Who in the world downvoted? +1 - but I had to force myself to click the button, as you left out R' Weinberg!

@YeZ :-) you never accepting my invitation to chat about it...

@Matt when did I not accept an invitation? By the way, I looked up in even sh'sia - he does speak about it in the first piece on the first ikkar.

@YeZ before I edit in R. Weinberg though, could you please explain to me if/how his opinion there differs from R. Velvel's explanation? I unfortunately don't own a copy of Even Shesia (though if you'd like to get me a copy for Chanukah I can arrange that :-)

@Matt It only differs in that he provided a diyuk in the Rambam and provided the logic of why it was true. R' Velvel is always quoted as a "din" because that's what it is - you have a "din apikorus." R' Weinberg explained what the point of the ikkarim was, and why in that framework it was obvious that a nebuch apikorus is oich an apikorus.

@YeZ that's not how I heard it, not how I presented it in my answer there. Check the Yiddish article I linked above, plus R. Shimshon Dovid Pinkus' quotation in Beraichos Becheshbon.

@Matt we could discuss that. But at the very least, I can assure you R' Velvel did not make the diyuk, because he did not have Kafach's translation.

And R' Chaim certainly didn't

@YeZ @YeZ we were talking about different diyukim. Not the one from the lashon of the Rambam at the end, but from the fact that there should be a halakhic difference between the ikkarim and the rest of the Torah

@YeZ part of why I'm so interested in seeing this inside though is because I'm wondering how it plays out regarding someone who doesn't believe in the ikkarim through no fault of his own. It sounds like, from what you quoted, R. Weinberg would agree with Rav Velvel. Do you agree?

But in the book "Fundamentals of Faith' by R. Blumenfeld, apparently he writes that according to R. Weinberg, a tinok shenibah and doesn't believe in the 13 can still get olam haba. I don't have the book, but I saw it once and wrote in my notes that it says the same thing in Even Shesiya pg 21

@Matt That isn't a diyuk. It's a kashya and a suggested answer.

@Yez ok, sorry. But what do you think of the tinok shenishba re:Olam Haba?

@Matt R' Weinberg had an interesting approach. In the end, I understood him to mean that a tinok shenishba has s'char like an eino metzuva v'oseh. But he still held he is an apikorus. R' Weinberg had a diyuk about this point also, from the summary at the end.

so... can he get s'char in olam haba, or just olam hazeh? If you tell me that he can get schar in olam haba, I don't see how that fits with his explanation, unless you posit that there's some special chesed dispensation that HKBH gives to such a person

The Rambam at the end says two things, which jump from one extreme to the next. When he describes who is בכלל ישראל, he describes the person who knows and believes. When he describes who is not בכלל, he describes someone who rejects - not someone who doesn't believe. R' Weinberg took from that that as much as the nebuch apikorus is not in the first category, he is also not a rejecter and is not in the second category either. He had another diyuk from hilchos teshuva but I don't remem

ber it off-hand.

@Matt R' Weinberg called it a chessed dispensation, but I think it is more refined than that.

@Matt And R' Weinberg held he wasn't arguing with R' Chaim on this point.

Well, the way that I have it remembered/recorded is that he interpreted R. Chaim differently than Rav Velvel or Rav Elchonon, saying that 'ah nebach apikores' does have a din of an apikores, but can still get olam haba. But if he's not בכלל ישראל, but also not not בכלל ישראל.... those lines in the Rambam have indeed troubled me, so I just assumed that the Rambam wasn't being so meduyak. If you do give him Olam Haba as some sort of chesed, though, that might be a better explanation.

@YeZ Do you know if R. Weinberg ever discussed (in this context) the Moreh Nevuchim in 1:36? That's the rayah that academics bring to Abarbanel's (and R. Velvel's) interpretation, but I'm not sure that they have the right explanation

@Matt sorry I'll have to continue this discussion later.

If I forget, nudge me.