[Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and Pesak

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 08:38:35AM -0400, H Lampel wrote:
: On 9/13/2016 11:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
:>: One must strive to get a complete picture of a Gaon's or rishon's
:>: position, and not stop at some broadly-worded statements, ignoring further
:>: qualifications...

:> ... You are arguing from example, not contrary explanation.

: Please explain. I don't know what you mean or what I wrote that
: you're referring to. What did I write that is arguing from example?
: What is wrong with that? What does it mean to argue from contrary
: explanation? And why would that be better?

You are arguing that rishon X couldn't mean what he actually said,
because there are counter-examples in specific dinim.

What is wrong with that is spelled out in the rest of the paragraph.

Mashal:
There are people who like dwelling on the 2% of the cases where the
SA ends up ruling differently than his triumberate. Does that mean
that as a rule, he doesn't really use it? Or that there are other
rules in play that come to the fore in too few occasions to bother with
in an intro?

Similarly here. We have a statement of the Rambam, or the Ran, or the
Ritva. Even if that statement had exceptions, it would at most mean
that said rishon was "only" speaking about ruba deruba of machloqesin,
and that the Rambam might believe that there are a few rare exception
machloqesin that are Constitutive. but still those are the rare excpetion

(As RNS put it: The survival of Mike the Headless chicken for 18 months
after his beheading out of millenia of chicken consumption doesn't
disprove pesiq reishei! And conversely, emunas chakhamim in their
saying pesiq reishei doesn't mean disbelieving what thousands of
people saw in the mid-20th cent CE.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken>)

But that wasn't my masqanah. I think you're oversimplifying RMH's model.
The differences between Accumulative and Constitutive law is far more
subtle than your summary makes it seem. As I said in my post. And
therefore, while the summary makes the quotes surprising, given the
actual model, they are not.

The Rambam holds a pesaq is a human invention. That G-d giving the kelalei
hapesaq (in grandfather form -- they too were subjevt to pesaq over the
millenia!) does not mean He gave every conclusion, and therefore that both
tzadadim could be right.

The Rambam couldn't hold that -- it defies Aristo's Logic. Or Boolean
Logic. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction>

The majority of rishonim give HQBH "ownership" of all the conclusions,
even though they contradict. Choosing not to reinterpret the gemaros --
"kulam nitnu miro'eh echad", "49 panim tahor, 49 panim tamei", "eilu
va'eilu" etc... to fit the Law of Non-Contradiction.

And therefore, leshitasam, a real machloqes is where neither side is
wrong. Both are actually teaching Torah, not just "the best we can
do, so Hashem told us to follow it lemaaseh."

Therefore, according to the Rambam, there could be a solid proof that
an earlier beis din erred, and then the law would change. Authority is
only an issue with dinim derabbanan (gezeiros and taqanos), and who can
repeal a law, not with interpetation of existing law.

Whereas according to rov rishonim, it's a matter of which BD could give
more authority to one valid shitah or the other.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are great, and our foibles are great,
micha at aishdas.org        and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org   but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook