And what about a person who keeps the laws but believes in that man? He is still a proper Jew, right?

Believing in that man is not enough. He also has to be a Nazi. Then he is a proper Jew. And he should go up to a very high place and throw himself to the ground. If he went up and was still able to stand afterward, he should go up to a place twice as high and throw himself down again. And so on, up to seven times. If he did so, then he is a righteous Jew.

What does it mean that he believes in that man? Does he believe in the revelation at Mount Sinai and that Jewish law is binding? If so, then he is a proper Jew. And if he believes in that man in the sense that he was a moral model—good for him. If he believes in the doctrine of that man, then he is not bound by Jewish law, and even if he observes it, this is not observance of Jewish law. Observance of Jewish law exists only if the thing is done by virtue of the commandment at Sinai (see Maimonides, end of chapter 8 of the Laws of Kings).

But one could say that there is a law to listen to a prophet, and he claimed that the commandments had been abolished, so then we have Jewish law without practicing today’s Jewish law…
And that is seemingly the case in every religion.

Jesus never claimed that the commandments had been abolished…

Did Jesus just casually pick grain on the Sabbath? If one thing was abolished, a hundred things were abolished too, even if he declares until tomorrow that they weren’t.

It’s possible that he interpreted the Torah in a way that would permit picking grain on the Sabbath. The Sages also understood the Torah in a certain way and interpreted “an eye for an eye” differently, for example. Does that mean they abolished the commandments?
Jesus understood that the human being takes precedence over the Sabbath from the case of David, who ate the showbread.

Islam also has a developed legal system like Judaism. What is the difference between Islam and Judaism according to the Rabbi?

Or, nice interpretation of the grain. I accept it.

Gil, see I Samuel chapter 21, verses 1–7… and we’ll move forward from there, God willing.

If I remember correctly, regarding the picking of grain he said something like, “Man was not made for the Sabbath; rather, the Sabbath was made for man,” and then picking grain is permitted.

Only now did I notice Or’s reply… I repeated his point above with a source reference.

The Last Decisor, see Matthew 12:3–6.

Or, the Basketball Association also has a rulebook. I see no point in wasting our time on these hair-splittings.

Rabbi Michi, Or argued that Islam is law and that this is what distinguishes it from the other religions; it seems the Rabbi is dodging the issue…

Believe me, even if I wanted to dodge the issue, I would choose questions harder than this strange hair-splitting. I wrote that the Basketball Association also has a rulebook, so is that Judaism too?
I expect you to waste my time on slightly more intelligent questions. Answer that for yourselves. It really doesn’t require a full day of study.

Not only does basketball have laws. It also has religious fervor 🙂

Best regards, Nichal Yarden

All the examples of a heretic are of a person who claims something in matters of belief, not in actions. Meaning, there is a certain worldview such that one who deviates from it is considered to have deviated from Judaism.

Rabbi, I did not claim that Islam is binding or that it is equivalent to Judaism. I’m simply trying to understand and get to the bottom of your view. You claimed that what is unique about Judaism is Jewish law, and that this is what distinguishes it from all religions.
What I am trying to understand is: what is the difference between it and Islam in that respect? After all, Islam also has a legal system, and it too is an orthopractic religion.

Or. As an observer from the side, I don’t understand your question. Do Muslims accept and observe the Shulchan Arukh?
If so, then there is no difference. If not, then that’s the difference.

To Michael.
The essential difference is that Judaism is based on the Sages, and Christianity is based on Jesus and his emissaries.

But you know that. So why did you ask what you asked?

Clearly Judaism != Islam. What I am trying to understand is why, according to the Rabbi’s approach, Islam fails here.
Or perhaps he meant that Judaism = Jewish law, and then everything is clear since Islamic law (Sharia) != Jewish law.
But then that doesn’t answer the question Michael asked.

It may simply be that we understood the question differently.
I think Michael simply meant: why does the Rabbi think Judaism is true and the other religions are not, whereas the Rabbi probably meant: what “makes” Judaism “Judaism.”

Or, I really do not understand these questions. I asked you whether, in your opinion, every place that has a legal system is Judaism. That is how you present my position. Does it really need to be explained that we are talking about a system of laws given to us at Sinai by the Holy One, through Moses? I really do not understand this strange discussion.
In short, Judaism is the halakhic system. I did not say that every place that has a legal system is Judaism. In other words, where there are no laws, that is necessarily not Judaism. But where there are laws, that still does not necessarily make it Judaism.

Rabbi, I’d be glad to understand whether, in your view, you accept the concept of a “heretic,” and what it means.

Seemingly, the Sages understood that there are certain beliefs such that one who does not believe them leaves the bounds of Judaism. According to your words, Judaism just includes a collection of actions that one must do and not do, regardless of whether the person observing them believes in anything at all??

In my opinion, there is no practical difference at all. One cannot demand of a person that he believe something other than what he believes. So what practical difference does it make that he is called a heretic? Obviously he also does not deserve sanctions, because he is under compulsion. So these are just words.
Clearly, someone who does not believe in the revelation at Mount Sinai and in the halakhic obligation to the commands given there is not a Jew (ethnically yes, essentially no).

I wasn’t talking about practical implications, only proving that Judaism includes something beyond a set of laws. [The sanctions are not as punishment, but because he no longer deserves them (he is not a club member), or so that he will not negatively influence others].
There are ideological principles such that one who does not agree with them is outside; Michael’s question [apparently] was what they are.

It would be interesting to hear your answer.

I do not believe in the revelation at Mount Sinai or in halakhic obligation, and I am Jewish both ethnically and essentially. Essence does not belong only to the Torah and its commandments; that is only one certain part of Jewish essence. Judaism is made up of additional cultural markers.

Whoever rejects idolatry is called a Jew.

This question has fascinated me as well for some time—whether there is such a concept as a “heretic.”

The Rabbi keeps emphasizing that even if I am a heretic, it does not help for me to change my mind,
but the question here is whether there is a heretic in halakhic terms: is it forbidden to eat from the ritual slaughter of anyone who believes in the Documentary Hypothesis, for example, while for him himself it is permitted to eat from his own slaughter?! Or perhaps he is completely exempt from all commandments, because he has been ruled a denier, and a “denier” is not punished for transgressions he commits.

More than that: even Ibn Ezra should presumably be a “denier,” because he writes that not the entire Torah was written by Moses our teacher [I don’t remember the exact reference, but it is on the words “to this day,” that it could not have been written in those very days as “to this day”;
and according to the opinion that the book of Deuteronomy “Moses said on his own,” should those who believe that not be counted for a quorum? [See the Ri"d there, who explained it literally, that God did not tell him exactly what to write], and Rabbi Hillel likewise.

It seems there is some sort of definition that applies only to someone who did not investigate the issue and decided this way because of his inclination not to observe commandments, or out of total distrust of the Sages, or some other explanation.
I would be glad if the Rabbi would state his opinion on the matter.

“And so the heretics of Israel are not like Israel in any matter, and we do not accept them in repentance ever, as it is said (Proverbs 2:19), ‘All who go to her do not return, nor do they attain the paths of life.’ And the heretics are those who stray after the thoughts of their hearts in the foolishness of the matters we have mentioned, until they are found transgressing the essentials of the Torah in order to provoke, with contempt and a high hand, and they say that there is no sin in this. And it is forbidden to speak with them or to answer them at all, as it is said (Proverbs 5:8), ‘And do not come near the door of her house.’”

As I wrote, if a person is under compulsion in his beliefs, no sanctions should be imposed on him. Obviously, if there is concern about the consequences of his actions, that must be taken into account. Meaning, it is not advisable to eat something whose kashrut he testifies to, because it is not certain that his testimony is worth anything.

The question was: what are the requirements of Judaism such that one who does not hold them should be considered for sanctions? What are the ideological fundamentals that a Jew must hold, and by departing from them he is, according to Jewish law, outside?
It is commonly accepted that Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles define this boundary, but does the Rabbi accept that?

Two first requirements that immediately occur to me are:
He must reject idolatry.
He must reject a false god, one that is compelled to act according to the laws of logic that it learned in a logic course.

What do you mean by “reject idolatry”? The Torah does not deny them [if anything, quite the opposite—“which He apportioned,” etc.]; it only forbids worshipping them.
In any case, that is a halakhic prohibition. The question is what ideological principle exists in Judaism that stands at the basis of its definition, such that one who does not hold it is outside.

“You shall have no other gods before Me”—if that is not negation, then what is negation?

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters below the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them”—this comes to warn both against those who make physical idols and against those who make spiritual idols. Like those who believe in and worship a god that is subject to the laws of logic.

And it is written that anyone who rejects idolatry is already called a Jew.
That is, this is the most basic separating principle there is—not circumcision or being born to a Jewish mother.

As I wrote, that is a practical warning, but not a negating statement [that there is no external power besides God].

Of course there is external power besides God. There is gravitational force. There is electrical force. There is the power of faith, and more and more.
The negation concerns turning those powers into gods.