Home › Forums › Controversial Topics › Shmuly Yanklowitz, Novominsker and OO theology
- This topic has 288 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by DaMoshe.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 2, 2014 3:15 pm at 3:15 pm #612927gavra_at_workParticipant
Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz makes me understand what the Novominsker sees in OO.
June 2, 2014 4:10 pm at 4:10 pm #1095027bhe (Joseph)ParticipantIt shouldn’t have taken this long to figure them out. It was pretty obvious from the get-go.
June 2, 2014 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm #1095028To be or not to beMemberQuestion is, does he represent the opinions of OO, or are these just his twisted, delusional,( apikorsish) views?
June 2, 2014 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm #1095029popa_bar_abbaParticipantI loved best where he goes totally unhinged and starts attributing things that never happen in kosher slaughterhouses (dragging in sick animals) to kosher meat.
He obviously knows less about slaughtering than he does about Torah (meaning, he knows negative about slaughtering since not only does he not know what does happen, but he even thinks things happen which don’t, as opposed to Torah where he just doesn’t know anything).
I also am bemused by the YCT model of having their poor innocent students reply to criticism instead of meeting it themselves. Because we’re supposed to feel sorry for the students. Well, I do feel sorry for the students, and I hope they are chozer b’tshuva soon, together with their teachers.
June 2, 2014 5:45 pm at 5:45 pm #1095030HaKatanParticipanttbontb:
I wouldn’t say that’s really “the” question, though it is an interesting one.
Given other OO behavior such as Rabbi Avi Weiss’s local mixed-gender Christian Baptist Choir singing in front of his Aron Kodesh, the answer seems pretty obvious.
The question is how any “Yeshiva graduate” could possibly even consider such views, let alone spout them to the world.
The answer should further clarify itself if Rabbi Avi Weiss does not issue that retraction for the WSJ, as Rabbi Hoffman suggests they do.
June 2, 2014 5:56 pm at 5:56 pm #1095031Sam2ParticipantThis is far, far from the worst thing that Shmuly Yanklowitz has ever written. He is an actual Apikores, no question about it.
June 2, 2014 7:46 pm at 7:46 pm #1095032Matan1ParticipantWhat has he said or done that makes his an apikores?
June 2, 2014 8:20 pm at 8:20 pm #1095033To be or not to beMember“What has he said or done that makes his an apikores? ”
he denies that there will be a moshiach, being that that is one of the yud gimmel ikrim that qualifies as apikorsus.
June 2, 2014 9:03 pm at 9:03 pm #1095034Matan1ParticipantInteresting. Where did he say that? (i’m not trying to be antagonistic, i’m just curious)
June 2, 2014 10:01 pm at 10:01 pm #1095035☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantMatan1, from the article linked in the OP:
“The following quotes are from an article he had published in the Jewish Week, February 1, 2012.
June 2, 2014 10:02 pm at 10:02 pm #1095036Patur Aval AssurParticipant“he denies that there will be a moshiach, being that that is one of the yud gimmel ikrim that qualifies as apikorsus.”
?’ ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????
(Sanhedrin 99a)
June 2, 2014 10:05 pm at 10:05 pm #1095037☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantPopa,
He obviously knows less about slaughtering than he does about Torah (meaning, he knows negative about slaughtering since not only does he not know what does happen, but he even thinks things happen which don’t, as opposed to Torah where he just doesn’t know anything).
I don’t understand the chilluk you’re making. He’s in negative territory on both, for the same reason.
June 2, 2014 10:11 pm at 10:11 pm #1095038☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantPAA, someone who holds that way today is an apikores.
June 2, 2014 10:14 pm at 10:14 pm #1095039popa_bar_abbaParticipantDY:
Of course, but good lines don’t play by all your formalistic rules
June 2, 2014 10:52 pm at 10:52 pm #1095040Patur Aval AssurParticipant“PAA, someone who holds that way today is an apikores”
By definition, fundamentals of the religion cannot change. If the religion was able to exist without it then it can’t become a fundamental. This is precisely why the Sefer Haikkarim is very particular about limiting the number of things that are absolutely fundamental to the existence of the religion. And yes I know the Chasam Sofer.
June 2, 2014 11:03 pm at 11:03 pm #1095041bhe (Joseph)ParticipantPAA: How do you answer the CS? And how do you answer Rambam?
June 2, 2014 11:08 pm at 11:08 pm #1095042HaLeiViParticipantIt doesn’t have to be a fundamental of the religion to make the denial of it an apikores (or an edited — as some mods took to calling it).
And I’m sure you must be aware of the myriad of Meforshim who explain that Reb Hillel was obviously not going against the Pesukim and he only meant that the Kibutz Galuos and Binyan Habayis will go straight to Hashem Melech and bypassing the stage of a Melech Basar Vadam. Right?
Let’s also not forget the Gemara’s reaction to his statement. The Gemara is essentially saying that he needs a Kappara. If you say it after this, then you can be at best an ???? ?????.
June 2, 2014 11:12 pm at 11:12 pm #1095043Patur Aval AssurParticipantbhe:
Something can be a machlokes. One need go no further than the hasagos haRaavad to see this.
June 2, 2014 11:13 pm at 11:13 pm #1095044To be or not to beMemberJune 2, 2014 11:15 pm at 11:15 pm #1095045Patur Aval AssurParticipantHaleivi:
So define Apikorsus and then explain how something can at one point not be apikorsus and then become apikorsus.
DISCLAIMER:
I am not advocating any non-belief. I am just pilpuling on the technicality of whether it is apikorsus or not.
June 2, 2014 11:16 pm at 11:16 pm #1095046popa_bar_abbaParticipantPAA
L’dvarecha, if a person beleives in most of Islam (if not all) he is also not an apikores, but odu li mihas that he isn’t practicing judaism.
This dude can’t daven a single tefillah without saying things he doesn’t believe.
June 2, 2014 11:18 pm at 11:18 pm #1095047Patur Aval AssurParticipant“Let’s also not forget the Gemara’s reaction to his statement. The Gemara is essentially saying that he needs a Kappara. If you say it after this, then you can be at best an ???? ?????.”
It wasn’t the Gemara’s reaction; it was R’ Yosef’s reaction. That might be a difference.
June 2, 2014 11:48 pm at 11:48 pm #1095048HaLeiViParticipantIf he made a mistake and it was pointed out, then insisting on that refuted view is going against the Pesukim.
I am not that enthralled with Apikursus to think about it all day and ponder who’s in and who’s out. As I pointed out another time, people research topics that interest them. I keep on seeing this conversation, over and over again, of how far exactly may one go and not be, or be called, an Apikores. Is it really that interesting?
June 2, 2014 11:54 pm at 11:54 pm #1095049To be or not to beMemberFree translation from the rambam, hilchos melochim perek yud aleph halacha aleph;
“In the future, the Messianic king will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel…Anyone who does not believe in him or does not await his coming, denies not only the statements of the other prophets, but those of the Torah and Moses,” i.e., apikorus
June 3, 2014 12:55 am at 12:55 am #1095050charliehallParticipant“By definition, fundamentals of the religion cannot change. “
I don’t think that is the case. There were rishonim who clearly rejected HaShem’s non-corporeality. And most of us pray to angels these days.
June 3, 2014 1:24 am at 1:24 am #1095051To be or not to beMember“I don’t think that is the case. There were rishonim who clearly rejected HaShem’s non-corporeality” really!! can you quote me one of them I’d like to see it inside and see exactly what THEY ment
“And most of us pray to angels these days” I most certainly don’t, and if you do then you should check which religion you are part of
June 3, 2014 1:42 am at 1:42 am #1095052Patur Aval AssurParticipant“I don’t think that is the case. There were rishonim who clearly rejected HaShem’s non-corporeality. And most of us pray to angels these days.”
That just means that it is a machlokes whether it is a fundamental belief.
June 3, 2014 1:49 am at 1:49 am #1095053Patur Aval AssurParticipantTo be or not to be:
Free translation from the Sefer Haikkarim Maamar Rishon Perek 1:
(referring to the Rambam’s statement about Mashiach) “And this is very astounding, for we find in Sanhedrin that R’ Hillel who was one of the sages of Israel that are are mentioned in the Talmud said ‘there is no Mashiach for Israel…’ Now according to the Rambam this sage would be in the category of heretics and those who have no share in the world to come. This begs the question – If this is so why does the Gemara mention him if he is exluded from the congregation of Israel and did not believe in the fundamentals of the religion?”
June 3, 2014 2:01 am at 2:01 am #1095055Patur Aval AssurParticipant“”And most of us pray to angels these days” I most certainly don’t, and if you do then you should check which religion you are part of”
Did you ever say Machnisei Rachamim or Malachei Rachamim or Torah Hakedosha in Selichos?
June 3, 2014 2:02 am at 2:02 am #1095056HaKatanParticipantDr. Hall:
Nobody prays to angels.
Regarding Machnisei Rachamim, for those that say this piece, it is asking the angels to do their job, so to speak.
But the only address for prayer, as in when asking to be granted anything or to change anything, etc., is Hashem.
June 3, 2014 2:04 am at 2:04 am #1095057Patur Aval AssurParticipant“PAA
L’dvarecha, if a person beleives in most of Islam (if not all) he is also not an apikores, but odu li mihas that he isn’t practicing judaism.
This dude can’t daven a single tefillah without saying things he doesn’t believe”
I never offered my opinion on this specific individual.
June 3, 2014 2:16 am at 2:16 am #1095058To be or not to beMemberas mentioned before A)The Gemara is essentially saying that he needs a Kappara B)there are rishonim about what hillel meant. I will check out the sugya during night seder im yertze hashem and regarding machnesei rachamim, a pshat I heard is that we are asking the malachim that we create through our mitzvos to bring our zchusim to hashem ( remember those malachim you learnt about in school? wholehearted mitzvos get healthy malachim and vice versa?)
June 3, 2014 2:17 am at 2:17 am #1095059popa_bar_abbaParticipantForget the specific individual. A person who doesn’t believe in mashiach cannot daven a single tefillah without it being half stuff he doesn’t believe in.
Like someone who believes Mohammed is a prophet, they may not be an apikores but they sure aren’t practicing Judaism.
June 3, 2014 2:17 am at 2:17 am #1095060Patur Aval AssurParticipantHakatan:
The Rambam includes using them as an intermediary even if you are not directly praying to them.
June 3, 2014 3:10 am at 3:10 am #1095061Patur Aval AssurParticipant“there are rishonim about what hillel meant”
Obviously. The Sefer Haikkarim brings R’ Hillel as a kashya on the Rambam.
“a pshat I heard is that we are asking the malachim that we create through our mitzvos to bring our zchusim to hashem”
See my response to Hakatan.
June 3, 2014 3:12 am at 3:12 am #1095062Patur Aval AssurParticipant“Forget the specific individual. A person who doesn’t believe in mashiach cannot daven a single tefillah without it being half stuff he doesn’t believe in.”
If I don’t care that he doesn’t believe in Mashiach you expect me to care that he doesn’t say every word in davening?
June 3, 2014 3:17 am at 3:17 am #1095063Patur Aval AssurParticipantThe Rambam himself says (Melachim 12:2):
??? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????. ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ???????. ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???. ??? ??? ???? ???????. ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ???. ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ???. ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??????. ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???. ??? ????? ????. ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????. ??? ?? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????. ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??????
(Not that this diminishes what he holds about belief in Mashiach)
June 3, 2014 3:34 am at 3:34 am #1095064Patur Aval AssurParticipantR’ Dovid Sinzheim in Sheva Chakiros writes:
??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???”? ????? ????? ??? ??”? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????????? ?? ?????? ????”? ??? ??? ????? ?”? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?”? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ????
June 3, 2014 4:07 am at 4:07 am #1095065Sam2ParticipantPAA: This thread is about him, though, and he is an Apikores. This is not the place to debate technicalities of Apikorsus. We can start a different thread for that.
June 3, 2014 6:27 am at 6:27 am #1095066HaLeiViParticipantAlthough this Nareshkeit of how we pray to Malachim was refuted here, since it is so much fun to bring it up again, nothing will stop it from being repeated. The same goes for the famous Shita of “rishonim” that we only know existed from a reference of the Raavad who disagreed anyhow.
June 3, 2014 9:43 am at 9:43 am #1095067jewishfeminist02MemberOy. I will admit that I really did not realize quite how radical Open Orthodoxy has become. This is sad.
June 3, 2014 1:03 pm at 1:03 pm #1095068Patur Aval AssurParticipant“Although this Nareshkeit of how we pray to Malachim was refuted here”
Tell that to the Maharal who wrote: ??? ???
?????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????
??? ?????? ???’, ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????
????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????
??
and he concludes and says: ???? ?? ????
????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????, ??????
???? ?????? ???????, ?????? ???? ??????
????????, ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????
??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ?????
?????? ??????.
Also see Chasam Sofer O.C. 166
June 3, 2014 1:13 pm at 1:13 pm #1095069zahavasdadParticipantthe fact of the matter is Open Orthodoxy is small and basically unimportant. I seriously doubt many followers of the Novominsker Rebbe are attracted to Open Orhtodoxy
June 3, 2014 1:18 pm at 1:18 pm #1095070☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantThere are still some people who don’t say ?????? ????? or make that change, but in the majority, the ???”? is not followed.
???”? believing in ????, which was universally accepted.
June 3, 2014 1:38 pm at 1:38 pm #1095071Patur Aval AssurParticipant“The same goes for the famous Shita of “rishonim” that we only know existed from a reference of the Raavad who disagreed anyhow.”
I posted some other sources but apparently the moderators did not allow it.
June 3, 2014 1:40 pm at 1:40 pm #1095072bhe (Joseph)ParticipantPAA: If you’re going to use the “machlokes” angle, then 1) you surely should have no objections calling Yanklowitz an apikorus based on *us* holding of the Rambam (and CS) and 2) you apparently accept finding and practically holding from any or every quaint and generally unaccepted halachic opinion buried anywhere in the sources to basically hold whatever you happen to find, however rejected that opinion is (such as the corporeality of Hashem.)
zd: The Novominsker wasn’t concerned with his followers falling for these deviants. He was primarily concerned with the out of town communities where these malcontents are taking rabbinic pulpits and/or otherwise influencing local Orthodox communities.
June 3, 2014 1:50 pm at 1:50 pm #1095073gavra_at_workParticipantZD: It does matter, because OO is growing (especially outside of the NYC area). It is important that the Orthodox world does not give legitimacy to that movement if (and yes, that is a big if, but it seems to be the case) it does not follow Halachah.
June 3, 2014 1:52 pm at 1:52 pm #1095074Patur Aval AssurParticipantbhe:
I think we need some clarification. I never said that disbelieving inMashiach or believing in corporeality is acceptable. I also never said that it is ok to rely on buried sources. My only point is that it doesn’t make sense (to me) that the definition of heresy can change over time. Therefore, if the Rambam is right then there were Rishonim (perhaps an amora) who were heretics, and if the Rambam was wrong then the people nowadays are not heretics.
June 3, 2014 2:00 pm at 2:00 pm #1095075zahavasdadParticipantzd: The Novominsker wasn’t concerned with his followers falling for these deviants. He was primarily concerned with the out of town communities where these malcontents are taking rabbinic pulpits and/or otherwise influencing local Orthodox communities.
OO isnt getting many pulpit positions out of town either, but if the was really concerned instead of condeming OO, why doesnt the Agudah send people to these communities to take these jobs.
Chabad does this and has alot of influence than OO does.
June 3, 2014 2:40 pm at 2:40 pm #1095076popa_bar_abbaParticipantHow about if he doesn’t wear techeiles, then would you care?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.