Friday, October 19, 2012

Rav Chaim:a nebach apikorus is also an apikorus

Someone asked me today regarding the famous statement of Rav Chaim - did he actually act on it? In other words did he examine witnesses at a chasana as to whether they had correct beliefs. Did he refuse to count an ignoramous in a minyan because of mistaken beliefs. I am aware that it is a machlokess - but l'maaseh - what did Rav Chaim do?


Rav Elchonon Wasserman (Explanations of Agados #2): The view of the Rambam is that a person who believes G‑d is physical is a heretic. The Raavad commented: “There are greater and better people than the Rambam who erred in this issue because of mistakenly accepting the literal meaning of verses and agada.” I heard in the name of Rav Chaim Brisker that the Rambam views that there is no such thing as inadvertent heresy. Irrespective of how a person arrives at a mistaken belief, the fact is that he believes something which is heretical. Furthermore, it is impossible to be a member of the Jewish people without proper faith. Rav Chaim used to say that “a nebach apikorus (mistaken heretic) is also a heretic.”

5 comments :

  1. >“a nebach apikorus (mistaken heretic) is also a heretic.”<

    I always heard it phrased as, >“nebach an apikorus (mistaken heretic) is also an apikorus .”<

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rav Elchanan brings the famous statement of Rav Chaim that "nebech an apikorus is still an apikorus". To this Rav Elchanan asks several kashes. One is from a gemara in Cheilek in which R' Hillel felt Moshiach came already in the form of Chizkiyahu Hamelech. According to Rav Chaim, why isn't R' Hillel an apikorus? To this Rav Meir Stern answered that since R' Hillel was a bar plugtah with the other Amoraim, he had a right to argue. However, once the halacha was paskened not like R' Hillel, subsequent generations can't argue. And he compared this to any machlokes in halacha. We only go basar rov (Yachid V'Rabim halacha K'rabim) if one doesn't know what the halacha is, but the yachid himself doesn't have to go basar rov since he is a bar plugtah.

    The Gemorah in Sanhedrin 99a quotes R. Hillel as saying "There shall be no Mashiach for Israel, because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Chizkiyah." The Chasam Sofer (Teshuvos, Yoreah Deah 356) writes that while R. Hillel was not an apikorus for saying what he did, the question has already been decided and anyone who says the exact same thing today is an apikorus who denies the Torah.

    Ramban, in Kisvei Ramban, vol. I, p. 345., writes to the Gedolim in France argues with them against a belief in corporeal Hashem. He writes that Scriptural and Aggadic references to Hashem's form should not be taken literally. Yet regardless of any of the Rishonim's belief in a corporeal G-d, such a belief today would be heretical.

    So we see even in areas that are not halacha l'maaisa (i.e. belief in Moshiach or the form of Hashem is not something we tangibly express but rather simply think) one can be a heretic even if he find a source in the gedolim that once held it. It was okay for them to hold, but certainly not for any of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So we see even in areas that are not halacha l'maaisa (i.e. belief in Moshiach or the form of Hashem is not something we tangibly express but rather simply think) one can be a heretic even if he find a source in the gedolim that once held it. It was okay for them to hold, but certainly not for any of us."

      Actually, it is halakha le maaseh. Knowing what you are or are not permitted to beleive is halakha. Not to mention that there are several halakhic differences between someone who is a heretic and someone who is not (shechita is neveilah, wine he touched is not kosher).

      Delete
  3. R' Chaim is explaining the Rambam. But did he actually pasken like the Rambam on this issue?

    Also, even if he did, does that necessarily mean that he would have to examine witnesses at a wedding? Couldn't he rely on their chezkas kashrus?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Nebach Apikorus refers to this halacha:

    הלכות ממרים פרק ג
    ג אבל בני אותן הטועים ובני בניהם, שהדיחו אותם אבותם ונולדו במינות, וגידלו אותן עליו--הרי הן כתינוק שנשבה לבין הגויים וגידלוהו הגויים על דתם, שהוא אנוס; ואף על פי ששמע אחר כך שהיה יהודי, וראה היהודיים ודתם--הרי הוא כאנוס, שהרי גידלוהו על טעותם. כך אלו האוחזים בדרכי אבותיהם שתעו. לפיכך ראוי להחזירן בתשובה, ולמשוך אותם בדרכי שלום, עד שיחזרו לאיתן התורה; ולא ימהר אדם להורגן.

    So someone Jewish who was raised in an anti-Torah way, is a tinok Shenishbah. What Rav Chaim said is that even though he is a tonik shenishbah, (e.g., if he would do Teshuva he would bring one chatas for being mechallel shabbos and not one for every melacha) he still has the status of apikores.

    In other words, there are more than one kind of apikores: a full apikores who knows better yet rebels against Hashem; and nebach apikores who lives a life of rebellion against Hashem because that is how he was raised.

    If he acted on it le'maisa, I don't know, but it would be significant in saying a tinok shenishba is an apikores.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.