2 Redundant word.
source | link

There are a couple of points in your question which should be clarified. If you consult the Gemarah you cite I believe your reading is not accurate. Elisha did not refute anything R' Meir said, he only countered that R' Meir's teaching was not in accord with the way way R' Akiva, R' Meir's teacher, learned. AFAIK nothing Acher says there is heretical.

In terms of your question, assuming (and this is a big assumption) that the Rambam's 13 principles of faith are binding, then the listener would merely need to know if what s/he is hearing violate those principles. In a recent Jewish Action article (starting on page 55) Rabbi Weiderblank makes the assertion that if a novel interpretation goes against the basic gist of how something has been interpreted for millennia; for example if one were to propose that Esav was a complete tzaddik, even if this assertion is logical and sourced in the verses it would be heretical.

There are a couple of points in your question which should be clarified. If you consult the Gemarah you cite I believe your reading is not accurate. Elisha did not refute anything R' Meir said, he only countered that R' Meir's teaching was not in accord with the way way R' Akiva, R' Meir's teacher, learned. AFAIK nothing Acher says there is heretical.

In terms of your question, assuming (and this is a big assumption) that the Rambam's 13 principles of faith are binding, then the listener would merely need to know if what s/he is hearing violate those principles. In a recent Jewish Action article (starting on page 55) Rabbi Weiderblank makes the assertion that if a novel interpretation goes against the basic gist of how something has been interpreted for millennia; for example if one were to propose that Esav was a complete tzaddik, even if this assertion is logical and sourced in the verses it would be heretical.

There are a couple of points in your question which should be clarified. If you consult the Gemarah you cite I believe your reading is not accurate. Elisha did not refute anything R' Meir said, he only countered that R' Meir's teaching was not in accord with the way R' Akiva, R' Meir's teacher, learned. AFAIK nothing Acher says there is heretical.

In terms of your question, assuming (and this is a big assumption) that the Rambam's 13 principles of faith are binding, then the listener would merely need to know if what s/he is hearing violate those principles. In a recent Jewish Action article (starting on page 55) Rabbi Weiderblank makes the assertion that if a novel interpretation goes against the basic gist of how something has been interpreted for millennia; for example if one were to propose that Esav was a complete tzaddik, even if this assertion is logical and sourced in the verses it would be heretical.

1
source | link

There are a couple of points in your question which should be clarified. If you consult the Gemarah you cite I believe your reading is not accurate. Elisha did not refute anything R' Meir said, he only countered that R' Meir's teaching was not in accord with the way way R' Akiva, R' Meir's teacher, learned. AFAIK nothing Acher says there is heretical.

In terms of your question, assuming (and this is a big assumption) that the Rambam's 13 principles of faith are binding, then the listener would merely need to know if what s/he is hearing violate those principles. In a recent Jewish Action article (starting on page 55) Rabbi Weiderblank makes the assertion that if a novel interpretation goes against the basic gist of how something has been interpreted for millennia; for example if one were to propose that Esav was a complete tzaddik, even if this assertion is logical and sourced in the verses it would be heretical.