tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post2421344421321137277..comments2023-10-12T10:09:54.121-04:00Comments on Believing is Knowing: Did Rambam's Attitude To Aggadah Evolve? - A review of Professor Loberbaum Article (Part 3).David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-79440011287149086502018-07-06T15:01:39.263-04:002018-07-06T15:01:39.263-04:00Hi, I met a guy today who rejects the Rambam, he s...Hi, I met a guy today who rejects the Rambam, he says that Rambam broke the seal of Rav Ashi in Talmud by removing aggadah from his Mihsneh Torah (not true). But then he provided an example, which threw me off my feet. He says that in Hilchot Malch'im, Rambam makes an halachic ruling on the 7 mitzvot bnai noach, problem is, the tractate in Gemara is from Sanhedrin, which employs an aggaditah! <br /><br />The teaching comes from Devarim on trief meat, it can be given to a Ger Toshav, who can sell it to a Na'Cree, Baba Kama teaches that a Na'Cree, who lives within the boarders of Eretz Yisrael, qualifies as a hostile foreigner. This isn't so for the Ger Toshav, who has civil and political rights. Why? Because he swore an oath upon his life to keep the 7 mitzvot of Noach. He therefore claims that Rambam changed the parameters of the Ger Toshav to a universal commandment applicable to all Goyim, anywhere on planet earth. Therefore, his halacha ignores the fact that if the Goy failed to keep the 7 laws, he'd be considered a Na'Cree, and if he's still in the boarders, that's a capital crime, the Sanhedrin would put him to death (though their jurisdiction is only limited to the Israeli state, but if Rambam is right, than a Goy in the US could be put to death by the Court!). Not only did he do this, but he chose a source from aggadah, and made it halacha, something he said in many places we're not to do, so, did he contradict himself? <br /><br />Point is, is any of this true? Did Rambam say we could psak halacha from aggadah (my research says no), and what about this example of his? Does it merit anything, can it be refuted? Thanks! Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12049947806169978723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-16315801010484145682018-07-06T14:59:48.762-04:002018-07-06T14:59:48.762-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12049947806169978723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-11729583040997967342009-10-01T12:04:49.384-04:002009-10-01T12:04:49.384-04:00As the other YL (Yeshayhau Leibowitz) pointed out ...As the other YL (Yeshayhau Leibowitz) pointed out many times, the Rambam did not feel that one was mandated to believe any specific thing, in contrast to the Halachah, which one is mandated to follow. So even if the Halachah is "mistaken" - i.e. not arrived at in a logical manner - the Rambam would still hold, as you pointed out, that one is obliged to follow it until the next Sanhedrin overrules it. So there would not really be any value in holding "mistaken" Halachah in low regard. But for matters of thought, where one is not required to follow what the Sages have said, the value in pointing out the perceived error is to prevent other people from holding those same beliefs. <br /> <br />As of now, I believe Elu Ve'elu to mean that the process of Halachah proves that there is a living God, because both sides are trying to implement Halachah into their lives. Because of this, even if one opinion is wrong, it is still the Halachah, because God left the Halachah to man. I don't believe that both sides can be objectively right, as that would imply either a contradiction in the Torah or that the Torah did not leave guidance on that specific issue, and in the latter scenario, neither side is wrong. But we believe that the Halachah is developed out of the Torah and does not arise out of thin air, so it must be that one side is right and the other side is wrong. It's just that being wrong is ok in matters of Halachah. Ideally, a later Sanhedrin will correct the error. In contrast, there is no valid reason for holding on to a perceived incorrect belief merely because that belief was written down into the Agadah.<br /><br />The impression I got from the Rambam's above comment was that he agreed intellectually with the lesson the Gemara was trying to teach, whereas he did not agree intellectually with many other statements in the Gemara.Aryehnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-80384004842035695152009-10-01T04:30:07.275-04:002009-10-01T04:30:07.275-04:00In MN 1:59 Rambam is discussing the human innabili...In MN 1:59 Rambam is discussing the human innability of describing God correctly. He quotes a "famous" chazal that "everyone knows" by Rabbi Chanina who clearly says so. <br /><br /> "You must surely know the following famous dictum--would that all the dicta were like that!--even though it is well remembered I shall quote it to you textually" -, (Friedlander with some Pines edited into it)<br /><br />I am not sure what Rambam is referring to, it being famous and he wishes all were so famous,its clarity or indeed its depth and consistency. As I explained in the post Rambam held that the Rabbis, as opposed to prophets, were not infalible and were not always consistent all the way when the issues were of great depth. Inconsistency when dealing with such great matters, although possibly in error does not detract from the importance and depth of the subject. In an upcoming post I will in fact prove this from a passing comment Rambam makes that YL missed. <br /><br />There is a misconception in general that halacha and aggadah are always intrinsically right. That can only be said about prophecy. Rabbinic writings are possibly mistaken as we can see by the arguments among the rabbis (elu ve'elu and what it means is in itself a major debate amongst the rishonim). That is why in halacha we follow the majority of a sanhedrin, a ruling that can be overturned by subsequent sanhedrin. The latter felt the first erred. In Aggadah/metaphysics there is no binding decision, because the truth is elusive. Rambam repeats that three times in pirush hamishna in his youth. <br /><br />Can one therefore argue that Rambam had less regard to halacha because it may be in error? It is this monochromatic insistence that is insulting to a great thinker like Rambam who was extremely complex, that I object to.David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-2490949535858258422009-09-30T22:24:41.343-04:002009-09-30T22:24:41.343-04:00Doesn't the Rambam's comment that he wishe...Doesn't the Rambam's comment that he wishes all Agadot were like the one that says one should not increase his praise of God in the Tefilah say it all? Meaning, at least at that point in his life, he realized that not all the statements in the Agadah made sense, whichever way you try to look at it?Aryehnoreply@blogger.com