[Avodah] Fwd: Re: Truth and the Rambam

[David Riceman]

RMB:
  : I never intended to propose that "according to the Rambam, halacha is
> : an alternative to metaphysics."
But then, a little bit later, he wrote:

: Just as the Rambam sets the ideal, the Adam qodem hacheit, as being
: about truth vs falsehood, and similarly ends the Moreh as giving a
: hierarchy of perfections - property, bodily, moral and finally "the
: highest, intellectual faculties; the possession of such notions which
: lead to true metaphysical opinions as regards G-d."

: And in such a worldview, halakhah being fact-finding rather than
: law-interpreting would be more noble.

: As I wrote, I understand the Rambam as placing following halakhah as a
: /tool/ for allowing the obtaining truths about G-d.

So I don't understand his opinion about this.  What is the place of the 
study of halacha in human telos?

There are two bits of evidence concerning  the place of machlokes in the 
Rambam's thought: (i) the Rambam was exceedingly troubled, as we see in 
the Hakdamah to the PhM, at the existence of machlokes in traditional 
sources: how could Moshe Rabbeinu not know the precise halacha? (ii) the 
Rambam chose to excise machlokes from the MT (though not completely: see 
Rabbi Twersky's "Introduction to the Code of Maimonides" pp. 121 ff. for 
a large list of counterexamples).

RMB, if I understand him correctly, views these as two phenomena 
motivated by a single attitude.  I, on the other hand, see them as 
distinct; the first is a historical problem (made more severe because of 
Moslem anti-Jewish polemics), the second is a pedagogical concern.

The third general point I want to make really ought to be made by 
someone better versed in history (RRW, this is a hint!!).  Just as Rashi 
is the culmination of an older tradition of scholarship, and the Baalei 
HaTosafos started a new tradition of scholarship, so also the Rambam is 
the culmination of an older tradition of scholarship, with a new 
tradition begun in Spain by the Ramban and Rabbeinu Yonah.  I'm told the 
Sefer haEshkol did the same for Provence, with R Zerahiah HaLevi 
representing the innovators, but I have not yet taken the time to study 
Sefer HaEshkol, so I'm just passing along rumors.

When I was young I was taught that it's much easier to study halachos 
about which there is a machlokes; that is a clear principle of Tosafos's 
school.  I'm not at all sure the Rambam would agree.  He had other 
methods for elucidating the meaning of halachos: see Rabbi Twersky's 
book pp.143 ff., especially pp.155-162, and recall the Rogachover's 
description of the Rambam as "Rabbeinu hagadol ham'lamed osanu da'as", 
reflecting what one can learn about legal principles from the Rambam.

So when RMB says that one can't do Talmud based on the MT, I suspect 
he's reflecting the school of the Ba'alei HaTosafos, of whom we are all 
students but the Rambam wasn't.

Now for some nitpicking.

: Notice how Hil' Mamrim never mentions the word "pesaq" or some other
> : language that would speak to the interpretation of law.
H. Talmud Torah 3:3.
> : Another lacuna from Hil' Mamrim is the concept of sevara.
H. Sanhedrin 10:5.
> : What I see is what boils down to a claim that the MT replaces the study
> : of mishnah -- in the sense of settled halakhah, the "shelish bemishnah".
> : (And note the name of the work itself, although that's not muchrach.)
> : I do not see anything that says that someone capable on focusing on
> : talmud, should stop there. And it would seem from his advice to Luneil
> : that he didn't hold it should.
This is true, but it bears excessive emphaisis that shlish beTalmud DOES 
NOT MEAN STUDYING A TEXT.  It means analyzing Mishna.  So why can't it 
be done based exclusively on MT (see my comments above about schools of 
thought)?
> : But all of this is somewhat tangential. Whether the Rambam had a different
> : plan for his own talmidim than for Luneil, what I wrote above is still
> : a description of how the Rambam himself "did halakhah".
>
> : Which I find both (1) very different from that of other rishonim, or
> : of acharonim down through the various derakhim we follow today, and (2)
> : blatantly Aristotilian in tenor.
What is so very different from the way other rishonim "did halakhah"? 
The main difference is how he recorded his results.  As I said above, I 
still don't understand how you relate this to Aristotle.

David Riceman