No, of course not. There is such an opinion regarding Chazal, but not for the Rishonim.
This has bearing on questions of Techeiles, Kazayis, and so on.
Rabbi Meir Mazuz recently quoted this in a lecture.
רש”ש כתובות ז’ ב’:
בא”ד כדאמרינן הלל ושמעון כו’… ודע דהמאור עינים בפ’ נ”א ונ”ב הוכיח בראיות עצומות שמונבז והילני אמו לא היו מזרע בית חשמונאים כי אם גרי צדק בכמו כ”ה שנים קודם חורבן הבית וכ”כ בסה”ד בשם היוחסין. וא”כ א”ש הורוה ב”ה כפשטיה.
In other words, Rashi just assumed.
A beloved reader sent me a full, free version of Rabbi Feldman’s critique.
Reprinted with permission.
We recently noted the heretical aspects of the Steinsaltz Talmud. But what about the basic quality of the work itself?
See Rabbi Aharon Feldman’s “The Eye of the Storm – A Calm View of Raging Issues”, 2009, chapter 17.
He shows the Steinsaltz Talmud to be shoddy scholarship. I don’t have permission to reproduce the entire chapter from Rabbi Feldman’s book, but it’s quite damning (thanks to a dear reader for the images!).
Here’s a revealing excerpt, where Steinsaltz claims the Gemara here says things for no reason at all (“certain sections of the passage are entirely superfluous”, sic), and puts that in the mouth of the Geonim:
