Ikkarei Emunah

You may also like...

No Responses

  1. Anonymous says:

    “So, the Rambam declares a person who doesn’t believe in mashiach a heretic and has no place in the World to Come (Teshuvah 3:6), the Ikkarim does not.”

    the ikarim says in perek 23 that not believing in anafim is minus, and such a person has no chelek in olam habo.

    the bal anafim (in perek 1) tries to say that this is not “real minus” but this is clearly a misreading of the ikarim. He also mangles the rambam in this section (saying the rambam’s “nikrain minin” are also not real minim). More generally, he isolates perek 1 (where the ikarim brings the gemara with R Hillel to argue on the Rambam) from perek 2 (where the ikarim takes the raavad’s position that a person who is kofer b’shogeg has a chelek in olam habo). He understands that the ikarim is bringing the story with R Hillel to demonstrate that failure to believe in moshiach doesn’t make a person a kofer. However, the ikarim doesn’t draw this lesson – once he takes the side of the raavad in perek 2 he can’t be taking this position, as the proof disappears (the gemara is quoting R Hillel because he is a kofer b’shogeg).
    I believe the bal anafim is mistaken and that there is no justification for reading the ikarim’s statement in perek 23 that someone who is a min “af al pi she’eyno kofer b’torah eyn lo chelek l’olam habo” – which is as clear as can be – as though it read “v’eyno eyn lo chelek lolam habo”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *