In the inaugural issue of the Torah u-Madda Journal, R. Yehuda Parnes argued that heresy is forbidden to be studied. This led him to condemn study in "areas that spark and arouse ideas which are antithetical to the tenets of our faith." Further developing his point, he left no doubt as to what he meant by "the tenets of our faith." "Torah u-Madda can only be viable if it imposes strict limits on freedom of inquiry in areas that may undermine the yod gimel 'ikkarei emunah." In other words, in his view, it is the "Thirteen Principles of Faith" of Maimonides that are determinative with regard to what constitutes heresy.
At first glance this may not appear to be at all controversial. After all, who better than Maimonides would be qualified to set forth the dogmas of Judaism? The immediate reaction of many Orthodox Jews would probably be the same as R. Parnes' in identifying heresy with anything that opposed any of the well known Maimonidean principles. Indeed, a recent author has written: "It should be stressed that all Torah scholars agree on the validity and significance of the Principles." Similarly, another one has written: "The fact is that Maimonides' Thirteen Principles are all derived from the Talmud and
the classic Jewish tradition, and were never in dispute. With reference to these statements, a comment by Gershom Scholem, made in a entirely different context, is relevant: "This seems to me an extraordinary example of how a judgment proclaimed with conviction as certainly true may nevertheless be entirely wrong in every detail." This is so, for even a cursory examination of Jewish literature shows that Maimonides' principles were never regarded as
the last word in Jewish theology. This despite the fact that Maimonides contended that anyone who even had a doubt about one his principles was a heretic worthy of death!
This link doesn't work
ReplyDeletegoogle shapiro maimonides it is on yu site
ReplyDeletethe link gives a download pdf , if you wish to download the article
ReplyDelete" Certain Kabbalistic views of R. Isaac Luria unquestionably contradict Maimonides' principle as they give Luria a greater prophetic grasp and understanding than Moses. Both R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady112
ReplyDeleteand R. Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin"113 elaborate on how Moses' abilities were inferior to those of Luria."
This is the type of thing which is altogether unconvincing.
Unless they are saying that he has greater insight after the fact - in the way we can say we have greater knowledge of science, at least more than some Neviim, not necessarily Moshe.
K....
ReplyDeletehttp://download.yutorah.org/1993/905/704648.pdf
Nice article, except quotes great rationalists like Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, Rav Yaakov Emden, and Rav Bleich shlita, as well as many from chochmat Yisrael.
ReplyDeleteHere's the problem:
Whenever I mention any of the above, you say "how dare you bring these delinquent views that were independent, problematic thinkes, who were not widely accepted [in the Eidah Hachareidis]?
But whenever I bring the Rambam, you rely on these who disagreed with him.
And the same goes with the Raavad. If i mention him, you say "how dare you go against the Rambam, who has been a special link from Chazal in representing Halacha to later generations". But when I mention Rambam, you emphasize that the Raavad disagreed.