One of the early posts on avakesh dealt with explaining texts of Rishonim in a way in which they were clearly not meant to be read by their authors. I found an interesting citation from R. Chaim Berlin's newly published teshuvos that relate to this issue and show that you can trace the opinion that defends this practice farther into the past, all the way back to Mabit.
Another interesting statement found in a correspondence between him and R. Sholomo Hakohen where R. Shlomo writes (#67 in the old edition and # 191 in the new edition):
כן שמעתי מפי אביו הצדיק זצ"ל (הכוונה להנצי"ב) שאמר בשם חמיו זקנו הצדיק מו"ה חיים מוואלזין זצ"ל שיש לומר פירוש בלשון הרמב"ם והשו"ע אם הוא עולה ע"פ ההלכה אף שבודאי לא כוונו לזה משום שרוח הקודש נזרקה על לשונם, וכן מצאתי כעין זה ממש בס' בית אלוקים להגאון המב
Here is the old post itself:
R. Boruch Ber Leibowitz defined the difference between rishonim and acharonim in that of the rishonim it is not appropriate to say, "they erred", whereas of acharonim, it is possible to say that they erred. He related that the Chofetz Chaim disagress with him on this and that his opinon is that it the rubric "these and those are words of the living God" appply also to acharonim, like Ketsos or Nesivos.
On a related topic, HG'R Moshe Soloveitchik related: "One time I said a shiur to explain a Rambam in a certain place, and later they showed me that from Rambam's words in his responsae it is clear that he had a different text, according to which there was no problem. Our master (R. Boruch Ber) retorted that that you are right. However, the Magid Mishna already had the same text that we have and he did not ask the question (that R. Moshe asked). Therefore, it is our duty to explain how the Magid Mishna undestood this Rambam.
He took the opportunity to relate about the Netsiv who one time explained a certain Rambam and after that he was shown that Rambam himself explains in a different vein in his responsae. The Netsiv told them, "You must know that all the words of our masters, the rishonim until the Pnei Yehoshua were written through Ruach Hakodesh. It is self-understod that this includes Mishneh Torah. What Rambam writes in his responsae is his explanation and there is still place for additional explanations, for the Torah has 70 explanations".
(In other words, Rambam percieved a certain halacha through Ruach Hakodesh and then he elaborated and interpreted it as anyone else would have. This is difficult to square with the Netsiv we know as the pursuer of alternate texts and Geonic sources to serve as sources for new explanations of the rishonim).
R. Moshe added that this explains what we find in the Ra'avad's notes (Lulav 8), "And the Ruach Hakodesh has already appeared in our House of Study .. and we concluded". It would seem to be a contradiction. If they know by Divine Inspiration, how could they conclude?". It must be that when one labors in Torah and goes deeply into it, all that one innovates is a form of Ruach Hakodesh'
Comment: This statement of the Raavad is often interpreted to refer to his Kabbalistic endeavors and not as a reference to a particular halacha).
(Harav Dome Lemalach, a biography of R. Boruch Ber, p. 115)
The question of whether Authorial Intent is a valid guide to interpretation is an important one in literary crticism, Law and, really in any area that requires interpretation. (Can the intent of the Founding Fathers, their opinons about slavery, for example, be used to support a restrictive interpetation of the Consititution?) R. Boruch Ber argues clearly that Authorial Intent is not relevant for understanding the rishonim and comes down clearly (and ingeniously) on the side of the deconstructionists
Comments