![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A more serious cause of misunderstanding and needless criticism for which Maimonides was an exposed, unprotected target and which Rabad had no reason to spare, was the fact that they did not use uniform texts. In the absence of a Masoretic-like text of the Talmud — such as that contemplated by R. Gershom of Mayence at the beginning of the eleventh century — there were basic textual divergences in their books which inevitably resulted in divergences of interpretation. Just as a number of disparate Amoraic explanations found in the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds stem from the fact that the Mishnah used in Palestinian schools was not identical in all respects with that current in the Babylonian academies, so divergences of text continued throughout the Middle Ages to give rise to interpretative discrepancies. Medieval rabbis were cognizant of this fact and repeatedly attributed seemingly irreconcilable differences to their origin in heterogenous texts. Questions might often resolve themselves into a matter of discretion and insight in selecting the best text — and much ingenuity was expended on textual variants — but the prevalence of disparate readings was a reality necessarily taken into consideration by all critics.
Rabad also knew that many statements in the Mishneh Torah with which he took issue were based upon divergent texts. In most of these cases he acknowledges, objectively and without rancor or criticism, the underlying divergences without even arbitrating between them. There was no reason for one to condemn another for facts beyond his immediate control; as a result, Rabad merely notes these facts: “our books have a different version”; “we have a different reading here”; “in our books [it reads]”; “this version is not found in our books nor in the Halakot of the Master”; “his version is unlike our version.” On occasion Rabad even provides Maimonides a way out of criticism by suggesting that “perhaps he found [such a reading] in his version.” In one case where Rabad rejects a Maimonidean view he is fair enough to stipulate: “if he found his version of the text like this, fine [for we cannot dispute it]; if, however, this view is his own inference, we do not listen to what he says.” Elsewhere, after expressing his amazement at a statement which seems to run counter to the basic opinion of the Mishnah, Rabad concludes candidly: “I subsequently investigated the versions of this text and found that they vary and I found one version which coincides with his statement.” Finally, the admissibility of two variant readings — implicit in such hassagot — is sometimes openly defended by Rabad. When Maimonides rejects one of two versions as completely erroneous while bolstering the other by the authority of ancient manuscripts, Rabad notes: “It is true that there are various versions in this matter, but I was able to affirm both of them.”
Y. Twerski, "Rabad of Posquiers", pp. 149-150
Rabad also knew that many statements in the Mishneh Torah with which he took issue were based upon divergent texts. In most of these cases he acknowledges, objectively and without rancor or criticism, the underlying divergences without even arbitrating between them. There was no reason for one to condemn another for facts beyond his immediate control; as a result, Rabad merely notes these facts: “our books have a different version”; “we have a different reading here”; “in our books [it reads]”; “this version is not found in our books nor in the Halakot of the Master”; “his version is unlike our version.” On occasion Rabad even provides Maimonides a way out of criticism by suggesting that “perhaps he found [such a reading] in his version.” In one case where Rabad rejects a Maimonidean view he is fair enough to stipulate: “if he found his version of the text like this, fine [for we cannot dispute it]; if, however, this view is his own inference, we do not listen to what he says.” Elsewhere, after expressing his amazement at a statement which seems to run counter to the basic opinion of the Mishnah, Rabad concludes candidly: “I subsequently investigated the versions of this text and found that they vary and I found one version which coincides with his statement.” Finally, the admissibility of two variant readings — implicit in such hassagot — is sometimes openly defended by Rabad. When Maimonides rejects one of two versions as completely erroneous while bolstering the other by the authority of ancient manuscripts, Rabad notes: “It is true that there are various versions in this matter, but I was able to affirm both of them.”
Y. Twerski, "Rabad of Posquiers", pp. 149-150
