[Avodah] Truth and the Rambam

[Zvi Lampel]

  Re: Truth and the Rambam

As I suspected, RMB's thesis is more nuanced than I thought. But I am 
having a very hard time trying to pin down what it is.
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010, Zvi Lampel attempted to define RMB's position as 
> follows:

> : (1) The Rambam, in explaining talmudic texts and poskening therefrom,
> : originally practiced in principle a "legal-process approach"
> : of uncritically following the Geonim's decisions and explanations
> : of talmudic passages...
>
> RMB: Not "uncritically". However, just as a contemporary teshuvah 
> would cite
> the Shach or the Taz, assuming their opinion of what was said before is
> more authoritative than our own, so too the Rif does so WRT the geonim.
The Rif? We were talking about the Rambam!
> The Rif actually argues with the geonim regularly. I'm currently exploring
> the reality of the idea (from a paper RRW sent me) that the Rif was the
> first to shift from studying who said what in the gemara to focusing
> more on the general flow of the sugya.
The Rif's methodology of pesak--shared by the Rambam--takes into 
consideration not only the kelalay ha-pesak of which Tanna's or Amora's 
stand usually trumps his opponent's (or opponents'), but also what 
opinion the local and other gemora passages treats as the mainstream 
one. This is not the subject at hand, however.

But the fact the Rif preceded the Rambam in arguing with previous geonim 
shows that the Rambam in doing so was following precedent, and shows 
that the Rif's methodology--and I maintain that of all the geonim and 
rishonim--was no less "Aristotelian" than the Rambam's. Are you in the 
above paragraph modifying your original position that  you found it--in 
contrast to his peers' approach--"unsurprising to assume the Rambam 
views pesaq as a pursuit of truth rather than as a legal process", 
considering the Rambam's fundamental methodology Aristotelian mind?
> The Rambam's approach in the Yad would be the same as a teshuvah that
> ignores the early acharonim, feeling that this reliance on earlier
> rabbanim to understand those even earlier introduces too many errors.
The Yad is a code, not a teshuva. Comparing apples to apples would 
entail comparing the Rambam's teshuvos to the teshuvos of the geonim, 
and seeing if there is a difference in how they relate to previous 
geonim's pesakim and their methodologies in reaching them. Or, to 
support your thesis about the Rambam's change of policy between the 
Payrush HaMishnayos and the Yad, we should compare his teshuvos before 
and after--or at least test the teshuvos written after the Yad was 
completed to see if indeed the Rambam ignored the interpretations and 
pesakim of the geonim and dealt exclusively with independent analysis of 
the gemoras, and thereby demonstrated, in your words, that "his approach 
to talmud Torah doesn't reflect acknowledging a flow of interpretation 
since the original author."

The last method is do-able. And in fact, in the Rambam's very next 
teshuva to the one you are quoting in in Rav Sheilat's 
chronologically-arranged collection (p. 650), The Rambam's first piece 
of evidence for his pesak is the Rif. Next is the Ri Migash. Is this not 
a continuation of a policy of examining the opinions of former 
authorities, rather than a new policy of totally ignoring them? Can you 
still say that the Rambam, sometime before completing the Yad, 
entertained "a denial of the flow of interpretation, a continuity down 
the generations...so radically different, it doesn't really fit the 
generally accepted definition of halachic process"? Does it reflect a 
notion that "the Rambam lost faith in relying on the geonim to interpret 
the rishonim over just going to the books himself," or demonstrate that 
"the Rambam's approach in the Yad would be the same as a teshuvah that 
ignores the early acharonim, feeling that this reliance on earlier 
rabbanim to understand those even earlier introduces too many errors"?

See also The Rambam's writings on p.389 (written after the Yad was 
completed), p. 390 line 10ff. and line 18ff, p.393 line 8, p. 430, all 
in which he brings into consideration the opinions of previous geonim.
> : ZL: (2) However, between writing the Payrush HaMishnayos and writing the
> : Mishneh Torah, in his unique Aristotelian-influenced pursuit to reach
> : a one-and-only-one truth about things, he developed a new principle
> : of independent analysis of the talmudic texts, to determine their
> : one-and-only original intent, and at times found himself at odds with
> : what the Geonim said.
>
> : I seriously question this. The Rambam did not say he formerly held in
> : principle to ignore original intent in favor of some legal process. I
> : only see that he regretted a former lack of sufficiently testing the
> : Geonim's interpretations against the text to which they were applied.
>
> : Rashi, too, many times differs with his predecessors' interpretations,
> ....
>
> RMB: Which is how your overstatement created a strawman. Rashi tried 
> to fit
> his precedecessors, and saw the text through their eyes. It was when
> that was impossible that he differed.
What is the overstatement and what is your real point? From where do you 
conclude that Rashi was any less critical of previous opinions than the 
Rambam?
> ...
> : However, I cannot find anywhere in these iggeros the Rambam attributing
> : to others uncritical reading of the Gemora through the eyes of the
> : Geonim....
>
> Here's some of what I quoted at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n171.shtml#06>:
> That which is codified in the chibbur [i.e. the Yad -mb] is
> undoubtedly correct, and so we wrote as well in the Perush HaMishnah,
> and that which is in your hands [an early version of the Peirush
> haMishnayos -mb] is the first version which I released without proper
> diligence. And I was influenced in this by the Sefer HaMitzvos of
> Rav Chefetz, z"l, and the mistake was in his [analysis], and I just
> followed after him without verifying. And when I further evaluated
> and analyzed the statements [of Chazal], it became clear that the
> truth was what we recorded in the chibbur and we corrected the Perush
> HaMishnah accordingly. The same happened in so many places that the
> first version of the Perush HaMishnah was subsequently modified, tens
> of times. Each case we had originally followed the opinion of some
> Gaon, z"l, and afterwards the area of error became clear. (pg 647)
>
> Does this not say that the Rambam lost faith in relying on the geonim
> to interpret the rishonim over just going to the books himself?...
Yes, but it does not support the the statement you made that I was 
questioning: that the Rambam "credited" his predecessors with relying 
too heavily on the geonim in their reading of the Gemora ("the Rambam 
consciously chose to understand the gemara as it read to him, and 
abandoned his previous approach, which he credits to his predecessors as 
well, of reading the gemara through the prism of the geonim"). (Nor does 
it say that he himself decided at any point to disregard entirely what 
the geonim said ["I'm arguing that the Rambam gave up on trying to even 
work out the shitas hageonim and rejecting it -- he simply went to 'Rav 
Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" as he saw it' "]; or that Rashi or others 
treated the geonim's interpretations any less critically than the Rambam 
did.)

Perhaps you are misled by an ambiguity introduced by RMShapiro's 
translation, "I was influenced in this by the Sefer HaMitzvos of  Rav 
Chefetz, z"l, and the mistake was in his [analysis], and I just  
followed after him without verifying." The Hebrew reads, "V'nimshachnu 
b'zeh ha-maamar acher mah sheh-zachar baal sefer hamitzvos...."  By the 
words, "b'zeh ha-maamar" the Rambam was referring to the specific pesak 
based on Rav Cheyfetz's take on a specific gemora--not the methodology 
of following geonim uncritically. RMS did not translate the word 
"ha-maamar."
> ZL:
> ...
> : For me to accept the extraordinary claim otherwise, you would have to
> : show me where a rishon says, "We don't care about the truth; we are 
> only
> : interested in the formality of uncritically following the Geonim's
> : conclusions." ...
>
> RMB: Same (inadvertant) strawman.
So what then is all this talk about contrasting Rashi and the others to 
the Rambam who, being he was so  Aristotlean, you found it unsurprising 
that he was more inclined than they to go back to examining the original 
sources for their true meaning?
> The Rambam gives more weight to the original than to later interpretation
> not only when he is second-guessing geonim but also when comparing the
> mishnah and the gemara.
>
> This is a denial of the flow of interpretation, a continuity down
> the genarations. I'm saying the Rambam's methodology is so radically
> different, it doesn't really fit the generally accepted definition of
> "halachic process"!
You're repeating this, but I fail to see any evidence for it. I'll 
repeat what I said: The methodologies of the Rambam and Rashi in the 
examples we discussed differ in what they understood the amoraim on the 
mishnayos to be saying. They differed over whether we should take the 
wording of the mishna to modify our understanding of the words of the 
amoraim (Rambam's approach), or take the words of the amoraim to modify 
what the mishnah seems to say (Rashi's approach). But there is no reason 
to deny that both Rashi and the Rambam agreed that the amoraim were 
continuing the "flow of [accurate] interpretation" of the Mishnah's 
true, original intent.
> ZL:
> : The idea that in transmitting the mesorah, the legal status of objects,
> : actions or thoughts should conform to a single original Intent predates
> : Aristotle and goes back to Moshe Rabbeynu and beyond. The entire
> : enterprise in the Gemora that pits one Mishnah or speaker against 
> another
> : and concludes either that the later speaker is in error or that one of
> : the statements must be modified so that they conform, assumes that there
> : is a single original idea that must be complied with.
>
> RMB: What about the notion that eilu va'eilu reflects that fact that 
> HQBH's
> Original Intent (kavayakhol) is diffracted into a spectrum of opinions
> by the time it reaches the human mind?
Hmmm...I guess you have not internalized what I wrote in Dynamics of 
Dispute on this...or you are not convinced. I'll deal with this b"n in 
another post.
> Or the Constitutive approach to
> law of the Ramban, Ritva and Ran, which leads to their understanding
> of machloqes?
Constitutive approach? Nolo comprende.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101003/9a2b3ca6/attachment-0002.htm>