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?