<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">Re: Truth and the
Rambam<br>
<br>
As I suspected, RMB's thesis is more nuanced than I thought. But I
am having a very hard time trying to pin down what it is.<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.85409.1286123072.18184.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org"
type="cite"> <font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">On Wed,
Sep 29, 2010, Zvi Lampel attempted to define RMB's position as
follows:<br>
</font></blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.85409.1286123072.18184.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org"
type="cite"><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">: (1) The
Rambam, in explaining talmudic texts and poskening therefrom,<br>
: originally practiced in principle a "legal-process approach"<br>
: of uncritically following the Geonim's decisions and
explanations<br>
: of talmudic passages...<br>
<br>
RMB: Not "uncritically". However, just as a contemporary
teshuvah would cite<br>
the Shach or the Taz, assuming their opinion of what was said
before is<br>
more authoritative than our own, so too the Rif does so WRT the
geonim.<br>
</font> </blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><small>The Rif</small>?
<small>We were talking about the Rambam!</small></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.85409.1286123072.18184.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org"
type="cite"> <font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">The Rif
actually argues with the geonim regularly. I'm currently
exploring<br>
the reality of the idea (from a paper RRW sent me) that the Rif
was the<br>
first to shift from studying who said what in the gemara to
focusing<br>
more on the general flow of the sugya.<br>
</font> </blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"> The Rif's methodology
of pesak--shared by the Rambam--takes into consideration not only
the kelalay ha-pesak of which Tanna's or Amora's stand usually
trumps his opponent's (or opponents'), but also what opinion the
local and other gemora passages treats as
the mainstream one. This is not the subject at hand, however. </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"> But the fact the Rif
preceded the Rambam in arguing with previous geonim shows that the
Rambam in doing so was following precedent, and shows that the
Rif's methodology--and I maintain that of all the geonim and
rishonim--was no less "Aristotelian" than the Rambam's. Are you in
the above paragraph modifying your original position that you
found it--in contrast to his peers' approach--"unsurprising to
assume the Rambam views pesaq as a pursuit of truth rather than as
a legal process", considering the Rambam's fundamental methodology
Aristotelian mind?</font> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.85409.1286123072.18184.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org"
type="cite"> <font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">The
Rambam's approach in the Yad would be the same as a teshuvah
that<br>
ignores the early acharonim, feeling that this reliance on
earlier<br>
rabbanim to understand those even earlier introduces too many
errors.<br>
</font> </blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"> The Yad is a code, not
a teshuva. Comparing apples to apples would entail comparing the
Rambam's teshuvos to the teshuvos of the geonim, and seeing if
there is a difference in how they relate to previous geonim's
pesakim and their methodologies in reaching them. Or, to support
your thesis about the Rambam's change of policy between the
Payrush HaMishnayos and the Yad, we should compare his teshuvos
before and after--or at least test the teshuvos written after the
Yad was completed to see if indeed the Rambam ignored the
interpretations and pesakim of the geonim and dealt exclusively
with independent analysis of the gemoras, and thereby
demonstrated, in your words, that "his approach to talmud Torah
doesn't reflect acknowledging a flow of interpretation since the
original author."</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">The last method is
do-able. And in fact, in the Rambam's very next teshuva to the one
you are quoting in in Rav Sheilat's chronologically-arranged
collection (p. 650), The Rambam's first piece of evidence for his
pesak is the Rif. Next is the Ri Migash. Is this not a
continuation of a policy of examining the opinions of former
authorities, rather than a new policy of totally ignoring them?
Can you still say that the Rambam, sometime before completing the
Yad, entertained "a denial of the flow of interpretation, a
continuity down the generations...so radically different, it
doesn't really fit the generally accepted definition of halachic
process"? Does it reflect a notion that "the Rambam lost faith in
relying on the geonim to interpret the rishonim over just going to
the books himself," or demonstrate that "the Rambam's approach in
the Yad would be the same as a teshuvah that ignores the early
acharonim, feeling that this reliance on earlier rabbanim to
understand those even earlier introduces too many errors"?</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">See also The Rambam's
writings on p.389 (written after the Yad was completed), p. 390
line 10ff. and line 18ff, p.393 line 8, p. 430, all in which he
brings into consideration the opinions of previous geonim.</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.85409.1286123072.18184.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org"
type="cite"><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">: ZL: (2)
However, between writing the Payrush HaMishnayos and writing the<br>
: Mishneh Torah, in his unique Aristotelian-influenced pursuit
to reach<br>
: a one-and-only-one truth about things, he developed a new
principle<br>
: of independent analysis of the talmudic texts, to determine
their<br>
: one-and-only original intent, and at times found himself at
odds with<br>
: what the Geonim said.<br>
<br>
: I seriously question this. The Rambam did not say he formerly
held in<br>
: principle to ignore original intent in favor of some legal
process. I<br>
: only see that he regretted a former lack of sufficiently
testing the<br>
: Geonim's interpretations against the text to which they were
applied.<br>
<br>
: Rashi, too, many times differs with his predecessors'
interpretations,<br>
....<br>
<br>
RMB: Which is how your overstatement created a strawman. Rashi
tried to fit<br>
his precedecessors, and saw the text through their eyes. It was
when<br>
that was impossible that he differed.<br>
</font> </blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"> What is the
overstatement and what is your real point? From where do you
conclude that Rashi was any less critical of previous opinions
than the Rambam?</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.85409.1286123072.18184.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org"
type="cite"> <font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">...<br>
: However, I cannot find anywhere in these iggeros the Rambam
attributing <br>
: to others uncritical reading of the Gemora through the eyes of
the <br>
: Geonim....<br>
<br>
Here's some of what I quoted at<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n171.shtml#06"><http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n171.shtml#06></a>:<br>
That which is codified in the chibbur [i.e. the Yad -mb] is<br>
undoubtedly correct, and so we wrote as well in the Perush
HaMishnah,<br>
and that which is in your hands [an early version of the Peirush<br>
haMishnayos -mb] is the first version which I released without
proper<br>
diligence. And I was influenced in this by the Sefer HaMitzvos
of<br>
Rav Chefetz, z"l, and the mistake was in his [analysis], and I
just<br>
followed after him without verifying. And when I further
evaluated<br>
and analyzed the statements [of Chazal], it became clear that
the<br>
truth was what we recorded in the chibbur and we corrected the
Perush<br>
HaMishnah accordingly. The same happened in so many places that
the<br>
first version of the Perush HaMishnah was subsequently modified,
tens<br>
of times. Each case we had originally followed the opinion of
some<br>
Gaon, z"l, and afterwards the area of error became clear. (pg
647)<br>
<br>
Does this not say that the Rambam lost faith in relying on the
geonim<br>
to interpret the rishonim over just going to the books
himself?... <br>
</font> </blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"> Yes, but it does not
support the the statement you made that I was questioning: that
the Rambam "credited" his predecessors with relying too heavily on
the geonim in their reading of the Gemora ("the Rambam consciously
chose to understand the gemara as it read to him, and abandoned
his previous approach, which he credits to his predecessors as
well, of reading the gemara through the prism of the geonim").
(Nor does it say that he himself decided at any point to disregard
entirely what the geonim said ["I'm arguing that the Rambam gave
up on trying to even work out the shitas hageonim and rejecting it
-- he simply went to 'Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" as he saw it'
"]; or that Rashi or others treated the geonim's interpretations
any less critically than the Rambam did.)</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"> Perhaps you are misled
by an ambiguity introduced by RMShapiro's translation, "I was
influenced in this by the Sefer HaMitzvos of Rav Chefetz, z"l,
and the mistake was in his [analysis], and I just followed after
him without verifying." The Hebrew reads, "V'nimshachnu b'zeh
ha-maamar acher mah sheh-zachar baal sefer hamitzvos...." By the
words, "b'zeh ha-maamar" the Rambam was referring to the specific
pesak based on Rav Cheyfetz's take on a specific gemora--not the
methodology of following geonim uncritically. RMS did not
translate the word "ha-maamar." </font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.85409.1286123072.18184.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org"
type="cite"> <font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">ZL:<br>
...<br>
: For me to accept the extraordinary claim otherwise, you would
have to <br>
: show me where a rishon says, "We don't care about the truth;
we are only <br>
: interested in the formality of uncritically following the
Geonim's <br>
: conclusions." ...<br>
<br>
RMB: Same (inadvertant) strawman.<br>
</font> </blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"> So what then is all
this talk about contrasting Rashi and the others to the Rambam
who, being he was so Aristotlean, you found it unsurprising that
he was more inclined than they to go back to examining the
original sources for their true meaning?</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.85409.1286123072.18184.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org"
type="cite"> <font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">The
Rambam gives more weight to the original than to later
interpretation<br>
not only when he is second-guessing geonim but also when
comparing the<br>
mishnah and the gemara.<br>
<br>
This is a denial of the flow of interpretation, a continuity
down<br>
the genarations. I'm saying the Rambam's methodology is so
radically<br>
different, it doesn't really fit the generally accepted
definition of<br>
"halachic process"!<br>
</font> </blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"> You're repeating this,
but I fail to see any evidence for it. I'll repeat what I said:
The methodologies of the Rambam and Rashi in the examples we
discussed differ in what they understood the amoraim on the
mishnayos to be saying. They differed over whether we should take
the wording of the mishna to modify our understanding of the words
of the amoraim (Rambam's approach), or take the words of the
amoraim to modify what the mishnah seems to say (Rashi's
approach). But there is no reason to deny that both Rashi and the
Rambam agreed that the amoraim were continuing the "flow of
[accurate] interpretation" of the Mishnah's true, original intent.</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.85409.1286123072.18184.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org"
type="cite"> <font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">ZL:<br>
: The idea that in transmitting the mesorah, the legal status of
objects,<br>
: actions or thoughts should conform to a single original Intent
predates<br>
: Aristotle and goes back to Moshe Rabbeynu and beyond. The
entire<br>
: enterprise in the Gemora that pits one Mishnah or speaker
against another<br>
: and concludes either that the later speaker is in error or
that one of<br>
: the statements must be modified so that they conform, assumes
that there<br>
: is a single original idea that must be complied with.<br>
<br>
RMB: What about the notion that eilu va'eilu reflects that fact
that HQBH's<br>
Original Intent (kavayakhol) is diffracted into a spectrum of
opinions<br>
by the time it reaches the human mind?</font></blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">Hmmm...I guess you have
not internalized what I wrote in Dynamics of Dispute on this...or
you are not convinced. I'll deal with this b"n in another post.</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.85409.1286123072.18184.avodah-aishdas.org@lists.aishdas.org"
type="cite"><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"> Or the
Constitutive approach to<br>
law of the Ramban, Ritva and Ran, which leads to their
understanding<br>
of machloqes?<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">Constitutive approach?
Nolo comprende.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">Zvi Lampel</font>
</body>
</html>