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

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:36:31AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
:    Chagiga 3b:

:          "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ...  "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh
:    echad." One G-d gave them, one
:         source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As
:    it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh".

:    ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from
:    any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains
:    "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a
:    proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe
:    Rabbeynu."

DH "kulan Keil Echad amran":
    You do not have a disputant bringing a proof from the bible of another
    god, only from Toras E-lokeinu

DH "Parnes Echad amran":
    You one have one bring a proof from the words of a navi to dispute
    against Moshe Rabbeinu.

Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both will
indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to find.

DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes":
: >    "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are
: >    both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]...

Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi!
Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are
going to find Emes.

    Since all of them have their hears toward Shamayim, make your ear
    listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide
    which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him.

    "Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone.

Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or even
which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher -- to decide which YOU
MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like.

: Identical to the Ritva ...

Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. And ignored
that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is true.

For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates
the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before
"ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mesorahPsakSources2.pdf#page=2>
page 2):

    He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he
    sees according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather,
    "eilu va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in
    their rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or
    forgot his tradition...

Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about
what the rebbe said. A normal machloqes, where they disagree about
the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval)
this case where "meshaqer o shakhack".

What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is
the exception.


I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the
conversation. You wrote yesterday:
: 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that

I started with Greek vs Modern vs Halachic logic to show that denying
the former does not require anything esoteric. It just seems that way
after two millennia of Galus Edom, Edom having built much of its culture
atop Yavan ("Greco-Roman").

I am not arguing that Chazal are ignoring the Law of Contradiction.
I am saying that it's a Greek invention we never had use for to begin
with.

I should point out that the notion that the LoC and Law of Excluded
Middle are not givens was introducted to me by books on logic. Modern
logicians have learned to accept that other systems of logic may be
more valid in other venues.

Like ones where humans try to take a spectrum and divide it into
predicates -- the Sorites paradox we already discussed. See e.g. "Fuzzy
Set Theoretical Approach to the RGB Color Triangle"
<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8c0d/accf329de2bd612c46c4a7771f4b1d0eda99.pdf>
(If you have a newer thermostat, it could well be using fuzzy logic
too.)

Or when dealing with the internal contradictions of the human psyche
as in Hume's "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding".

We are under no obligation to follow Plato, Aristotle and Boole. Their
position only seems self-evident because we are Westerners; moreso,
Westerners living in a world that confuses technologial advance with
human progress.

(And ironically, we live in a world where the latest technological
advances rely on semiconductor, which in turn are designed using Quantum
Mechanics, in disobeyance of the laws of Paradox and Excluded Middle!)

As R' Tzadoq wrote, it's great for analyzing po'el, but that's about it.

This is not esoterica. No one in the East would find any of what I wrote
surprising. Including, for example, the self-same Persians who taught
(like the idiom the tannaim and the first generations of Babylonian
amora'im employed) that the sun goes above a shell at night. Chazal
were not basically Greek in mathemtical and scientific orientation.

It is my belief that the *dialectical* nature of the human condition is
why HQBH gave us a Torah with machloqesin, and left it up to use to
decide when to develop Chesed and when Din, when Emes and when Shalom,
vechulu... This is why we learn the *dialogs* of Shas rather than
simply picking up a Rif.

...
: Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to 
: an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The 
: reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and 
: machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just 
: halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each 
: situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began.

47a DH "ha'eshkolos":
    It is explained in the gemara that all of them, until their era, there
    was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. They all said things
    as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they were the first who
    disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as is says in Chagiga
    (16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in words of Torah

Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. You are assuming that
Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... [because] they all said things
as they were given..." Which is not accumulative either, and goes back
to forgetting / imperfect retrieval. The missing connective could just
as well be "despite".

For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different Batei
Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that only weren't
machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim lemaaseh for
different eras.

Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH "shisin
hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini wasn't
atum ba'adamah, and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did
nisuch as the shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it.

: How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite 
: halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos, 
: even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that 
: was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose?

Yes.

Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are derivable
-- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to "Say" both!

Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mesorahPsakSources2.pdf+page=4>
page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working
the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah, and as you underline "veChadei
QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more joy-making, as Beis
Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through their anavah, were zokhin
to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes le'amito, as HQBH wouldn't
be thrilled with a bright person's ability to all the better to fool
himself. Nor would their wrong answer help you decide another case.

And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... mimenah
nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA".

More, when I have the time.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
micha at aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507