Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 064

Saturday, November 28 1998

• Re: Avodah V2 #63
• ascii
• Sheva berachot - real derasha or asmachta?
• re: thanksgiving
• Rambam's Mistakes
• Re: thanksgiving
• Response to Daniel Eidensohn
• Re: Could the Rambam have made mistakes? (fwd)
• Re: Could the Rambam have made mistakes? (fwd)
• Re: Could the Rambam have made mistakes? (fwd)
• Shoresh II:Precise language

> Subject: Could the Rambam have made mistakes?
> 
> later commentators who came to his defense.  I believe the main reason 
> for these discrepancies is the way in which the Rambam worked.  

When I was in Rav Soloveitchik's shiur he mentioned a few times that
he could see the difference between tosaphot who were roshei
yeshiva and Rambam who learned by himself.
> 
> I quote this now in the hope that it will stimulate discussion about the 
> question of the infallibility of the Rishonim.  

What do you mean by infallible?
Rambam says that the stars are living creatures.
Rash on the mishna in Kilyaim states that the Pythagores theorem is wrong
(Beit Yosef is already startled by this) and Rashi at least does not
use this theorem. There are other such examples.

Eli Turkel

A reminder to everyone to please send email in plain ascii text.
Special mailing like html, microsoft word etc cannot be read by everyone.

Rashi and Ramban bring down the Yerushlami that learnes sheva berachos from
'shavua zoas' in our parsha.  Mizrachi writes that the Yerushalmi is an
asmachta, similar to the yerushalmi's limmud of aveilut from pesukim.
Aveilus, writes Mizrachi, must be d'rabbanan, because of the din of 'machnisin
et hameis l'cheder 'et hachassan v'kallah l'chupah'(Ketubot 4a), that if the
father of the chassan or mother of the bride die right before the wedding we
allow the chuppah & 7 says of sheva berachos to be doche aveilus - if aveilus
was a din d'orayta how could sheva berachos be doche it?  I was thinking one
could argue that both dinim are d'otayta and the yeruslami actually works well
l'shitaso - aveilut d'orayta (like shittat BaHaG - Tos. Berachot 47b) is
nidche bec. sheva berachot is also learned from a real derasha d'orayta.
(similar to the RaMaH's defense of BaHaG in Rosh P"K of Kesubos).

Good Shabbos!

-Chaim Brown

R M.J. Broyde has written a very nice halachic article on thanksgiving.
It is about seven pages long with extensive footnotes. It can be found
on the Torah from Dixie web page. http://tfdixie.com/special/thanksg.htm

Eli Turkel wrote:
> >
>>"infallibility of the Rishonim."
> 
> What do you mean by infallible?
> Rambam says that the stars are living creatures.
> Rash on the mishna in Kilyaim states that the Pythagores theorem is wrong
> (Beit Yosef is already startled by this) and Rashi at least does not
> use this theorem. There are other such examples.
> 
> Eli Turkel

In large part I think most would agree that the Rishonim were not 
infallable on matters of science and, as your examples point out, were 
totally misinformed.  I was reffering to matters of Halacha.  The 
Netziv's comments were directed to stiros in Halacha, I believe, and I 
don't know of anyone who has challenged the Rishonim on matters of 
Halacha. Indeed Judaism (i.e.the Shulchan Aruch)as we practice it today, 
 is based almost entirely on the shitas HaRishonim, most specificly on 
the Rambam.  If the Rambam made mistakes in matters of Halacha, doesn't 
that put into question the entire Shulchan Aruch? I know there many ways 
that you could explain and I can even think of a few myself.  Of course, 
I am not advocating violating the Shulchan Aruch even one iota.  I am 
simply asking the question to stimulate debate on the matter in order to 
find the Amiso shel Torah.

HM

On the subject of celebrating birthdays, the Ben Ish Hai, first year,
Parshat Re'eh, last halacha (17 I think), talking about celebrating a bat
mizva, says that she should have a party to celebrate and have new
clothing to say shehehianu, or at least a new fruit.

While on the topic, he mentions that some have a custom to have a seuda
every year on their birthday, and that indeed it is done in his house.

He goes on to mention that he has heard of the custom in some places to
have a seuda on the anniversary day of one's brit milah, and that it seems
to him to be a good thing to do, though he did not do it himself. He did
however, compose a tefilah to be said on that day, the text of which I'll
leave as research should you decide you want it.



Sammy Ominsky

With apologies to all for HTML Rich Text (I think that's my problem; I
forgot to change the default and I don't know how to redo the default
entirely; I'm using MS's outlook Express and your suggestions are welcome.
Daniel Eidensohn's comments sound ad hominem but in the spirit of Tomer
D'vorah, I choose to let it go this time.
La-'inyan: I don't think Rambam's blood is redder and indeed until reading
your letter never even thoought about the shade of his blood. You are free
to be as pejorative as you like about what I said. I wrote what I did
because I believe that that is the point of the Shoresh, esp. since the
Shoresh deals with what is to be counted. I had no intention to follow any
other rishonim/achronim mostly because I do not know any. (Candid, isn't
he!)  Does not the section you translated (I have not the time just now to
see original so 'alayich kasamichna) state that it is possible to have a
d'oreisa w/o it being counted as a mitzvah (as long as there is a pasuk)?
--Noach Witty.

If you are allowing us to criticize the Rishonim with a gut reaction then
kal vchomer we can crtiticize the netziv from a gut reaction, so I will.
The point of the netziv has crossed my mind, but After spending some time

actully learning Rambams (pesachims kodshim sugyas will do that for
starters) I believe that the netziv must be wrong. The seeming
contradictions in the rambam are so obvious and so blatant both internally
and as they relate to the sugya that my chavrusa and I have decided that
either the rambam was out of his mind when he published his sefer (as well
as his generation and all other poeple to accept it) or that the Rambam
was absolutely brilliant and understood sugyas with incredible precision.
we decided the latter was probably true. It's a nice theory to say that
the rambam made mistakes becuase he learned
alone but there are so many "mistakes" that one must assume that these
aren't mistakes at all. Furthermore, althiugh pilpul is often used to
answer a Rambam---you must find fault in the pilpul before discarding it.
Most times the pilpul is just presenting the sugya in a different light,
one that might differ from Rashi and Tosfos. Further more, when miforshim
are forced to say that there is an error in the text they almost always
justify their statements, they don't randomly answer---we need a gersa
change. For example, We just came across a case where the chofetz chaim
and the steipler said that we must change the gersa in the rambam because
besides for creating a contradiction in the rambam aswell as with the
text---it was exactly the oppposite of what the Rambam said about the same
thing in the perush hamishnayos, so it makes sense to assume a mistake in
the text crept in because otherwise you have much bigger problems. it's
also interesting the the netziv says this because we just did a meromi
sadeh which explained a sver Rambam as well as the jist of the sefer aruch
hashulchan atid (by Rabbi epstien) which is filled with pages justifying
sver Ramabm's. interesting if they felt the Rambam was mistaken. Finnaly
the shulchan aruch poskens like the Rambam almost always even when the
Rambam is sver---since we accepted the shulchan aruch these rules become
halacha even if tehy were ruled in error---thus the continued in depth
study of the Rambam is needed in any case because, even if he was wrong he
is really right. As far as infallibilty, I don't want to discuss this
because I BELIEVE(my own opinion which shouldn't offend anyone as they can
argue and disregard my opinion) that many members of this list don't fully
appreciate
how great the Rishonim were or how low we are in comparison and such
conversations have been exhausted.
ELIE GINSPARG

Elie Ginsparg wrote:

> the shulchan aruch poskens like the Rambam almost always even when the
> Rambam is sver---since we accepted the shulchan aruch these rules become
> halacha even if tehy were ruled in error---thus the continued in depth
> study of the Rambam is needed in any case because, even if he was wrong he
> is really right.

Even if he was wrong he is really right!!!  Think about it. What does 
this really say?  It says that no matter how incorrect a Rishon is about 
the facts of Halacha we never the less paskin like him as though it was 
the word of G-d incarnate.  Falsity becomes truth.  Doesn't this bother 
you? We cannot make any human infallable no matter how far back in 
history we go.  Human beings make mistakes. As great as he was, the 
Rambam was human.  

A rebbe of mine (I don't remember which one)once told me (and I believe 
that this is universally held) that the reason we don't paskin like the 
Rambam 100 percent of the time is because he didn't cite sources.  Had 
he done so we wouldn't have needed a Shulchan Aruch.  Of course if he 
had cited his sources there probably would have been less error as well. 
In some ways it's better to have as our source of Halacha a compilation 
of the Major Rishonim,i.e. more than one halachic desisor and ion this 
way we can arrive at a better consnesus at what the true will of G-d is.

HM

it's not that humans are infaalable, it's just that what they say in
halacha sometimes becomes true even if it's not. (much like the disputes
between R Eliezer and R.Yehosua). It's possible that the Rambam made a
mistake in how to learn a particular gemara---it just won't matter because
if klal yisroel accepted that p'sak it must be followed. If you're
suggesting WE in 1998 point out the mistakes of the Rambam and attept to
change halacha --that's not happening nor do I think you're suggesting
that
Elie Ginsparg

Noah Witty wrote:

> Daniel Eidensohn's comments sound ad hominem but in the spirit of Tomer
> D'vorah, I choose to let it go this time.

I am apologize for what you perceived as a personal attack.
I was responding to your statement that the statement of Shoresh II
was not precise.

> . I wrote what I did
> because I believe that that is the point of the Shoresh, esp. since the
> Shoresh deals with what is to be counted.

Again the issue is whether the Rambam's is explaining what constitutes a
Doreissa rather than Derabbonon halacha - which is the translation of
his words or is merely defining that what is part of the 613 and what he
calls divrei sofrim or derabbonin is still what everybody else would
call a doreissa.

My point is that the Ramban, Rashba, Ravaad etc assume the former. Thus
the Rambam is saying exactly what the words say. You are saying the
latter position. that the rambam was not precise in his wording. That
position is presented by the Rashbatz. [A full discussion is found in
the Divrei Emes in his kuntres Divrei Sofrim.] 

There is a major difference between these positions. According the the
literalists the Rambam is asserting that anything from a drasha is
really derabbonon. This position is espoused by the Divrei Chaim to
explain why in a case of embarrassment involving adultery the Rambam
would hold that there is no need to confess and cause embarrassment. The
Divrei Emes says that the Rambam's position that these are actual
derabbonon's is
also the  position of some of the gaonim such as the She'iltos.


> I had no intention to follow any
> other rishonim/achronim mostly because I do not know any. (Candid, isn't
> he!)  Does not the section you translated (I have not the time just now to
> see original so 'alayich kasamichna) state that it is possible to have a
> d'oreisa w/o it being counted as a mitzvah (as long as there is a pasuk)?

I am not sure how you understand the Rambam that way. When you get a
chance to see the full shoresh II maybe you can expand on your
perception. Again the understanding of the Rambam is critical for
understanding the nature of the Torah/Rabbinic distinction. There is
much discussion especially in hilchos ishus whether kesef is
Torah/Rabbinic.

In sum, I was responding to what seemed to be your assertion that the
Rambam's statement obviously was not to be taken literally i.e. it was
"not precise". Thus dismissing the Ramban and Rashba and others strong
attacks as the result of their inability to understand something so
obvious - As well as the gaonim who agree with the literal reading. Your
rejoiner was that you were not doing what I thought because you were not
aware of their positions. Again I apologize for misreading your original
posting.

                          Daniel Eidensohn

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]