[Avodah] Fwd: Re: Truth and the Rambam

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 12:57:54PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> RMB:
>> 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.

> You've confused Aristotle with Socrates.  See Guthrie, A History of  
> Greek Philosophy, vol. 6, pp. 338-339, and the sources he cites.

BH! At least my ability to get muddled isn't limited to Torah!

But here I got my impression from Ethics 1147.b.6-7 and 1152.a.6-7.
Practical knowledge banishes akrasia and akrasia ends when his ignorance
does.

He might be saying that akrasia happens when opinion is weaker than
desire, kind of like RYS's notion that the yh"t is seikhel, and the yh"r
is dimyon and taavah. Or Aristo might be saying that taavos come from
the wrong opinion that the joy of tasting chocolate is the greater good.

But the bit of Aristo I was looking at does *seem* to be saying that
man's perfection lies in gaining knowledge. Yes, in this case - practical
knowledge.

>> The Rambam agrees, although he is more
>> specific in what kind of knowledge, and he uses that idiom as well.

> The whole thrust of H. Deos and the 8 Perakim is against this opinion.

Only if he believes that middos aren't merely the consequence of da'as.
Leshitaso, AIUI, knowledge and opinion cause dei'os. Thus his placing
it in Hilkhos Dei'os in Sefer Mada. As well as the masqanah of the Moreh,
which places truth decision as being above ethical decision.

...
>> 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.

> But where does the Rambam say that he has a problem at all?

I meant to say: The Rambam's not saying that a machloqes means that two
valid interpretations of existing din could exist (ie his problem with
machloqes as understood by other rishonim), I think stems 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.

> What problems with interpretation? Are you introducing a new idea
> here? If he interprets the mishna according to his understanding of the
> gemara's understanding of the mishna, how is that a repudiation of the
> gemara's understanding? Why shouldn't he reject the geonom if he holds
> that no post-Talmudic interpretations are binding? Why are these two
> phenomena in the same paragraph?

The case that started all this going in my head was one where Rashi chose
a dochaq peshat in the mishnah but one that smoothly fit the gemara,
but the Rambam chose the simple peshat in the mishnah at the expense of
creating a dochaq peshat in the gemara.

That conversation (off list, and parts of which were even non-electronic)
with RZL was happening at close to the same time I encoutered the Rambam's
letters to Luneil about how he used to follow the ge'onim's peshatim in
the gemara, but he found it to be too error prone. In both cases, the
Rambam is trusting his own assessment of the original text over later
development. Although admittedly, he doesn't reject the gemara as much
as force it to fit his understanding of the mishnah.

In both cases, the Rambam isn't saying that an earlier, and perhaps even
accepted lemaaseh (nispasheit) peshat in a din is reason to choose that

Just as in Hil' Mamrim... He says that a Sanhedrin that is split as to
how to pasqen in an existing law should follow the majority. But anyone
afterward who assesses they made a mistake should follow the actual din --
ie the din as they themselves understand it. There is no authority given
to pesaq in the sense of how existing din is understood / interpreted. The
only time one needs a beis din of greater formal authority is when
overturning legislation -- derashah, taqanah, gezeirah or minhag.

The Rambam's blurring between "made a mistake" and "according to
my understanding made a mistake" shows up both in Mamrim and WRT his
second-guessing geonim. He assumes the poseiq's own assessment is fact,
not just another assessment no more grounded than the existing ones.

...
>> 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.

> But according to the Rambam "Guessing at davar mitokh davar just
> from final conclusions" is the art of talmud...

I don't see "just from final conclusions". On the contrary, Hil TT
1:10 ncludes "yaskil acharis hadavar *meireishiso*" and he should judge
using the middos until he knows "heiakh hu iqas hamidos vehei'akh yotzi
ha'asur vehamutar". Talmud appears to me to include knowing enough of
where the existing din came from to know how to extrapolate from it.
Not just using raw conclusions.


> RMB:
>: Notice how Hil' Mamrim never mentions the word "pesaq" or some other
>: language that would speak to the interpretation of law.

> ...            I meant 5:3: "haya beino uvein rabo 12 mil mutar  
> l'hashiv.  ul'hafrish min haissur afilu befnei rabbo mutar l'horos."

The need for distance is the chiyuv of morah harav, as per 5:4.

But in any case, the Rambam doesn't discuss authority. A rav does give
pesaq to his talmidim, but it has nothing to do with what anyone else
in the future thinks the same din should be. There is nothing in the
Rambam to stop me from following a new peshat in Chazal if I am truly
convinced that my peshat in the original taqanah / deOraisa is right
and the bulk of the rishonim and acharonim before me -- including the
Yad! (as he tells chakhmei Luneil) -- erred.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
micha at aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine