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

[H Lampel via Avodah]

On 8/16/2016 4:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 03:43:03PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
>: Any matter that Rebbi considered closed, he recorded as a stam mishna
>: (despite our knowing from other sources that it was originally a matter
>: of dispute). When he recorded his own opinion together with an opposing
>: one, whether that of an individual or a rabbim, it was before a formal
>: vote was taken, and he still hoped to convince the other side.

> SO he didn't hold of yachid verabbim halakhah kerabbim, which renders
> many mishnayos to be discussions of settled halakhos?

Maharatz Chayos explains (Ateres Zvi, 7) that the klal of yachid v'rabbim
halacha k'rabbim rabbim's does not render the halachos settled. Beis Din
(or maybe better the Av Beis Din) may see more strength to a yachid's
stand and settle the halacha accordingly (as in mishna 5). When the
[Av?] Beis Din does not see one side a stronger than the other, and it
decides that it is time to take a vote (for example, all sides agree they
fully presented their cases) then nimnu v'gamru, the matter is voted upon
and the majority wins.When Rebbi was able to present what he considered
to be a closed issue (his real goal, as per Rambam), he presented it
as a stam mishna. With the other mishnayos presenting different sides,
including yachid v'rabbim, he was describing the tentative state of
affairs before the official [Av?] beis Din decision, such as through an
official nimnu v'gamru.

>   For that matter,
> halkhah keBeis Hillel also closed the discussion in numerous mishnayos
> before Rebbe's day.

So in such cases the reason for recording the minority shittah and Beis
Shammai's shittah is the one given in Mishna 6. It was a shittah that
people were known or suspected to hold onto despite it being formally
rejected, so Rebbi preserved it as evidence against them.

>:> So then how does he qualify as sof hora'ah?

>: He doesn't. Rebbi and Rebbi Nosson were Sof Mishnah. Only Rav Ashi and
>: Ravina were Sof Hora'ah (BM 86a).

> Exactly... R Ashi and Ravina record machloqesin, meaning -- according
> to the Rambam -- that he didn't considered these halakhos closed. So
> how did the Rambam also hold that they were sof hora'ah?

The Rambam held that the reason Rav Ashi and Ravina included machlokesin
was different from the reason that Rebbi did. Again, the Rambam
distinguises between what Rebbi meant to do by composing the Mishna ,
and what Rav Ashi and Ravina meant to do by composing the Gemara. Rebbi
with his Mishnah meant to record how the pesak stood at his time and
in his opinion. It was not written to delve into the reasoning, so one
would expect just one opinion to be recorded, and special considerations
need to be introduced to explain why more than one opinion is presented
. The Gemora, on the other hand, was written to analyze the Mishna and
delve into the reasoning behind the shittos (plus other issues not taken
up in the Mishna). For that purpose, it is natural that one records
machlokessin even when the pesak is closed. Rav Ashi and Ravina were
the final word on the facts and considerations to be entertained.

As I wrote:
:>   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?

No one said Hor'a'a is supposed to look specifically like Mishneh Torah
vs. Rif vs Gemara. It can be presented in different forms. Rambam said
that his purpose is to provide final pesak, following Rebbi's approach
in the Mishneh, with the difference that all the issues of the MIshna
and Gemara were already settled by Rambam's time, so there is no reason
for him to record past disputes.

>: The Mishna was not meant for hora'ah; only the Gemora was...

> What do you mean by "hora'ah"? Rebbe clearly intended to pasqen.

> But in any case, we are talking about hora'ah.

You're right, my response, "The Mishna was not meant for hora'ah;
only the Gemora was..." doesn't make sense. Hora'a includes, primarily
so, pesak, as you say. Rav Ashi and Ravina continued Rebbi's mission of
recording pesak, and were the "sof" of that effort, finalizing the pesak,
something that Rebbi did not do. In addition, they also did somethng else
Rebbi did not do: They put into a girsa the analyses behind the shittos,
something that heretofore was maintained orally and without a universally
fixed girsa.

....
>: You'd have to bring me specific examples to illustrate this alleged
>: dispute between Rambam and most rishonim. And again, I'd like tounderstand
>: what you meant by rishonim using "pieces" to "invent" or
>: "construct" halachos in a way different from how the Rambam does so.
>: Can you give any specific examples of pesak contrasting Rambam's with
>: the alleged dominant position? ...

> Do you agree with RMH, though, that they do described what machloqes and
> pesaq are in very different ways? He provides translations and citations.
...

Bli nedder I'll respond to the above separately.

Zvi Lampel