Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
midwesterner:
When I say “wrong” I mean wrong about the cosmological reality of what was really the tenth of Tishrei according to the moon’s cycle.
Avram:
Regarding Yom Kippur, a person has every right to believe that in reality R’ Yehoshua was right and Rabban Gamliel was wrong and in fact you can’t fully believe that Rabban Gamliel was right, because it’s very likely that he was wrong. However the halachic principles tell us that we have to observe Yom Kippur AS IF Rabban Gamliel was right. But it doesn’t tell us anything about the underlying reality.
“but why is it not pashut if it has been settled by the Jewish people at large?”
Because we have no way of knowing if the Jewish people settled it correctly.
“This is consistent with our belief that Hashem guides and protects our people, and brings us close to Him”
1) So why didn’t he protect those who disagreed with the Rambam?
2) If we will be excused then there is nothing to be protected from so G-d does not have to intervene.
“Since this status is in our hands, I don’t think your step 8 works.”
I was principally talking about his actual status, not his societal status. But even regarding his societal status, if I am correct then if someone legitimately can’t completely believe something then perhaps he shouldn’t get the societal status either.
Correct. I am just pointing out that the Rambam uses incorporeality to prove an aspect of oneness but does not use oneness to prove incorporeality. (Which is not to say that your argument isn’t true. It’s just that the Rambam didn’t employ it in Yesodei Torah 1:7 where he discusses oneness and incorporeality. It could be he mentions it in some of the other places where he discusses these issues, perhaps I will check later.)
Sam2:
The Rambam says it the other way
???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????
In other words since there is no guf there can’t be multiple deities.
Avram:
The Rambam’s argument is that corporeality is a limitation (Yesodei Torah 1:7)
????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???
The other side of the coin is that not being able to have a corporeal manifestation is a limitation. Which I believe the Rambam discusses in the beginning of ???? ??????
“At this point we disagree only on semantics.”
This is not semantics at all. Someone who doesn’t know math cannot prove something in math. He can choose which group of mathematicians to rely on for practical purposes but he has no way to absolutely believe they are right. The best he can do is take his chances and follow them.
“If there was a way to objectively determine the truth/reality, then there would be no need to believe. It would be a proven and inarguable fact”
Avram:
I would say the steps slightly differently
1)Hashem is in reality either A (corporeal) or B (incorporeal)
2)There is a machlokes in this matter
3)It is not possible to KNOW which opinion is correct
4)It is not possible to absolutely believe that a certain side is correct because the other side might actually be right
5a)Either everyone who ever held the wrong belief is a kofer including Roshonim and including us
5b)Or everyone who held the wrong belief BECAUSE they had no way of definitively determining the truth is excused
6)The Rambam obviously holds that these things are pashut enough that there are no excuses, but for us once there is a machlokes, it is not pashut
7)Some people say that whichever side became accepted must be right because H’ wouldn’t let kefira become accepted
8)I object to step 7 because if you hold like 5b then it wouldn’t matter if kefira became accepted because we would be excused anyway and if you hold like 5a then the same way that H’ allowed earlier generations to be kofrim, he can allow us to be kofrim
9)Because of step 8, step 7 does not have to be true. Once it does not have to be true then we are by definition back to steps 3 and 4 and therefore either the Rishonim/Acharonim who disagreed with the Rambam were kofrim or everyone is excused. You can’t say that they were excused but we are not.
Feel free to dispute my logic. But if you do please explain why you disagree. (All my above steps do not apply to something about which there is an unequivocal tradition in which case we don’t have any sfeikos).
“Sam, I meant the status of a kofer b’bias goel”
I think that Mashiach has a different status than other ikkarim because the Gemara says that it’s an explicit nevuah of Zecharia and doesn’t provide any way out of that (as a justification for R’ Hillel).
???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????
Translation:
The past already happened, the future has yet to come, the present is like the blink of an eye, so why worry?
Gavra and Sam (and maybe DY but I think he already agrees with this):
Let’s use mashiach as a simple example. If you agree that there is no way to determine the objective reality of whether there will be a Mashiach (and assuming there was no nevuah or unanimous tradition) how would you believe that Mishiach will come. If you acknowledge that there is a deiah that there won’t be mashiach, and you acknowledge that there is no way to determine the reality then the best you can do is to think Mashiach will come or to be more noteh that he will come, but you can’t absolutely believe it.
“Correct, which is the point which proves you wrong, since Hashem does not demand the impossible from us. Again, ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???????.”
It doesn’t prove me wrong because according to me everyone would have the status that people before the psak had according to you.
I think DaasYochid and I actually agree on something – namely the impossibility of completely believing something you simultaneously acknowledge as not necessarily true.
“And if it turns out that the minority opinions (which have since been rejected) were correct on some Ikkarei Emunah, that’s okay. HKBH doesn’t expect us to discover the M’tziyus when we have no ability to do so. He expects us to do what we can.”
In which case there is no point in labeling somewhat an apikores if he really thinks that he has the Torah truth.
“This is what PAA refuses to acknowledge. He thinks if something was ever not-K’firah, then it has to remain not-K’firah L’olam Va’ed”
It depends what you mean by that. I definitely say that the objective truth of any of the matters can never change. If you just mean that something can become labeled as kefira even though it might not be kefira then I might agree somewhat (see my past posts).
“PAA, in fact the Gemorah says that R’Hillel needs forgiveness for what he said. It was not just stam an error”
That is an entire discussion in it’s own right. What did he need forgiveness for? Pashtus of the Gemara is that what he did wrong is that he went against the nevuah of Zecharia. The Gemara doesn’t mention anything about him violating an ikkur. If that is the case then it has no bearing on any other case where there is no explicit nevuah. If he needs forgiveness for the actual belief then that would disprove the psak thesis because R’ Hillel did nothing wrong if it hadn’t been paskened yet.
Gavra:
It’s very simple. Do you claim that you can definitively believe something to be absolutely true while still acknowledging the possibility that it might be false?
“Why does it need to be unanimous?”
Because otherwise we have no way of knowing definitively that it is true. Amid great trepidation I would go a step further and say that my answer has to be right because since you can’t prove definitively your idea about H’ forcing the psak to reflect the truth, that means that there is always a possibility that my answer is right and therefore there is a possibility that anything (that there is a machlokes on) is incorrect and therefore it becomes impossible to have emuna sheleima in any disputed matter.
“You didn’t say it, but it is the effect of your position”
No it’s not. It’s the effect of gavra’s position. The effect of my position is that anything that is known to be true via a unanimous tradition can be an obligatory belief, and regarding anything else, (if you want to avoid the possibility of H’ allowing you to get messed over) you are safe.
“We Pasken the belief is Apikorsus, with all of the practical results that come from that Psak. Who really cares what the objective reality is?”
Because then it can come out that you have to beleive be’emuna shelaima something which is false, and the knowledge of this possibility almost by definition makes emuna sheleima impossible.
I never said that it would be forbidden to believe the truth; just that the hechrech for why the consensus has to be correct is not a hechrech because even if the consensus was wrong and everyone believed the wrong thing they would be no worse than those before the consensus.
“If we assume that once there is a consensus on an Ikkar Emunah that that means that HKBH would not have allowed a wrong view to become consensus”
Even according to what you guys are saying, before the consensus, there are no taynas on someone who got it wrong. So you can’t use the fact that there is a consensus as a proof to who is right on the basis that HKBH would never let the consensus be wrong, because there wouldn’t be any problem if the consensus would be wrong – it would be the same as those who were wrong before the consensus.
In other words, your whole hechrech is that it is inconceivable that HKBH would allow the consensus to hold of heretical views yet that is not actually so inconceivable because there wouldn’t be any taynas on them for having the heretical views.
I am not discussing what the minhag haolam is to do. I am discussing what the halacha should be to do. According to many non-Rambamists, we would trust them. Again it depends on the specific case and the person’s intent, so don’t bring up anything about this particular individual. I don’t know anything about him. He might be an apikores but I don’t know and therefore I won’t offer an opinion on the matter.
“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”
Obviously there are people today who say that there is a psak. He quotes his Rebbe reverently but that doesn’t mean that he agrees wih him on everything (although that is really more relevant to the Daas Torah thread). Also, for the record, I have never heard him say that there is a psak (and I’ve listened to a bunch of his shiurim). Do you have a specific place where he says this, or are you just assuming?
Or it proves that you shouldn’t disqualify people
“But we don’t pasken like your simpler answer”
But according to my answer there is no such thing as paskening.
“They would not have succeeded. Hashem is more powerful than people”
I understand that he is more powerful, but that doesn’t mean he would take away their choice.
“I think your kasha night be a good enough source.”
No because there is a much simpler answer: There cannot be any mandated-on-pain-of-heresy beliefs if the Gemara did not record a unanimous tradition on the matter (which obviously the Rambam disagrees with). (I’m not saying that this is what I actually believe.)
“He would not allow Halacha l’maaseh to develop in such a way that one would be liable to be punished for believing something which is true”
That’s assuming that there can be a psak halacha l’maaseh.
But for the moment if I grant that there can be a psak, what happened before the psak was accepted? If you say that everyone was excused then there was no need for a psak. Besides it doesn’t really make too much sense because according to this we are worse off now that there is a psak – before the psak everyone could just believe what they thought but now they would be apikorsim. Also it sounds as if you are saying that it would be impossible for the wrong psak to be accepted. Do you know of any source for such an idea? And if people had tried to make the opposite psak become accepted what would happen?
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?
” 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.
I don’t see anywhere in that post where I discussed whether we should treat somoene as an apikores or not.
“You have already agreed with that? Link the post”
Link the post where I disagreed.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
I never said that someone can rely on it. I am just discussing whether the person is in reality an apikores.
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?
Was H’ out to get the ?????? ?????? ???? who believed in corporeality?
“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.
“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.
“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).
“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.