of Tosfos. And suddenly he has discovered that he (along with Professor Faur) knows what the true Derech Ha’Emes in Shas and Divrei Chazal is and that Tosfos disregarded it. He want to throw out all Tosfosim because they don’t follow the proper path in G’zeiros Chazal. And he discovered this! Not any of the contemporary Rishonim, not any of the later Rishonim, and none of the Chachamim between then and now who have loved and held dear every word of every Tosfos. He and Hadar belong together. And my language? My only concern is that I insulted the Torah and the Ba’alei Hatosfos by not using language strong enough in condemning his intentions. There’s one post on this thread that should be deleted. But it certainly isn’t mine.
Bais Yosef (YD 119-11) quotes Rashb”a that one who disbelieves the words of Chaza”l is a “min” and his wine is yayin nesech.
Oh, and I agree with Sam 100%.
I hope those who rebuked Sam didn’t understand his point, because if you think you shouldn’t insult someone who is so derogatory to the heilige Baalei Tosafos, youv’e got your priorities messed up.
rationalfrummie: There’s a general klal (or so I’ve learned) that rabbanim can argue with others of the same do but not with those of previous doros, probably due to the whole principle of yeridas hadoros. Note that all your examples are of rabbanim and poskim of the same tekufah.
Actually, I don’t mean dor as in generation, but rather as in, like I said, a tekufah. An acharon can’t argue with a baal Tosafos, and a baal Tosafos can’t argue with Chazal, but the baal Tosafos can argue with another baal Tosafos.
If this isn’t true, tell that to my halacha rebbe- he tested us on this.
Writersoul: That is the Shittah of the Geonim and (more recently and relevantly) the very widely-accepted Shittah of the Chazon Ish. The Rambam and Kessef Mishnah, however, argue, and that seems to be the opinion accepted among the Achronim who, albeit in very rare cases, do argue with Rishonim on occasion (the Gra and Sha’agas Aryeh did it a lot, and even R’ Moshe did it twice that I’ve found). Everyone agrees, however, that no one after Ravina and R’ Ashi can argue on the Amoraim. (Sort of; we let Geonim get away with arguing with the Gemara because we assume they had a different tradition of what the Gemara/Amoraim said and therefore we treat some Geonim, especially R’ Achai and the Bahag, as if they could argue on the Gemara.)
There’s no need for ad hominem attacks. Especially in the Three Weeks period that Ashkenazim supposedly sanctify.
There absolutely is reason for ad hominem attacks against those who trample on the honor of the Baalei Tosafos.
There is no justification, though, for trying to make this into a racial war between Ashkenazim and Sefardim. Especially bein hametzarim.
RD, just because you don’t know their source does not mean you can say they are acting outside of halacha.
Sam2, just because someone missed a Tosafot does not mean you can insult him.
Musser zugger, RD is pronouncing the “ches” in a Sefardic way, with the sound coming from the throat, not the pallet like a “chaf”.
MDG: Read his other posts and my explanatory post. He didn’t miss the Tosfos. He knows the Tosfos and is calling it against Chazal.
MDG, he didn’t miss the Tosafos.
Gentlemen,
I see how you can say that RD was alluding to that Tosafot, but I cannot say that definitively. It still seems to me that he was criticizing a practice that some do without considering any Yesh Omrim. Both of you are more learned that I, and possibly you see something that I don’t.
Sam2 – I disagree with rd as much as you do but I’m surprised at your method of expressing your disagreement. You’re usually a lot more respectful than that…
Disagreeing with someone does not make you an apikorus, no matter who that person is.
That is in regards to having a difference of opinion. In practice, however, normative Judaism sees halacha has having been established in the Gemara, and therefore even if an amora was “wrong” it doesn’t matter, Torah lo ba’shamayim hi.
Therefore you can think whatever you like, but you generally can’t change the halacha.
MDG, your defense of RD is admirable, and I appreciate the compliment. Sam is indeed learned, but as for me, I just spend too much time here, so I’ve seen RD refer to the Tosafos.
and a real giveaway:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/raising-the-pinky/page/2#post-460745
Biology,
That is not apikorsus. It’s is idiotic and halachically problematic but not apikorsus.
“Everyone agrees, however, that no one after Ravina and R’ Ashi can argue on the Amoraim. “
Rambam and Tosafot seem to argue on the Amoraim a lot. And there are things in the Gaonim that don’t have any source in Chazal. Chas v’shalom we consider any of them to be apikorsim!
A person not reciting the blessing Shelo Asani Isha is problematic on the grounds that this was something directly instituted by Hazal. Granted, the Nusah Italki doesn’t include this braha, and it may upset our modern sensibilities, but nonetheless, it is not something that can be abrogated. Such an individual who objects ought to read the Rambam’s hakdama to the Mishneh Torah, for starters.
Rashi explains in a few places that ‘MIN’ means someone that does not believe in Torah Shel Bal Peh, and that is the Talmidei Yeshu.
That is why always Shoal Min Echod, was someone that was fluent in torah shel bal ksav yet didnt believe in shel bal peh.
If you really believe that someone who doesn’t say shelo asani isha is an apikores, then you have to start making detailed categories and levels of apikorsim and apikorsus. There is a difference between struggling with modern values/chazal versus the classic apikorsim that deny all of Torah outright, or think halacha as a whole is bad. Why isn’t anyone mechalek between say, YCT, and apikorsim like reform, or as 2scents says, talmidei yeshu?
Biology, I don’t know that there’s a difference between a min and an apikorus.
There probably is a difference between taking a different halachic viewpoint and the “eino ma’amin” referred to. You can check my source if you wish. I didn’t make it up.
Charlie, where do you find Tosafos and/or the Ramba”m arguing on a Gemara, unless there’s a different Chaza”l on their side?
JMH, Sam is defending the honor of Rishonim. RD called the Baalei Tosafos apikorsim! He deserves all the rebuke, in very strong terms.
Shelo Asani Isha is not biology
Biology,
That is not apikorsus. It’s is idiotic and halachically problematic but not apikorsus.
If the study how plants and Animals reproduce and grow is a Problem, then we would never know such things as how to grow enough food and studying cures for diseases
DY: See Tosfos Sukkah 7b (I think; maybe 8b; about the Shittah of the Rabbis of Caesaria). The Rambam does it all the time about health/medical issues, etc.
Nusah Italki doesn’t include this braha
Ok MDG the word bracha has a chof yet RD pronounces it braha.Do sephardim spell bracha without the chof also?
Maybe the “c” on the keyboard doesn’t work.
Why are we so concerned with the labels that we attach to people? Is it strictly to scare them and keep them quiet?
mythoughts: The Chofetz Chaim says it is a Mitzvah to publicly embarrass an apikorus. Obviously we have to judge who is an apikorus in order to fulfill this Mitzvah. So there is a practical reason to know who is an apikorus.
The Chochmat Shlomo says (Sanhedrin 52b) that if there is no nafka mina l’dina it is permitted to disagree with the Gemara.
DY- rashi on either daf tes zayin or yud zayin amud alef in RH says how the two are different.
rd: that wasn’t an ad hominem attack. It was the opposite of one, actually.
An ad hominem attack is where you attack ideas because of the person who said them.
This was attacking the person who said them because of the ideas he said.
And I agree with the attack, in this case. I don’t know how you can have the arrogance to say such things about tosfos, and I really have nothing to discuss with you in the matter of religion anymore.
I still think you’re a nice guy, and I still like to chat with you. But we do not practice the same religion, and I have no interest in interfaith dialogue.
Biology, you are correct. In fact, a certain feminist distorted yesterday’s daf which asks derisively if a chulda (rat) is a prophet. She said that it is talking about Chulda the Prophetess.However, that is only your second question, which seems rhetorical. The first question was “If someone challanges (sic) a Chazal, does that make him an apikorus?” The Maharshal challenged a Chazal and explained why he could do it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.