Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“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.
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.
“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.
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: ?? ?? ??? ????”? ?”? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ??’ ??? ???? ?????? ????????. ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??”? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ???
“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 be Toraso Umnaso even if you have a job.
Shulchan Aruch (Y.D 243:2)
????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?”? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??????
See also Shach (C.M. 124:4)
The above is referring to stam Toraso Umnaso. However there is a higher level of Toraso Umnaso in regards to being patur from Tefila:
?? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????. ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????”? ?”? (???? ?”? ?”?) ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ???”? (????????? ??? ?? ??’ ?) ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??????? (Perisha O.C. 106:5)
However see the Mishna Berura (146:9) quoting the Elya Rabba that in regards to learning during krias hatorah (about which there is an opinion that someone who is Toraso Umnaso is permitted to learn):
???’ ??”? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??
“Nothing to do with heretics.”
Well then you’ll have to explain what you mean.
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).
rationalfrummie:
It is not hypocritical to state a position and then acknowledge dissenting opinions.
“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
“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.
“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.
“Ok, so odu li mihas that even if you personally don’t care whether there is kiddush Hashem or chillul Hashem in the world, that a person who does not believe in the geulah is not practicing Judaism”
Well that is the whole topic that we are debating. I have no problem with saying that people who believe XYZ are heretics as long as you are consistent and say that people who believed XYZ in the past are also heretics.
“I know a Rav who once told his Talmidim that they shouldn’t wear T’cheiles because he doesn’t wear T’cheiles. He doesn’t wear it because his Rav doesn’t wear it, etc. And he said when you have 3 generations of Rabbonim who do/don’t do something then it gets a Halachic status.”
A halachic status k’neged halacha?
“Sure, but your position starting off was a technical question of whether one is a apikores for denying that there will be a geulah.
In which I note you’ve argued yourself into circles and quite forgotten what you’re argument is.”
I don’t think my position has changed. I’m still discussing whether denying the geulah makes you an apikores. There was a side point that on a personal level it doesn’t bother me what anyone believes. You then brought in techeiles (presumably it was somewhat in jest and making fun of the fact that I have been talking about techeiles a lot lately). But I don’t see that I changed anything.
Chashukei Chemed (Berachos 60b):
???? ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? “?????? ?????”, ???? ???? ???? ?????…
??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ‘????? ?????’ ?? ??????
Sefer Melamed Hatalmidim (Yisro):
?? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???’ ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?????
pba:
Let me explain myself. I don’t particularly care what any person does in his service of the Lord. I don’t mean that I don’t care at all; obviously I would love for everyone to serve the Lord properly. But it doesn’t bother me one iota how an individual chooses to do so. That being said, if someone can defend there actions then he is deserving of respect that someone who cannot defend his actions is not deserving of. Regardless of whether the issue is whether he davens or whether he wears Techeiles. Techeiles happens to be a good example because probably most people who don’t wear techeiles don’t really know why they don’t; they kind of just follow the crowd so to speak.
Whether Charlie is right or wrong, it was already called a stupid minhag by rishonim
The Rambam says:
??? ???
???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????
???? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ??????
“How about if he doesn’t wear techeiles, then would you care?”
If he can cogently give halachic reasoning for why he doesn’t then I respect that.
bhe:
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.
“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.
“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
R’ Dovid Sinzheim in Sheva Chakiros writes:
??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???”? ????? ????? ??? ??”? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????????? ?? ?????? ????”? ??? ??? ????? ?”? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?”? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ????
The Rambam himself says (Melachim 12:2):
??? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????. ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ???????. ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???. ??? ??? ???? ???????. ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ???. ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ???. ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??????. ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???. ??? ????? ????. ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????. ??? ?? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????. ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??????
(Not that this diminishes what he holds about belief in Mashiach)
“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?
“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.
Hakatan:
The Rambam includes using them as an intermediary even if you are not directly praying to them.
A Brisker and a Na Nach are roommates. Before going to sleep the Na Nach says with devotion “Naaaa”. The Brisker says “sssshhhhh”. The Na Nach then says “Naaaach”. Again the Brisker says “ssshhh”. The Na Nach then says “Naaachmaaa” and again the Brisker says “ssshhh”. The Na Nach says “Naaachmaaan” and again the Brisker says “ssshhh”. The Na Nach finally says “Meumaaaan” and the Brisker finally says “ssshhheeemmmaaa”.
“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.
“”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?
To 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?”
“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.
Why wouldn’t public issues fall under the category of ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??????
“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.
Haleivi:
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.
bhe:
Something can be a machlokes. One need go no further than the hasagos haRaavad to see this.
“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.
“Patur, according to your strict definition of Lo Sassur we shouldn’t be making a Bracha on Chanuka or Megilla.”
See the Torah Temima