- This topic has 60 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“And we are not surprised that you feel compelled to defend absolute apikorsus.”
You have failed to show that anything in R’Helfgot’s statement — or anything else he has ever written — that qualifies as any kind of heresy.
Charlie: Rabbi Helfgott is very much on the border (I’m not holding in everything he says but I don’t think he has said any actual Apikorsus; but he is very much at the fringe of non-Apikorsus) and Farber just went way past that.
That “manifesto” quoted contains K’fira in 2 of the Ikkarei Emunah (that the Torah we have today is not the same as the one given to Moshe Rabbeinu and it is K’fira B’torah SheBa’al Peh). Thank you for sharing that. You saved us from doing research for definitive proof that Farber is an Apikores.
well, I have not read most of the comments till tonight and , in spite of my position in other postings for a smpathetic understanding of halocho, I don’t understand Rabbi Farber at all. The gemoro already positions that some parts of the Torah were written by Moshe rabbeinu but ,absolutely, the whole Torah ws written by order of HKBH. I fail to see why “many voice ” is a barrier to accepting that the whole Torah is ,not only min hashomayim, but written by direct instruction of HKBH. There are new studies in Bbiblical narrative (Sterneberg, Perry and others) but why would that-chas vecholilo- negate divine origin? If Sahkespeare can write in many voices, “al achas kanah vekamaH” HKBH.
Chuckie,
You have been supporting Farber. If you are going to be slyly disengenuos, you really have to try harder.
so apparently, having A rabbinical school with psychiatrists coming in is apikorsus. I kinda get what your saying.
Charliehall,
This article wasn’t about what Rabbi Helfgott wrote, but about what Zev Farber wrote. Farber is an apikorus by Rabbi Helfgott’s standard. Farber has clearly decided that the Torah is a broad composite of at least two authors (even if “divinely inspired”). Farber is therefore outside the pale of Orthodoxy even according to Rabbi Helfgott, as you quoted:
“However, the notion of the entirely composite makeup of the Torah has no precedent in classical Jewish sources, and it is therefore impossible to term such a theological understanding as Orthodox in any meaningful sense.”
charliehall,
When I mentioned the Rambam as the standard for ikarrim I was referring to the ikkarim relevant to this discussion.
(I have not read all of Marc Shapiro’s book on Orthodox theology, but I was not impressed with the portion I did read. Mr. (Rabbi?) Shapiro uses the academic tactic of ignoring the nuanced explanations that resolve contradictions [a staple of talmudic and rabbinic thinking] in order to maintain the simplistic readings that preserve the problem)
For some, finding apikorsus is like a predatory cat finding fresh red meat.
I can hear hear the salivating.
In reality news of apikorsus is bad news, and if it rises to the level of Blasphemy requires Kriah (tearing of ones clothes).
Josh: I have old undershirts that are set aside for tearing K’riya. I put one on before checking out Farber’s article. And guess what? One of the tears is a Tefach longer now.
I understand where you’re coming from. It is quite disheartening to see that people with legitimate (if borderline) opinions are castigated as Apikorsim, which seems to happen all too often nowadays. That being said, Farber’s article was Apikorsus. There’s no way around that.
R’ Weiss-haLivni (who is wholly a traditional figure), in his attempt to make his peace with the data that leads some to DH still included a revelation of the original text of the Torah word-for-word to Moses at Sinai as a historical event. (Although he believes we lost it and our current Torah is reconstructed from remnants; see his Chateu Yisrael theory discussed in his books Peshat and Derash and Revelation Restored). R’ Farber’s view falls significantly to the left of R’ HaLivni’s views (both on this issue and women’s issues; those who are familiar with the actions of R’ HaLivni and his UTJ colleagues know that when R’ HaLivni was rabbi of KOE on the West Side, women were generally not afforded partnership minyan-style opportunities, and his colleagues R’ Pinchas Klein and others believe that homosexuality is immoral- the UTJ even disaffiliated the Montauk Minyan in Brooklyn a decade ago when they invited R’ Steve Greenberg to speak).
I don’t see, honestly, how he differs from others who have engaged in similar analysis. Whether or not the American Orthodox establishment treats him like another R’ Louis Jacobs is something to look towards.
rebdoniel – Loius Jacobs was no “R'”, he actively tried to destroy British Orthodoxy (of all stripes) and it took all the efforts of Rav Jakobovits to stop him. He was an actual, real apikores (and I do not use that word lightly) being someone “sheshino v’kofar”; he denied Torah Sh’baal Peh, Olam Haba, Mashiach, and Torah Mi’Sinai (he believed that the ‘ideas’ behind the Torah were revealed to Moshe Divinely but the actual construction of the Torah and the institution of the mitzvos were Moshe’s, not HKB”H’s). I admire your desire to be dan l’kaf zechus but in this case it is misplaced. I’m sorry, but that’s just the way it is.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.