Talmud Reclaimed and Hakirah: a debate over Rambam's methodology

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.

Hakirah: investigating a journal

At the end of this post there's a link to my Facebook page from which you can access my response essay published in the most recent edition of the Hakirah journal. Their previous volume featured a highly disappointing critique of one of the later chapters (or more accurately half-chapters) of Talmud Reclaimed on the subject of the contrasting halachic methodology of the Geonim and Sephardi and Ashkenazi Rishonim. It is unfortunate that they chose not to show me the critique before publishing which would have allowed me to highlight its severe shortcomings.

First, it was clear that the reviewer had not read much of the relevant Talmud Reclaimed chapter, since he raised questions which were comprehensively addressed at the chapter’s conclusion. Secondly, while using some very strong and sarcastic language to dismiss the theory that I advanced, his critique entirely ignored the primary sources which I cited in support. Highly accepted and mainstream figures such as Rabbi Yosef Karo, Migdal Oz, Yad Malakhi, the Maharshal and Netziv all made similar points about the respective methodologies of Sepharad and Ashkenaz. They were all cited alongside academic scholars in my chapter; not a single one of these sources was addressed by the reviewer who nevertheless proceeded to accuse me of attempting to “reclaim the Talmud from its interpreters of the last eight hundred years”.

My essay is attached – I hope that members of this group enjoy reading it. It includes excerpts from a very supportive email that Professor Robert Brody, an expert in the field, wrote to me after reading the review.

I have just discovered that Hakirah chose to print another response to my essay alongside what I wrote. I have asked them for a copy of this new response and look forward to the chance to read it when they have the opportunity to send it to me.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.