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

[H Lampel via Avodah]

On 8/16/2016 6:57 AM,  Micha Berger via Avodah Micha Berger wrote:
> I thought [mishnayos Eidios] 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.
1-3, the three mishnayos that mention Shammai's and Hillel's shittos and 
then states that both were rejected by the Chachamim, don't give any 
general rules at all.

The 4th mishna questions why those rejected opinions are recorded. And 
the answer is that vetted testimony trumps even the greatest of sages.

''Gadol mimmenu beChochma u-b'minyan'' only enters the picture in mishna 
5, which deals with an individual sage opposing a majority, and 
questions why his opinion is recorded. This indeed characterizes many 
other mishnayos, and the lesson the answer teaches is that at that point 
the matter was not yet put to a final vote, and the individual may still 
convince the majority, and vote that way. If that does happen, a later 
Beis Din may revert to the original majority opinion, but only if they 
are greater than the former Beis Din beChochma u-b'minyan. This is 
indeed a general rule that applies to many mishnayos.
>   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.
Yes, this particular mishna moves the discussion to a phenomenon seen in 
many mishnayos, but a different one. Mishna 6 asks: But what about those 
instances in which the individual never succeeded in convincing the 
majority of his opinion, and the majority maintained their position down 
to the vote and rejected his opinion. Why did Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi 
retain that rejected opinion in his work?  And the answer is that in the 
matters of those mishnas, Rebbi saw that there were people who were not 
aware of the final rejection. He kept a record of the dispute to show 
them that whereas the opinion they follow was once a legitimate one, it 
was ultimately outvoted and should be abandoned. This would apply as 
well to what were originally disputes between individuals, even with no 
majority involved, that were ultimately voted upon, and the Rambam does 
indeed apply it to such cases in the hakdama to his Mishnah Commentary.
>
> 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.
Live and learn...:-)
>
> ...
> : 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 the[ first 3 mishnas] 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.
What makes them aberrational is that they state opinions and then state 
they were formally rejected. You don't have that in any other mishnayos. 
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.

The Rambam's mehalach is just so elegant, and answers the question of 
why Rebbi wrote some mishnayos in the form of a machlokess, and others 
as a stam mishna, omitting the fact of original dispute.
>
> 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).

  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 Mishna was not meant for hora'ah; only the Gemora was.  See also for 
example Rashi on Brachos 5a sv zeh gemara: Sevoras taamei ha-mishnayos 
shemimennu yotsa'as hora'ah, aval ha-morim hora'ah min haMishnah nik'r'u 
mavlei ha-oloam...

The Rambam in this Letter to Pinchas HaDayyan distinguishes between two 
types of work, one exemplified by the Mishna, and the other exemplified 
by the Gemora. The Mishna was written so-to-speak as a Shulchan Aruch, 
primarily 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. Analysis, knowing 
and understanding the different opinions and who held them, is called 
''gemara'' , and that indeed was the presentation in Rav Ashi's work.

> > Generally, most rishonim say that a pesaq is correct because by
> >> definition, following kelalei pesaq creates a correct answer.
> >>
> >> The Rambam ... says that a pesaq is the best we can do, and could be found
> >> to be wrong in an objective sense.
> >
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? I don't see such examples in the two 
sources you cited,
http://rambam.merkaz.com/Class%204%20-%20Halbertal.pdf

or

http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/cjt/files/Knowledge/Kanarfogel.pdf

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160816/7f02bb4e/attachment-0004.htm>