☕ DaasYochid ☕

.????? ?

???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/whats-your-patronus

No, popa, the knock knock was from “Ich” on Yiddish Gems II (in Yiddish it goes, “klop, klop”).

Which, by the way, is a stirah to “Ich bin Ich”.

Wait, why are you posting copyrighted material?

Avram, why do you think “??? ???? ?????” means created and/or modifiable?

And if you are sure that even those who, according to the Ra”avad, didn’t mean that, why didn’t the Ramba”m realize that?

(also, R’ Hillel’s statement was regarding Moshiach).

It is the original subject of this thread.

You can google it.

Does anyone argue with the Ramba”m about what their status is?

Gavra,

I don’t see any reason why the RBSO could not expect us to follow the rules as put out by Him, to whatever conclusions that those rules lead us. In fact, that is the core of what “Lo BaShomayim He” requires from us.

I don’t see how that shtims with your agreement with me on point “a”.

I think we are splitting hairs. One can believe (and that requires the exclusion of all other possibilities), while still noting that if not for the belief, the hypothetical possibility of the opposite of such belief does exist. That does not make the opposite belief “legitimate”.

Agreed. The fact that I think His non-corporeality isn’t even hypothetically true is not related to the argument at hand. It’s a side point.

PAA,

and therefore it becomes impossible to have emuna sheleima in any disputed matter

Correct, which is the point which proves you wrong, since Hashem does not demand the impossible from us. Again, ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???????.

I think DaasYochid and I actually agree on something – namely the impossibility of completely believing something you simultaneously acknowledge as not necessarily true.

Absolutely, we’re just drawing vastly different conclusions.

If he needs forgiveness for the actual belief then that would disprove the psak thesis because R’ Hillel did nothing wrong if it hadn’t been paskened yet.

Not necessarily; there may have been some flaw in his thought process (you suggested going against the nevuah, but it could be something different).

I don’t know what the hypothetical possibility of a navi greater than MRA”H has to do with this.

That is hypothetically possible, just not true. It it not possible, even hypothetically, for Hashem to have a guf (although this is a side point). And, no, I don’t need to prove it, and I haven’t, but I need to reject any other possibility in order to fully believe it.

Hypothetically and possibly are two different things. I could hypothetically be a billionaire, but it’s not possible that I am. As far as I’m concerned, it is possible that you are.

Back to Hashem’s non-corporeality; even if it were hypothetically true (and I don’t think so, because Hashem’s essence is what it is and cannot be different), I must believe it’s not possible to be true. Once I accept the possibility, meaning the legitimacy of another opinion, my belief is not “sheleimah”.

I think tanur shel achnai is actually useful as a contrast. Even if there is an “actual reality” in terms of “klapai shmaya galya” (and in a sense there is; I’m kind of nitpicking on the terminology, and I think it’s an interesting discussion on its own, but I’ll agree not to disagree, at least for now), there is no chiyuv to believe it, so I can accept the possibility that klapai shmaya galya it’s one way, but since lo bashamayim hee, we practice differently.

When it comes to the halachic aspect of “Who is an Apikores?”, it’s the same, the problem is that it’s also a chiyuv to believe. I could accept the notion that halacha could dictate that I treat someone a certain way despite a “klapai shmaya galya” to treat him differently. However, in the realm of belief, it is simply impossible for me to accept that Hashem wants me to believe something which is not true.

Gavra, I agree with PAA’s response to you.

??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???????

Even more, though, I don’t think it’s conceivable that HKB”H would command us to believe something which isn’t true, even were it possible. The tanur is tamei or tahor based on the decision if the rabbim. It might be possible to say this about Moshiach (the psak “forces” Him to bring Moshiach), but not about whether he has a ???.

I don’t think before and after are the same; we are not merely talking about which beliefs are right or wrong, we are talking about which beliefs are forbidden.

It is inconceivable that it is forbidden to believe the truth.

Right, so the fact that we do disqualify people as apikorsim proves that wrong.

That’s assuming that there can be a psak halacha l’maaseh.

I thought we agreed that Yanklowitz is definitely an apikores. That’s only true if we pasken that way.

Do you know of any source for such an idea?

I think your kasha night be a good enough source.

And if people had tried to make the opposite psak become accepted what would happen?

They would not have succeeded. Hashem is more powerful than people.

I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that people put words into my words based on the context, or are you saying that that is what I actually said/meant?

The former (I won’t pretend to know what you meant better than you do), but I’m also trying to help you understand how I think that happened.

As far as that second point is concerned, what I tried to tell you earlier is that the fact that the accepted psak in klal Yirsroel is that certain beliefs are apikorsus is proof that they are false. Hashem does not insist that we believe in things which are not true. He would not allow Halacha l’maaseh to develop in such a way that one would be liable to be punished for believing something which is true. Hence, the fact that we pasken (through normative halachic means) that Moshiach will come, is proof that he will. There is indeed dissonance in the position that believing a truism is heresy, hence, we entirely disbelieve the rejected opinion.

And I know you’re going to say that you just wanted to point out that there is such an opinion in the Gemara, but you didn’t mean to say that you agree with it, and didn’t mean to necessarily defend Shmuly Yanklowitz, but you need to read your posts in context, as everyone else does.

I would be hesitant to openly mock such people

I think the very fact that we’re even having this discussion is an excellent reason to openly mock such people. I would be more inclined to leave a private person alone, but when someone openly declares himself an Orthodox Rabbi, and openly spews apikorsus, he and his views need to be openly mocked, not despite, but particularly because, someone like you can come along and even partially defend him and his views.

If I have time later, I will try to (again) address the second point.

You’re missing the point. Of course He wasn’t. They made a ta’us, but they are excused for it. If we made the same ta’us, despite the benefit of an accepted psak, we would not be excused.

Are you Galitzianer?

Can you explain to me how you can PASKEN whether or not H’ has a corporeal manifestation.

We can certainly pasken how to treat someone who believes it.

But on that note you should also not trust the kashrus of any rishonim/acharonim who disagreed with the Rambam on these issues.

Is that nogeia l’maaseh?

you can’t KNOW which view was correct

Define “correct”.

Nice crust, though.

Also, do you remember that you posted:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/shmuly-yanklowitz-novominsker-and-oo-theology#post-524597

?

Mazel Tov to popa on finishing Yoma, and to the rest of us for no longer being big fat jerks.