Friday, June 29, 2012

Roots of faith

A few months ago the follow parody of the Ani Ma'amin appeared in the pages of the Shabbos Blettel. The author (says he) is Harry Lipschitz.

Reputedly the great Alexander Marx (d. 1953) considered anything after 1800 to be "current events," and thus of little import. I disagree. Since this is really good, I figured why wait a hundred and fifty years before it is worthy of highlighting? 



14 comments:

  1. Heh heh. Poe's Law at its best.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's cute and very well-done, but as someone who has a more Kabbalistic bent, I actually agree with most (not all) of the statements he uses as parody. (I'm not going to argue the points, so don't ask.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Raavad also believed that Hashem couldn't have a body, but he objected to the Rambam making it an iqar emunah. The Raavad writes that greater men than the Rambam were misled by the pesuqim and aggaditos to think He had a body.

    Similarly here, Yaak. You can agree with all these beliefs. That's different than saying you wouldn't drink any uncooked wine I were to handle unless I did.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is a good piece, I'm glad you posted and didn't wait one hundred and fifty years (it will take me that long to get around to reading the Shabbos Blettel), but.... Alexander Marx has a point, the third Ani Maamin in this series alludes to it.
    Judy Brown (Braun?)brings the two together very nicely in Hush: A miracle had to be at least one hundred years old, when nobody was sure exactly when and how it happened, so that everyone would know that it was absolutely true. Once they knew it was true, it then became sacred and they could print it as part of the Children's Tales of Tzaddikim series.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Besides, I don't think I will still be blogging in 150 years.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This really doesn't read like a parody. Only towards the end, the line ולא יכחיש זה רק אפיקורוס and the principle about the chumroth are a bit eyebrow-raising. Otherwise, the rest is completely plausible.

    Have you seen the re-written 13 Ani Ma'amins in the Bialer siddur (חלקת יהושע)?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's a parody because anyone who believes in this way wouldn't have the chutzpah to rewrite the Ani Maamin. It's also a parody because it's the Shabbos Blettel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But S., the author of the Bialer siddur re-wrote the Ani Ma'amin!

      Delete
  8. Mar Gavriel,
    It is important to note that these "Ikkarim" are based on actual sources. The line ולא יכחיש זה רק אפיקורס  is verbatim from שו"ת דברי חיים יו"ד סימן קה. 

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting, I see.

      Delete
  9. I would take the Ikaarims approach and argue that if u believe in 1,7 and 8 you coverd it all... ואידך פרישא זול וגמור

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Ikarim has 11 mandatory beliefs: 3 iqarim, and 8 shorashim. In his language, an iqar is a first principle, and a shoresh is a conclusion you can reach from the iqarim but is still a necessary "root" to nourish the tree of Judaism. I compare the Iqarim's list with the Rambam's list on my blog. Note also the Rambam has a second version of his list -- aside from the one in the Peirush haMishnayos (before Sanhedrin pereq Cheileq), there is also the lists of beliefs that the various types of heretic deny in Hilkhos Teshuvah chapter 3. Interesting, and IMHO not coincidentally, there are three types of heretic listed there, much like the three iqarim in Seifer haIqarim.

      They only differ in two ways pragmatically: The iqarim speaks of Hashem's perfection, the Rambam, of He alone being worth of worship. And the iqarm doesn't discuss mashiach, only techiyas hameisim. (The other "missing" iqar, to get RYAlbo's list down to 11, is that he combines Divine Knowledge of human actions and thoughts and Divine Justice (no.s 10-11 in Peirush haMishnayos) into one shoresh.)

      Delete
    2. Micha
      How would u apply the Ikaarims method of ikarim and shorashim to the the 13 principals of the shaboss blettel? Also, would u add or eliminate from the list?

      Delete
    3. I think the Iqarim's approach doesn't fit it at all. He divides postulates from theorems, which requires subjecting the material to logical analysis...

      Delete

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails
'