Epicurean
From my impressions so far, you oppose establishing the tenets of faith because what is important is what is true and not what is heresy. So who is still defined as a heretic from a halakhic perspective and what is his ruling? Aren’t there certain fundamentals that every reasonable person should accept, and if they don’t, they are a heretic (or a fool?)
There is no negation to this matter, and therefore there is no point in entering into such definitions. Heresy due to instinct has negation, but not heresy because it is believed.
Can you still specify who is defined as an apocryphal heretic? Is someone who is not sure that the Torah is from the Holy Scriptures or that there will be a resurrection of the dead an apocryphal heretic?
This has a halachic implication regarding the permissibility of speaking slander and hating these people (as Maimonides wrote at the end of the introduction to the chapter part).
There is no halachic implication to this because in my opinion it is impossible to speak ill of someone who is not evil. Anyone who holds a certain worldview because that is what they think is not evil.
Wasn't Hitler evil according to the Rabbi?
If this is truly what he thought of as a good deed, then in my opinion he is not evil but a compulsive person. It is a bit difficult for me to accept that he really thought it was appropriate to torture Jews. It is okay to exterminate them because they are harmful (in his opinion), but why persecute and torture?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
