In all seriousness, I also share R Y Blau’s concerns about an approach that essentially pokes holes in the Ikarim without offering an alternative set of ikarim and the over generous use of manuscript evidence from unknown scholars despite their having rabbinical approval to their works.One cannot use unheard of and unvetted sources to construct an attack on the Ikarim and offer nothing as a set of Ikarim in the alternative. IMO, that is what R D D Berger and others call Orthoprax-and I find it intellectually dishonest-regardless of whether it is offered by an author with a Charedi, RZ or MO approach. (Similarly, one cannot set up the SE as a model for MO when in fact, his influence was confined to pre WW2 Europe and the aftermath of the Shoah. IMO, R Shapiro’s bio shows us that the SE had relatively little influence among American MO, which was lead and dominated by RYBS. The bio also neglects to tell the reader that the SE was offered and rejected an appointment in RIETS and YU’s Bernard Revel Graduate School. I would suggest that the interested reader read both R Shapiro’s bio of the SE and the very valuable insights in MOAG.) I find it curious that you would mention R Albo-one can argue very well that his triad of ikarim is based on the Nusach of the Musaf of RH.

By the way, just because an opinion is cited by R. Shapiro or Professor Kellner doesn’t make it traif. I happened across those opinions when I was reviewing Nechama Leibowitz on parshat Yitro(and she also brought the Rambam inter alia). If this is going to be the arguement against any sources I bring, please provide me a list of the Brizel approved sources, and also a reason why Abravanel and Crescas are not approved. Otherwise you have to accept that these are certainly part of mesora, although you may not hold by them. Rav Blau is certainly entitled to his opinion, but I dont think that he should be allowed to eliminate mainstream sources from the Mesorah. There are plenty of alternatives in the Mesorah to the Ikkarim, from Saadia Gaon, to Albo and others(including opinions that there really aren’t Ikkarim).

If you(Tal) have any sources to back up your contention, I would be very interested in knowing. thanks

There is a disagreement among our sages as to the meaning of the dots.
Did Esav kiss him with all his heart, were his tears tears of longing?
-0r

Did Esav bite him, and were his tears tears of pain as Yaakov’s neck turned to stone.

Yaakov rejected walking along with him. It’s a danger to the children he said.

What is the message for us? Neither your honey nor your sting! The kiss and the bite are both dangerous.

It is not so important whether JF loved us or hated us. What is important is that we take the lesson from Yaakov Avinu, and for our sake, and for the sake of our children, that we keep our distance.

Chag Sameach

There are probably variants of Xianity that don’t violate avoda zara (for anyone, including Rambam), possibly even to this day.

As you say, whether Tosfos (and Rema, who follows Tosfos) accept that shituf is mutar for bnei noach is a machlokes; pischei teshuva YD 147 brings many shitas in both directions. I saw an article from R Bliech in which this issue comes up, and he says there are probably more who hold that shituf is mutar for bnei noach than not.

“Not at all. The Rambam gives as an example of an apikorus as one who believes Hashem can change his Will, and specifically names “those Xtians and Moslems.” Furthermore, the Rambam states that a non-Jew who keeps the 7 mitzvos simply because he believes them to be moral and ethical is NOT one of the Chassidei Umos ha Olam. Rather, he must keep them because Hashem commanded them to Moseh Rabbenu, just as Jews keep the 613 mitzvos for that reason.”

It’s commonly understood that Rambam intends to say that these are examples of beliefs that are apikorus for Jews, not that this category of apikorsus defines which gentiles lose olam haba; at any rate, one can’t determine what he held for goyim from what he writes here. Many also assume that Xians do meet the Rambam’s standard of keeping 7 mitzvos because they were commanded by Moshe, since they don’t believe they were rescinded (though they do believe other mitzvos were rescinded). It’s debatable, but it’s quite common to assume that the requirements are not to believe in a’”z (from the 7 mitzvos) and that 7 mitzvos are mandatory because they were given by Moshe (and do not derive from shikul hadaas), but not that gentiles must accept that in principle no navi can override Moshe. This would leave Muslims as potential bnei olam haba for Rambam, and if one accepts that shutfus is mutar for bnei noach, but otherwise works with the Rambam’s system, that would apply to Xians too. (None of this indicates the religions are considered legitimate; it means that they are not so forbidden as to render their practioners not bnei olam haba.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/profile/christopher_hitchens.shtml

The first issue is the trinity and it’s hard to reconcile such concepts as “nehenin miziv hashechina” with what you write.

“Says who? Many Orthodox Jews believe that Christianity can and often does conform with the brit of Bnei Noah.”

That doesn’t mean they accept Christianity is legitimate, only that the beliefs are not forbidden as a form of avoda zara to bnei noach. (Actually, eyn meynichin oso lechadash das applies even before we get to theological/ideological issues specific to Xianity or for that matter Islam.)

7 mitzvos are not “Brit of bnei noach”

The bottom line for C. Hitchens is the meaning behind his tirades and for someone supposedly unmoved by the reality of God, he exhibits startling anger and endless emotion concerning Mother Teresa, Jerry Falwell and the fact that most Americans believe and pray to God. It is my belief that those who are sincere and stable in their non-belief manage much more of a live and let live attitude but I am not a psychiatrist.

If Hitchens wishes to point the finger of blame, I do not know why he wastes so many words, endlessly repeated, on Rev. Falwell and Mother Theresa when he can get right to the point and blame the Jews instead. After all, we are the ones who have insisted on the reality of one God, the value of life and of individual responsibility, the belief in a soul and a human conscience and so many other concepts adopted by the Christian world. Hitler had it right, sir, the Jews are the “stain” on humanity and I ask you to stop beating around the bush and picking on Jew wannabees instead of the Jews themselves.

While the Jews are the ones to initially declare the greatness of God–it seems that others want to be God. Perhaps this is the conflict, am I correct?

I’m thinking of a response… send your ideas and thoughts to talkback at our domain, and you might be featured! — YM

I’m sorry, but your faith sounds more like “Torah cum Conservative Talk Radio” to me.

This point is disputed among the acharonim. It is not at all clear that Xtianity is not Avoda Zara. The simple reading of the Tosafos at issue is that there is no issur of shevua be shittuf. The Rambam and many other authorities indeed hold that it is AZ. It certainly is AZ for Jews.

Of those who did (or do), such as the Rambam, there is a specific heter to teach Torah she-be-chtav to Christians (but not Muslims! davka because they respect the Torah (the Rambam said it, not I)—and he held they are ovdei avoda zara.

The issue is not whether one may teach them Torah. It is whether the Torah views it as a “legitimate” — by which I understand it to mean halakhically permissible — option. As to that the Rambam holds the answer is clear: NO.

Minus? What does minus have to do with anything? Are Bnai Noach obligated in the yud gimmel ikkarim too? A chiddush!

Not at all. The Rambam gives as an example of an apikorus as one who believes Hashem can change his Will, and specifically names “those Xtians and Moslems.”

Furthermore, the Rambam states that a non-Jew who keeps the 7 mitzvos simply because he believes them to be moral and ethical is NOT one of the Chassidei Umos ha Olam. Rather, he must keep them because Hashem commanded them to Moseh Rabbenu, just as Jews keep the 613 mitzvos for that reason.

In any event, Minus is a far more fundamental problem than other ikkrei emunah, it is a rejection of the very first ikkar — belief in One God. That is binding on Non-Jews as much as Jews simply by its fundamental nature.

(There is even an halakhic ramification. The view of the Rambam (opposed by the Rosh) is that a non-Jew who is not an idolator has, min ha Torah, kosher shechita. Miderabbanan, however, even a perfectly frum ben-Noach has possul shechita. On a deoraysa level, only idolators and minim have possul shechita. This covers both Jews and Bnei Noach. So that, mideoraysa, a Ben-Noach who becomes a min thereby possuls his own shechita.)

There could be no greater contrast between the world Avraham avinu experienced as he lamented, to paraphrase, this is a land where God is not known–to a Jewish experience in a land such as America. Jerry Falwell consciously saw himself as easily in the traditon of those men who founded this nation, the nation which has been so open and friendly to the Jewish people escaping European persecution and having such freedoms and opportunities never before even imagined. Indeed, Jewish Americans have been the proudest and most grateful Americans.

I fear this has changed and it is truly disturbing to hear liberal Jewish voices complain so loudly against the very freedoms that are part of the traditional American experience. For the Jewish people, one might imagine that choosing sides would be very easy. Yet, far too many in our community outwardly and openly now are betting on the wrong side, using the courts to inflict greater control and fewer freedoms and siding with the secularists against out natural allies.

Jerry Falwell very quickly and easily lauded the virtues of the Jewish people, our Torah and Biblical precepts, the state of Israel and the legitimacy of fighting for its defense and protection. He told me to my face that he has zero problem accepting the Jewish terms for abortion and zero problem of accepting any prayer favored by a kosher Rabbi in a public setting. Of course, Jews are not about to return the compliment and we would never stand for any prayer that appears to be even vaguely Christian and we would never stand for abortion restrictions that went beyond what we felt is correct. We take the support of Israel with far less than open arms and gratitude–instead, we tend to take the money and look frantically for anything that seems suspicious.

While it seems that Christians are big supporters and admirers of Jewish websites, Jewish products from Israel and books touting Jewish wisdom–Jews cannot and will not reciprocate on any level. I do not object to the fact that Jews consume nothing Christian. I recently asked the people responsible for creating a very popular Jewish website if they objected to the fact that many of the hits to the site come from Christians. The reply:” Of course not.” I ask: how can the consumers of Jewish wisdom possibly be our enemies or a problem?

Christians like Falwell represent a significant part of the reason why Jews need to act in gratitude for life in this country. It is therefore disturbing when any Jew, much less an observant one, takes shots at the passing of Rev. Falwell.

That’s a good question, but before we get to that discussion, you said what Orthodox Jews believed, and I qualified that because “many Orthodox Jews” believe otherwise.

Now, as for which authorities, the answer is that in theory most poskim held and hold that Christianity is not avoda zara for non-Jews. Of those who did (or do), such as the Rambam, there is a specific heter to teach Torah she-be-chtav to Christians (but not Muslims! davka because they respect the Torah (the Rambam said it, not I)–and he held they *are* ovdei avoda zara.

Minus? What does minus have to do with anything? Are Bnai Noach obligated in the yud gimmel ikkarim too? A chiddush!

“Many Orthodox Jews” believe alot of odd things. What authority holds this? None that I know of. Xitanity rejects the eternality of Torah, it is Minus, so I cannot see how it could possibly be reconciled with the obligations of Bnei Noach.

Plainly, we must resist conversion. But we can adopt a position that the effort to convert us (any of us) is wrong whilst still accepting that the person making the effort is motivated by what he believes to be true. The test of whether that person is wicked doesn’t arise then, but at the stage where the putative convertor uses force to achieve his aims, or characterises those who refuse to see his ‘light’ as evil. And Falwell did neither.

Moreover, according to his ghost autobiographer (BBC Radio 4 - Wed night) Falwell also practised what he precahed in terms of loving the sin and hating the sinner. The writer is homosexual and said that Falwell knew that and was wholly pleasant to him, whilst making it clear that he didn’t like or approve of the homosexuality. When he asked Falwell why the denunications after 9/11, Falwell replied that he was issuing statements for public consumption and believed that the view needed expressing in harsh terms.

Now, I don’t agree with Falwell’s views on this, or with public pronouncements in such incendiary terms at such dreadful times, but the story demonstrates both a certain degree of principle and an ability to realise that public and private are different. Hardly a Rasha…

On the other hand - of course it’s possible to be liberal and orthodox. Only in the US is ‘liberal’ an insult. And it shouldn’t be - being willing to seriously examine the views of others and change your mind if appropriate is not equivalent to being evil or stupid. The characterisation of liberal Jews as hating Christians is unfair and incorrect - it is simply a way to have a crack at ‘liberals’ rather than a serious contribution to this discussion.

In the end, you either preserve your views at all costs or you test them in the crucible of conflicting opinion. Either way is acceptable providing the answers are honest and it’s about time we stopped expressing our frustration that someone has the wrong answer in terms of their moral character. Save that for the truly wicked - into which category neither liberals nor Falwell falls. And I agree - RIP.

If anybody says yes, remember that Orthodox Jews do not believe that Reform Judaism is a “legitimate” religion. However, Orthodox Jews are not enemies of Reform Jews.

Says who? Many Orthodox Jews believe that Christianity can and often does conform with the brit of Bnei Noah.