Shmuly Yanklowitz, Novominsker and OO theology

It shouldn’t have taken this long to figure them out. It was pretty obvious from the get-go.

I loved best where he goes totally unhinged and starts attributing things that never happen in kosher slaughterhouses (dragging in sick animals) to kosher meat.

He obviously knows less about slaughtering than he does about Torah (meaning, he knows negative about slaughtering since not only does he not know what does happen, but he even thinks things happen which don’t, as opposed to Torah where he just doesn’t know anything).

I also am bemused by the YCT model of having their poor innocent students reply to criticism instead of meeting it themselves. Because we’re supposed to feel sorry for the students. Well, I do feel sorry for the students, and I hope they are chozer b’tshuva soon, together with their teachers.

This is far, far from the worst thing that Shmuly Yanklowitz has ever written. He is an actual Apikores, no question about it.

“What has he said or done that makes his an apikores? ”

he denies that there will be a moshiach, being that that is one of the yud gimmel ikrim that qualifies as apikorsus.

Matan1, from the article linked in the OP:

“The following quotes are from an article he had published in the Jewish Week, February 1, 2012.

Popa,

He obviously knows less about slaughtering than he does about Torah (meaning, he knows negative about slaughtering since not only does he not know what does happen, but he even thinks things happen which don’t, as opposed to Torah where he just doesn’t know anything).

I don’t understand the chilluk you’re making. He’s in negative territory on both, for the same reason.

DY:

Of course, but good lines don’t play by all your formalistic rules

PAA: How do you answer the CS? And how do you answer Rambam?

bhe:

Something can be a machlokes. One need go no further than the hasagos haRaavad to see this.

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.

“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.

Free translation from the rambam, hilchos melochim perek yud aleph halacha aleph;

“In the future, the Messianic king will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel…Anyone who does not believe in him or does not await his coming, denies not only the statements of the other prophets, but those of the Torah and Moses,” i.e., apikorus

“I don’t think that is the case. There were rishonim who clearly rejected HaShem’s non-corporeality” really!! can you quote me one of them I’d like to see it inside and see exactly what THEY ment

“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

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?”

Dr. Hall:

Nobody prays to angels.

Regarding Machnisei Rachamim, for those that say this piece, it is asking the angels to do their job, so to speak.

But the only address for prayer, as in when asking to be granted anything or to change anything, etc., is Hashem.

as mentioned before A)The Gemara is essentially saying that he needs a Kappara B)there are rishonim about what hillel meant. I will check out the sugya during night seder im yertze hashem and regarding machnesei rachamim, a pshat I heard is that we are asking the malachim that we create through our mitzvos to bring our zchusim to hashem ( remember those malachim you learnt about in school? wholehearted mitzvos get healthy malachim and vice versa?)

Hakatan:

The Rambam includes using them as an intermediary even if you are not directly praying to them.

“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?

R’ Dovid Sinzheim in Sheva Chakiros writes:

??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???”? ????? ????? ??? ??”? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????????? ?? ?????? ????”? ??? ??? ????? ?”? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?”? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ????

Although this Nareshkeit of how we pray to Malachim was refuted here, since it is so much fun to bring it up again, nothing will stop it from being repeated. The same goes for the famous Shita of “rishonim” that we only know existed from a reference of the Raavad who disagreed anyhow.

“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

There are still some people who don’t say ?????? ????? or make that change, but in the majority, the ???”? is not followed.

???”? believing in ????, which was universally accepted.

PAA: If you’re going to use the “machlokes” angle, then 1) you surely should have no objections calling Yanklowitz an apikorus based on *us* holding of the Rambam (and CS) and 2) you apparently accept finding and practically holding from any or every quaint and generally unaccepted halachic opinion buried anywhere in the sources to basically hold whatever you happen to find, however rejected that opinion is (such as the corporeality of Hashem.)

zd: The Novominsker wasn’t concerned with his followers falling for these deviants. He was primarily concerned with the out of town communities where these malcontents are taking rabbinic pulpits and/or otherwise influencing local Orthodox communities.

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.

How about if he doesn’t wear techeiles, then would you care?