<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Micha Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>></span> wrote:<br clear="all"></div><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
I think this is uniquely Rambam. As I already quoted a few times<br>
recently, the Rambam explicitly says he is breaking from someone --<br>
probably the Rif -- on this very issue. The standard approach, taken<br>
by the Rif and R' Avraham ben haRambam, aside from people not on either<br>
side of his chain of mesorah (eg Rashi) is that a the most relevent<br>
element of a tanna's statement is how it's developed by amora'im,<br>
which in turn is binding in terms of how it was understood by the<br>
geonim. The Rambam himself explicitly states that he used to do the<br>
same (following someone who isn't named; probably the Rif)<br>
but changed his mind before the Yad. For the rest of his life, the<br>
Rambam aspired to understand maamarim from a clean slate.<br>
<br>
But that's distinctly Rambam, not Andalusian in general.<br></blockquote><div><br>I'm going to just say that the scope is too braod for an avodah discussion because this approaches term paper scope.<br><br> </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<br>
<br>
Personally, I think it all flows from his Aristotilian attitude toward<br>
the role of knowledge, and thus Truth. The Rambam sees ethical perfection<br>
as secondary, a side-effect of man's primary quest of yedi'ah.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>I see your point, but I think this is not the exclusive reason for the Rambam's Stance.<br> </div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
And so it's unsurprising that he concluded that TSBP is something to be<br>
known, with a single Truth, rather than a redemptive process for<br>
creating law.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>I think it's the Rambam's Mishnaic style that did not allow for shaqla v'tarya. I see this flowing from an authoritarian communal leader who wanted no ambiguity. IOW the Rambam mayhave known that Halacha was complex, but wanted it simplified and unified for societal purposes. <br>
</div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
But I think he was a daas yachid, and it wasn't too long after that even<br>
the Andalusians were ripe for adhering to the SA, written by a mequbal<br>
no less, rather than the Yad.<br>
<br>
: It's top-down. Authoritarian.<br>
: More Sinai like<br>
:<br>
: EG You don't see a lot of "yeish omrims" in Mishnah Torah, because there<br>
: is ONE way.<br>
I think it's because the<br>
Rambam isn't about Authority -- that would be establishing law, not<br>
finding truth. "Qabel es ha'emes mimi she'omro" gives reason to defy<br>
authority in a quest for emes.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>Philosophoicaly Rambam was more flexible. But his Halachic audience was IMHO a Kitzur SA audience that he was talking down to. Notice that Kitzur SA himself used the Rambam;s style<br> </div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
The reason why there is only ONE way is again because he is seeking<br>
truth. Law or technique could have multiple right answers. That is<br>
harder to say about Truth (particularly when you only have classic<br>
logics).<br>
<br>
Tir'u baTov!<br>
-Micha<br><br></blockquote><br>I see the Rambam as being a highly authoritarian "law-giver" to the general public and as much more sophisticated and nuanced with the Advanced Scholar. <br><br>The Rambam's Authoritarian manner is not limitted to lack of debate. He is very much into imposing law [EG kofin oso ad she'omer rotzeh ani] I realize that this cannot be proven in <br>
a single posting or 2. But I take this on the basis of several lectures I've heard over the years. consider it an opinion of at least 3 scholars I know and is not my da'as yachid<br><br>As far as SA overturning Rambam and The Rif Rambam split this is quite paradoxical:<br>
<ol><li>SA saw himself as pasqening mostly like Rambam [See EG Choshen Mishpat 25]</li><li>Kessef Mishneh saw learning the Rif as the best way to find out how the Rambam arrived at his conclusions. It's in an early comment against the Raavad in the haqdamah. I"ve written short posts using that very technique. Certainly Kessef Mishna saw Rif and Rambam in "lock-step" for the most part<br>
</li></ol>Micha is saying that Since Rambam is Aristotelian therefore he is single minded and allows for no ambiguity<br><br>I'm ignorant of Aristotle and I know little philosophy. But as an amateur psychological point of view I MIGHT say this instead: Since the Rambam saw Truth as unified and not gray, he chose to be Aristotelian, because it dovetailed into his pre-existing disposition to see things as primarily black-and-white. <br>
<br>Look at Maimoidean followers. Are they Aristotelian? maybe so maybe no.<br>Are they people who love to see the world in Black-and-white? Definitely so. Show me a Chossid of the Rambam's halachic style and I'll show you a persona who needs to see things in black-and-white rigidity.<br>
<br>But I even conceded above, that this was how he treated the lower level. The Rambam had another side that was more flexible, The sophisticated nuanced side. That persona is present in the Moreh [and shmonah p'raqim] and is the "other" Rambam that RYDS referred to.<br>
<br>-- <br>Shalom uVRacha<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/</a><br>
<br>