R. Massoud Chai Rokeach was a late seventeenth, early eighteenth-century Rabbi born in Izmir, Turkey, and, eventually, the Cheif Rabbi of Tripoli, Libya where he passed away. He authored a book of commentary on the Ramabam, publishing the words of the Rambam together with his glosses flanking the sides.
In his introduction, he saves his reader the question and asks "Here the child asks (כאן הבן שואל)" - if I'm printing the words of the Rambam, why did I leave out the famed counter-attacks from the Ra'avad printed in every classic edition of the Rambam?
He explains that the great luminaries the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh already did a highly satisfactory job and they have first-rights - why add?. Now, if he wouldn't be defending the Rambam's position against the Ra'avad anyway, what purpose is there to bring the attack without the defense? Just to quote the discussion? This is also be needless, for why add words for naught?
A good lesson in writing...
הקדמת המחבר לס' "מעשה רקח" על הרמב"ם בסופו
See here
I don't understand. what the Rokeach meant to say was he would indeed have liked to answer the question's on the Ramabam, but felt that Kesef Mishnah and the Magid have done a sufficient job thereby not necessitating his on answers.
ReplyDeleteTherefore it would be quiet WRONG (not just redundant) to bring the questions without the answers. Therefore if you look further into the Rokeach he states "when i do mention the Raavad, please have a look in the above mentioned Seforim where you will find your answer".