[Avodah] Ain machlokess bo

[H Lampel via Avodah]

In //Dynamics of Dispute/,/ I develop the idea that the Rambam, when he 
says that there is no //machlokess/ /b'payrush mekubal miSinai/,/ he 
does not mean that there were no disputes *about* any explanation agreed 
to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. He means that there 
was no disagreeing *against* any explanation agreed to have been given 
by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai.

In note 12 (p. 82) I wrote that in addition to indications that this is 
so from other writings of the Rambam and their applications to talmudic 
sources, The //Mevo HaTalmud//, attributed to Shmuel HaNaggid, indicates 
this definition of the word //machlokess// as well.

I have just found that the Meiri on Avos 5:19, regarding a different 
subject, explicitly gives this definition to the word //machlokess//, 
explicitly negating it in the other sense.

He writes:

It seems to me that [the use of the word] ''machlokess'' attaches only 
to the one who responds to the first [speaker]. I.e. ...when a second 
person responds [to the first] and says, ''What you say is proper to do 
is improper, or what you taught is wrong,'' this [response] is the 
''machlokess.''...the "machlokess" only refers to one of the two sides, 
the one that responds to the first.

Another way to put it: Sometimes the word //machlokess/ /refers to an 
opposing opinion, not to two or more opposing opinions.

Zvi Lampel


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160605/8ea29f9f/attachment-0007.html>