That he omitted it is obvious. The question is whether that’s legitimate. Did we accept the Talmud (the Talmud’s laws) or not?

How did you get that this is the conclusion? The “it may be concluded” only refers to the discussion of who said what. On the contrary, since it concludes that Rav is the one who said heretics, and the Jewish law follows his view in matters of prohibition, it follows that the Jewish law is like Rav. So with sorcerers you may learn in order to understand and teach—but with heretics?

We accept the laws unless they are based on an error. Just like the case of lice and the like.

Agreed—if it is a scientific or factual error. Maimonides too wrote that with confidence, and even called anyone who denied it a fool, and even counted two separate commandments because of it—so maybe now someone needs to complete them; perhaps you’d volunteer, and then you’d have a niche to distinguish yourself in.
So what is the error here?

I don’t understand what you want. Everything was explained.

What do you mean? If there’s no scientific or factual error here,
then you’ve handed Torah over to everyone’s personal discretion.
This one will say, “This law is an error,” and that one will say, “This is a strange homily; I don’t buy the reasoning.”

And in general you still didn’t explain what the Talmud’s error was when it said, “One who learns from a magush is liable to death.” What error is there here?

That is your own basic assumption throughout this whole discussion: that according to Maimonides there is nothing real in any of these things. From his perspective this was probably a scientific claim, and therefore there is a scientific error here.

If you could just explain what “scientific error” means in the sentence “One who learns one thing from a magush is liable to death”—this looks like a purely halakhic ruling.
Where is the scientific part here?

The assumption that there is something to learn from a magush.

I think you didn’t understand the issue.
The Jewish law says
that if you want to learn any kind of wisdom in the world—Torah, general knowledge, medicine, astronomy—from a heretic, it is forbidden for you.

Indeed, I was mistaken. But perhaps in his view there is no such thing as a magush.

???
A magush meaning a heretic—as Rav says, and the Jewish law follows his view in prohibitions—certainly exists; that’s just an ordinary heretic.
A magush meaning a sorcerer—also exists, according to his explanation of what “sorcerer” means.

You yourself connected this passage to the general discussion of Maimonides’ approach to sorcery. Presumably he understood that it means learning his craft from him, and that is indeed what “you may learn in order to understand and to teach” suggests, like that case of cucumber-gathering by Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva. And perhaps for that reason Maimonides omitted it, because in his opinion sorcery does not exist.

Oh no, again—you’re not in the passage.
That is according to the one who says “sorcerers,” but Rav said “heretics.”

And I didn’t tie this to Maimonides’ view about sorcery,
but rather to his view in that he learned from heretics—Aristotle and his friends—and so this ruling didn’t suit him.

And by the way, even according to the one who says “sorcerers,” and according to Maimonides’ view that this is sleight of hand, “you may learn in order to understand and to teach”—so what’s the problem?

I’m speaking according to the one who says “sorcerers.” It is certainly possible to understand “you may learn in order to understand and to teach” as referring to learning the real thing and not sleight of hand, and therefore for Maimonides there is no such thing.
As for learning from Aristotle, that’s absurd. Do you really think that if someone is not God-fearing it is forbidden to learn from him how to bake a cake, or mathematics? Be serious.
All right, I think we’ve exhausted this.

So what does the Talmud mean when it says:

"And one who learns even one thing from a magush is liable to death… It may be concluded that Rav is the one who said heretics, for Rav Zutra bar Tuvya said in the name of Rav: One who learns even one thing from a magush is liable to death"??

And as stated, the Jewish law follows Rav in matters of prohibition; and even aside from whether that is the Jewish law or not, what do the Talmud and Rav mean?

That one should not learn anything from him, so as not to come near idolatry. It is talking about a living person, not about studying the teachings of someone dead.

Fine.
So why didn’t he rule that way?

I don’t know.

Maybe he did not see it as law but as guidance. “Liable to death” doesn’t sound like a halakhic ruling.

Yoma 12a: Rav Huna said, a non-priest who stirs the fire with the poker is liable to death.
Yoma 53a: If he omitted one of all its ingredients, he is liable to death.
There too Maimonides ruled using that very wording.

Bekhorot 12b: One who eats dough of the Sabbatical year before its hallah has been separated is liable to death.
And Niddah 13a: Rabbi Yohanan said, anyone who emits semen in vain is liable to death.

What does that have to do with anything? Did you think I claimed that everywhere it says someone is liable to death, it isn’t law?
All right, we’ve exhausted it.

Okay.
So again the first question returns:
Why did he omit it? What permits that? Either we are faithful to the Talmud’s laws, or we make a mockery of it, and whatever doesn’t suit me I just leave out.

Let’s ask it this way: you, who do not show favoritism—as indeed is proper—to the medieval authorities (Rishonim), only to the Talmud (to its laws), how would you act?
The Talmud ruled that it is forbidden (and so did the Rif and the Shulchan Arukh and others), while Maimonides omitted it.
A Maimonidean, obviously, will act like Maimonides.
But you, who are faithful only to the laws of the Talmud—what would you do, what do you do, or rather how do you do the opposite?

I learn every kind of thing from every kind of person.

Did you notice that I wrote that in parentheses because I already knew it?
And that you still didn’t answer the main question:
How do you do the opposite of the Talmud?

First, I wrote that this looks like guidance and not law. And even if it were law, I do not accept halakhic authority over the learning of ideas. Like “do not stray after your hearts and your eyes.”

A. Regarding your first answer, apparently you mean what you answered me above: that “liable to death” does not sound like a halakhic ruling. And I brought you sources showing that this is not so, and you answered me that indeed not in every place.
But if so, then everything collapses—how are we supposed to know? From the flow of the passage no difference is visible. So again you have handed Torah over to each individual’s discretion.

B. Regarding your second answer—and this interests me more—because I understood your remarks about essential authority and formal authority, but your remarks about halakhic authority over learning things: I would be glad if you could direct me to some post or anywhere else where you expanded on that.

Thanks.

I don’t understand your insistence. Liable to death for what? What prohibition carrying death did he violate?
Look here for columns on “do not stray after your hearts and your eyes.”

I didn’t understand the wording “what prohibition carrying death did he violate,” but in any case, to your question “liable to death for what?”—for this very thing. The Talmud states its prohibition together with the threat of death penalty from Heaven, as in many places, among them those I mentioned.

As for “do not stray after your hearts and your eyes”—
I saw the links below. What can I say—fine, sharp words, maybe even moving; I only wonder whether the angel in Gehenna—if such a thing exists— is also intelligent enough to understand that.
It is still troubling that Maimonides brought that prohibition simply as is, though you also tried to resolve that in the second link I brought.

In any case, there I suggested a possible explanation; I’d be glad for a response.

https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%91%D7%99-%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/

https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%95%D7%95%D7%90%D7%98%D7%A1%D7%90%D7%A4%E2%80%8E/

I thought of a possible answer for why Maimonides omitted this law that it is forbidden to learn from a magush.

Maybe it is exactly for the reason you say: that one should not accept such a prohibition over the learning of ideas.
That would fit with what he ruled in the laws of idolatry, based on one of the explanations you gave there, and I also added to it there.

Does that work?

What? That resolution doesn’t seem plausible to you—even though it actually supports your approach, about not accepting a prohibition over the learning of ideas?