Rambam Perek Chelek 4

I'd like to address one more general issue relating to the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. After the Rambam enumerates the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim, so he writes here in Perush HaMishnayos as follows:

וכאשר יהיו קיימים לאדם כל היסודות הללו ואמונתו בהם אמתית הרי הוא נכנס בכלל ישראל וחובה לאהבו ולרחמו עליו וכל מה שצוה השם אותנו זה על זה מן האהבה והאחוה ואפילו עשה מה שיכול להיות מן העבירות מחמת תאותו והתגברות יצרו הרע הרי הוא נענש לפי גודל מריו ויש לו

chelek והוא miposhei Yisrael but even poshei Yisrael

יש להם חלק לעולם הבא. וכאשר יפקפק אדם ביסוד מאלו היסודות הרי זה יצא מן הכלל וכפר בעיקר ונקרא מין ואפיקורוס וקוצץ בנטיות וחובה לשנאו ולאבדו ועליו הוא אומר הלא משנאיך השם אשנא.

Okay, so that's one statement in the Rambam, right? Another statement in the Rambam in Hilkhos Teshuva where the Rambam has the presents the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim in the Yad HaChazaka so in פרק ג הלכה ז the Rambam has חמישה הן הנקראים מינים, right? Earlier in Halacha Vav the Rambam says that

אלו הן שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא אלא נכרתים ואובדים ונידונים על גודל רשעם וחטאתם לעולם ולעולמי עולמים המינים והאפיקורוסים הכופרים בתורה והכופרים בתחיית המתים ובביאת הגואל

etc. So one of the things he mentioned are minim. So who in this context, what does a min denote? The Rambam says

חמישה הן הנקראים מינים האומר שאין שם אלוה ואין לעולם מנהיג האומר שיש שם מנהיג אבל הן שנים או יותר האומר שיש ריבון אחד אבל שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה וכן האומר שאינו לבדו הראשון וצור לכל וכן העובד כוכב ומזל וזולתו כדי להיות מליץ בינו ובין ריבון העולמים כל אחד מחמישה אלו הוא מין.

Basically the chamisha minim correspond to the first five yesodos in the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. In the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. So here there's a famous hassaga from the Ra'avad. The Rambam lists amongst minim, and remember, minim in this context is a very, very scary appellation because the Rambam said in the previous halacha that

נכרתים ואובדים ונידונים על גודל רשעם וחטאתם לעולם ולעולמי עולמים,

right? So the Rambam mentions amongst minim that האומר שיש ריבון אחד אבל שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. If a person believes that Hakadosh Baruch Hu has a body, that he's corporeal, doesn't believe in the incorporeality of the Ribbono Shel Olam. Says the Ra'avad in a famous hassaga,

אמר אברהם ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות.

Says the Ra'avad, so first of all the Avodas HaMelech explains, right? The meforshei HaRambam. The Ra'avad is saying people who are greater than the Rambam believe that Ribbono Shel Olam is a ba'al guf? So that can't be, right? Because the Ra'avad himself clearly agrees with the Rambam. He's not saying that they're right. He's saying that we shouldn't be so harsh because they made a mistake. So what he means he says... Or it can mean from amongst us. And the translation of the Hasagos haRavid by the Avodas HaMelech says is that כמה גדולים וטובים ממנו from amongst us, right, from amongst Klal Yisrael there've been people who are gedolim and tovim who have made this mistake. Because there are so many pesukim which talk about yad Hashem. So many such pesukim, so how can it be that the Rambam is condemning them all as minim? So the mimmennu doesn't mean than him, it means from amongst us. Right. So now the question is what does the Rambam hold? So it's a tayna, right? It's a good tayna. So the Ravid says they make an innocent mistake. They make an innocent mistake that they were misled either by pesukim or they were misled by divrei aggadah which when you take them too literally are meshabbeshos es hade'os. So there's a famous comment from Reb Chaim which is quoted that Reb Chaim said nebach an apikoros is oich an apikoros. Right, someone who's unfortunately, right, a miskein, someone who's unfortunately nebach an apikoros is also an apikoros. Ad kan devarav. Ad kan devarav. Now the question then is as follows: Does this mean that the Rambam is totally again, the Rambam and especially when you reinforce the simple mashma'os with the Ravid's hassaga and Reb Chaim's teretz for what the Rambam must mean and what the Rambam must think? So does this mean that the Rambam holds and listen carefully rabbosai, does this mean that the Rambam holds that it doesn't make a difference why or what the circumstances were that a person's kofer in one of the yud gimmel ikkarim, nebach an apikoros is oich an apikoros? That's the way it's generally assumed that that's what the Rambam thinks, which is absolutely mind-boggling. Absolutely mind-boggling. And it's also generally assumed that that's what the Rambam is saying in Peirush haMishnayos also, that again, that the Rambam doesn't allude to the possibility of extenuating circumstances and that what the Rambam is saying is that to have emunah and without emunah a person doesn't qualify for Olam haBa, a person has to have emunah in these yud gimmel ikkarim. He has to have emunah in these yud gimmel ikkarim. So mah li what the story is, what the explanation is for why he doesn't believe, if lema'aseh he doesn't believe in the yud gimmel ikkarim. That's what generally assumed that that's how the Ravid understood the Rambam and that Reb Chaim is also operating with that same understanding. Right, it's also we're very much handicapped here. I don't know just a comment from Reb Chaim which is reported is very hard to be medayek, but lichora hapashat is that that can't be the pshat. You can certainly prove that it's at least partially wrong. At least partially wrong. How wrong it is is not clear, but it's at least partially wrong. And it's not the case that the Rambam thinks that nebach an apikoros is oich an apikoros regardless of what the cause is. And that Reb Chaim obviously didn't mean it, again, in an unqualified and absolute sense. It can't be. How do you know that it can't be? Because if you take a look in Hilchos Mamrim in perek gimmel, so the Rambam says

ומי שאינו מודה בתורה שבעל פה אינו זקן ממרא אלא הרי זה בכלל האפיקורסין ומיתתו.

mitaso be-chol adam, right? The din of an apikores is that moridin ve-ein maalin, correct? So the Rambam says a person who doesn't believe in Torah is an apikores.

מאחר שנתפרסם שהוא כופר בתורה שבעל פה מורידין אותו ולא מעלין והרי הוא כשאר כל האפיקורוסין והאומרים אין תורה מן השמים שכל אלו אינם בכלל ישראל ואין צריך לא עדים ולא התראה ולא דיינים אלא כל ההורג אחד מהם עשה מצוה גדולה והסיר המכשול.

Again, obviously as the Chazon Ish says, this was once upon a time, obviously. Now, continues the Rambam and says in Halakha Gimmel,

במה דברים אמורים באיש שכפר בתורה שבעל פה במחשבתו ובדברים שנראו לו,

right? A person, he's smarter than thousands of years of tradition. The Torah she-be'al peh says like this and I say like that.

והלך אחר דעתו הקלה ואחר שרירות לבו וכפר בתורה שבעל פה תחילה כצדוק ובייתוס וכן כל הטועים אחריהם.

Right, a first generation kofer is what we're talking about says the Rambam.

אבל בני הטועים האלו ובני בניהם שהדיחו אותם אבותיהם ונולדו בין הקראים וגדלו אותם על דעתם הרי הם כתינוק שנשבה ביניהם וגדלוהו ואינו זריז לאחוז בדרכי המצוות שהרי הוא כאנוס ואף על פי ששמע אחר כך שהוא יהודי וראה היהודים ודתם הרי הוא כאנוס שהרי גדלוהו על טעותם כך אלו שאמרנו האוחזים בדרכי אבותם הקראים שטעו. לפיכך ראוי להחזירן בתשובה ולמשוכן בדברי שלום עד שיחזרו לאיתן התורה.

So the Rambam here is meforash, meforash, even when you add the last few words which the Frankel Rambam has from a manuscript, the Rambam here is meforash that the second generation Karaim, second generation of assimilated Jews, the Rambam says meforash that we don't treat them as apikorsim, right? The din of an apikores, right? Once upon a time in theory is moridin ve-ein maalin. The Rambam says even in theory, even once upon a time, that was never ever the din for bnehem u-vne vnehem. Right? So you see meforash here, you see meforash here that the Rambam al korchach in Hilkhos Teshuva doesn't mean that the circumstances are irrelevant. And he doesn't mean that in Perush ha-Mishnayos either, al korchach. Me-idach gisa, me-idach, so ad kan, you certainly cannot, it's certainly wrong to be medayek from the Rambam that the fact that the concluding paragraph here about the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim, that the Rambam does not mean that because a person is lacking active emuna in the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim means that because of that lacking, because of that chisaron, he's automatically an apikores with all the horrible consequences that has, that's certainly not the case, certainly not the case. You see that from Hilkhos Mamrim. Okay. So now the question is so where do we draw the line then, right? Me-idach gisa, me-idach gisa, I mean the Rambam does in Hilkhos Teshuva, Reb Chaim does tell us that the Rambam shita is that נעבעך אן אפיקורוס איז אויך אן אפיקורוס. So the question is where do you draw the line? Right? How come that applies, how come that applies to the person who thinks that the Ribono Shel Olam is a ba'al guf, but it doesn't apply to the bnehem u-vne vnehem who were misled, who are ke-tinok she-nishba in terms of their beliefs? Right? So where do you draw the line? And what's more... This I saw in in Reb Elchonon at the end of the Kovetz Shiurim in Yevamos, there were several several pieces there in Reb Elchonon about the Divrei Agados. So the last one he he quotes this comment beshem Reb Chaim as well and says that mitzad echad he doesn't quote the Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim but he's sort of creates the same problem we're talking about he says mitzad echad what Reb Chaim says is absolutely mukhach. It has to be true because lemaise on a certain level every oveid avoda zara is mutar, right? Every oveid avoda zara is not right is is obviously thinks that that he's not going to be nidon to gehenom for what he's doing, right? He obviously on a certain level is is a toe on on some on some level. So nevach an apikorus is an apikorus is absolutely mukhach. Me'idach gissa says Reb Elchonon, what if you have a katon ben yomo? Is he an apikorus? Because if you ask him if you ask him nu nu tell me the yud gimmel ikkrim so he's probably not going to be able to not going to be able to respond. So what does he think the Rambam thinks he's a he's he's an apikorus? So obviously that's that's ludicrous, right? So al korchacha what do you have to say? Al korchacha you have to say that the machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad and I think Reb Elchonon says this that al korchacha the machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad is lav man depalig that there can be extenuating circumstances. Lav man depalig the Rambam himself says it in Hilchos Mamrim and and Reb Elchonon points out you can't say that just the lack of of an active emunah in the yud gimmel ikkrim so where does that leave ktane ktanim? You can't say that ktane ktanim are apikorsim. So obviously you do take into account what the reasons are for the lack of emunah in the yud gimmel ikkrim. And the machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad is not nearly not nearly as far reaching as we thought initially. Basically the machlokes comes down to if a person makes a mistake about the yesod of אינו גוף ולא ישיגוהו משיגי הגוף if a person makes a mistake about that is that type of mistake one which can be excused which we think that there can be extenuating circumstances to account for that that it would be comparable to bnei bneihem to the bonim and bnei bneihem of the Karayim or do we say no that it's like the oveid avoda zara who mishriris libo decided no I know better than than thousands of years of Jewish tradition and I'm smarter than than everyone and I'm going to go אחר דעתו הקלה ואחר שרירות לבו? So then the machlokes always becomes that everyone agrees that you have those two categories and the question in any in any individual case is how you classify this taos. Is this the type of taos and is this the type of context and and are these the type of circumstances which are analogous to the person who's הולך אחר דעתו הקלה ושרירות לבו is oveid avoda zara that lav man depalig even the Raavad agrees that he's culpable or do you say no that this is comparable this is analogous to what even the Rambam agrees with that the bonim and the bnei bonim of the Karayim are are certainly not nidonim ke-apikorsim. So the question is and and this already it's very difficult I mean we can give a hasharah but but it's very difficult to to know for a fact. So what exactly then according to the Rambam is the is the precise rule, right? So the Rambam says the fact that the person is misled by certain psukim that that he read certain psukim in the Chumash literally so the Rambam says the Rambam says that's no excuse that's no excuse. So he's rejecting a traditional interpretation that's no excuse. So the question is what exactly is the rule right is there a rule for which for which is is דעתו הקלה ושיעור לבו and which are k'tinokos k'tinokos shenishba? Agav if you take a look in the is it the Frankel Rambam I think? Does it talk about this? Ready? Yeah. Thank you. You take a look in the Frankel Rambam you'll see something unbelievable in that halacha in Hilchos Mamrim that we were just reading. Absolutely amazing. It's פרק ג הלכה ג. So first of all I'll read it the way we have it. אבל בני הטועים האלו ובני בניהם שהדיחו אותם אבותם v'noldu bein hakara'im וגדלו אותם על דעתם הרי הוא כתינוק שנשבה ביניהם v'gidlu'hu ואינו זרוז לאחוז בדרכי המצוות sheharei hu k'onus. Okay. Now there are many differences but in terms of the last phrase in terms of the last phrase so the girsa here in the Frankel Rambam is

הרי הן כתינוק שנשבה לבין הגוים וגדלוהו הגוים על דתם שהוא אונס.

Not k'onus but onus. Okay so the first time if you have a Rambam in front of you take a look. The first time that we have in the regular defus k'onus and according to the Frankel Rambam the correct girsa is onus. Now then the Rambam continues ואף על פי ששמע אחר כך שהיה יהודי v'ra'ah hayehudim v'dasam harei hu k'onus שהרי גדלוהו על טעותו. Here the Frankel Rambam also has the k'onus. So the first time is onus the second time is k'onus. Remarkable thing. The first time is onus second time is k'onus. Why? What's the pshat? Pshat is like this. The Rambam's describing a little case of a tinok shenishba means a child who's being raised and he's not aware that he's Jewish. Not aware that he's Jewish right? As happened to certain children who were who were hidden as infants during the during the Holocaust and in such cases. So he's being raised and doesn't not even aware that he's Jewish. So the Rambam says that he's onus right? Then ואף על פי ששמע אחר כך שהיה יהודי v'ra'ah hayehudim v'dasam harei hu k'onus. Remarkable thing. As long as he doesn't know he's Jewish the Rambam says he's mamash an onus. When he discovers that he's Jewish so then and and he finds out he hears a little bit about Torah. He hears that the Jews don't drive in the car on Shabbos. Rambam says nevertheless he's still k'onus. He's still k'onus. Okay so interesting right? As long as he's unaware of his Jewish identity then he's mamash onus. When he becomes aware of his Jewish identity so then he's k'onus because again but he was brought up his whole life that his orientation is that he's not Jewish. That his orientation is that he's not Jewish. So then when you think about it so if this this this if and again the diyuk is the diyuk is right there. So then l'chora wouldn't you expect in Hilchos Shgagos right? So in Shabbos it says if you have a tinok shenishba that he's chayav a chatas. Chayav a chatas. So wouldn't you expect the Rambam then to say again but to be chayav a chatas only shogeg is chayav a chatas and onus is not chayav a chatas. So what would be if you'll have a case he was a tinok shenishba and then at age thirty he finds out. that he is Jewish, but but right away, right away he's chozer betshuva. Right away he's chozer betshuva. He's never mechallel shabbos subsequently. So shouldn't the Rambam say that in such a case he's patur from korban. The tinok shenishba should only be chayav a korban if he hears about shabbos but it doesn't register. Oh but he's only ke'ones mikan u'lehaba. So then he'll be chayav, he'll be chayav but then ten years later. So finally, finally he, he appreciates the significance of what he was told and then he's chozer betshuva. So in this case he should be chayav a chatas for the past ten years. But the one who responds immediately shouldn't be chayav a chatas at all in light of what it says in Hilchos Mamrim that until that point he was ones, not ke'ones. But in Hilchos Shegogos you don't find that distinction. You take a look in Perek Zayin of Hilchos Shegogos, so the Rambam just says without, without any distinction that a tinok shenishba is chayav one chatas. He's chayav one chatas because it's one long shegogah. So why is that? So the pashat is the teretz is as follows. That in Hilchos Shegogos the nidon is whether he's ones or not in terms of ma'asim. In terms of ma'asim he put the light on on shabbos, right? In terms of ma'asim the definition of ones is coercion. Whether or not he was coerced. Even a tinok shenishba is not coerced, right? He grows up thinking that he's, thinking that he's a gentile, doesn't mean he was coerced to put on the light on shabbos. It's the ultimate shogeg but it's shogeg. Over here the Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim is saying when you're talking in the realm of emunah, so there the definitions of ones and not ones are different than when you're talking in the realm of ma'aseh. In the realm of ma'aseh, so then ones is taluy on again whether there was physical coercion, whether there was physical coercion. When you're talking in the realm of machshava, in the realm of emunah, so then even the fact that gidlu al ta'usom is an ones, is, is an ones on the level of machshava, on the level of, on the level of emunah. So the question that remains again for which we can give a hash'ara and a stubbedik hash'ara, but I don't know if there are any rayos, mamash klara rayos in the Rambam. The question is so where does the Rambam, now let's paraphrase what we're saying. So where does the Rambam, what's going to qualify as being ones? Let's say instead of being brought up on, on, on the belief, on the k'fira rachmana litzlan in Torah and Torah sheba'al peh as the Rambam's describing here, what would be if he's brought up rachmana litzlan on the k'fira in that the Ribbono Shel Olam in metzius Hashem, in that הקדוש ברוך הוא אינו גוף. What happens if he's nisgadel on to'os zo? What would the Rambam, what would the Rambam say about that? That's not, not meforash, not meforash in the Rambam. But al kol panim, it, it is lechora absolutely meforash that it's wrong to say that the Rambam, and, and Rav Chaim obviously didn't mean it either, that, that the Rambam doesn't take into account mitigating circumstances. He absolutely does, and the whole machlokes the Rambam and the Ra'avad is where you, where you draw the line.