Authority in facts and deed
It is well known that the Rabbi claims that the sages have no authority in matters of thought or fact. It is simply that on a linguistic level it is not appropriate to think what I do not think, and that is simple.
Likewise, it is known that Maimonides also wrote in his commentary on the Mishnah. On the other hand, Haneska has already shown in his article that Maimonides himself ruled in this way in practice. One of the excuses is that Maimonides ruled regarding the consequences of the action. It follows from this that even if a person does not share the MM view regarding the action, he must behave in accordance with the view of the Sages.
This is interesting, and certainly not agreed upon by everyone, what does the Rabbi say? Basically, from this it follows that there is value in an action even if at the basis of the action, in the view, the person does not believe so. What do you think?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And what about the practical implications that emerge from the facts?
What article of the weapon?
Brought to you in the WhatsApp group
And won't you tell me?
The title of the article or journal and the issue number are enough.
Avraham, if the facts are not correct then the implications arising from them are also irrelevant. If a louse is not created by the nit, then it is forbidden to kill it on Shabbat.
Yishai, the article is in ”Da” from a few years ago.
Thank you, and for the public good –
https://www.academia.edu/32938435/%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%92%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94-_%D7%9C%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9 C%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%98%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%9D_%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%92%D7% 9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99_%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%A7%D7%A2%D7%94.pdf
So why do you think the Rambam ruled on the Mishnah?
Someone told me that it is true that there is no authority in facts. But in these cases Maimonides decided that this was the clear verdict. And so he wrote that way because in his opinion anyone who thinks otherwise is simply a fool.
As I wrote, either the Rambam himself retracted it or the Hashkha is right, but I disagree with the Rambam on this.
It is possible that Haim's answer here above me is correct. Although in these three examples there does not seem to be a more overwhelming logical consideration than in other contexts. This may explain the ruling regarding the 13 principles, which also seemingly contradicts his principle that there is no halakha on intellectual matters.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
