[Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak and RMH's essay

[H Lampel via Avodah]

On 9/13/2016 11:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 05:21:20PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:

ZL:
>: For clarity's sake, Here's [R/Dr Halbertal's] thesis: ...

>: 1. > Retrieval: G-d revealed every single detail about how to perform ...

RMB [I'm changing your original order--ZL]:
> I will ignore his portrayal of the geonim, because -- as you note --I
> am not convinced on that point either.


SIMPLISTIC?
ZL:
>: 2. "Accumulative": G-d did not give complete instructions as to
>: how to ...
>: 3. Constitutive: G-d did not reveal any details of mitzvah observance. ... >


RMB:
> This is way too oversimplified...The difference
> between these [second] two models ["Accumative" and "Constitutive"]
> is more whether
> 1- ["Accumulative"] G-d gave neither position at Sinai, and the poseiq's
> job is to extrapolate and interpolate from what we have to create new
> positions that then "Accumulate", or
> 2- Hashem gave both positions at Sinai and therefore it is the job of
> the poseiq to decide which shitah should be "Constitute" the din.

How do you find my description more simplistic than your own? Whereas
you write, "G-d gave neither position at Sinai," I wrote, as you quoted,
"G-d did not give complete instructions," and I continued, "Chazal in each
generation, by their own reasoning and by utilizing drashos of pesukim,
determined the halachic status of things and people, and determined
heretofore unknown and unstated details and requirements as to how to
perform the mitzvos. Each generation accumulated new information." Not
only isn't my description simplistic, I think it's more thorough.

You write, "and the poseiq's job is to extrapolate and interpolate from
what we have to created new positions that then "Accumulate." I really
don't see my description ("Chazal in each generation, by their own
reasoning and by utilizing drashos of pesukim, determined the halachic
status of things and people, and determined heretofore unknown and
unstated details and requirements as to how to perform the mitzvos. Each
generation accumulated new information.") as more simplistic than yours.

But I still maintain that all the Geonim and rishonim--including those
to whom the essay attributes a "Constitutive" view--hold that Hashem
encoded in the pesukim the true halachic responses to all situations,
that He provided the keys by which to decode them, that He therefore
intended a specific response for Chazal to determine, and that Chazal's
goal was to retrieve that intent through using those keys and analyzing
precedents. The intent may not have been provided explicitly, but the
tools by which to accurately determine it were.And where different minds
using these tools came to different conclusions, Hashem approved the
majority opinion as the means by which to confidently discover His
original intent in the overwhelming majority of cases. (What is to
be done about the rare event that an opposite result is not obtained,
and what our attitude should be towards such an occurrence, is another,
although connected, issue.)

MORE STARK?

> and the difference between Accumulative and Constitutive models is
> made more stark than what the essay actualy describes. The
> difference between these [second] two models ["Accumative" and
> "Constitutive"] is more whether:

> 1- ["Accumulative"] G-d gave neither position at Sinai, and the
> poseiq's job is to extrapolate and interpolate from what we have to
> create new positions that then "Accumulate", or 2- Hashem gave both
> positions at Sinai and therefore it is the job of the poseiq to
> decide which shitah should be "Constitute" the din.

And my opposing description of the essay's proposition of a "Constitutive
view was: "G-d did not reveal any details of mitzvah observance. He
only provided numerous "panim," legal principle,s some of which would
lead to one halachic conclusion in a given situation, and some of which
would lead to a different one."

I actually think your version creates a starker contrast between the
Accumulative and Constitutional views than mine does. You have the
"Accumulative" view asserting that Hashem explicitly stated neither
halachic position vs. the "Constitutive"view that Hashem actually gave
both contradictory halachic rulings. (I'm assuming you are using the
word "position" here to refer to the pesak, just as you did in your
description of the "Accumulative" view.) I have Hashem giving incomplete
halachic positions vs Hashem providing the halachic factors to consider
in reaching a decision. I think I'm being fairer and kinder to the
author by not extending the idea of Hashem giving multiple "panim"
(considerations to look for in situations they would face, by which
to size it up, and arrive at the correct pesak based upon the correct
weighing of those factors) to the less subtle, more radical idea that
He actually told Moshe contradicting conclusions (between which Chazal
would decide based upon...what??, being that there is no criterion to
meet?). RMH put it that the Ramban, Ran, and Ritva held that Hashem
left the issues "open-ended," by revealing to him the arguments of the
future sages, which Moshe proceeded to transmit to the sages for them
to decide the pesak. He did not actually write that the Ramban or Ran,
or even Ritva, held that Hashem actually gave contradicting pesakim.

ADHERENCE TO LOGIC

The rishonim to whom the "Constitutive View" is attributed, and the
talmudic sources involved, say only that Hashem refrained from explicating
a halachic conclusion (so that they are agreeing, in this aspect, to
the allegedly contrary "Accumulative View") Nowhere do they say that
"Hashem gave both positions at Sinai." After all, in all other areas,
The Ramban and Ran (and even IMO the Ritva) are no less married than
the Rambam to the logic of the Gemora, which holds that something cannot
both be true and untrue in the same place at the same time (which, you
say, Aristo's and Boolean logic agree to). This is the premise of every
Gemora's kushya between pesukim and between maamarim.

And, as I mentioned and indicated sources for in my first post on this
thread, the Ramban and the Ran, even concerning the halachic conclusions
that Hashem did not explicitly assign, explicitly express the premise
that Hashem did have a conclusion in mind, which Chazal were expected
to reach, and which as a rule they did (see above).

DIFFERING WITH A PREVIOUS BEIS DIN GADOL

At the end of your second response, you wrote:

> in a Constitutive system [atttributed to Ritva, Ramban and Ran, vs
> Rambam who is said to hold the "Accumulative" system], whatever
> shitah he [Osniel ben Kenaz, in retrieving through his pilpul the
> forgotten laws supported by the 13 middos shehHaTorah nidreshess
> bahen--ZL] justifies would then be the version of divrei E-lokim Chaim
> that is the new din.

> With a HUGE resulting difference in the power of later authorities
> to second-guess those conclusions.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is only Rambam's
acceptance of an "Accumulative" view, that allowed him to maintain that
a Beis Din Gadol could second-guess the drash of a former one, but the
Ramban's and Ran's view does not provide that power.

But RMH himself wrote,

    ...it is the court that constitutes this meaning out of the
    multiplicity of given options. It comes as no surprise, then, that in
    the Constitutive View generational gaps are in theory not crucial.
    Indeed, the Ran continues to say:"Permission has been granted to
    the rabbis of each generation to resolve disputes raised by the
    Sages as they see fit, even if their predecessors were greater or
    more numerous. And we have been commanded to accept their decisions,
    whether they correspond to the truth or to its opposite.

So apparently even RMH recognizes that the Constitutive View he attributes
to the Ran does not, in contrast to the Accumulative View, entail any
difference at all in the power of later authorities to second-guess the
conclusions of earlier Batei Din.etin

This is getting long, so I'll save my responses to the rest of your
comments for other posts.

ZL