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

Micha Berger via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Mon Aug 15 14:03:12 PDT 2016


On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 11:15:29AM -0400, H Lampel wrote:
: On 8/1/2016 5:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
: >I am unclear how the Rambam gets this peshat in the mishnah.

: >Edios 1:4 says the motive for mentioning both shitos in machloqesin
: >between batei Hillel veShammah is "to teach future generations, so that
: >a person does not stand on his words. For even the avos holam did not
: >stand on their words."

: >To teach middos, that others learn for Beis Shammai's (and occasionally
: >BH's) example about how to lose a machloqes. Middos without which the
: >kelalei pesaq wouldn't work.

: First, to clarify, the mishna's question is why the previous mishna(s)
: mention(s) the opinions of Shammai and Hillel (not Beis Shammai and Beis
: Hillel) *l'batala/l'vatlan,* i.e. when they only to go on to report that
: both opinions were ultimately rejected by the Sages.

I thought 1:4-5 were giving general rules, not specific to understanding
the machloqes in 1:3. After all, gadol mimenu bechokhmah uveminyan is
applied across the board. And doesn't 1:6 explicitly move the yachid
verabbim discussion into all cases, "For if someone says 'this is what
i reveived', it could be said to him 'you heard like Ploni'" but the
rabbim outvoted him.

I also didn't realize that the end of 1:3 implies that the chakhamim
were hearing the eidus, "ve'heidu mishum Shmayah veAvtalyon... Veqiymu
Chakhamim es divreihem." I had learned these mishnayos as giving eidus
about Hillel, Shammai, Shammai, Avvtalion, and the Chakhamim of their day.

...
: But to the point of your question: In any case, the Rambam's point is
: that the premise of these mishnayos, which their answers do not abandon,
: is that the Mishna was primarily composed to present the contemporary
: settled and unsettled decisions, not to report formally rejected opinions
: and who held them, and only reported disputes if Rebbi considered them
: still unsettled, or if people were still somehow practicing the rejected
: halacha . The previous three aberrational mishnas are meant to teach
: a mussar lesson and are the exceptions that prove the rule. The Rambam
: explains that in his Mishneh Torah he follows this system, and we see
: that he also only rarely presents a mussar lesson. The issues unsettled
: in Rebbi's time were mostly settled since through the darkei pesak of
: the Gemora, and the practice of rejected opinions ceased, and so the
: Rambam inscribed the legitimate halachos in his Mishneh Torah without
: noting the opposing opinions or practices of the past.

What makes them abberational? I see the whole discussion in mishnayos
4-6 as holding them up as examples! After all, not only does Rebbe cite
even his contemporaries' opinions, R' Ashi does as well.

So then how does he qualify as sof hora'ah? If they're giving hora'ah,
and hora'ah is supposed to look like Mishnah Torah, why didn't Rav Ashina
and Ravina write the Rif rather than shas?

: >The Rambam's desire to avoid that fuzziness derives from his uniquely
: >Accumulative approach to halakhah. The majority of rishonim believe
: >that halakhah is Constitutive. IOW, the Rambam believes correct pesaq
: >is discovered by the poseiq, whereas the dominant position is that it is
: >invented. To the inventor, other positions are pieces that go into
: >the construction. To the discoverer, they are wild geese to chase.

: "Invention" is an ill-chosen word, although if it is to be used at all
: it would apply to the Rambam's explanation of a Besi Din Gadol's ability
: to re-evaluate the meaning of pesukim...

Yeah, but I am talking about pesaq in existing halakhah, not the creation of
new ones.

Generally, most rishonim say that a pesaq is correct because by
definition, following kelalei pesaq creates a correct answer.

The Rambam (and RMF in the haqdamah but contradicted elsewhere in a few
teshuvos) says that a pesaq is the best we can do, and could be found
to be wrong in an objective sens.

But then, we've discussed RMHalbertal's position repeatedly already
http://rambam.merkaz.com/Class%204%20-%20Halbertal.pdf

R/Prof Ephraim Karnefogel gives more examples at
http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/cjt/files/Knowledge/Kanarfogel.pdf

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
micha at aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)



More information about the Avodah mailing list