Members of this group blessed with a good memory will recall that, over the Summer, Hakirah published a critique of half a chapter of Talmud Reclaimed. The chapter in question sought to demonstrate the full extent of the distinction between the halachic and Talmudic methodologies of Rambam and the Tosafists, and the way in which this distinction impacted on significant variances in practical observances between Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities until this very day.
The critique sparked a little back and forth, as I submitted a response - which in its turn was addressed by the author of the critique (links in the post and comments here).
Attached here is my final response and conclusion to the discussion. Due to apparent space constraints, Hakirah have maintained that they cannot publish the whole essay. A summary of the essay will therefore appear in the next volume of Hakirah, with a link to the full essay here.
The essay, attached, starts by summarising a sample of the sources which show the enormous gulf between Tosafist and Maimonidean methodologies. It then proceeds to address the following questions:
1) How and why does Rambam’s received Geonic methodology for deriving halakhic conclusions from the Talmud distinguish between different types of apparently contradictory sugyot?2) Why, when addressing an apparent contradiction within Rambam’s rulings does his son, Rav Avraham, consider such a contradiction to be a question only on the Talmud and not on his father?3) What does Rambam mean when he writes, in his introduction to Mishneh Torah, that his work comprises the entirely of “Torah Shel Ba’al Peh”, bearing in mind that Rambam defines this term very precisely and carefully elsewhere in Mishneh Torah?
Any feedback, posted publicly or sent privately, will be very welcome.
For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.
