[Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim

[H Lampel via Avodah]

On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,...

> Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan  said doesn't have
> to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong.  ...

The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult
to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all
the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them
misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did,
but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation
marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have
talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be
merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone
declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his
interpretation of that person's actions or other statement.

On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
RMB:
>>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore
>>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well.

ZL:
>> This is not an exception...

RMB:
> Nor is it a pasuq.

Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal
understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that
attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated
by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more
culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less
equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are
voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did
the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind
of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea
already existed.

To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance
of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that
this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give
us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim.

But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on
Aggadita. And you explained,

> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are
> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than
> the gemara did.

So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are
"more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are]
therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"?
Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal
say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal
say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of
Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?)

Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say
peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to
mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel," or
he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand
peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself,
or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat
but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he
says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as
a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us
in how to understand Chazal.

RMB:
>>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot

ZL:
>> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective...

RMB:
> So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about
> what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't
> Torah either, no eilu va'eilu,

No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim
explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial
objective, and what I went on to say after that.

RMB:
> ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense?

Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them
is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct
ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the
darkei pesak conclude.

The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who
explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically
absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same
case match Hashem's original intent in that case.

RMB:
> Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa
> is ever debated?

Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point.

RMB:
> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one
> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or
> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on
> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant.

No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim
are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation?
Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's
discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be
learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest
ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous?

Zvi Lampel