- This topic has 60 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Square, you’re going in different directions. I answered your claim that it’s childish to have emunah Peshutah. I also answered your question about the value of emunah despite it being fragile. Now you’re pivoting to a different issue, which I’ll address, but I’m starting to think you have a desire for emunah to not be reasonable.
The comparison to the American revolution is not in the content of the event, it’s that something of national proportions is established as a historical fact. I didn’t mean to compare it in attitude, because unless you’re descendant from a US soldier who fought in the revolution, I doubt it would bother you much to question it.
Matan Torah is supposed to be emotional. It was an experience of communication with Hashem. We’re not supposed to be dispassionate about it. Holocaust denial probably bothers you because you know for a fact that it happened, and it trivializes the suffering and deaths of 6 million Jews.
A more visceral response should be triggered at the casting of doubts about matan Torah and the other miracles we experienced before and after for thousands of years, until churban bayis sheni. Denying a G-d that you have a relationship with and who all of your forefathers knew personally should bother you.
The above mashel might explain a Midrash that by Kabolas Hatorah, Hashem first wanted to give the Torah to the goyim, so they asked, what was written in it. Each nation was told exactly what they did not like, why? Hashem knew that they are asking for an excuse why not to accept it, so Hashem said, you want an excuse, I will give it to you.
The Chasam Sofer explains that we eat hardboiled eggs at the Passover Seder to reflect on the fact that we are an am kasheh oref, a nation with a hard neck which cannot be swayed from their religion and the eggs, the more we cook them the harder they get.
The Sefer Hachinuch says that Kabolas Hatorah is passed on from generation to the generation, from the one who participated to the descendants as no one will inherit falsehoods to their children but what they inherited from their father.
It says in Pirkei Avos השונה ממשנתו ומפסיק ממשנתו when a person is learning and interrupts his learning ואומר כמה נאה אילן זה and says how beautiful is this tree, he goes into philosophy by analyzing how the tree goes הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו he is sacrificing his soul.
Should be above, how the tree grows.
“It stands to reason that in order to be an ikar hadas that disbelieving it is tantamount to heresy, there must be an overwhelming significance to the principle.”
This seemingly obvious axiom is what brings about the confusion that follows.
” It stands to reason..” – I would like to humbly suggest that these discussions while being bound to reason, are not founded upon reason. It is only founded on what is known and demonstrated to be true. Since it is easily established that the full truth is both unknown to us and unknowable by it’s very existence, we then allow ourselves to expand it by other knowledgeable means. (Whether that is by tradition, logic, the senses, or even guesswork, is not consequential at this early point.)
(*The OP assumes that The Ikkarim are individual ikari hadas. But this seems to be debatable in the course of the thread. I’m not sure if it matters to the follow up points in the OP.)
“…disbelieving…” This needs a clear citation. We are not Jews because of any basic beliefs or founding statement. We are Jews because of our commitment to act our lives as commanded to us by The Torah. Having erroneous beliefs will cripple a basic understanding of Torah. It will not hinder a Jew from fulfilling our common duties.
I’m not advocating C”V for any negation, of what we know and believe as true. My only question is that are we correct to equate our Ikkarim with other systems (even reasonable ones) that demand an obedience to statute with no meaningful application. Just because one does not know/understand/internalize/concur to all The Ikkarim, Jews do not call that heresey. Or at least, it does not equate to one fully concurs with all the Ikkarim, yet serves idols or invents his own religious practices.
“….overwhelming significance to the principle.” If I’m correct in my above post, then the significance is to what the Ikkar is. As opposed to why such a belief is significant. Because belief is not by itself the purpose of the Ikkarim. The goal is to properly understand Torah. So the question becomes, if someone C”V denies the possibility of Moshiach’s imminent arrival, what are they missing out on?
Rav Helel’s statement that “there is not anymore mosiach for Yisrael that it already was used in the days of Chizzkeyahu”, is not relevant to his understanding of The Ikkarim. Clearly, he was not in doubt or denying. It is a statement of clarity, in that idea of no Moshiach can be demonstrated by the Navi’s portrayal of Chizzkeyahu. The statement is only related to how to contextualize and properly understand the prophecies of Yeshaya etc. But when it comes to his conviction about our imminent redemption, that was never in question. [If it was the question, it would be a lack of Torah knowledge. Not a lack of Jewish belief.]
What makes something an Ikkar, is not How basic of fundamental it is to believe in it. An Ikkar is a concept that is vital to a proper theological structure of Torah. Which is fully dependant on whatever starting point the composer chooses. A self understood system of Jewish studies? Rambam. Where we differ with popular medieval thought? Crescas. Logical deduction? Abarbanel.
This is why we do not find a mention of The Ikkarim in the classical sefarim. Even Rashi never mentions them. He had no need for it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.