- This topic has 288 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“PAA- that’s not fair at all. 1,000 years ago, the people who believed in fairies were wrong, and we know that now. People who believe in fairies today are not just wrong, but stupid. Same case here. Someone who made an incorrect hashkafic calculation generations ago was wrong. Now that they have been wrong for years, for you to agree with them is like believing in fairies, in that both are stupid.”
First of all, would you say the same thing about sheidim as you said about fairies?
Second of all, there is a difference between heretical and stupid. Perhaps what you mean to say is that 1000 years ago people were accidentally heretics whereas today they are knowingly heretics. But even if that was what you meant, how could you KNOW now that they were wrong? For the same price, as saying other Rishonim were wrong, you could say the Rambam was wrong.
“Also, do you remember that you posted:
?”
Do I have to agree with every quote that I post? In the pursuit of intellectual honesty I am entitled to quote people who disagree with me.
In other words ‘do I have to be consistent and not hypocritical.’
“So if a Kofer in Techeiles is also Kofer on Moshiach that might be a redeeming factor, since he won’t have Sam’s problem”
A kofer in techeiles is a kofer in the whole torah since it is shekulah k’neged kulam
rationalfrummie:
It is not hypocritical to state a position and then acknowledge dissenting opinions.
Perhaps an example of hypocrisy would be to say that if someone believes XYZ he is a heretic yet people in the past who believed XYZ were not heretics (assuming you can’t explain why).
“Nothing to do with heretics.”
Well then you’ll have to explain what you mean.
Well then you’ll have to explain what you mean.
exactly what I said 4 times already. That it isn’t Judaism as it is practiced today and was practiced for thousands of years.
So that even if he is not a heretic, he has nothing in common with Judaism.
Which part of this thread are you not following?
Rational gave a good explanation. They were mistaken, since they believed something that happens to be heresy. The question you posed to him does not go against his point. It could be asked before he made that point. It is the next stage that you were waiting to put up. But the question of if those in earlier times are heretics was answered.
As to your next point, it is not as if we have two prevalent Shitos. There was an obscure view which was rebuffed all around by all the famous Rishonim. This applies to Reb Hillel as it applies to anonymous “Gedolim Mimenu’s.”
Besides, I take issue with the famous new idea that we can’t Pasken beliefs, which comes with many Yotzei Min Haklalim. The Maggid Shiur you mentioned who lambasts Daas Torah based on his Rebbi’s final decision (and who quotes his Rebbe reverently about all types of non-Torah topics), also holds that when it comes to the 13 principles there is a Psak, for some reason. Well, Moshicah is one of them.
PAA: It doesn’t matter. At all. And I’ll explain why.
Whether or not someone is a Kofer is up to HKBH. It has no Nafka Minas to us. So if someone accidentally or intentionally has beliefs that may cost them their Olam Haba, it does not relate to us.
Ah, but what about the fact that a Kofer is Dino K’Goy? That’s only because a Mumar L’Avodah Zarah/K’fira is a Mumar L’chol HaTorah Kula. But as long as they don’t think they’re a Kofer (i.e. as long as they think their views fall in with traditional Torah Judaism) then they’re not Mumrim for Kol HaTorah, so their food, wine, Shechita, etc. are fine. This is quite clear from the beginning of Maseches Chullin.
Ah, but you’ll tell me that Shmuely Yanklowitz and Zev Farber thinks their views are legitimate Torah views. I’ll tell you that they are lying to both you and themselves. They know what they’re saying is K’fira. They just want to redefine K’fira (and Judaism). Which is exactly what K’fira is.
“They were mistaken, since they believed something that happens to be heresy”
So you are alleging that nebach an apikores is not an apikores. Regarding paskening beliefs, I will quote from what I posted in the Daas Torah thread: “see the Rambam peirush hamishnayos Sotah 3:5, Sanhedrin 10:3, Shavuos 1:4, Sefer Hamitzvos Lo Saaseh 133, Maamar Techias Hameisim, and R’ Shmuel Hanagid’s Mavo Hatalmud (the last line) for a start” This is also relevant to the other issue that I brought up which is that if there was a dissenting view at some point, then you can’t KNOW which view was correct.
you can’t KNOW which view was correct
Define “correct”.
“nebach an apikores is not an apikores” applies to fundamentals of Judaism, as in HKBH, Torah, Chiyuv Mitzvos. I told you early on in this conversation that Apikursus is not just the basic fundamentals. This idea of Nebach an Apikores doesn’t apply to a certain wrong idea. It means that when someone, for whatever reason, doesn’t subscribe to listening to Hashem and His Torah, he is not Jewish.
Sam, I think you can even go further.
You can say they are choshud to be tofeis any other shittas yochid of questionable interpretation that has irregardless been rejected for thousands of years.
So can you eat their kashrus? Of course not. Maybe they eat bsar of bchalav. (Which is far less radical)
Can you drink their wine? Of course not. Maybe they are oveid avodah zarah with it in a way that they think is muttar.
Can you marry into their families? Of course not, maybe they are miyabeim a tzaras habas.
Haleivi:
While I will grant that there are some who use such a limud zechus (see Radvaz ????? ??? ??? for instance) it seems pretty clear that the Rambam does not hold of such an idea. This can be demonstrated by the mere fact that the Raavad has his kashya on the Rambam. But the Lechem Mishna even says it explicitly: ?? ?? ??? ????”? ?”? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ??’ ??? ???? ?????? ????????. ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??”? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ???
“Define “correct””
The actual reality. For example whether H’ can have a corporeal manifestation or not. There is only one objective reality answer to that question. Either the Rambam is correct or those who believed otherwise are correct.
The actual reality
We can only deal with belief as a practical matter. I need to know what to believe for myself, and for anyone whose chinuch I am responsible for, and I need to know which beliefs are outside of halachic acceptability for halachic purposes. I am not going to decide whether Shmuly Yanklowitz will go to Gan Eden or Gehinnom, but I do need to know whether I can drink his wine, allow him to speak in my shul, and whether he (or anyone with his beliefs) should be considered worthy of Jewish leadership. To these questions, the answer is a resounding “NO!”.
There is no greater reality than what the Torah wants us to believe.
Now we have pretty much thus far only been focusing on three of the Rambam’s ikkarim so far. But some of the other ones there is far more dissent. For instance in #7 the Rambam writes: ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? yet R’ Tzadok in Resisei Layla writes: ?????? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??????? and the Baal Hatanya writes similarly in Iggeres Hakodesh 19 (although he does justify it somewhat). And the Ramban writes (Kisvei Rabeinu Moshe Ben Nachman p. ???) that Mashiach will surpass Moshe. There are others as well which perhaps I will post later.
The actual reality. For example whether H’ can have a corporeal manifestation or not. There is only one objective reality answer to that question. Either the Rambam is correct or those who believed otherwise are correct.
Ah, but I’m more concerned with how I’m supposed to act. And the torah is lo b’shomayim.
The title of apikores is not about making fun of them; its about knowing whether there is a mitzva to make fun of them, and if I can eat from their kashrus, etc.
“And the torah is lo b’shomayim.”
Which means that you can pasken against H’. But that’s not what we are discussing. Can you explain to me how you can PASKEN whether or not H’ has a corporeal manifestation. This is precisely why people say there is no such thing as a PSAK in these matters – it simply is illogical to PASKEN a metzius.
“The title of apikores is not about making fun of them; its about knowing whether there is a mitzva to make fun of them, and if I can eat from their kashrus, etc.”
I’m not going to argue with that. Even if you agree to me that you can’t pasken beliefs, I will have to agree to you that there has to be a system to govern our actions and perhaps the system should be that anyone who doesn’t follow the Rambam in this you can’t trust their kashrus. But on that note you should also not trust the kashrus of any rishonim/acharonim who disagreed with the Rambam on these issues.
“For example whether H’ can have a corporeal manifestation or not. There is only one objective reality answer to that question. Either the Rambam is correct or those who believed otherwise are correct.”
And I have no way of knowing (unless one side can bring a definitive raya to their position).
Can you explain to me how you can PASKEN whether or not H’ has a corporeal manifestation.
We can certainly pasken how to treat someone who believes it.
But on that note you should also not trust the kashrus of any rishonim/acharonim who disagreed with the Rambam on these issues.
Is that nogeia l’maaseh?
Patur Aval Assur, regarding your question how someone who holds like R’Hillel be an apikoires: If there is a machlokes in the Gemorah if one is allowed to do something on Shabbos and we pasken le’chumrah. If someone goes and does it nowdays, he is a mechallel Shabbos. The same is with the R’Hillel’s shittah.
And I have no way of knowing
So what you are saying is that you are not ma’amin be’emunah sh’leimah?
“So what you are saying is that you are not ma’amin be’emunah sh’leimah?”
What I’m saying is that it is very hard to believe something be’emunah sh’leimah if you acknowledge the possibility that this belief might be incorrect.
“Patur Aval Assur, regarding your question how someone who holds like R’Hillel be an apikoires: If there is a machlokes in the Gemorah if one is allowed to do something on Shabbos and we pasken le’chumrah. If someone goes and does it nowdays, he is a mechallel Shabbos. The same is with the R’Hillel’s shittah.”
That’s because a psak can be set and it can be changed but it makes no difference what the reality is. When it comes to beliefs, the things that we are believing are either true or not true. And that can’t change from the time of the Gemara to now. Beliefs are taluy on the metzius. Now if you want to tell me to believe something even though it might not be true i.e. we pasken what you have to believe, see my response to DaasYochid in which I point out the cognitive dissonance involved in such a position.
it is very hard to believe something be’emunah sh’leimah if you acknowledge the possibility that this belief might be incorrect
Right. That’s why you’re supposed to reject the other possibility as incorrect, which shouldn’t be difficult if you think that Hashem is not out to get you.
Was H’ out to get the ?????? ?????? ???? who believed in corporeality?
You’re missing the point. Of course He wasn’t. They made a ta’us, but they are excused for it. If we made the same ta’us, despite the benefit of an accepted psak, we would not be excused.
PAA: It’s clear we don’t Pasken like the Rambam on an Apikores Sheta’ah Mitoch Limudo. We don’t throw out all the other Rishonim. Learn the first section of the Moreh. It’s clear we don’t hold of his conception of Olam Haba (and by that I mean it’s clear that almost all the other Rishonim and philosophical Achronim in history held by it) and therefore we’re not going to hold like him by an Apikores Sheta’ah Mitoch Limudo.
DaasYochid:
Let’s be absolutely clear using the example of corporeality:
1)Can it be definitively proven whether H’ has a corporeal manifestation or not?
2)If yes then the following is irrelevant
3)If no, then if for example H’ had a corporeal manifestation and then the “accepted psak” was that he does not have a corporeal manifestation, does H’s existence actually change?
4)If yes (to #3) then theoretically every Sanhedrin can pasken one way or the other so H’ is constantly changing his existence – this sounds kind of weird to say the least
4)If no, then how can you believe be’emuna sheleima one way or the other?
PAA, stop it. If someone in the past held a mistaken and roundly rejected by the Gemorah and all subsequent Gedolim opinion, one can’t come now and rely on it. Stop with your lawerly kup-dreing.
I never said that someone can rely on it. I am just discussing whether the person is in reality an apikores.
If he can’t rely on it, it makes him into apikores. Call a spade a spade.
For the approx 9th time, apikores is about how we treat them for various halachos; and not a question of “reality”.
(This is an example of where you ignore responses to you and talk “around” them. I have used this while trolling very effectively.)
PBA:
I have already agreed several times that I am not discussing how a person should be treated. I am discussing reality. The fact that I continue to discuss the objective reality does not mean that I am ignoring responses.
“If he can’t rely on it, it makes him into apikores. Call a spade a spade”
Like Poppa said, perhaps in regards to how we treat a person, we need to have a method of classification, but again that is not what I am discussing. In that issue, this might be no different than any halachic issue. But I am discussing whether the person himself is in reality an apikores and whether he will have a share in the world to come or not.
In fact I think what I quoted from R’ Dovid Sinzheim is actually saying this. He doesn’t say that such a person nowadays is an apikores; he says that such a person nowadays is considered an apikores.
I think there are two different discussions going on over here.
Before we move on to the second, I just want to ask PAA to please answer the initial question directly and simply:
For all practical purposes, do you agree that we consider Shmuly Yanklowitz to be an apikores for not believing that Moshiach will come?
You have already agreed with that? Link the post.
Like I have said, there has to be some way to make determinations for practical actions of every day life. If the accepted determination is whatever the Rambam said than so be it. However, being that we are only treating them this way because there has to be some method of deciding how to treat them, it should probably be limited to areas in which a determination is absolutely necessary. However, many of the areas in which there is a certain way to treat apikorsim should not be relevant if he really thinks that he has the accurate Torah Hashkafa. (I don’t know the person who is the subject of this thread so I don’t know whether that is the case here, but I am speaking in general terms.) Therefore I would be hesitant to openly mock such people, which is not to say that I wouldn’t express disagreement.
But my main purpose here is the second discussion.
I would be hesitant to openly mock such people
I think the very fact that we’re even having this discussion is an excellent reason to openly mock such people. I would be more inclined to leave a private person alone, but when someone openly declares himself an Orthodox Rabbi, and openly spews apikorsus, he and his views need to be openly mocked, not despite, but particularly because, someone like you can come along and even partially defend him and his views.
If I have time later, I will try to (again) address the second point.
“You have already agreed with that? Link the post”
Link the post where I disagreed.
And I know you’re going to say that you just wanted to point out that there is such an opinion in the Gemara, but you didn’t mean to say that you agree with it, and didn’t mean to necessarily defend Shmuly Yanklowitz, but you need to read your posts in context, as everyone else does.
I don’t see anywhere in that post where I discussed whether we should treat somoene as an apikores or not.
” think the very fact that we’re even having this discussion is an excellent reason to openly mock such people. I would be more inclined to leave a private person alone, but when someone openly declares himself an Orthodox Rabbi, and openly spews apikorsus, he and his views need to be openly mocked, not despite, but particularly because, someone like you can come along and even partially defend him and his views.”
I already said that I don’t know this particular person and what he actually thinks is correct and that I am speaking generally.
Again, context. You are not posting in a vacuum.
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that people put words into my words based on the context, or are you saying that that is what I actually said/meant?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.