And what about the World to Come? Does that have the same status, from your perspective, as the coming of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead?

Indeed.

It seems to me that in the Frankel edition there are a few more principles of faith in Maimonides; if you could apply some of your infinite wisdom there too and receive a more officially certified diploma as a heretic against the tradition of his forefathers.

The key to wisdom is respect for wisdom and for those who bear its vessels. Good night.

Before you appoint yourself the one in charge of labeling people on behalf of the Holy One, blessed be He, it might be worth equipping yourself with a bit of relevant information.
For example, I am not aware of a Frankel edition of the Commentary on the Mishnah. On the other hand, I do know that these principles are not an invention of Maimonides but predate him (whether classifying them as principles is another question). In addition, I have not heard of the Commentary on the Mishnah having binding canonical status. By contrast, I have heard that in three places in the Commentary on the Mishnah, Maimonides states that there is no binding halakhic ruling in non-halakhic topics. And finally, I am also unaware of Maimonides having been appointed to the role of Moses our teacher the Second.
And to conclude: those labels are not a substantive argument in a discussion like this, and therefore they do not trouble even my grandmother, may she rest in peace. On the contrary, the fools who label me in such ways only strengthen me in my view. If fools see my words as mistaken, then the chances that I am right increase. As it is said: “My father chastised you with whips… ”

*** Deleted due to trolling ***

I understand that I am an apikorus who has excluded himself from the community.

Unlike you, I read what people write to me and try to respond.

Ahh, Michi, can you explain to me how Rabbi Bunim Schreiber, who didn’t know you personally and only saw some thoughts from one of your books, Middah Tovah, 20 years ago, said that it could be thrown into the bathroom, and predicted that you would end up where you are today (what is called here in the blog’s jargon “Michi B”)—isn’t that an amazing phenomenon that makes you want to investigate it, Michi?

Most likely that “a sage is preferable to a prophet” said that about anyone who moved and wasn’t exactly in line. Besides, it’s well known that the whole business of trying to deal with the rabbinic homiletic teachings and decipher the process is a bit outside the pale in Haredi eyes, at least in the past.

Bongol, the book was brought by—not Bunim—because Rabbi Bunim himself also dealt in one of his books, Netiv Binah on the Talmud, with rabbinic homiletic teachings and deciphering the process as well, before Michi together with Gabriel Hazut published his Middah Tovah books. And specifically those books are not populist like Michi’s other books, especially the third Teralology, and there is nothing there that goes outside the line—so this is really not outside the pale in Haredi eyes, not even in the past.

Engaging with the hermeneutic principles was always there, but deciphering the intuitions and trying to reconstruct the mode of rabbinic thinking was not. They discussed the rules of the hermeneutic principles, but not their justification and development. And apparently the hidden reason is fear that understanding would also bring criticism, and it is not certain that the words of the Sages would withstand such criticism, on a topic that they did not deal with over the generations. In short, your Rabbi Bunim was not using sharp prophetic insight; he was reciting the standard Haredi messaging sheet.

I would be very glad if you would quote for me what exactly that recitation was—the Haredi messaging sheet that I, as a Haredi, somehow missed? And mainly, what does that have to do with the risk of making a future prediction that at the time seemed completely far-fetched? If I hadn’t been educated in faith in the Sages, I would really have rebelled against it. It is roughly equivalent to someone telling you today that one day you’ll see Michi eventually convert to Islam and become the imam of the Temple Mount. Is that in any way connected to a Haredi messaging sheet? And I repeat again: if a Torah scholar of truly enormous stature hadn’t told you this, you would dismiss his words and reject them immediately. That is exactly your definition of “a sage is preferable to a prophet.” I, the small one, would at most be willing to risk a prediction that was foreseeable in advance and immediate—like, for example, that Michi will now write to the two of us, “Friends, I think the matter has run its course, and this is neither the place nor the platform for quoting what so-and-so said or thought about so-and-so”—nothing more than that.

The matter is simple. The messaging sheet is that anything that deviates from the path accepted from our forefathers is, sooner or later, terrible heresy. So too with extensive involvement in the plain meaning of Scripture; so too with Talmud study influenced by academic research; so too even with harsh criticism of new currents of thought (under the leadership of Rabbi Shach, and also those who held onto his cloak, such as Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Schulzinger and others), and so on. If the matter is led by clearly eminent Torah scholars (such as Rabbi Leib Mintzberg, Rabbi Moshe Shapira, etc.), then the criticism is restrained, and after the thing spreads among the public from the bottom up and takes hold even among the spiritual elite, and turns out to be risk-free, then at that later stage it is naturally integrated even into the mainstream. During the Enlightenment they especially liked to engage in grammar and the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) as an alternative to Talmudic pilpul and as criticism of rabbinic homilies that supposedly stray from the truth, and in the development of the hermeneutic principles (a discipline that led to criticism of the Sages and undermining the reliability of the tradition), and therefore those fields in particular aroused a reaction, and anyone who dealt with them afterward encountered suspicion until proven otherwise. If you suspect every stranger who comes near your house of wanting to steal, then it’s not such a great achievement to boast that you also suspected the one who really did end up stealing.

I did not understand what argument of mine I was supposed to respond to. Occupation with “Maimonides Frankel” is not our issue; that was only a figure of speech. Perhaps to the argument that there is no binding halakhic ruling in non-halakhic topics—to that I ask: does it seem to you that in a matter that is the consensus of our entire nation, such as reward and punishment, the World to Come, and the like, there is no binding Jewish law? [For obviously, in disputes over some details there are matters that were not decided.] Is it possible that the resurrection of the dead, which is mentioned by us three times a day in the second blessing of the Amidah [as also at the end of Daniel], has no binding halakhic ruling that excludes from the community one who does not hold it? Does it seem logical to you that God has gone on unpaid leave from some certain period, with no defense attorney, no right of appeal, and no eternal pension? Could it enter your mind that under God’s law six million people were sent to the gas chambers for no reason at all, simply because He relies on our maturity to get along with nature? This perpetual belittling of the topic of trust in God and human effort, when it is known beyond any doubt that in these matters lay the greatness of our greatest ones—their doubts and their victories in their conduct with their God—just because the matter is a bit complex, [see David in the episode of the balsam trees, or “my feet had almost slipped, for I envied the arrogant”].

I will tell you that I have no doubt that if only you incline your ear more toward faith, and believe that the key to wisdom is true respect for wisdom and for those who bear its vessels, with the simple recognition that their understanding is broader than ours, you have enough good and fine tools—more than I and others do—to restore the faith of Israel to its proper standing.