[Avodah] Fwd: Re: Truth and the Rambam

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 03:26:39PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> 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.
...
> 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.

Aristotilian logic is where I feel the Rambam picked up this notion that
ideas are everything.

There is a philosophical problem called akrasia, why people make bad
choices. Rather than invoking middos or taavos, according to Aristo,
the ultimate source is bad opinions.

Related: Aristotle sees personal redemption in philosophical
understanding, Rambam, and the "larger souled" person is not the one
who is more moral, kind or merciful, but the one who is more capable
of understanding those truths. The Rambam agrees, although he is more
specific in what kind of knowledge, and he uses that idiom as well.

IOW, I think these two phenomana come from a single attitude, because
I see the same two phenomena in a common attitude in Aristo's work.

Aristo also has no room in his logic for fuzziness. Something is either
blue or it isn't. An indigo thread can't be "somewhat blue". Similarly,
he has no way to describe whether or not a 5'10" man (at 1-1/2" above
average here in the US) is tall. (From down here at 5'3" he certainly
is.)

Nor for the contradictory nature of the human condition. The law of
contradiction is fine for math or physics. But for discussing chesed
and gevurah?

The Rambam's problem with machloqes and with the notion that two valid
interpretations of an existing din could exist I think stem from Aristo's
Logic.

And his problems with interpretation, with pesaq that is non-legislative,
shows up in the Rambam's preference for his own understanding of the
mishnah rather than the gemara's (and he'll push the gemara into fitting)
and his own understanding of the gemara over that of the geonim.

> 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 thought you were arguing that the Rambam was attempting to start a
new school!

If we combine both ideas, perhaps I see the Rambam as a corner case
because he departs from the Rif's style of pesaq but does not succeed
in actually setting a new norm for consequent rishonim. But that plays
down how different I think his theory of pisqa is.

...
> 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.

I was thinking that in order to do Talmud, you need to know where the
halakhah comes from. You can construct a theory that halakhos A and B
represent a common theory, but if you saw the sugyos inside you would
find out that in fact they did come from very different ideas.

IOW, yes the problem is partly the lack of machloqes, so that you do
not know the point of chiluq that the law was made around. But a bigger
problem is that you lack the flow of the pesaq through time until the
Yad, you usually lack any indication of sevara, etc... Guessing at davar
mitokh davar just from final conclusions is way too error prone.


>>: 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.

I think this is a typo. Pereq 3 is about the importance of talmud Torah.
I see "lo yafsiq" as in don't stop learning in order to do a mitzvah
someone else could, but nothing about pesaq.

>> : Another lacuna from Hil' Mamrim is the concept of sevara.

> H. Sanhedrin 10:5.

That's a topic we discussed before, "shenayim she'amru ta'am echad".
That's judgment in dinei nefashos, not pesaq.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
micha at aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln