Would a Rabbi say something during the course of a polemical debate just for the sake of an attack argument?
According to the Peirush HaRambam on Mishnah R"H 2:7 that actually happened. While the "Rav" in question is not named in the text, the Rambam goes on to opine that a certain Rav claimed that the Heshbon for Kiddush HaChodesh was always primary, while the r'eeyah was not. The Rambam claims that this cannot possibly match Talmudic and Midrashic literature, is therefore not true to Torah principles, and therefore the author himself did not really believe in what he was saying.
Rav Kafah's peirush identifies the Rav in question as Rav Saadyah Gaon. As such the Rambam parses R Saadyah Gaon's statements as being for polemic effect, and therefore that RSG himself did not believe what he was saying as being true, at least outside the context of the polemic.
Best Regards,
RRW
2 comments:
This issue actually has great significance in how people approach the Ramban's words in the Viku'ach with Pablo Christiani. Did he say what he said simply to refute his opponent -- although he did not really believe it? This would mean that his words cannot be used as a source for us in Torah. If you say, though, that he would not do so and that, obviously, he meant everything he said, the his words have tremendous import for us.
The key issue, of course, was his statement about the authority of Chazal in non-halachic issues -- which he limited to thereby argue that he was not bound by the statements of Chazal in this regard in the debate. Powerful stuff!
Rabbi Ben Hecht
See also Rabbeinu Bechaye on Shemos 12:2, quoting Rabbeinu Chananel (990-1053). A teaser:
umeiheikh hay qov'im chadashim al pi re'iyas halevanan
ela vadai iqar hamitzvah bakasuv al pi hacheshbon
I don't think we have the full Rabbeinu Chananel on Chumash, so we have to rely on Rabbeinu Bachya's testimony. But the commentary too is strongly an anti-Qaraite polemic. So I wonder why R' Yosef el-Qafeh ("Kapach") assumes the Rambam is referring to Rav Saadia Gaon; it could equally be Rabbeinu Chananel.
In any case, I have a hard time with this Rambam. The notion of lying in print in a way that would mislead the righteous in order to argue against the wrong is the opposite of Chazal's stance. The gemara (Nazir 23a) invokes Mishlei, "Hashem's ways are straight, tzadiqim travel on them, and the wicked trip up on them." We care more about imparting truth to those seeking it than helping those trying to go astray.
Post a Comment