- This topic has 94 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Biology, if he were random, obviously yes. However, if he was an expert in a certain secular field and he stated that a statement of Chazal in his field is incorrect I would have to say that Chazal relied on the secular experts of their time or that they were speaking allegorically or both.
Biology, I posted an answer that never went through.
Denial of the validity of Torah Sh’Bal Peh is apikorsus. So if someone says, chas v’shalom, that really “an eye for an eye” was literal and Chazal lied and pretended that it means money. That is apikorsus (or meenus).
Criticism of Chazal’s gezeiros and takanos, even attributing to them biases is not apikorsus because it does not deny that those geizeros or takanos are binding. Such criticism does not deny the validity of Torah Sh’Bal Peh.
benignuman –
Denial of the validity of Torah Sh’Bal Peh is apikorsus. So if someone says, chas v’shalom, that really “an eye for an eye” was literal and Chazal lied and pretended that it means money. That is apikorsus (or meenus).
Why is that apikorsus? If the person concludes by saying that therefore the halacha is a literal eye, fine. But what if his conclusion is that while they knew it may not have been the Torah’s “true” meaning, the halacha follows their knowingly twisted interpretation? Is such a person denying the validity of Torah sheba’al peh? If so, how?
Yitay: It is certainly denying the validity of the Torah Sheba’al Peh according to the Geonim’s approach, which seems to have been adopted by the Chazon Ish and our current society. I could definitely hear a claim that that isn’t Apikorsus within the Rambam’s approach, though, I guess. Unless that counts as denying “Dikduk Echad MiDivrei Sofrim.”
Sam2 and Yitay,
The example I gave would be apikorsus even according to the Rambam. It is in the category of Pirush that is Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai, like pri etz hadar being an Esrog.
In other words, Chazal are saying that “eye for an eye” always meant money, it was never meant, or practiced, literally. To say Chazal were lying, and they didn’t really get it from Moshe mipi HaGevurah but instead made it up, is to deny the Torah Sh’bal Peh as being min hashamayim.
Biology,
In answer to your first question. If the person admits that a takanos Chazal are binding but argues that he/she will not do it because he/she finds it offensive. That would not be apikorsus or meenus.
I have never heard of the Ran you are referring to so I cannot really comment. But it is true that the Rambam clearly holds that bizui Talmidei Chachamim is not apikorsus.
I also don’t know if bizui talmidei chachamim is limited to living talmidei chachamim or includes the non-living as well. I would have a hard time imagining imagining that not listening to talmidei chachamim, in and of itself, would constitute bizui.
Ben: Good point on your example. But you agree that according to the Rambam in other cases it could be not Apikorsus to say something like that?
Sam2,
I agree. I used that example because it would be valid according to everyone.
benignuman –
In other words, Chazal are saying that “eye for an eye” always meant money, it was never meant, or practiced, literally. To say Chazal were lying, and they didn’t really get it from Moshe mipi HaGevurah but instead made it up, is to deny the Torah Sh’bal Peh as being min hashamayim.
First of all, there is no clear implication in the Gemara that they had a tradition from Moshe Rabbenu about this. On the contrary, the simplest way of reading the Gemara is that they deduced this themselves either through logical analysis or with a drasha.
More importantly, I still don’t see how someone who says this is a denier of Torah sheba’al peh. What if someone says that he agrees there were some things that Chazal had a tradition about, that not everything falls into that category, but it is all halacha either way?
Is Sumchus an apikores for denying chatzi nezek tzroros?
Yitay,
I used that example because it is one of the examples of a pirush that is halacha l’Moshe miSinai used in the Rambam in his hakdoma to Pirush HaMishnayos.
I personally think that although it is not explicit, it is implied from the Gemara (which is trying to explain a makor for the stam din in a Mishna) that this was a tradition and that if there is a the machlokes is where the smach to this tradition is in Torah (which is why everyone agrees that it means money despite not agreeing on a makor in the posuk).
It is possible that someone might disagree with the Rambam as to the status of this din, and rather holds it was derived in an honest attempt to derive the meaning of the Torah. I don’t think that would be apikorsus. But saying that the Torah was meant literally and the Sages changed the law because they didn’t like it and then lied and said it was what the Torah really meant, is apikorsus.
The Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh writes that the Halachos were a Mesora and Chazal were doing backwards engineering to find where it is Merumaz. This approach is Mefurashh in the first Amud of Megilla, when we are dealing with a Derabanan and we even knew the reason yet the Gemara says there must be a Remez in the Megilla, and the Sugya goes hunting that Remez.
This is pretty much the normative approach in the Drashos Chazal. There are times when Tana’im argue and bring proof from Pesukim, but that might just be as proofs and not their source.
However, the Gemara says that when two Dayanim agree to a Din, yet they learn that Din from a Different Pasuk, they don’t get added together for the majority counting. This shows that the Pasuk is actually the Mekor of the Din. The Maharal also is adamant that the Drashos actually show us the Halacha and that even Asmachta Be’alma is an actual reason for the Derabanan.
Therefore, it is reasonable to say that it is both. The Halacha was a tradition and the Drashos weren’t always passed down together with the Halacha, but they are the actual source, no doubt. Each one helps the other one where the tradition got flaky.
Tha Rambam actually holds that Nismaatu Halevavos and Lo Shimshu Kol Tzarkan doesn’t mean that they forgot Halachos. It means that they didn’t receive the entire mindset and judgement. When new issues came up they didn’t necessarily see things the way their Rebbe would have. This caused Machlokes.
This is hard to square with many basic Machloksim, including the first one. There are Gemaros that speak openly about a Talmid not hearing correctly. Perhaps the Shomer Yisroel made sure those instances were rooted out. Also, the Rambam might only be addressing that Memra about the main cause of Machlokes. Or, perhaps each case will need its own Pshat to explain what was before the Machlokes and what they were taught.
HaLeiVi: It is an old Machlokes between the Rambam and the Geonim. Pashtus is that each Shittah (the Rambam and the Geonim) is untenable if taken to its logical conclusion, thus each Shittah would need a little of the other mixed in. The Or Hachayim’s Derech is certainly not the normative approach in places like Brisk, but it is the easier one to teach to children and therefore is the one we learn when we are very young. The Rambam’s approach strongly disagrees with that Or Hachayim. (And your Ra’aya isn’t a Ra’aya because it’s about a Din D’rabannan and figuring out how the Anshei K’nesses Hag’dolah originally instituted it.)
HaLeiVi: Interesting Maharal. It is against Rishonim, though. See the Ritva on Asmachta (I don’t remember where it is but it’s famous) and the Maharil Likutim Siman 70. The Rambam also has a different approach to Asmachtos.
Sam2 and HaLeivi,
A more modern version of this machlokes (on the very extremes) is between the Malbim and the Doros HaRishonim.
I think that the truth lies somewhere in between. One can go through Shas and find instances that support one side or the other. The most likely conclusion is that both are true.
There are times where the Mishna says a stam halacha and the Amoraim argue about the makor (with nafka minas) but there is no machlokes about the stam din in the Mishna. There are further times were the “proto-mishna” says a stam din and later Tannaim argue about its application/meaning/makor. I think that in those instances it is clear that there is a mesorah as to the din and the machlokes is where that din can be derived in the Torah ShebiKsav.
In other cases it seems pretty clear that the Tannaim and Amoraim are deriving new dinnim or arguing on previously held shittos on the basis of drashos.
HaLeiVi: The Machlokes about Yom Henef Kulo Assur is very difficult to square with the Shittas HaGeonim. And the Beis Shammai/Beis Hillel story works very well with the Rambam too.
Why do you say that the Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh doesn’t work with the Rambam? The Halachos are a Mesora and that’s what they were Mekabel. They could even have been Mekabel many or most Drashos, but the Halachos were not actually gleaned from the Drashos. Do you mean a Different Rambam?
HaLeiVi: No, the famous Rambam. Unless you want to minimize the Or Hachayim and say he was referring to only specific Halachos. But the Rambam holds that everything not Halachah L’moshe MiSinai is up for debate based on the Middos SheHatorah Nidreshes Bahem. And anyway, Zil Basar Ta’ama. According to the Rambam they couldn’t have been Mekabel the Halachos because it’s a Bizayon to the Mesorah to say there was that much Shich’chah. This Or Hachayim still has that problem.
Biology: Without looking at the Ran, Al Regel Achas I’d say that there could a difference between saying Chazal were empirically wrong or morally wrong, but it bears looking into.
May I ask what Shelo Assani Isha has to do with femenism? Actually, it shows that they understood the challenges of being a woman.
Sam, I don’t think the Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh was being Mechadesh that everything is a Mesora. His point was that the Halachos preceded the Drashos, and that we are allowed to suggest alternative Drashos to the same Halachos.
The Rambam seems to be saying that Machlokes can only happen in Shikul Hadaas instances where something new came up. Otherwise, we say that they surely didn’t forget what the practiced Halacha was. My Kasha earlier from Smicha on Yom Tov is not Shver, since it is a Derabanan and is therefore dependent on Shikul Hadaas.
benignuman –
It is possible that someone might disagree with the Rambam as to the status of this din, and rather holds it was derived in an honest attempt to derive the meaning of the Torah. I don’t think that would be apikorsus. But saying that the Torah was meant literally and the Sages changed the law because they didn’t like it and then lied and said it was what the Torah really meant, is apikorsus.
But would you say it is apikorsus in the sense that every mevazeh talmidei chachamim is an apikores (if one says this derisively) or because there is something here which is a fundamental denial of Torah sheba’al peh? If the latter, how do you support this view, considering Sumchos held that tzroros pays nezek shalem? To put it a little differently, if someone holds this view and frames it a in a non-condescending but respectful way, and not in all cases, is he an apikores?
HaLeiVi: Come on. Pashut P’shat is that it’s about Chiyuv in Mitzvos and everyone knows that.
The Gemara says it is because of two things. It is about the Chiyuv Mitzvos, which comes from the Torah, not Chazal who were simply thankful about the Chiyuv Mitzvos. It is also because women have more trouble and are more often Nirdafos. The latter shows us that they saw women as an oppressed minority, much like the feminist groups do today.
Rambam, Mishneh Torah 3:8:
“Three individuals are described as Epicursim:
a) one who denies the existence of prophecy and maintains that there is no knowledge communicated from God to the hearts of men;
b) one who disputes the prophecy of Moses, our teacher;’
c) one who maintains that the Creator is not aware of the deeds of men.”
Nothing about disputing Chazal there.
Rambam, Mishneh Torah 3:7.
“Five individuals are described as Minim:
a) one who says there is no God nor ruler of the world;
b) one who accepts the concept of a ruler, but maintains that there are two or more;
c) one who accepts that there is one Master [of the world], but maintains that He has a body or form;
d) one who maintains that He was not the sole First Being and Creator of all existence;
e) one who serves a star, constellation, or other entity so that it will serve as an intermediary between him and the eternal Lord.”
Nothing about disputing Chazal here, either. (b), (c), (d), and possibly (e) appear to refer to Christians.
More from Rambam, Mishneh Torah 3:8.
‘There are three individuals who are considered as one “who denies the Torah”:
a) one who says Torah, even one verse or one word, is not from God. If he says: “Moses made these statements independently,” he is denying the Torah.
b) one who denies the Torah’s interpretation, the oral law, or disputes [the authority of] its spokesmen as did Tzadok and Beitus.
c) one who says that though the Torah came from God, the Creator has replaced one mitzvah with another one and nullified the original Torah, like the Arabs [and the Christians].’
There are actually passages in Chazal and some other rishonim that violate the strict meaning of (a). One would have to make a big stretch to interpret (b) as referring to someone who question’s a non-halachic teaching of Chazal as Rambam himself introduced non-literal interpretations that don’t coincide with those of Chazal, and his son Rabbi Avraham explicitly permits non-literal interpretations. (c) is clearly directed towards Muslims and Christians.
Rambam translations in the preceding comments were by Rabbi Eliyahu Touger; you can find them along with the Hebrew original at chabad dot org.
HaLeiVi: Where;s that Gemara? I don’t think it exists. Those are reasons given in the Achronim, but the more Pashut P’shat is that it’s about Chiyuv in Mitzvos (see the Gemara in Shabbos about those 3 Brachos and the Rishonim there).
And the Rambam’s Shittah is not that Machlokes can only come when there’s Shikul HaDa’as. I mean, it is, but he thinks that Drashos are subject to debate too. As long as you follow the rules, you can Darshan out any Issur/Mitzvah D’oraisa. Thus, the Drashos can constantly change and therefore the Halachos can constantly change. Lo Shimshu Kol Tzorchan means that they didn’t learn enough to properly understand which of the 2, 3, 4 etc. Drashos is the most likely and that’s where Machlokes came from. It’s not just about new situations. Potential for different Drashos always existed. But when there was a Sanhedrin and a stronger Mesorah they were better able to outvote minority opinions and explain to the Talmidim which Drashah makes more sense and why. When we lost that, the potential Drashos still existed, but we were no longer able to properly understand and outvote minority opinions.
Biology,
I think so, yes. But I haven’t had time to look up the Ran yet.
Earlier in this thread rebdoniel made a comment that had implications about Tosafos and he was severely castigated. R’ Moshe struggled mightily with that Tosafos for much the same reason as rebdoniel (though he expressed himself VERY differently):
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14675&st=&pgnum=292
My point is not to justify what rebdoniel said, but to point out that it is l’maaseh a kashya.
PAA: One can ask Kashyas without attempting to uproot the entire Ashkenazi Mesorah by calling the Baalei Tosfos Apikorsim. The same Kashya can be asked with two different attitudes and ulterior motives, which makes a big difference (as we all know from the Seder night).
I’m pretty sure everyone on this thread is an apikores, even without reading it.
Popa, I don’t think you’re an apikores.
Rav S.R. Hirsch wrote the following:
“A person whose reason leads him to differ with the reasoning
of one of Chazal on any agadic topic is not considered an apostate or a heretic, especially since their opinions vary on many statements, and since there is no rule, ‘The Halacha is like So and So” in matters of Agada as there is in Halacha.'”
DY: Oh, that’s good, because I think I am.
Oh, come on Sam, just because popa decided without reading the thread that we’re probably all apikorsim doesn’t make it so.
Sam2:
I anticipated and preempted your response when I wrote “though he expressed himself VERY differently” and “My point is not to justify what rebdoniel said”.
DY: It’s okay. Plenty of people think I’m an Apikores (well, actually, not many do, which kinda shocks me). I’m sure Joseph does, and his is the only opinion that matters (exists?) on this site anyway. 😛
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.