Marx, I can’t see how those two aren’t contradictory, because torah bagoyim al taamin, and because if the rambam writes it and it therefore becomes Torah, does that mean that the foreign matter now is Torah? We should make a birchas hatorah on Aristotle? It doesn’t fit – torah is pure by definition and that’s exactly what the gra’s criticism was, that what he said isn’t Torah because it’s being influenced by philosophers. Comes the netziv and says that in a very similar way that rebbe’s statements regarding dovid are torah and one who accuses him of personal bias (as rav huna did in his time) would be guilty of mach’chish magide’ah, so too one who regards the accepted, torah valid words of rhe rambam as the product of foreign influence, would be in the same theoretical category – I’ll consent that I’m not sure kf such a person is halachikally a kofer as he is with chazal, but the same way we adopt the “tanaim vs amoraim” view of rishonim vs achronim, that we accepted on ourselves the profound magnitude of distance between our hasagos and that of the rishonim….at least the concept of mach’chish magide’ah would apply to rishonim (and achronim… we’re far beyond even the chazon ish ‘s era)
Menu