Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 95

Tue, 16 Aug 2016

• 1. Re: Emunah, intelligent design, scientific processes (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Re: [] Legions (H Lampel via Avodah)
• 3. Re: Emunah, intelligent design, scientific processes (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Rambam omitting sources and Rambam regarding Prophecy (Was: Re: Prophecy) (H Lampel)
• 5. Re: Rambam omitting sources and Rambam regarding Prophecy (Was: Re: Prophecy) (Micha Berger)

R' Meir Rabi wrote:

>>> If the question - does Gd exist?, were approached using the scientific
approach, there is no question that the most elegant postulate is, Gd must
exist because there must be a beginning somewhere - ...

I disagree. This approach invites the question,  "If there must have been a
beginning somewhere, then where was Gd's beginning?"

There *are* answers to that question, but it seems to me that the postulate
that the universe always existed is more elegant, because it does not
invite such questions to begin with.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160816/cd084279/attachment-0001.htm>

On 8/16/2016 6:57 AM, Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter wrote:
> Hebrew words that end in -on are masculine in gender, and masculine
> words usually form their plural by addin -im, but words that end in
> -on form their plural by adding -oth as a rule, one says ra`ayonoth
> and sh`onoth and xalonoth.
I guess

evyonim
gilyonim
xivyyonim
divyonim
rimonim
tsidonim
rishonim
acharonim
kadmonim
shemonim
esronim
onim
beinonim
tachtonim
shonim
nechonim
nevonim
bonim
nidonim
aronim
armonim
almonim

are all exceptions?

Zvi Lampel

On 16/08/16 08:34, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
>>>> If the question - does Gd exist?, were approached using the
>>>> scientific approach, there is no question that the most elegant
>>>> postulate is, Gd must exist because there must be a beginning
>>>> somewhere - ...
>
> I disagree. This approach invites the question,  "If there must have
> been a beginning somewhere, then where was Gd's beginning?"

The whole point of the argument is that everything we observe is the kind
of thing that needs to be caused by something else, and that thing too, if
it is of the same nature as the things we observe, must have been caused by
something, and so ad infinitum.  Therefore there must exist, somewhere, a
different kind of entity, an entity whose nature *doesn't* require a cause.
It can't be like anything we know, it must be of a completely different
order of existence, and it caused the first thing of the conventional kind,
which in turn caused all the other things.


-- 
Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
                        words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
                        when we talk it about God.   -- C S Lewis

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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160816/7f02bb4e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 03:43:03PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
: 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.

SO he didn't hold of yachid verabbim halakhah kerabbim, which renders
many mishnayos to be discussions of settled halakhos? For that matter,
halkhah keBeis Hillel also closed the discussion in numerous mishnayos
before Rebbe's day.

: > 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).

Exactly... R Ashi and Ravina record machloqesin, meaning -- according
to the Rambam -- that he didn't considered these halakhos closed. So
how did the Rambam also hold that they were sof hora'ah?

As I wrote:
:>   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...

What do you mean by "hora'ah"? Rebbe clearly intended to pasqen.

But in any case, we are talking about hora'ah.

: 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.

Yes, as per Hilkhos Talmud Torah and "shelish bemishnah, shelish
begemara".

: 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? ...

Do you agree with RMH, though, that they do described what machloqes and
pesaq are in very different ways? He provides translations and citations.
There theory of halkhah and thus hashkafos are stated outright, regardless
of whether there is a pragmatic consequence that we will both agree on.

As for examples, didn't we discuss chatzi nezeq tzeroros more than once?
(Rashi explains the misnhah according to the gemara, because later pesaq
defines the real meaning of earlier. The Rambam pasqens according to
peshat in the mishnah, leaving us guessing why.)

But in general, difference would show up in mamrim, since that's where
the halakhos of how to make halakhos come to the fore.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507


------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


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

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)