Ra'avad on teshuva 3:15 continued

As I stated in the previous post, it is more than clear that the Ra'avad held from a rational mesora . However, there is still the main question that I had raised which has yet to be answered. The question, in summation is, why would the Ra'avad use the phrase Gedolim vtuvim memenu to refer to those who believed in a physical G, if in fact he rejects that notion.


In the kesef mishna, Rav Yosef Karo takes up our question:
כתב הראב"ד "ולמה קרה לזה מין וכו' .המשבשות את הדעות עכ"ל.
ויש לתמוה על פה קדוש איך יקרא לאומרים שהוא בעל גוף ובעל תמונה גדולים וטובים ממנו . ואפשר שעיקר הנוסחא כמו שכתוב בספר העיקרים פ"ב ממ"א וז"ל. א"א אע"פ שעיקר האמונה כן הוא המאמין היותו גוף מצד תפיסתו לשונות הפסוקים והמדרשות כפשטן אין ראוי לקרותו מין .


"There is astonishment at the holy mouth [ the Ra'avad] how can he call those who say that G' ahs a body or image " greater and better than he"? It is possible that the essential textual version is the same as is written in the sefer haikkarim : "Abraham states, even though the essential conviction is thus ( that G' is non physical) , one who believes that G' has a body because of the language of the verses and the literal interpretation of the midrashim , it is not appropriate to call him a min."

I was recently made aware of a shiur given by my Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Y. Chait regarding contradictory beliefs in which he mentions this Ra'avad. The shiur can be accessed at http://www.ybt.org/Sunday03092003.ram.

The main point that I have gathered from the shiur regarding our Ra'avad is one which deserves a post in its own right.

The real question here is when we are confronted with language from chazal or other chachamim that semingly contradicts our Yisodos, what should our response be? Our Ra'avad is a prime example of this. Are we to view the problem language as a claim against our already established principles , or is there another reaction.According to Rabbi Chait the appropriate reaction to seemingly contradictory language in the corpus of Torah sheba'al peh is the reaction of the kesef mishna to the Ra'avad. The Kesef Mishna did not read the Ra'avad and question his yisodos. The reaction of Rav Yosef Karo was to utterly reject the problem language as invalid and suggest an appropriate replacement. The response to problem chazals is not to run away screaming that the Yisodos are uprooted because of whatever problem language appears. Rather, the response to a problem language is to clamly return to your knowledge of the foundational principles of yehaduth and to accept that the way in which you are understanding that language is impossible within the mesora and to simply reject the problem statement.This is not to say that you cannot try to resolve the problem, if there is a sevara that can preserve the language and is within the framework of Torah then congratulations you have fought a war in which the truth has prevailed. However, if you cannot salvage that particular language then be satisfied that you were able to determine a conflict between what you were reading and the Yisodos and know that the Yisodos are true and there is no statement that will shake you of that notion.

In conclusion, whenever we are faced with a seemingly problematic statement within the mesora there can be but one reaction. To retreat back to the sound foundations of yehaduth that have been rationally proven , and not put stock in languages that conflict with what we already know is true.