Mashiach and Eliyahu Hanavi

amother

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 6:29 am

My point is not that R. Breuer has a traditional or "chareidi" view of Tanach, my point is that it is a complex and nuanced position which if taught correctly would not necessarily be anathema to traditionalists who have an open mind or who are bothered by Bible criticism. Furthermore, R. Breuer worked to ensure that his viewpoints would not be seen outside the rubric of traditional Jewish theology, and fought those who misunderstood him or purposely misinterpreted him, as you appear to be doing.

The fact that you bring it up at all in the manner that you did leads me to believe that you were either being inflammatory or trying to once again impress us by your knowledge or connections, neither of which have any place in any discussion of intellectual integrity. I also personally know many of the people whose names you have invoked (as a student) and save for a few I would imagine they'd find many of your posts cringeworthy. Even if you know them too and have laughed about those parochial chareidim together. You aren't doing anyone any favors.

sarahd

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 6:33 am

freidasima wrote:

Sometimes Sarahd to get people to understand you have to speak to them in their language.

But if you don't understand them why do you think they'll understand you?

freidasima

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 7:00 am

Once again, amother, you are turning and twisting and backtracking.
RaV Breuer's shita was ALWAYS anathema to traditionalists. He would often laugh about that fact with his colleagues and friends, saying that he wonders what his great great grandfather would have thought about it.

If you are trying to turn him into mainstream charedi or acceptable by those, You are the one who is purposely misinterpreting him. Your bad that I actually did know him as did my dh and many of our friends. You "imagine" this or that and state it as if it is fact. In truth it is your own conjecture. But it is so much more authoratative for an amother to state "I imagine" and then in her next sentence go on as if it were fact.

You have no idea how the people whose names I mention and that I know would react to A, B, or C. I can tell you that in the past few days I have shared with a few of them some of the things that charedi posters have written here in response to my posts and their basic response was that the ignorance and half truths that some posters here are showing is a sad but expected testimony to the hold of dogmatic fundamentalism on growing parts of the right wing (ultra) orthodox world. It wasn't meant as a compliment.

And once again, you are amother. Where exactly did you study with these rabbis and which ones are you referring to? Or is that going to be kept secret as well as your screenname...AMOTHER..?

amother

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 7:11 am

All I have to say is lol. You are quite predictable in your responses by this point, and they are getting rather sad and pathetic.

I am bowing out now since this is not a "discussion" but rather some kind of mind game or p@#$% contest, I just wanted to say for those of you who may feel "confused" by friedasima, don't. There are plenty of qualified people who can explain the MO or academic position satisfactorily, and she isn't one of them. Some posts are best left unread.

ally

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 7:17 am

amother wrote:

Just so you know, I reported you. If you want to sling insults, grow a pair and do it under your own name.

fromthedepths

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 7:19 am

Freidasima wrote:

Quote:

From the Depths, I was not talking about rav Feldman, you brought him up, I never mentioned him. I was referring for example to Rav Schach z"l, Rav Eliashiv z"l, and Rav Kanievsky's well known and vocal opposition to Har Etzion and Herzog as teaching apikorsus. Their statements on this topic over the past 20-30 years are well known and documented all over the charedi press in EY. If you want precise quotes you will have to go into Yated's (in Hebrew)'s database archives.

I just did, and did not find anything relevant. And I don't have more time to spend on this. All of us here have done the work of bringing sources. It's your turn now to actually find a relevant citation if you believe it exists.

I'm also wondering why FS is the only MO voice on this thread who claims what she does. All the other MO posters so far disagreed with her.

amother

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 7:23 am

ally wrote:

amother wrote:

Just so you know, I reported you. If you want to sling insults, grow a pair and do it under your own name.

I have my reasons for being amother, but I respect that. Someone needs to say these thing though.

freidasima

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 7:24 am

Thanks ally you beat me to it.

Amother you not only kind of stepped over the lines of personal attacks but you also prove that you really know nothing about the MO/DL world.

There IS no "one" MO position, there IS no "one "MO academic" position or "one" MO intellectual position.

That's the beauty of being MO. There is a whole gamut of thought which in the MO/DL world is civilly discussed, debated, argued, but one group does not usually villify the other, deligitimizing it, calling out a trump card of "doxos" (Belief) that one must adhere to. There is civil discussion and many different interpretations exist, with no group in the MO/DL world calling another a "kofer" or apikores.

The minute you talk about "THE" MO or academic position....amother you outed yourself either as a charedi who knows next to nothing about how things work in the MO world, or as an ex-mo who turned her back on the MO world and is now trying to throw stones at it.

Either way your arguments come up smelling like mud.

amother

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 7:27 am

freidasima wrote:

Different amother here: The bolded is a little like calling the kettle black, don't you think?

fromthedepths

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 7:34 am

freidasima wrote:

There IS no "one" MO position, there IS no "one "MO academic" position or "one" MO intellectual position.

That's the beauty of being MO. There is a whole gamut of thought which in the MO/DL world is civilly discussed, debated, argued, but one group does not usually villify the other, deligitimizing it, calling out a trump card of "doxos" (Belief) that one must adhere to. There is civil discussion and many different interpretations exist, with no group in the MO/DL world calling another a "kofer" or apikores.

Substitute "chareidi" for MO above, and you get a true statement.

Substitute "Jew" for MO above, and you get a true statement.

The only one here on imamother who has been consistently vilifying, delegitimizing, and calling out a trump card ("go read Rabbi Kellner's book, otherwise you're lazy") is... you, FS.

amother

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 7:50 am

freidasima wrote:

Um, no. THere IS an "MO position". That would be that we shouldn't put our heads in the sand with regard to Biblical Criticism, but rather engage it and see to what extent it can be reconciled with Torah principles. And in this regard R. Breuer has one approach and others come at it from a different perspective. All draw the line at certain principles. That is what makes us Orthodox.

MO is not a relativistic free for all, as you seem for some inexplicable reason to insist it is. The issue of at which principles we draw the line is what is driving a wedge within Modern Orthodoxy, and that is something that is up for debate and remains to be determined. But if a group of people do not have a common ideology then they aren't a group. Hence, MO has to believe some principles and reject others, otherwise there would be no such institution. There would be Modern Jewish Anarchy.

But you can ignore me since it appears that since I'm amother I'm not from Scotland.

ally

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 2:27 pm

amother wrote:

ally wrote:

amother wrote:

Just so you know, I reported you. If you want to sling insults, grow a pair and do it under your own name.

I have my reasons for being amother, but I respect that. Someone needs to say these thing though.

I disgaree.

You need to be amother to hide your secret anonymous identity, ok whatever.
But then you can't expect to be attributed the same amount of respect as someone who is using their anonymous identity (this is getting quite absurd). And you don't get to fling insults.
I think you also don't quite appreciate how annoying it is to argue with amother.

(You are the same amother who keeps popping up in all these threads, aren't you?)

JoyInTheMorning

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 3:11 pm

Potato Kugel, fromthedepths, amother, and others, here are some sources for you, as well as an appeal to some basic logic.

** Regarding whether or not belief in Moshiach in particular is obligatory and universal among the Tanai’im:
Sanhedrin 99a: (I’m copying and pasting from the Soncino translation at http://halakhah.com/sanhedrin/......html):

“R. Hillel7 said: There shall be no Messiah for Israel,8 because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah.”

This is in the context of a discussion of when Moshiach will come, how long his reign will be, etc. R. Hillel is vehemently disagreed with by R. Joseph, but the point is, he denied the coming of Moshiach. And nobody is calling R. Hillel an apikorus.

Of course, the very fact of the discussion and very wide range of opinions in the Gemara on the subject of Moshiach shows that it’s fairly meaningless to just say that one believes in Moshiach. It’s rather different if the days of Moshiach are forty years or 7000 years or forever and ever, to quote a few of the opinions in the Gemara. Are we referring to just an era in history that passes? Or one that passes but presumably leaves a lasting consequence (I.e, the reestablishment of Jewish hegemony)? Or to a real sea change in history, in which there are no longer eras in which different nations attain supremacy, but the Jewish nation becomes permanently supreme?

The concept of Moshiach changes radically depending on how one answers this question, and so does the nature of the sentence “I believe in the coming of Moshiach.” As is often the case with dogma, you can get around anything by redefining the terms in the piece of doctrine you’re demanding be believed. If that’s what you want to do, fine, but there’s precious little of real value to be gained by it. I went to a school where we learned plenty of Rav Hirsch, and also loudly recited the 13 ikkarim every day, but if you asked any two people (or even any one person) to define the terms that they shouted with such passion, you’d get a hodgepodge of inconsistency, not a testament to faith in anything.

[And, as anyone who has taken the most rudimentary course in mathematical logic should know, anything at all follows from two statements that are mutually inconsistent, so a willingness to believe any set of principles that is placed before oneself, without serious intellectual engagement, is less a sign of faith than of muddled thought.]

Recall, also, that this discussion happens in Perek 11 of Sanhedrin, which is virtually all aggada. It’s not halacha, and therefore it’s not binding on us. The Rambam himself posits that as a general principle!

** Regarding whether or not Jewish leaders in the past have all agreed with the Rambam:
It’s quite clear that R. Albo did not. His Sefer Haikkarim deliberately leaves out Moshiach. What are posters here saying when they are arguing that Albo was more “machmir” than the Rambam? What does “machmir” even mean, in the context of beliefs?

Moreover, Saadiah Gaon’s ten principles are not the same as the Rambam’s 13 ikkarim. What does that mean? Are we supposed to accept all of everyone’s ikkarim? Work on logically trying to reduce all sets into a single set? (I believe that would be impossible to do in purely logical terms. At best, we’d have to posit some background axioms, and then prove the equivalence of the sets of principles modulo these axioms. But that begs the question: who decides on what these axioms are?) If not, does Saadiah trump Albo? Rambam trump Saadiah? If the Rambam trumps everyone, and that was the last word on sets of beliefs, does that make Albo an apikoros? Does Saadiah get a pass because he came before Rambam, or would he be labeled an apikoros as well?

If indeed different sets of beliefs that have been put forth by great Jewish thinkers like Saadiah, Rambam, and Albo aren’t logically equivalent, doesn’t that demonstrate that there is no single Jewish dogma? How else do you explain it?

** Regarding the acceptability of doubt among the Orthodox:

Here’s a great source: Rabbi Norman Lamm, “On Faith and Doubt,” Tradition (I believe 1971; you can download it from the web). Rabbi Lamm persuasively argues that doubt is very different than rejection of a belief. As proof, he brings Rashi on TB Shabbat 31a regarding Hillel’s approach when faced with a would-be ger who wasn’t sure whether torah she be’al peh was divine in origin. Hillel continued to teach him; Rashi explains that since he didn’t outright reject the principle, but just voiced his doubt, that was acceptable.

Moreover, Rabbi Lamm points out that doubt meant something very different to Saadiah Gaon and the Rambam than to Orthodox Jews today. Saadiah and Rambam were supreme rationalists. They truly believed that if a person applied himself, he could come to know Hashem and His properties; that they were self evident. So, a state of doubt meant that a person wasn’t really trying to see the light. I don’t know of any person who is in this situation nowadays. Certainly from the mathematical point of view, our notion of what a proof is has undergone a sea change since medieval times. This has affected not only how mathematicians think; it’s filtered down to non-mathematicians as well. We’re all familiar, in some manner or other, with Kant’s refutation of the ontological and cosmological arguments for the existence of G-d. We’re aware of the fallacies of the “proofs” of G-d’s existence through the argument by design, or of first cause. As much as we try, it’s not going to be solely through intellectual effort that faith will come. (Which makes sense to me: I would not think it fair if the math and logic people got a head start on being good Jews because it was easier for them to believe in Hashem, and the learning disabled people had it harder in this respect as well. That wouldn’t seem fair. (And I say this as a math and logic person.) I’m not sure where my faith comes from, but I know it’s not just from logic and math. Logic helps me think through things about Hashem, but there’s something deeper and more basic that is the source of my faith.)

So, argues Rabbi Lamm, we no longer penalize the person who doubts. Doubt is acceptable, as long as the person commits to belonging to Orthodox society and to the halachic society. This is exactly what freidasima said.

** Regarding measuring sources:

Potato Kugel, I haven’t gone through all your sources, and I don’t plan to. I’m not impressed by the length of your list vs. the relative brevity of mine. Oy and vey that one can so easily gather together so many instances of one rav heaping calumny on others who think differently. I understand the desire of Jewish leaders at so many periods in Jewish history to draw lines in the sand, to think that drawing such a line would protect against becoming a converso, or joining the haskalah, or succumbing to the temptations of the New World. But besides the fact that drawing such lines doesn’t seem to have worked --- for the most part, these rabbanim were preaching to the metaphorically converted --- I also don’t see these diatribes as having halachic import.

[Think about all the rabbanim who opposed Sarah Schenirer and forbade girls from studying Torah. (After all, not teaching girls Torah comes straight from the Gemara and is right there in the Rambam too!) Somehow, the objections and diatribes were withdrawn. Clearly, they weren’t halachic statements to begin with.]

Anyway, the fallacy in source counting, which Potato Kugel and her followers are doing, is as follows: If indeed the default position is that there is no Jewish dogma, then one isn’t going to say so all the time, because one doesn’t state the default. So if you tell me of 100 rabbanim who label as heretics those who believe differently, my question is: how many rabbanim in total are we speaking about? 300? Then no dogma wins over dogma 2-1. 1000? Then no dogma wins over dogma 9-1. Give me some numbers, and we can see which side “wins.” But how you can expect freidasima to give you a source for the default position? Why should anyone articulate the default position?

** One more random thing

Rabbi Bleich is a great Torah scholar and intellectual. I often disagree with him, but always respect him. However: don’t call him Modern Orthodox. He and his family are very yeshivish. Calling him MO isn’t true and he wouldn’t like it. And it’s intellectually dishonest to cite him as evidence of what the Modern Orthodox community thinks.

(This will probably be my only post in this thread for at least a week. It’s not that I can’t answer the inevitable objections; it’s that I don’t have the time.)

Potato Kugel

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 3:46 pm

Joy in the Morning,
Thanks for your post.
However, I disagree vehemently with just about each and everything you stated.
First off, yes, much of the discussion of the Coming of Moshiach is found in "Aggada Portions", however the Rambam does rule on it halachically, the same Rambam who you yourself quoted as stating one does not have to regard Aggada as Halacha.
In other words, the Rambam saw the discussion of Moshiach as Halachic, not Aggadic, or he wouldn't have ruled on it, following the rules he himself brought down.

Secondly, of course in Talmud there is an argument regarding Moshiach.
There is "machlokes" on virtually every Halacha. It so happens that regarding this topic the arguement is more "mystical based" (Moshiach is understood by all and indicated in the Gemora in numerous places as being an intermediate phase so to speak the "machlokes" was whether this intermediate phase happened or will happen, the Halacha was that it will happen not that it happened).
However, the Halacha was ruled in accordance with the opinion that Moshiach will come and the consesus from the time of the Rambam has been that it is heretical to deny that.

I fail to grasp how you can say Ikrim left it out.
I, and others, quoted the exact words of Ikkrim (R' Albo's sefer) stating belief in the coming of Moshiach is mandatory on all Jews who believe in Toras Moshe and gave the exact location of the statement in Ikkrim!

Now to state that one can go back to an original Gemorah and rule accordingly in the face of what has been the consensus Halacha for hundreds upon hundreds of years is exactly what Kellner and Shapiro and co. argue for, and it is why I noted they acknowledge that they are attempting to re-interpet Judaisim!
It also means that one basically feels they are free to re-decide any Halacha period. And rejects the notion of Mesorah in any way shape or form.

In fact, the Talmud itself indicates one cannot do so. Famously in the many disputes between Bes Hillel and Beis Shammai the Talmud stated one who practices in accordance with Beis Shammai is deserving of death.
In the case of Tanur Achnai, the greatest scholar of the generation, as acknowledged by all, was put in cherem for persisting in ruling against the accepted majority even thought he brought proofs from Heaven he was correct.
In the case of Rabbi Yehoshua he violated his own ruling to publicly show he followed the ruling of Rabban Gamliel.
These are just three of a host of other examples.
Bringing a "source" that is a shitta in Talmud that we do not follow is not a source at all.
Period.

And I brought a list of sources in response to a simple statement.
FS claimed that there is not one Rabbi who will ever state that one who does not believe in Moshiach is not a good Jew.
I listed a cross section of the Greatest Rabbis since the time of the Rambam who stated just that in Halachic Teshuvos.
You cannot regard it as Halacha, however they certainly meant it as such as those Shutim deal with the very Halachic topics of "yayin nesech" and cremation (just examples)

As for Dr. Lamm:
If Dr. Lamm wishes to argue upon the accepted Halacho as widley accepted among the Rishonim and by all since that time (as noted in Encyclpedia Talmudis, a non-chareidi source) then I am sure you can understand why he is no accepted by much of the Orthodox world. (and I state Orthodox not Chareidi for a reason).

Last edited by Potato Kugel on Sun, Jun 30 2013, 6:01 pm; edited 2 times in total

Potato Kugel

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 4:02 pm

A for you positing that the fact there is no "dogma" in Jewish thought is the default position.
That is ludicrous.
In Talmud, there is dogma; many sources have been provided.
In Rishinim there is Dogma.
The greatest of the greats in fact wrote it out.
In Halacha it has always been accepted.
As I qouted in another thread Rav Hirsh himslef stated bluntly to seperate Jewish Doigma from scholarship is untenable.
So all the Rabbonim from the time of Talmud till Kellner, Shapiro and co. published their works stated dogma is part and parcel of Jewish Law.
Yet somehow you state the default position is that there is no dogma.
Like I stated even Shapiro and Kellner have the intellectual honesty to admit they are attempting to re-interpet Judaisim.
In Kellners case he claims it is to prevent intermarriage, in Shapiro's case because he is an "acedemic and doed not like the traditional approach".
But it is re-inventing none the less.
And traditionalists do not accept it as they have no interest in "re-interpeting" anything, especially on grounds that have disproven quite easily (I.e Buchmans refutation of Shapiro's thesis, and Prof Bergers scorching review of Kellner in Tradition)
Though I will admit that outside MO (Buchman is a YU grad) there has been very little written in rebuttal, as you would be hard pressed to find someone in the Chareidi world who has even heard of Kellner or Shapiro much less read their works.
They are simply considered "outside the fold" so no one has to bother refuting works that have never been read.
However in the MO world where they have gained some traction there have been refutations by the traditional YU and Dati Leumi world (again, as opposed to Chardal which view themselves as charedim in every sense excluding zionism).

Last edited by Potato Kugel on Sun, Jun 30 2013, 6:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

fromthedepths

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 4:26 pm

JoyInTheMorning, thank you for a polite, respectful, and articulate post! It's so much easier to discuss this subject when I don't feel that my religious world is under attack.

Having said that, I strongly disagree with your points, along the lines of what Potato Kugel wrote. Unfortunately, I don't have time to reply ATM, but IY"H will get to it later tonight.

Potato Kugel

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 6:15 pm

Just one more thing.
Dr. Lamm's reasoning, at least what you posted does not really stand up to "examination".
The Gemora in Shabbos is discussing teaching a potential convert. What diqualifies a "potential" convert what doesn't.
What does that have to do with an actual practicing jew?
And what he claims from Kant ect..
Once again he is claiming that I think the Rambam & Ramban only stated their laws because they felt one way. Now I can demonstrate thats not the case so therefore I don't have to rule accordingly.
Who said that the Rambam, Ramban or anyone else for that matter actually based their ruling on his logic?
Now, I for one, do not accept the underpinnings of Dr. Lamms arguements. I have argued and have seen proof given that God exists attend any Discovery Seminar and you'll see it as well. And on a mass scale usually with several PhD's and other "professionals in the audience.
(For a matter of fact discussion on the topic in the Rambam one can see Avi Ezri, Hilchos Teshuva Perek Hey Halacha Hey)
However even if one would accept the general premise that Gods existence is unprovable still that has nothing to do with whether or not the Rambam's ruling is based upon that.
If this is the most persuasive parts of Dr. Lamms arguemets that they are pretty weak indeed.
In fact Shapiro makes a better case for changing the way the Rambam is understood(albeit moderatley, considering the fact that he seems to be basing the core of his arguements on a series of Teshuvos that are considered forgeries by some of the biggest experts on the Rambam)
So once again the end result is that Dr. Lamm is re-interpeting Judaisim and washing away centuries of Halachic understanding and then acting surprised that he is not accepted as a normative Halachic thinker.

goodmorning

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 7:32 pm

I will add my thanks to that of the previous posters for the sources and well-reasoned post.

Nevertheless, some disagreements:

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

** Regarding whether or not belief in Moshiach in particular is obligatory and universal among the Tanai’im:
Sanhedrin 99a: (I’m copying and pasting from the Soncino translation at http://halakhah.com/sanhedrin/......html):

“R. Hillel7 said: There shall be no Messiah for Israel,8 because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah.”

This is in the context of a discussion of when Moshiach will come, how long his reign will be, etc. R. Hillel is vehemently disagreed with by R. Joseph, but the point is, he denied the coming of Moshiach. And nobody is calling R. Hillel an apikorus.

It was precisely about this Gemara that the quote that I cited from Rabbi Bleich's book pertains to. (As an aside, I never claimed that he was MO, or representative of the MO community, for exactly the reasons that you mention. It was FS who called him such. I was just countering her claim that only uneducated and brainwashed chareidim think that halacha demands belief in Moshiach. Anyone who knows Rabbi Bleich or is familiar with his works knows that the words "uneducated" and "brainwashed" are not adjectives fit to describe him.)

Rabbi Bleich's position, as I partially quoted earlier, is that, just like many other halachic opinions, belief in Moshiach (as to whether it will be through the intermediary of a person or not; see Rashi) was subject to machlokes. However, once the machlokes was paskened, "normative Halakhah demands acceptance of the belief that the redemption will be effected through the agency of a mortal messiah." In other words, your statement is akin to pointing a finger at R' Yosi HaGlili and saying "look, he allowed chicken and milk to be eaten together. And no one is accusing him of eating basar b'chalav!"

Quote:

Of course, the very fact of the discussion and very wide range of opinions in the Gemara on the subject of Moshiach shows that it’s fairly meaningless to just say that one believes in Moshiach. It’s rather different if the days of Moshiach are forty years or 7000 years or forever and ever, to quote a few of the opinions in the Gemara. Are we referring to just an era in history that passes? Or one that passes but presumably leaves a lasting consequence (I.e, the reestablishment of Jewish hegemony)? Or to a real sea change in history, in which there are no longer eras in which different nations attain supremacy, but the Jewish nation becomes permanently supreme?

I don't know why you think that the discussion about the length of the Messianic era necessarily leads to the conclusions that you (possibly) reach about its scope and impact. Knowing that which we know about the goal of Moshiach's arrival, to restore Malchus Beis Dovid and to usher in a time of peace and tranquility to allow us to devote our time solely to avodas Hashem, how does that square with thinking that it will be a transient era with no lasting impact? And given that the rebuilding of the Third Beis HaMikdash is synchronous with the arrival and establishment of Moshiach, and that Hashem promised that it will never be destroyed, viewing the time of Moshiach as a short blip in history seems very mistaken.

In light of the idea the context of the other discussions in Perek Cheilek about Yemos HaMoshiach and Olam Haba, it seems more correct to assume that Yemos HaMoshiach - however long or short they will be - will culminate in the transition to chayei Olam Haba, not an ignominious descent back to normalcy.

Quote:

Recall, also, that this discussion happens in Perek 11 of Sanhedrin, which is virtually all aggada. It’s not halacha, and therefore it’s not binding on us. The Rambam himself posits that as a general principle!

The Rambam formulates his 13 ikrim as binding lihalacha and reaffirms in his halachic work (Hilchos Melachim) that one who denies the coming of Moshiach is kofer in the words of the Torah and the neviim. Again, heretics are dealt with differently in halacha than believers, so the concept of heresy must be halachic in nature.

Quote:

** Regarding whether or not Jewish leaders in the past have all agreed with the Rambam:
It’s quite clear that R. Albo did not. His Sefer Haikkarim deliberately leaves out Moshiach. What are posters here saying when they are arguing that Albo was more “machmir” than the Rambam? What does “machmir” even mean, in the context of beliefs?

Moreover, Saadiah Gaon’s ten principles are not the same as the Rambam’s 13 ikkarim. What does that mean? Are we supposed to accept all of everyone’s ikkarim? Work on logically trying to reduce all sets into a single set? (I believe that would be impossible to do in purely logical terms. At best, we’d have to posit some background axioms, and then prove the equivalence of the sets of principles modulo these axioms. But that begs the question: who decides on what these axioms are?) If not, does Saadiah trump Albo? Rambam trump Saadiah? If the Rambam trumps everyone, and that was the last word on sets of beliefs, does that make Albo an apikoros? Does Saadiah get a pass because he came before Rambam, or would he be labeled an apikoros as well?

If indeed different sets of beliefs that have been put forth by great Jewish thinkers like Saadiah, Rambam, and Albo aren’t logically equivalent, doesn’t that demonstrate that there is no single Jewish dogma? How else do you explain it?

This is not true at all. See above for the direct quote (well, translation) of the Sefer HaIkrim on Moshiach. He firmly states that although one who does not believe in Moshiach is not a heretic, he has violated a mitzas asei. R' Saadia Gaon, likewise, affirms belief in Moshiach as mandatory (I can try to find the quote for you if you want it). In general, the different formulation of the ikrei emunah pertains to which beliefs can be derived from which other beliefs, or which beliefs are considered heresy. However, the belief in Moshiach (as all of the other 13 ikrim) is regarded by all three philosophers as halacha, even if they do not believe, as the Rambam, that denial is heresy. Again, that is what this conversation is about: Freidasima claimed that there is no halachic obligation to believe in Moshiach. That is not true according to any of the three philosophers whom you quoted (and many whom you have not).

Moreover, once again, if you view the theologic dogmas of Judaism as halachic in nature, then the fact that later poskim have paskened according to the Rambam's views renders the other views somewhat irrelevant for this conversation.

Quote:

** Regarding the acceptability of doubt among the Orthodox:

Here’s a great source: Rabbi Norman Lamm, “On Faith and Doubt,” Tradition (I believe 1971; you can download it from the web). Rabbi Lamm persuasively argues that doubt is very different than rejection of a belief. As proof, he brings Rashi on TB Shabbat 31a regarding Hillel’s approach when faced with a would-be ger who wasn’t sure whether torah she be’al peh was divine in origin. Hillel continued to teach him; Rashi explains that since he didn’t outright reject the principle, but just voiced his doubt, that was acceptable.

<snip>
So, argues Rabbi Lamm, we no longer penalize the person who doubts. Doubt is acceptable, as long as the person commits to belonging to Orthodox society and to the halachic society. This is exactly what freidasima said.

I am having a hard time understanding the relevance of this article to the discussion at hand. The article makes mention of a "will to believe" and of making faith a "goal." That is the underlying presumption of all that follows.

Had someone professed her difficulties in believing in Moshiach's arrival, I believe that she would have found sympathy and assistance among posters here (even if the Rambam might technically consider her a kofer!). What happened instead was that somewhat steadfastly insisted that there is no halachic obligation to believe in Moshiach. That is akin to the difference between someone posting that she has difficulty observing [insert name of favorite melacha] on Shabbos and one who proclaims that [melacha X] is not halachically binding. Again, both may be mechallelei Shabbos, but the scenarios are completely different. What does it mean to "commit[] to belonging to an Orthodox society and to the halachic society" if you deny the obligation of belief in their tenets?

Quote:

Potato Kugel, I haven’t gone through all your sources, and I don’t plan to. I’m not impressed by the length of your list vs. the relative brevity of mine. Oy and vey that one can so easily gather together so many instances of one rav heaping calumny on others who think differently. I understand the desire of Jewish leaders at so many periods in Jewish history to draw lines in the sand, to think that drawing such a line would protect against becoming a converso, or joining the haskalah, or succumbing to the temptations of the New World. But besides the fact that drawing such lines doesn’t seem to have worked --- for the most part, these rabbanim were preaching to the metaphorically converted --- I also don’t see these diatribes as having halachic import.

Just out of curiosity, what would be your reaction to a list of poskim who pasken on [melacha X]? Would it be "oy and vey" that one can so easily gather so many instances of rabbanim enlarging the umbrella of chilul Shabbos?

Quote:

[Think about all the rabbanim who opposed Sarah Schenirer and forbade girls from studying Torah. (After all, not teaching girls Torah comes straight from the Gemara and is right there in the Rambam too!) Somehow, the objections and diatribes were withdrawn. Clearly, they weren’t halachic statements to begin with.]

(Totally OT, but I don't think that this is the best of examples. Those who maintained that the Gemara/Rambam referred to Torah shebi'al peh = Gemara still maintain it, those who included even traditional commentaries on Torah still include it ... Sarah Schenirer may have been radical in scope of the size of her student body, but she did not teach her students anything that had not been taught to girls for generations prior.)

Quote:

Anyway, the fallacy in source counting, which Potato Kugel and her followers are doing, is as follows: If indeed the default position is that there is no Jewish dogma, then one isn’t going to say so all the time, because one doesn’t state the default. So if you tell me of 100 rabbanim who label as heretics those who believe differently, my question is: how many rabbanim in total are we speaking about? 300? Then no dogma wins over dogma 2-1. 1000? Then no dogma wins over dogma 9-1. Give me some numbers, and we can see which side “wins.” But how you can expect freidasima to give you a source for the default position? Why should anyone articulate the default position?

This might make sense if we did not have the Rambam, the Ikrim, the Ramban, R' Saadiah Gaon ... hey, the Gemara itself, mandating belief in Moshiach. (And ditto to the other ikrim.) Given that we do, however, have clear formulation of Jewish dogma, wouldn't one expect to see some written opposition in traditional sources?

Potato Kugel

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 7:52 pm

Goodmorning,
You put it beautifully.
I just want to clarify that what I meant an intermediate phase is basically the same as you stated, the transition to Olam Haboh Lnetzach Nitzochim.
Thanks for your well written post.

fromthedepths

Sun, Jun 30 2013, 8:57 pm

I'd like to step back a bit and clarify what it is exactly that we are discussing here because it seems that part of the disagreement is that different posters are answering different questions.

Halacha in general is very nuanced and detailed. Very often, precise definitions will depend on the particular case being discussed. To give a completely unrelated example, what is the temperature that is considered "yad soledes bo?" Well, why do you ask? Yes, Jews really do answer a question with a question Smile

. If you're asking what temperature you can heat up your food to without violating Shabbos you'll get one answer (about 113 F). If you're asking how hot a liquid needs to get in order to be consider fully cooked you'll get a different answer (about 160 F). Without getting into the details of why that is, the point is that context matters.

So what is the question we are asking here? I see two different questions:

1) Is a Jew obligated to believe in the coming of mashiach?

2) If a Jew doesn't believe in the coming of mashiach is he or she still a "kosher" Jew? (Here again we would need to specify for what purposes.)

I'll get to some answers in a few minutes, IY"H.