Rabbi Abraham Ben-Shorr greetings and shalom,

While i can aknowledge the validity of your perspective none the less it seems to me closer to the 3 blind men feeling different parts of an elephant.

Rambam was a student of a student of the Rif. The codification of the Rif the Rambam enhanced. But i would not go so far as to say "improved". The B'hag wrote an early halachic codification. The style of the earlier codes has distinct advantages over the Rambam method. Rambam's code gave non scholars a quicker and easier assess toward a simple understanding of ritual law, it in no way appears to me that his work assists students of Talmud toward understanding Talmud on any thing near the works of the B'hag and the Rif. Furthermore it seems that the Rosh made his great halachic compilation employing the manner of style of the Rif, i offer this as a proof that other great halachic scholars while acknowledging the valuable service of Rambam in no way thought his work pre-eminant. That the Tur rejected the Rambam's approach of making p'sok halacha on matters not relavent to the particular generation in question constitutes as still another proof that the later reshonim considered Rambam as a peer of the reshonim, but by no means 1st among equals.
Next point: The sages on the period of the Talmud address completely different issues and the needs of their generations which were not the same as the needs of the generation of Reshonim in general and Rambam in particular. To confuse the scholarship of Rambam and to equate it to anything even close to being equal to the work of Rabbi HaNassi, just for one example, distresses me greatly. Its not saying that Rambam was not an excellent scholar, but from Rambam's great work a person can not derive a systematic logic whereby he can interpret the intent of the Written Torah of Moshe our Teacher. Not so the scholarship of the Tannaim and Amoraim, and Midrashim! The explicit purpose of these great teachings "through" the Oral Law, centers upon interpreting the intent of Moshe through the generations. Talmud is not divorced from the written torah. That poor scholars err and divorce the Talmud from teaching how to interpret the written torah specifically so that the vision of the written torah addresses the particular unique needs of every single generation of bnai brit that shall ever walk the face of the earth bings no honor upon Rambam. Rambam's code by its breaking away from the manner of the Rif and Rosh encourages poor scholars to fall into this most terrible of errors concerning how to employ the Oral Torah and its relationship with the Written Torah. Just as bad, possibly even worse, by removing the debate, the give and take, the struggle and search to understand, Rambam's work consequentually might assists poor scholars in not developing the spiruality of דרך ארץ. The Mussar Movement while helpful has not brought back the great life focus that prevailed in the functional lives of the Tannaim and Amoraim! Torah is not so much an intellectual debate but rather defining and refining emotional middot to mirror the 13 middot of the Torah revelation given unto Moshe our Teacher. While its true that statute law qualifies as a great pillor of Torah, equally as great, the pillor of middot emotional development. As an emotionally immature person possessing high intelligence can make a pre-tense of being a Torah scholar so too uncooked scholars that like to quote a Rambam but do not understand the context of the gemarah that the commentator sought to make a specific halachic ruling for his generation; his generation but not my generation. Talmudic scholarship touches a completely different chord. If a person can systematically employ a clear method by which he can interpret the intent of Rabbi HaNassi's language, he can employ the precident to do the same with the Written Torah of Moshe the man of Elohim. At best Rambam's work is only a mule that the Talmud can ride upon. The rider and the mule share no equallity of authority that is unless your Bilam!

with respect,
moshe

B"H
Dear Moshe Kerr,

I have a copy of B'hag (Halachos Gedolos), and I have a copy of Rambam's Mishne Torah. Anyone comparing these two works sees a vast difference. Where the author of B'hag assigns two or three pages on the discussion of a certain subject, Rambam assigns 10 or 12 on the same. Moreover, Rambam covers ground untouched by his predecessors - such as the Beis HaMiqdash, and Tum'as Kelim, etc.

B'hag, although an important source, speaks in the language of the Gemara, which was basically unintelligible to many laymen.

You gave a very nice parable about three blind men feeling different parts of an elephant. Anyone opening up the writings of Rif (Rabbi Yitzhak al-Fasi), B'hag and others, and comparing those same writings with Rambam's Code of Jewish Law, he actually sees the massive elephant in all its fantastic dimensions!

And since you also used the metaphor of Bilaam's donkey to compare the writings of the great Rabbi, Moshe ben Maimon, I would remind you that there happens to be one difference. That donkey spoke, and is still speaking today! In this, it is different from all the other donkeys that have tried embodying the essence of the Talmud and our many & diverse oral laws.

Sincerely,
David

Rabbi Shorr shalom,

The B'hag Rif Rosh Tur all realized that a posek writing for HIS generation only, that does not mean that they did not speak to other generations as well, the Radak on the T'nach writes that a Rav Gadol is a Torah teacher who's works large numbers of peoples study, since people study these works today, these works still, to use your phrase "speak".
A better question why did Rambam feel the neccessity of ruling on halacha not connected to his generation?!
The B'hag Rif examples possess extreme merit b/c these great teachers of Torah "understood" that their works had to be learned in conjunction with the mother source ie the Talmud. On a cirtain level Rambam was written for less learned students who did not know how to learn well and did not have easy access to the mother source and his book could be studied independently of the primary source and a simple student could get a SIMPLE understanding of Talmud. A simple understanding in no way compares with a more indepth understanding. The B'hag Rif approach because it was strongly tied to assisting the study of Talmud hit the main points and let the Talmud use its finer details and aggadah to go even deeper and more fully. Rambam while he brought, as you pointed out more details, did not bring aggaditah. Niether did the B'hag and Rif, but they did not need to b/c their texts were tied to the Talmud which did! The aggaditah give tremendous depth of understanding toward defining the intent of a halachic concept, IF A PERSON KNOWS HOW TO LEARN AND EMPLOY IT FOR ITS PURPOSE! B/c Rambam wrote a layman's halacha silly people erred and minimized the necessity of the aggaditah a 1/4 of Sha's

with respect,
moshe

quote:

Originally posted by moshe kerr:
Because Rambam wrote a layman's halacha, silly people erred and minimized the necessity of the aggaditah a 1/4 of Sha's (Talmud)."

moshe

Dear Moshe,

I think you've forgotten that Maran (Rabbi Yoseph Karo) in his Questions and Responsa "Avqas Rochel," heaps lavish praises upon Rambam, calling him his Rabbi and Master. He obviously did not see Rambam as some simpleton writing to "silly" people.

We find also this statement made by the great Rabbi, MAHARITZ, in his Questions & Responsa "Pe'ulath Sadiq" (Vol. II, Responsum # 251)

"Let it be known that the land of the West (i.e. Israel), and Egypt and the land of Yemen are the places of Maimonides, and this fact is well-ascertained by the books and by all the people. Yet, HASHKAG, in Section 128, has written that the land of the West (i.e. Israel) is also the place of our Rabbi, [author] of the "Beth-Yoseph" (meaning, R. Yoseph Karo). Now I have learned from HASHKAG there, in his commentary "Hagahath HaTur," that if there is a dispute regarding the practice of any ruling brought down between Maimonides and the Rabbi of the "Beth-Yoseph," we practice the ruling as it is brought down in Maimonides, even in the place [where the majority of the people adhere to] the "Beth-Yoseph." But in the other issues where Maimonides has not disputed, or where he has made no mention of the ruling in his own words but are mentioned in the words of the "Beth-Yoseph," we then practice according to the "Beth-Yoseph," even if all other exponents on the Halacha disagree with him. Look there, [at his commentary]..."

We also find a statement made by Rabbi Yaakov Castro, who testifies in Hoshen Mishpat, section 14, of which these are his words:

"Rabbi David Ben-Zimra has written that Egypt and its immediate surroundings, and the land of Yemen, and the West, are the places of Rambam, and no petitioner to a lawsuit is able to say that we hold the opinions of the Geon so and so, as opposed to the words of that Rabbi, of blessed memory!"

Likewise has Rabbi Yaakov Castro testified of this in his responsa, responsum # 93, in his book known as "Dan" (an acronym for Dinei Neziqim, or "indemnity laws"), the part of Hoshen Mishpat, in section 15. Refer there for a more comprehensive view of that statement.

Also in the book Ha-Leket (i.e. "the Gleaning"), volume I, section 182, he has written that he received from his grandfather that "in all of the periphery touching upon the land of Israel, no one can say that we hold [the opinions of so and so] against those of Maimonides and those of Rabbi Yosef Karo."

And in the book Ha-Doros (i.e. "the Generations"), page 54, at the end of folio B, it is written that Ramban (Rabbi Moses, the son of Nahman) has testified in the epistle Ha-hemda which he wrote, that in all of the districts of Yemen it was once enacted that they say in the Kaddish, "In thy lifetime, and in thy days, and in the lifetime of our lord Maimonides, etc." Refer there for a more comprehensive look at this subject.

So, Moshe, obviously these Rabbis see Rambam in a different light than in what you see him. Moreover, Rambam's decision to write his Code of Jewish Law in the Hebrew language does not diminish from its importance. Maran and the Tur did the same thing, writing in the Hebrew language. I think it became obvious to them that they could accomplish more by writing their books in a language readily understood by the people, than in a language which, in their days, was defunct.

As for Rambam's writing Halachos about matters that do not apply to us today (such as on the Temple, and laws of purity, etc.), this was done so we might know them once the Temple is rebuilt, may it happen quickly in our days.

By the way, why did you go back on your word? You compared Rambam's writings to Bilaam's donkey, and as far as I have been able to tell, there was only one donkey that ever spoke - not two or three!

Sincerely,
David

Rabbi Shorr shalom,

A scholar develops the ability to discern.
Rashi's "commentary" on the chumash is an explanation based upon his theory of P'shat.
The B'hag Rif works constitutes as "commentaries" on the Talmud its an explanation based upon their p'sok of halacha.
The Rambam Tur works constitutes as halachic codifications, their primary intent does NOT entail nor include as a "commentary" upon the Talmud.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. There exist many commentaries on the chumash, but Rashi's has found especial favor because of his brevity, but no one in their right mind would say that Rashi's commentary has a pre-emanence over the chumash; so too the B'hag and the Rif and their "halachic commentary" upon the Talmud.
Yet amazing as its seems their are people who want to argue that Rambam has a pre-emanence over the Talmud!

with respect,
moshe

Rabbi Shorr shalom,

I do not dis avow the scholarship or piety of Rambam. His obviously has known greater and less influence throughout the generations since publishing his great work. Its not the Rav that the problem but rather the students who quote Rambam but do not learn gemarah at all or not well that greatly disturbs me. Rambam and his safer has aknowledged authority as does Rashi's commentary upon the Talmud. But just because a person parrots the words of a great scholar of previous generations in no way proves that the parrot understands the intent of the words. Understanding Rambam or Rashi's commentary upon the Talmud requires comparing the words of the commentator with the language of the primary text that the later sage sought to explain. Its like finger nails down a chalkbourd to hear a pompous person quote a Rambam not even aware of the context of the gemarah and its ramifications upon understanding the intent of the language of the Mishneh.

with respect,
moshe

quote:

Originally posted by moshe kerr:
amazing as its seems their are people who want to argue that Rambam has a pre-emanence over the Talmud!

My friend, Moshe,

Who spoke about Rambam's "pre-emanence" over the Talmud? I certainly did not. Besides, the Yemenites have many things on which they disagree with Rambam.

Why do you call me Rabbi Shorr? First, I am not a Rabbi, and second, my name is not "Shorr."

I agree with your statement: "Understanding Rambam or Rashi's commentary upon the Talmud requires comparing the words of the commentator with the language of the primary text that the latter sage sought to explain."

Sincerely,
David

David shalom,

Thanks for the clarification on all points.

sincerely,
moshe

Isn't Uncle Moishy's song "Hashem is here, Hashem is there, Hashem is truly everywhere..." enough of a proof that it is true that Hashem is everywhere?

moshe kerr, forgive me for asking as such a late date i been away since apirl and rarely vist this page due my busy time. though i was wondering what makes you feel that people here treat the Mishnah Torah as though it has pre-emanence over the talmud?

if you do not want it posted here you can send me a private message telling me.

thank you...

quote:

Originally posted by rob:

quote:

lets go with tzimtzum

Start with Infinite dimensions.

Pull back a few dimensions so that we have only 5 dimensions (our 3 plus time and spirit).

It may not be that unresolvable a paradox!

The stuff of atoms and quarks and strings, and dark energy... these are building blocks of the universe according to science. I don't see a paradox between my existence being an organized flow of atomic particials and those particals being (in essence) the Dvar HaShem. So to the Dvar HaShem is sustained by the Makhshevah Boreinu (thought of the Creator), and the Creator is more than the some total of His thoughts - Thank G_d - my actions are not randomn and meaningless - I once answered someone who asked me why I keep observing ancient customs and Laws from the Torah (which to him was a dated historical storybook)... I said, "tell me where we would be if we could comprehend and actualize just the 'natural laws' of the physical universe? then, think about the emotional, mental, and spiritual aspects of that idea..." There are two type of people one who spends his/her time trying to prove G_d exists, and one who is amazed that anything exists... often times people think that the one who argues about spirituality and the existence of G_d is the more spiritual, yet consider this: if someone is spending all their time trying to argue about G_d's existence doesn't that logically mean that that person has no doubt that they themselves exist. If this is the case then by doubting the existence of G_d (by always trying to prove something about G_d) have you not rendered the paradox upon yourself? Rebbe Nachman states that emunah is the point at which one cannot understand something rationally, because where one can understand something rationally there is no need for faith... (Likutei Moharan 7). The (Lubavitcher) Rebbe also makes similar statements concerning the nature of chabad is not seychel. Emunah Emet matzah b'Lev (true faith is found in the heart), because the heart is the driving force behind the ratzon. Faith is not a rationalization of (temporal) feelings and ideas. Faith is accepting Malchut HaShamayim because everything is the Malchut HaShamayim, not because of what we think about Malchut HaShamayim... mamash emet is so much more than we can comprehend and/or experience... in this present form

We seem to think that because we can compare the sources, Rashi and Rambam and Rosh and Rishonim, all at the same time that we are somehow in a better position.... how ironic, we who have to rely on the comments of those who came before us (because we do not have or posses the level of knowledge on our own like they did) acting as the "authorities" regarding the opinions stated without having to actually think and comprehend the items being discussed, let alone how they actually lived in practicality at that time... (just what would we do without all the reading material and reference books, most of which we don't really know or read, except with reference notes from others...The brilliance of those before who had no reference other than the Torah, and later the Midrash, and then gemara.... wow! can you even begin to understand how great these men were, can you begin to appreciate the mastery of the source material that they had? or that they could actually concentrate for time needed to finsh whole Mashechtas and put it into context with both Torah and all the other Meshechtas! Do we really think we have that kind of "moxy"????)

B"H

While the schools of Europe during the years 1180 – 1240 C.E. greatly opposed the philosophical writings of Rambam (Maimonides), those in Yemen, Syria, Egypt and North Africa, on the other hand, readily accepted his views on philosophy, studying "the Guide for the Perplexed" in its original Judeo-Arabic script. Rabbi Yonah Gerondi was among one of the most outspoken critics of Rambam's philosophy, while Rabbi David Kimchi was amongst his most formidable supporters. (This schism reached the Talmudic scholars in Germany and in France, to the exclusion of those Rabbis in the region of Provence, in southern France.)

The following extract taken from "the Guide" shows Maimonides' extraordinary mind in his comprehension of G-d, and how that G-d is inextricably bound to all actions otherwise seen as the mere actions of man. As can be seen in the following chapter (quoted here in its entirety), Maimonides treats on the subject raised in this thread from a different perspective. It is my own personal belief that if any man should grasp the principles outlined here, in this chapter, he will be a happier man, and will learn to confront and overcome hardships much easier!

(Maimonides's "Guide for the Perplexed," Part II, chapter XLVIII – translation made by M. Friedlander, Ph.D)

QUOTE:
It is clear that everything produced must have an immediate cause which produced it; that cause again a cause, and so on, till the First Cause, viz., the will and decree of G-d is reached. The prophets therefore omit sometimes the intermediate cause, and ascribe the production of an individual thing directly to G-d, saying that G-d has made it. This method is well known, and we, as well as others of those who seek the truth, have explained it; it is the belief of our co-religionists.
After having heard this remark, listen to what I will explain in this chapter; direct your special attention to it more than you have done to the other chapters of this part. It is this: As regards the immediate cause of things produced, it makes no difference whether these causes consist in substances, physical properties, freewill, or chance – by freewill I mean that of man – or even in the will of another living being. The prophets [omit them and] ascribe the production directly to G-d and use such phrases as, G-d has done it, commanded it, or said it; in all such cases the verbs "to say," "to speak," "to command," "to call," and "to send" are employed. What I desired to state in this chapter is this: According to the hypothesis and theory accepted, it is G-d that gave will to dumb animals, freewill to the human being, and natural properties to everything; and as accidents originate in the redundancy of some natural force, as has been explained [by Aristotle], and are mostly the result of the combined action of nature, desire, and freewill: it can consequently be said of everything which is produced by any of these causes, that G-d commanded that it should be made, or said that it should be so. I will give you instances, and they will guide you in the interpretation of passages which I do not mention. As regards phenomena produced regularly by natural causes, such as the melting of the snow when the atmosphere becomes warm, the roaring of the sea when a storm rages [I quote the following passages], "He sendeth his word and melteth them" (Ps. cxlvii.18); "And he saith, and a storm-wind riseth, and lifteth up its waves" (ibid. cvii.25). In reference to the rain we read: "I will command the clouds that they shall not rain," etc. (Isa. v.6). Events caused by man's freewill, such as war, the dominion of one nation over another, the attempt of one person to hurt another, or to insult him, [are ascribed to G-d, as] e.g., in reference to the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar and his host, "I have commanded my holy ones, also I have called my heroes for my anger" (Isa. xiii.3); and "I will send him against a hypocrite nation" (ibid. x.6); in reference to Shimei, son of Gera, "For G-d said to him, Curse David" (2 Sam. xvi.10); in reference to the deliverance of Joseph, the righteous, from prison, "He sent an angel and loosed him" (Ps. cv.20); in reference to the victory of the Persians over the Chaldees, "I will send to Babylon scatterers, and they shall scatter it" (Jer. li.2); in reference to the providing of food to Eliah, "I have commanded there a woman, a widow, to maintain thee" (I Kings xvii.9); and Joseph, the righteous, says: "Not ye have sent me hither," etc. (Gen. xlv.8). The case that the will of an animal or its desire for some of its natural wants is the cause of some event, may be illustrated by the following instance: "And G-d spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah" (ii.11). The act is ascribed to G-d, because He gave the fish the will, and not because He made it a prophet or endowed it with a prophetical spirit. Similarly it is said of the locusts that appeared in the days of Joel, son of Pethuel, "Mighty is he that accomplishes his word" (Joel ii.11); or of the beasts that took possession of the land of Edom when destroyed in the days of Sennacherib, "He cast lot for them, and his hand divided it unto them by a line" (Isa. xxxiv.17). Although here the verbs "to say," "to command," "to send," are not used, the meaning is evidently the same, and you must explain all passages that are analogous to it in a similar manner. Events evidently due to chance are ascribed to G-d; e.g.; in reference to Rebecca, "Let her be a wife to the son of thy master, as the Lo-rd spake" (Gen. xxiv.51); in reference to David and Jonathan, "Go, for the Lo-rd has sent thee." (I Sam. xx.22); in reference to Joseph, "G-d sent me before you" (Gen. xlv.7). You see clearly that the providing of a cause, in whatever manner this may take place, by substance, accident, freewill, or will, is always expressed by one of the five terms: commanding, saying, speaking, sending, or calling. Note this, and apply it everywhere according to the context. Many difficulties will thereby be removed, and passages apparently containing things far from truth will prove to be true. This is the conclusion of the treatise on Prophecy, its allegories and language. It is all I intend to say on this subject in this treatise. We will now commence to treat of other subjects, with the help of the Most High.
END QUOTE.

The title of this topic on the home page is " Is everything G-d?"..I think the words Good and G-d are often interchangeable.

My oldest son, Ben, always said "It's all good." Now I know he must have picked it up from Kabala. Now he has taught my younger son,David, to say it. Does "it's all good" mean "it's all G-d?" Often when we can't say G-d we say good.