Every Friday night, many Jews recite "Sholom Aleichem," a greeting to the angels. In the third stanza of "Sholom Aleichem," we ask the angels to bless us - "Borchuni lishalom, Malachei hashalom." Is this request a violation of Rambam's fifth fundamental principle of faith?
No, and for the same reason why Yaakov wasn't a kofer when he asked the sar shel Eisav for a bracha. Or everyone in Tanach who asks for, gives, and receives brachos.
ReplyDeleteAvodah and hallel are technical terms with precise meanings in halacha. I think you've gotten a little far afield because you're taking the English translations and their connotations and running with them. I'd like to see clear evidence that asking for a bracha is classified is either avodah or hallel before you accuse people of kefirah.
If avodah and hallel are technical terms divorced from their English translations, please enlighten us by providing for us the correct definitions of these terms.
ReplyDeleteAvodah by avodas kochavim is very technically defined, see for instance Hilchos Avodas Kochavim perek 3. Interestingly, it is the avodos we use for Hashem - hishtachavayah and so forth - which are specifically forbidden by all of them, since that is the avodah reserved for Hashem.
ReplyDeleteI think the burden would actually be on the one claiming it's kefirah to show that asking for a brachah is a violation of this principle. Kefirah is a high hurdle to leap.
"I'd like to see clear evidence that asking for a bracha is classified is either avodah or hallel before you accuse people of kefirah."
ReplyDeleteTechnically speaking, Eli K didn't accuse; he only asked the question.
The halachos of avodah zara in Yad Hachazaka do not correspond to the conceptual definition of Avodah Zara by Rambam in Peirush Hamishnayos and Moreh Nevuchim. For example, the thirteen principles describe BELIEFS the denial of which labels one a "kofer." Hilchos Avodah Zara, on the other hand, concerns itself with external expressions of devotion to foreign deities. Rambam's reference to avodah zara in this fifth principle does not refer to the Halachic definition of avodah zara, but rather to the theological basis of avodah zara - the belief aspect, not the active aspect. My discussion is centered around this theological base, the denial of which would render one a kofer; it is not concerned with the Halachic definition of avodah zara per se. The understanding of this theological base is focused on Rambam's articulation of it in Peirush Hamishnayos; the halachic definition of avodah zara, on the other hand, would properly center on Rambam's treatment of it in Hilchos Avodah Zara.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I did not label anyone a kofer; I merely asked whether or not certain practices are expressions of kefirah, and I thank you for your thoughts on the matter.
I apologize for saying you accused anyone of kefirah. Technically, I read that into your words.
ReplyDeleteAs we discussed sidebar, I think (based on my views of what R. Soloveitchik holds) that theology and halachah are not separable. Beliefs are very active, and halachic definitions can inform us as to theological points, as well.
Anyway, even according to the tzad that they are different, given that the Rambam has a clear definition of avodah on a halachic topic I think you'll admit is at least related, why not say he had the same thing in mind in the theological discussion where it is not clearly defined, and where using that definition resolves a number of problems? Why would we assume the interpretation has to be different?
Because in his discussion of the 13 ikarim, Rambam explicitly states that the difference between a Jew who merits the World to Come and a kofer is whether or not one BELIEVES in the 13 principles. It is not a matter of action, but a matter of belief. His Halachic definition of avodah zara concerns action, not belief.
ReplyDeleteIf one demonstrates through his action that he does not believe in one of the 13 principles, he is a kofer, although he may not be Halachically considered an oved avodah zara.
Yes, but the belief in yesod 5 is a belief about actions - to wit, what entities are worthy of the action of avodah. And that action seems to be the source of the contradiction, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteAgain, you are confusing the belief in the propriety of serving angels with the Halachic categorization of the action of serving angels. One who believes that angels are worthy of service may be a denier of Rambam's fifth principle, and at the same time may not have violated the Biblical prohibition of avodah zara.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say you always violate them both at the same time. If you believe that angels are worthy of you doing that action for them, even if you don't do it, then you have violated the Rambam's fifth principle. You have to actually do the action to violate the Biblical prohibition. If you don't do the action, you haven't violated the Biblical prohibition, of course.
ReplyDeleteMy point is, the actions you would have to do in order to violate the Biblical prohibitions, and the actions you have to believe angels are worthy of having done for them in order to violate the fifth principle, are likely one and the same actions, according to the Rambam.
Once you accept that premise, there are no problems from most of the examples you've brought.
I still maintain that Rambam is not even discussing a belief in actions that would violate the technical prohibition of avodah zara, but only the theological base of avodah zara. The reason I maintain this stance is because avodah is not the only thing that Rambam mentions in the fifth principle as being solely reserved for Hashem. He also mentions, inter alia, that Hashem is the only One to Whom it is appropriate to praise. Is one who praises a human being in violation of the Biblical prohibition of avodah zara? Certainly not! Clearly, then, Rambam is not limiting the fifth principle to the technical Halachic parameters of avodah zara.
ReplyDeleteI'll deal with the hallel aspect in a moment. Just to go one step at a time, does that mean that you concede that from the Rambam's wording just on avodah, before we get to hallel, it's possible to interpret avodah as I've been arguing?
ReplyDeleteHallel is not the only evidence that avodah has a broader application than you suggest. However, theoretically speaking, if you would isolate the word "avodah" from the rest of Rambam's words, of course your interpretation would be plausible.
ReplyDelete