Rav Chaim: A Nebach Apikorus is also an Apikorus

Is this directed at anyone in particular?

Apikoris is a definition not a punsihment.

bubka: i am not sure what rav chaim brisker came to add as this is pashut pshat in the rambam which is why rambam recounts the whole story of how people (inadvertently and innocently) began worshiping idols in the times of enosh as he states:

????? ????? ??? ??? ?

? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????; ????? ????, ?? ??????. ??? ????? ?????: ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????, ????? ?????, ???? ??? ????, ??? ????? ??????? ?????–?????? ?? ????? ??????, ?????? ??? ????. ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???, ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??????, ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ?????, ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???.

? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????, ?????? ????? ??????? ??????, ??????? ??? ??????, ?????? ?????? ??????, ????????? ?????–??? ????? ???? ?????, ????? ????. ???, ??? ???? ????? ???.

? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????, ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??. ??? ??????? ???? “?? ?? ????? ??? ??????, ?? ?? ???? . . .” (?????? ?,?-?)–?????, ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????; ??? ????? ????????, ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???.

? [?] ???? ????? ?????, ???? ???? ??? ????? ???, ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???: ???? ???? ?????, ?? ?? ???????, ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???, ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ??–?? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ????. ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????????? ???????.

? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ??????, ???????? ????????? ???; ??????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??????, ????? ?????? ?????? ????. ???????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??, ???? ???????; ???? ?? ???, ??? ???? ?? ???.

? ??????? ?????? ?????, ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???, ?????? ??? ???, ?????? ??? ??? ??????, ???? ??, ??? ???? ??. ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????, ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???, ??????? ???, ?????????.

? ????? ????? ?????, ????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??????, ??? ???????: ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???????, ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????, ??????? ??????? ???????? ??? ???????, ??????? ????.

? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ???, ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???????. ??? ??? ???????, ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????, ??? ?????? ?????, ???? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ????. ??? ??? ??, ??? ????? ?????? ?????, ?? ????? ????? ?? ????, ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????.

Bubka, it sounds from your post that there can not be such a thing as a tinok she’nishba.

“According to the Rambam, he would have to say that R’ Hillel was an Apikores. Since Apikorsus is defined as incorrect ideas about Hashem.”

If Hillel was allowed to have those views then at that point it is eileh veeileh divrei Elokim Chayim, as such they are not incorrect.

In addition, I don’t believe apikursis is defined by having incorrect views, rather by having nonpermitted views. I.e. If someone believes that you can use a lemon for an esrog, he is incorrect but he is not an apikores.

MediumThinker: It is also interesting that you give that as an example. According to the Rambam, thinking that a lemon is Kosher for an Esrog might be Apikorsus as a denial of Torah Sheba’al Peh because Pri Eitz Hadar meaning Esrog is a Halachah L’moshe Misinai and no one has a right to argue on them.

Sam2 My first point still stands.

As to your view on the Rambam, what is your source? In addition, what source do you have that the Rambam would label an individual who mistakenly believes an esrog is a lemon with the din of an apikores?

The Sefer HaIkkarim (Rishon) discusses this very question long ago, and he brings proof from Rabbi Hillel that one is not an apikorus if one erred honestly. Nebech an apikorus is not an apikorus.

Another thought that comes to mind is that on the Rambam in hilchos Tshuvah who writes that someone believing that Hashem is physical is a min, the Raavad comments that many of our greatest believed so in error, and they are not apikorsim. So the Raavad, at least, certainly holds that nebech an apikorus is not an apikorus.

Perhaps the Raavad does imply that the Rambam feels that nebech an apikorus is also an apikorus. Otherwise, what is his objection?

You can’t say Eilu Ve’eilu when the Shita was knocked down. When there is a Machlokess Abaye and Rava we say Eilu Ve’eilu, but when one asked and knocked it out it does not remain. There we say, K’sheim shemikablim S’char Al Hadrisha Kach Mekablim S’char Al Haprika.

The Gemara said of Reb Hillel’s words, Shara Lei Marei, Hashem should be Mochel him.

WIY: It’s the famous Ra’avad in Hilchos Avodah Zarah (maybe T’shuvah? I don’t remember) where the Rambam talks about Apikorsus. The Rambam explicitly says that one who mistakenly believes in corporeality of G-d is an Apikores, to which the Ra’avad famously replied, “Gedolim V’tovim Heimenu… have erred on this matter because of their learning”.

If it is apikorsus to hold the position that Hillel, an Amora, took on Moshiach’s future status since we reject it, wouldn’t it similarly be apikorsus to believe something about Maaseh Beraishus or astronomy that Chazal or the poskim reject?

(And if someone nebech mistakenly believes it, he is still an apikorus per Rav Chaim Brisker and the Rambam.)

Sushee: It would be Apikorsus to believe something that’s not true about Ma’aseh B’reishis, according to the Rambam. So read through the Moreh and see what he says about Ma’aseh B’reishis. Lema’aseh, however, I don’t think anyone holds like this Rambam (even R’ Chaim was just explaining the Rambam, not Paskening like it). The Ra’avad makes the biggest point. Rashi and other Rishonim believed that Hashem has a body. It’s inconceivable to say that L’ma’aseh they are Apikorsim. (Also, Judaism nowadays probably has a much more Kabbalistically-influenced view of Olam Habah than the Rambam did, and the Rambam’s Shittah on an Apikores who mistakenly believed it is a direct result of his view of Olam Habah, which we probably don’t quite hold by anyway.)

Sam2 Where is that rashi?

Back to R’ Chaim. It is important to note, that this person is also still a Nebach, as such should be treated accordingly.

Quote that Rashi, because I don’t see Rashi saying anything near that. I will not have to greatly question your trustworthiness when you expressed nonspecific sources in the Rambam before. Needless to say, untill you show us the machzor vitri, you have no credibility.

MediumThinker: You didn’t see it? Did you look? Rashi there on Pirkei Avos, D”H Chibah Y’seirah. In fact, he calls it (close to) Apikorsus to believe that G-d doesn’t have a body because the Passuk explicitly says that we were created in “G-d’s image”.

MediumThinker: What do you think Rashi is doing here? What is he coming to reject? He is rejecting the Spanish/rationalist reading of the Passuk that has to split that Passuk in two to avoid a corporeal G-d. He says that you can’t split the Passuk. Ki B’tzelem Elokim Bara Es Ha’adam. What do you think Rashi means Tzelem means? It means form or shape. Look at Rashi Al Hatorah on Na’aseh Adam or somewhere around there. It’s a 2-word Rashi that says “B’tzalmeinu Kidmuseinu”. Rashi, as well as many of the French Rishonim, believed that you read the Pessukim literally and that G-d has a body. I wish I knew where in the Machzor Vitry this is brought down offhand, but I’ll find it and post it at some point. (Someone also told me that there’s a Rashi in D’varim that’s Mashma like this too, but I don’t recall what it is.)

I don’t see why you’re so strongly refusing to believe that Rashi could have held that. We know that other French Ge’onim at the time held that. So what would the Chiddush be in Rashi holding that? And who do you think the “Gedolim V’tovim” that the Ra’avad refers to are? R’ Moshe Taku? He’s talking about Rashi and some of the Ba’alei Hatosfos, who clearly did not see a problem with believing in the corporeality of HKBH.

The source in the Machzor Vitri may be found in Pirkei Avos, perek 3, mishnah 14. In the Nirenberg edition of Shimon Halevi (Ish) Horowitz , 1923, it can be found on page 514.

It should be remembered that in those times, fierce polemics existed between the Jews and Christians, and often still with the Karaites. Much of what was written was affected by those theological battles. Therefore, it is a mistake to draw conclusions as to apikorsus generally, and who is an apikores individually. Be careful what accusations are made,the apikorsus sword is double edged.

Look, the Peirush on Pirkei Avos is clear. I’m sorry you’re denying it. Please, what does Rashi mean by “Tzelem”, according to you? We are so used to the Rambam-esque interpretation because we know it can’t mean “form”. But Rashi wasn’t bound to that. In fact, that’s precisely what Rashi is coming against. When (if) I see the Machzor Vitry again, I’ll B”N post it here.

MT: That Rashi Al Hatorah is pretty clear. I just don’t feel like taking the 5 minutes and finding the exact Passuk for you. Maybe I will later this afternoon. And the Pirkei Avos is clear, even if you deny it. And Old Man gave you the page number in the Machzor Vitry (thanks, by the way).

Also, look up where the Gemara uses Dibrah Torah K’lashon B’nei Adam (which is a Machlokes Tannaim anyway and we seemingly Pasken like R’ Akiva and not R’ Elazar Ben Azaryah anyway); it’s never in regards to anthropomorphisms.

Just find me one source that would apply the concept of Guf to Hashem.

The Rambam, in Hilchos Teshuva (3:7), states that one who states that God has a body is a “min.” The Ra’avad asks on this why the Rambam would call such a person a “min” when greater rabbis than he (the Rambam) held such beliefs.

While I do not think this means to imply that the Ra’avad, himself, held such a belief, he was, however, clearly okay with it and did not consider it heresy to hold such a view.

You might also want to check out Dr. Shapiro’s book (which I don’t have handy right now) “The Limits of Orthodox Theology” where he brings several examples of gedolim who held that the idea of God having a body isn’t heresy.

The Wolf

An original source, not a diyuk in what someone else thought. In addition I’m not questioning if it is heresy (You don’t need this Rabbi Shapiro you have the Raavid), rather if any accepted rishon espoused that view.

If you look at the Raavid (aside the fact that it is unclear if he is going on baal temunah or guf), he says bemachshava zu. It is an interesting lashon. It likely means that there were some great people who believed in machshavah that one can refer in machshava to Hashem in the language of Guf and baal Temunah. The Raavid then brings pesukim, which refer to Hashem in that way. The Raavid however, seems to agree with the Rambam’s prime theology. The question then remains what does he do with the pesukim. Therefore, it is logical that the Raavid is arguing that since the Torah uses the leshonos of guf and since there were gedolim who went with a machshava of thinking about Hashem in that fasion, one can therefore not call a person who mistakenly says Hashem actually has a body (Like Sam2 claims Rashi believes, chalilah) is a Min.

Waive off that Rashi? How in the world do you see that in rashi? Do you see one word about guf? Does Rashi say that Adam had the same physicality as G-d, chalila? All I see is Bedefus Hasuy shelanu shelanu, that all creations were created with maamer and adam biyidayim. Whyh does Rashi have to say that, let him come out and say your pshat? Don’t you think it is Fascinating that the Ramban explicitly says on this pasuk that Hashem has no guf, but doesn’t bring this Rahi. Have you ever seen a Ramban in Chumash where he vehemently disagrees with Rashi, and doesn’t mention him? If you wish pick any translation of that rashi from a ny publishing house, post it and show me where Rashi says what you say he does. Or if you want show this Rashi to any reasonably accepted Rav within any orthodox community and see if he sees what you say.

As to R’ Moshe Taku (Honestly, I never heard of him before), where is the original source? (As an aside where is that letter?)

As to why I can’t accept that notion that our great rishonim believed it, it is becuase it is not a great theological error, it is the error of the simpleton. The great debate was whether we can refer to Hashem with the lashon of tzelem.

Since you seem to play this attack game on why I believe what I believe here goes: Just because you have a desire to prove to yourself that you can think outside the box, that doesn’t make ir right. Always trying to think differently than the accepted mesorah is just as closed minded.

With all your arguments you have not shown one source that said Hashem had physicality, or a “body” as you put it. Just one source please, not speeches, arguments, attacks, just one source please.