Emes l'Yakov Bereishis (01:01) אבל כפי שאנחנו מתייחסים לדברי הראשונים שסוברים אנו בגדר של אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים א"כ אף על פי שבמקום זה אין הלכה כמותו אבל שיהיו דבריו דברי טעות לא יכולתי להשלים, ואם טעה הרמב"ם בהלכות יסודי התורה מדוע לא יטעה בהלכות שבת וכדומה?
והנראה בזה, דהנה לכאורה יש לתמוה על כל הענינים שכתב הרמב"ם בארבעת הפרקים הראשונים של הלכות יסודי התורה, הא כתב הרמב"ם בסוף הלכות אלו [פ"ד הלי"ג] וז"ל: ועניני ארבעה פרקים אלו הם שחכמים הראשונים קוראין אותו פרדס וכו', ובחגיגה [דף י"א ע"ב] איתא: אין דורשין במעשה בראשית כו' ולא במרכבה ביחיד אא"כ היה חכם ומבין בדעתו וכו', וא"כ בודאי לא נכתבו עניינים אלו אלא נמסרו בעל פה מפה לאוזן, וא"כ איך כתבן הרמב"ם בחיבורו ופירסמם לכל, ובפרט שהרמב"ם עצמו [בפ"ד הל"י] הביא הדין הזה שאין דורשין בדברים האלו ברבים וכו', וא"כ מדוע כתבן בספרו?
ובעל כרחנו אנו צריכין לומר שמה שמסר לנו הרמב"ם בפרקים אלו אין זה לא מעשה מרכבה ולא מעשה בראשית, אלא כתב כל הד' פרקים אלה מדעתו הרחבה מתוך ידיעות בחכמות חיצוניות, כלומר שלא מחכמת התורה, אלא הרי זה פיליסופיא בעלמא - ונאמר שכבר השיג עליו הגר"א ביו"ד סי' קע"ט סקי"ג שהפיליסופיא הטתו ברוב לקחה ועיי"ש, והרמב"ם כתב פרקים אלו רק בתור הקדמה לספר יד החזקה, ועיקר הספר מתחיל מפרק ה': כל בית ישראל מצווין על קידוש השם וכו', ואין לדמות טעויות בהלכות אלו לטעויות בהלכות שבת וכדומה, ודו"ק.
Emes l'Yakov Bereishis (01:01) According to our common understanding that the Rishonim are infallible. Even though only one view is regarded as halacha but the opposing view is not viewed as mistaken. So if the Rambam was mistaken in this matter of the nature of the heavenly bodies perhaps he was mistaken in hilchos Shabbos and other halachos?!
To answer this difficulty it must be noted that the Rambam states (Yesodei HaTorah (04:13) That the first four chapters in Mishna Torah are typically considered Pardes such as Meisa Bereishis and that our Sages (Chagiga 13a) prohibited public discussion of these matters. So why did the Rambam include them in his sefer which was meant for the masses!? We are forced to conclude that what the Rambam wrote in these first four chapters is not actually Pardes but his personal views based on philosophy and his own analysis. As is noted by the Vilna Gaon. In fact the fifth chapter is the actual beginning of the Torah viewpoint. Thus the material in the first four chapters can be mistaken while later chapters regarding halacha are infallible.
Who and on what basis is allowed to determine if an authority has erred or not?
ReplyDeleteIn another area, Ramban claims that animals have no awareness or sensitivity to pain, whereas Rambam says that they have very strong emotions and imagination.
So a win for science vs loss for Kabbalah?
Kind of reminds me how, whenever Rav Moshe,zt"l, came across an opinion he didn't like he decided it must be a forgery.
ReplyDelete"If I say that my predecessors were infallible, then people will also say that I'm infallible and that's good for my ego"
ReplyDeleteDaas Torah is infallible.
DeleteI thought only God was infallible.
That is true.
So Daas Torah isn't infallible?
Afra d'pumah you heretic!
1) Rav Kushlevsky once told me that eleh ve'eleh only applies to Chazal.
ReplyDelete2) It seems strange to claim the Rambam never erred because he sometimes altered his p'sak in the Yad and wrote a different p'sak in later manuscripts.
3) How can Rav Yaakov write that the Rambam was not writing Ma'aseh Merkavah when he said that he was. I would offer an answer that since the Rambam held that Maaseh Merkavah was based on ideas widely known in his time, there was no longer any prohibition to publicize them.
Certain "Gedolim" are invested in presenting a monolithic version of Torah Judaism. One opinion on each issue and everyone throughout history agreed with it.
DeleteSo when you bring up that a major authority, in fact, had a different approach, it has to be squashed. That authority was misunderstood, or the writing is a forgery, anything but admit that someone big saw things differently.
Previous comment was from me.
ReplyDeleteMaharal says eilu v'eilu only apples to the disputes of Beis Hillel and Shammai where both sides contained some truth
DeleteWhen Maharal said something you didn't like, you put him down and said he was an insignificant Rav most of his life. Now that the Gemara says something you don't like, suddenly the Maharal is the first go to authority!
DeleteOh the irony of rishonim and acharonim arguing with each other over the parameters of Eilu v'Eilu.
DeleteI mentioned the view of the Maharal only because Rav Moshe Shapiro told me it was a chidush! Sorry to see you triggerred by the mere mention of his name
DeleteRav Moshe said eilu veilu simply means the chachom is expressing his view after thorough investigation of sources
DeleteBottom line the expression is important and like everything - there are a variety of views
Here's a medical example - a doctor who travels to see an emergency patient on Shabbos. Rav Moshe, z"l, permits him to return home. Rav Shlomo Zalman, zt"l, does not. If there's no eilu v'eilu today, which one is the heretic?
DeleteThe get outs clause would be that rabbi feinstein is talking about America where there are big cities and rabbi Auerbach is talking about Israel where things are almost in walking distance. At least a shul is.
DeleteThat's the answer I put on my blog decades ago - it's all about location.
DeleteI think the brisker Rav permits, says if you forbid it then people won't bother going in the first place
Delete