[Avodah] Rambam omitting sources and Rambam regarding Prophecy (Was: Re: Prophecy)

[H Lampel via Avodah]

Wed, 20 Jul 2016 Zev Sero, in reposne to  wrote:
> To: <cantorwolberg at cox.net>, The Avodah Torah Discussion Group 
> <avodah at lists.aishdas.org> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Prophecy Message-ID: 
> <578FC6D6.6050709 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; 
> format=flowed On 07/20/2016 10:19 AM, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote:
>> >I find it odd that a gadol like Rambam would omit sources to back his
>> >decisions, etc.
> He saw no need for it.  His goal was to write one simple, easy-to-read
> work that anybody with sufficient intelligence could study and know the
> whole Torah, without having to plow through the mishneh and gemara.
> He had done all the work for the reader, and all the reader had to do was
> trust him.  If you didn't trust him then why were you bothering to read
> it in the first place?  It didn't occur to him at that point that he would
> have to deal with challenges from other rabbis.

The Rambam, in his response to the criticisms of R' Pinchas HaDayan, 
addressed this issue explicitly, citing Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi as his role 
model, and the Mishna itself as declaring it *improper,* in a halachic 
guidebook, to assign names to finalized halacha (as R' Zev explained). 
In this fascinating letter, he also adds some other considerations:

Have I not explicitly said at the beginning of my work that I only 
composed it because there are those who, due to the lack of ability, are 
unable to plumb the depths of the Talmud, and who cannot decipher from 
it that which is prohibited and permitted? And I elaborated upon this 
greatly.

As to what you said about the naming the sages—I actually did list the 
many names of the sages, Tannaim and Amoraim, at the beginning of the 
work. But in any case...Geonim and other greats who have already 
preceded me, have composed works and decided halachos in individual 
areas both in Hebrew and Arabic [without attaching names to the 
halachos]....

And you should also be aware that I clearly stated, at the beginning of 
my work, that I decided to utilize the form of presentation and the 
language-style of the Mishnah. ....* I have merely embraced the approach 
of Rabbeynu Hakadosh.* He too had done this, prior to me. For every 
decision that he presented without attaching an author's name originated 
[not with him, but] with other sages. And those other sages as well were 
not the originators of those decisions, but [merely stated how they 
understood what they] obtained from the mouths of others, and the others 
from still others, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. And just as the Tannaim and 
Amoraim did not bother with endlessly attaching the names of all the 
sages from the days of Moshe Rabbeynu to their own, so too we have not 
been particular about whether we mention their names or not. What would 
be the purpose of that? Have they not explicitly stated in so many 
places, “Rebbi endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue A, and 
presented them anonymously; but he endorsed the words of So-and-so 
regarding issue B, and presented them anonymously"? This openly states 
that whatever Rebbi endorsed as final halacha, and considered the proper 
practice to follow, he stated without associating anyone’s name with it! 
And in so many places the Gemora says, “This anonymously-stated halachah 
is an individual’s opinion [and not the majority’s]”—Rabbeynu did not 
mentioned the names of any of them [--neither that of the individual 
whom the halacha followed, nor that of the majority].

*[Only] when it came to matters that Rebbi did not consider settled, but 
still debatable, and about which he did not lean one way or the other,* 
did he state both opinions in the names of their proponents (“R. 
So-and-so says this, and R. So-and-so says that”) mentioning the names 
of those sages, or of recently living ones, from whom he heard those 
opinions--but [still] not of their mentors or mentors’-mentors' names. 
For at the time, many people still followed one opinion, and many still 
followed the opposing one. Suffice it to say that he [himself] told us 
explicitly why, in some of the mishnas, he attached names:

And why do we mention the words of Shammai and Hillel only to negate 
them [by adding that the majority of sages disagreed with both and 
decided differently]?—to teach the following generations [that a person 
should not stand on his words, for the avos of the world did not stand 
on their words]. And why do we mention the dissenting words of 
individuals along with those of the majority...??—So that if a Beis Din 
will agree with the individual’s opinion and rely upon it....[R' Yehuda 
(ben El'ai) added:] And why do we mention the words of the individual 
together with those of the majority only to negate them?—So that if a 
person reports receiving a teaching other than that which was accepted 
by the majority....”

See how explicit it is!—that it is /*improper*/ to mention anything but 
the finally decided-upon halacha alone, and it was only necessary to 
mention opposing opinions during those times that some practiced one 
way, and others practiced a different way, when some obtained the law 
according to one sage’s opinion, and some according to another sage’s 
opinion. And since I composed my work following the Mishna’s style, and 
the Talmud already indicated the final halacha in each case either 
expressly or implicitly through the general rules of p’sak, so that two 
valid practices no longer exist, why should I mention the name of 
someone whom the halacha does not follow, or even the name of the one 
whom the halacha does follow? That halacha is not just a made-up idea 
expressed by the individual mentioned in the Mishna, such as Abbaya or 
Rava, but [an interpretation of] the words of legions from the mouths of 
legions. And for this reason I chose not to facilitate the rebellion of 
the /Minnim/, who accuse us of basing ourselves upon the devised 
opinions of individuals. No, it is [a matter of what was obtained by] 
thousands and tens of thousands from the mouths of thousands and tens of 
thousands!

It was in this vein that at the beginning of my work I said, “So-and-so 
and his Beis Din obtained [the oral laws] from So-and-so and his Bes 
Din"—to make it known that the transmission was from a large number of 
people to a large number of people, and not from an individual to an 
individual. For this reason my plan and purpose was to state each 
halacha without any names attached, to indicate that it is the unanimous 
law, and to shun accommodating the wreckage committed by the /Minnim/ of 
today who deny the entire Oral Law on the basis of seeing ideas stated 
in the name of this or that authority, and who then imagine that he was 
the only one who said it, and that it was his own contrivance.

>> >So if God will forgive those who have committed various sins thus
>> >annulling a negative prophecy, why couldn?t the converse be possible
>> >? namely, God condemning those who had been good and then turned to
>> >sin, thus annulling positive prophecy?
> Because He gave us this test.
I.e.  otherwise, the Rambam writes, there would be no way to determine 
whether one is a prophet whose commandments must be followed.
>    He said if a navi says something will
> happen and it doesn't, "That is a thing that Hashem didn't say, the
> navi said it wickedly, do not fear him".   And, through Bil`am, He
> said "God is not a man that He should disappoint, or a human that He
> should change His mind".   However we know that He*does*  change His
> mind about bad decrees, both because we have numerous examples of Him
> doing just that, and because two authentic nevi'im described Him as
> one "Who*changes His mind*  about bad things".   Therefore His claim
> that He doesn't must apply only to good prophecies.

Zvi Lampel


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160720/6805348c/attachment-0007.html>