Hakirah 10 Is On Its Way to Subscribers

Hakirah 10 has just arrived at the distributor and is being mailed. This issue is full of exciting and intersting articles:
JEWISH LAW

Entering the Temple Mount—in Halacha and Jewish
History
Gedalia Meyer and Henoch Messner

Drafting a Halakhic Will
A. Yehuda Warburg

JEWISH THOUGHT

A Righteous Judgment on a Righteous People:
Rav Yitzhak Hutner’s Implicit Theology of the Holocaust
Lawrence Kaplan

Daily Prayer: Seeking Clarity and a Call for Action
David Guttmann

Israel’s Inheritance: Olam Haba
Asher Benzion Buchman

Jewish Thought in Dialogue
Heshey Zelcer

 CUSTOM

Wine from Havdalah, Women and Beards
Ari Z. Zivotofsky

Reciting Al Tira After Aleinu
Zvi Ron

COMMUNITY

Divorce: It’s Not About You, It’s About the Children
David Mandel

Leib Glantz: The Man Who Spoke to God
Daniel B. Schwartz

HISTORY OF HALAKHAH

 A Letter to Almeda: Shadal’s Guide for the Perplexed
Daniel A. Klein

Two Controversies Involving
R’ Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook
Chaim Landerer



Cumulative Index of English Articles in
Hakirah Volumes 1 through 10

הלכה
רבנו משה אמת ותורתו אמת והם בדאים – חלק שני
יצחק גאלד

בענין גילוח בחול המועד (ועל דרך הפוסק בפסיקתו):
תשובה מהגאון רבי מנחם מענדל כשר
הובאה לדפוס ע"י מלך שפירא


שיר בראשית

 יעקב בלזם

מפתח
מפתח קומולטיבי של המאמרים בעברית 10 - בחקירה כרכים 1

A Rationale For Mitzvot - Feeling The Presence Of God.

I have been planning for some time to write about the reason for Mitzvot and have procrastinated. The subject is very complicated, probably the most complicated subject discussed in MN and one of the most misunderstood.

Rambam starts the discussion of the reason for Mitzvot systematically in MN 3:26 and it is the lengthiest discussion of a subject as it continues until the final three chapters of the book. It is placed at the end of MN as if it were the culmination and end goal of the whole Moreh, which in truth it is. In fact, the way I read them, and I will expand on this later in the series, the last three chapters are still part of that discussion though at a much more advanced level.

What is the overall purpose of Mitzvot? What are they trying to accomplish? Rambam in MN 3:52 -

“We do not sit, move, and occupy ourselves when we are alone and at home, in the same manner as we do in the presence of a great king. We speak and open our mouth as we please when we are with the people of our own household and with our relatives, but not so when we are in a royal assembly. If we therefore desire to attain human perfection, and to be truly men of God, we must awake from our sleep, and bear in mind that the great king that is over us, and is always joined to us, is greater than any earthly king, greater than David and Solomon.”

If we can train ourselves to, at all times, be cognizant of being in the presence of God, we will act responsibly. As I have shown many times, that cognizance and acting according to it, is referred to as living under Divine Providence or Hashgacha. When we say that God watches over us we are really saying that we are acting in a way that fulfills our purpose in existence, our role as part of God’s universe and its continuity. We are not just a component of that universe that acts randomly, but the only one that has the freedom of choice to act with a specific purpose. How do we develop that cognizance?

“What I have here pointed out to you is the object of all our religious acts. For by [carrying out] all the details of the prescribed practices, and repeating them continually, some excellent men my attain human perfection. They will be filled with dread and awe of God and know who it is that is with them and as a result act subsequently as they ought to.”


The overarching reason that we have Mitzvot is to help us develop this constant cognizance of God’s presence and the responsibility this awareness brings with it. Whether we perform a commandment or refrain from indulging ourselves with a prohibition, we perforce ask ourselves why we are submitting to this rule realizing that it is God who commanded us and we are following His edict. This heightens our awareness of god’s existence and leads us to feel His presence.
“The king that cleaves to us and embraces us is the Intellect that influences us, and forms the link between us and God.”


When we say that we ought to be aware of God’s presence, we are saying that our mind is thinking about and connecting with God. In medieval philosophic parlance, that connection is understood to be through the Active Intellect which in contemporary modern language I like to call the Divine concept underlying existence. This understanding of the end goal of Mitzvot as a tool to make us aware of God’s presence transforms a physical act into a catalyst for transcendental awareness. The physical act now is deemed holy.
This is the overall reason for commandments, but is there a rationale for the kind of commandments chosen as tools for this purpose? Is there a rational reason for how they are performed? Those questions, indeed, whether such question can even be posed, will be addressed in follow up posts.

Humanitarian Crisis In Gaza - A Blockade Like Never Before

When was it ever in history that a country attacked for decades by its neighbor who openly wants it destroyed, imposed a blockade with these results.

Some Thoughts About Religion, Science and Theology.

In the last two posts, I pointed out that our scientific knowledge is limited to the physical universe and that there are questions that science cannot answer and we have to find other ways to resolve them. These questions are dealt with by theology or what is classically referred to as metaphysics. There is no objective way of proving the veracity of metaphysical and theological theories. It is here that speculation, an amalgam of knowledge, intuition, imagination, faith of a self-perfected individual based on divinely inspired revelation (nevuah) transmitted by tradition, plays a crucial role. Rambam however sets down a very important rule; for a theological answer to be acceptable, it cannot violate or contradict any scientific fact. In other words, it must be compatible with reality, as we know it.

Although this seems to be straightforward, it unfortunately is not readily accepted by all. In fact, the generally accepted sense in the frum community is that religion trumps science. The argument is that science is evolving while Torah is eternal. Science will eventually come around and find out that the Torah was right. It also assumes that the Torah contains all knowledge though in a coded form and great people, who dedicate their life to learning, will eventually decipher the secrets of the universe in the Torah. It is based on a reading of Ramban’s position which he first elaborates upon in his introduction to his Pirush on the Torah and repeats in several of his writings. I am not an expert on Ramban but I suspect that he was much more nuanced. Rambam however is of a different opinion and as Rav Kook writes in his letter to Ze’ev Yavetz, the historian, his approach resonates much more with contemporary knowledge.

The idea that underlies Rambam’s approach is that the goal of man is to integrate scientific knowledge with theology. The study of Torah is much broader than just Halacha. In Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:12 Rambam includes in the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah the study of physics and metaphysics[1]. The study of Halacha with the goal of knowing how to act in our daily life following its tenets is the “bread and meat” because it forms the base upon which unbiased speculation can develop, the perfected individual. The study of science, the knowledge of how the world works, is pursued simultaneously once a basic knowledge of Halacha has been established. As science deals with facts only, the philosophical questions of how, when and why the universe came into existence, what is humankind’s role in it, what is my role as part of humanity and ultimately what is God’s relationship to our existence can only be addressed through metaphysical speculation. Metaphysical speculation is subjective and therefore vulnerable to personal biases and preferences, hence the need for self-discipline and self-improvement, the weakening of our narcissistic tendencies, which is the goal of Halacha and Mitzvot[2]. The paradigm of the perfect human being who has sublimated his personal biases and has dedicated himself exclusively to the quest for knowledge is Moshe Rabbeinu, the teacher of all prophets. Prophecy or revelation is what we call the highest-level speculation of a finely tuned individual who has perfectly balanced his intuition, emotions, imagination and rational faculty after having conquered his personal biases through a lifelong regimen of self-discipline and self-improvement. It is the ultimate goal of every human being to attain prophecy although no one has accomplished that in the last 2400 plus years. In this educational system, Science and theology are integrated and seen as one; both are equally needed to get a correct understanding of God and the whys and wherefores of our existence. Torah comprises Halacha, which is the tool needed for behavioral, psychological and mental self-improvement which allows for unbiased speculation, Science and metaphysics (philosophy in modern parlance). Rambam in Hilchot Talmud Torah lays out this educational process in very clear terms. One gathers information constantly and at the same time allows for time to absorb and contemplate all that information and integrate it into an understanding of God and the individual’s place in it. [3]

There is no mystical teaching in this system. A person may have a personal mystical experience but this cannot be transmitted or shared with another person thus mystical teachings are inherently false. Anything metaphysical that does not have as its basis the traditional prophetic teachings which ended 2400 plus years ago is no more than pure imagination[4]. There is no “Giluy Elyahu” or other such mystical learning in Rambam’s world.

On a personal level, I buy completely into this approach and it gives me great satisfaction when I can live up to it, which unfortunately is not very often. It takes hard work, discipline and constant awareness of responsibility in our actions and interactions with others. Every thing we do has consequences and we have to be cognizant of them before we do anything. But it also empowers us as human beings who are in control of our destiny and not just subject to the vagaries of fate or as determined by God, as most religions teach[5].









[1]והעניינות הנקראין פרדס, בכלל התלמוד.

And in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 4:13 we read

וענייני ארבעה פרקים אלו שבחמש מצוות האלו--הם שחכמים הראשונים קוראין אותן פרדס

And in 4:10

כל הדברים האלו שדיברנו בעניין זה, כמר מדלי הם; ודברים עמוקים הם, אבל אינם כעומק עניין פרק ראשון ושני. וביאור כל אלו הדברים שבפרק שלישי ורביעי, הוא הנקרא מעשה בראשית

[2] ואני אומר שאין ראוי להיטייל בפרדס, אלא מי שנתמלא כרסו לחם ובשר; ולחם ובשר זה, הוא לידע ביאור האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן משאר המצוות. ואף על פי שדברים אלו, דבר קטן קראו אותם חכמים, שהרי אמרו חכמים דבר גדול מעשה מרכבה, ודבר קטן הוויה דאביי ורבא; אף על פי כן, ראויין הן להקדימן: שהן מיישבין דעתו של אדם תחילה, ועוד שהן הטובה הגדולה שהשפיע הקדוש ברוך הוא ליישוב העולם הזה, כדי לנחול חיי העולם הבא. ואפשר שיידעם הכול--גדול וקטן, איש ואישה, בעל לב רחב ובעל לב קצר.
Yesodei Hatorah 4:13

[3] [יא] וחייב לשלש את זמן למידתו: שליש בתורה שבכתב; ושליש בתורה שבעל פה; ושליש יבין וישכיל אחרית דבר מראשיתו, ויוציא דבר מדבר, וידמה דבר לדבר, וידין במידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן עד שיידע היאך הוא עיקר המידות והיאך יוציא האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן מדברים שלמד מפי השמועה--ועניין זה, הוא הנקרא תלמוד.
יד [יב] כיצד: היה בעל אומנות--יהיה עוסק במלאכה שלוש שעות ביום, ובתורה תשע: אותן התשע--קורא בשלוש מהן, בתורה שבכתב; ובשלוש, בתורה שבעל פה; ובשלוש, מתבונן בדעתו להבין דבר מדבר. ודברי קבלה, בכלל תורה שבכתב הן; ופירושן, בכלל תורה שבעל פה; והעניינות הנקראין פרדס, בכלל התלמוד.
טו במה דברים אמורים, בתחילת תלמודו של אדם; אבל כשיגדיל בחכמה ולא יהיה צריך לא ללמוד תורה שבכתב, ולא לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה--יקרא בעיתים מזומנים תורה שבכתב ודברי השמועה, כדי שלא ישכח דבר מדברי דיני תורה, וייפנה כל ימיו לתלמוד בלבד, לפי רוחב ליבו ויישוב דעתו.

[4] See MN 3:17 –
אבל דעתי אני ביסוד הזה כלומר: ההשגחה האלוהית,
הוא מה שאבאר לך, ואיני נסמך בדעה זו אשר אבאר למה שהביאתני אליו ההוכחה, אלא נסמך אני בה למה שנתבאר לי שהוא כוונת ספר ה' וספרי נביאנו, והשקפה זו אשר אני סובר מעטת
הזרויות מן ההשקפות שקדמו, וקרובה יותר אל השיקול 70
השכלי
.

And
ואשר הביאני לדעה זו,
לפי שלא מצאתי כלל לשון ספר נביא שמזכיר שיש לה' השגחה באיש מאישי 79
בעלי החיים זולתי באישי האדם בלבד, וכבר תמהו הנביאים גם על
שיש השגחה באישי האדם, ושהוא פחות מכדי להשגיח עליו, כל שכן מה שזולתו מבעלי החיים.
אמר מה אדם ותדעהו וגו' 80,
מה אנוש כי תזכרנו וגו'

Similar statements are spread throughout Rambam’s writings.

[5] א רשות כל אדם נתונה לו: אם רצה להטות עצמו לדרך טובה ולהיות צדיק, הרשות בידו; ואם רצה להטות עצמו לדרך רעה ולהיות רשע, הרשות בידו. הוא שכתוב בתורה "הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו, לדעת, טוב ורע" (בראשית ג,כב)--כלומר הן מין זה של אדם היה אחד בעולם, ואין לו מין שני דומה לו בזה העניין, שיהא הוא מעצמו בדעתו ובמחשבתו יודע הטוב והרע ועושה כל מה שהוא חפץ, ואין לו מי שיעכב על ידו מלעשות הטוב או הרע. וכיון שכן הוא, "פן ישלח ידו" (שם).
ב אל יעבור במחשבתך דבר זה שאומרים טיפשי האומות ורוב גולמי בני ישראל, שהקדוש ברוך הוא גוזר על האדם מתחילת ברייתו להיות צדיק או רשע. אין הדבר כן, אלא כל אדם ואדם ראוי להיות צדיק כמשה רבנו או רשע כירובעם, או חכם או סכל, או רחמן או אכזרי, או כיליי או שוע; וכן שאר כל הדעות.
Hilchot Teshuvah 5:1

Is The Guide For The Perplexed Relevant To A Contemporary Jew?

I was directed by a friend to an excellent article by Rabbi Moshe Becker, The Timeless Message of Moreh Nevuchim .

Rabbi Becker first shows that the accepted understanding of the medieval readers of the Moreh as well as those who read him since was that Rambam’s goal in writing the Moreh was to synthesize Aristotelian science and philosophy with the Torah. That understanding led to a wide and diverse interpretation of Rambam. Some asserted that his “secret” or esoteric positions denied creation ab nihilo, accepted eternity of the universe, denied God’s involvement in the world and basically saw him as a heretic. Some of those who interpreted him this way claimed that the Moreh was a forgery attributed to Rambam of Mishne Torah or in the best of circumstances, parts of the Moreh were written by others. Others, who could not accept that Rambam could have such heretic beliefs, offered a convoluted and clearly forced interpretation. This led to the Moreh being ignored in Yeshivot and becoming the interest exclusively of academics and historians who ignore the evidence from all his writings, that Rambam was, first and foremost, a deeply religious and committed Jew.[1] This interpretation also makes the Moreh irrelevant to contemporary theological thinkers. Aristotelian science is archaic and has been replaced by modern science which has shown it to be wrong. How then can Rambam’s understanding, based on a disproven theory, be of any relevance to a contemporary Jew?

Rabbi Becker however points out that Rambam many times in the Moreh insists that he is not writing a philosophical but rather a theological treatise. Rambam therefore presents a theological position that we must accept as Jews, that God willed the universe into existence in time; He therefore has free will and acts freely as He wishes. This position is fundamentally the opposite of Aristotle who believed in an unchanging God who is eternally parallel with the universe. Please read Rabbi Becker’s article linked above, before going on.

I would like to add to this [2] that Rambam teaches in the Moreh that it is important to differentiate between what can be scientifically proven and what cannot, the how and whys of existence. Rambam spends many chapters at the end of the first part and at the beginning of the second part making that point. He dedicates chapter 2:15 to demonstrate that Aristotle could not prove[3] the eternity of the universe and that he, Aristotle, was well aware of it. It is a theory that can never be proven. Nor can the opposite theory, that God created the universe in time, be proven. Consequently, the idea that God has will is not provable as creation from nothingness is the strongest indication that He does have will[4]. The fact that these things are not provable has not changed since Aristotelian science has been debunked. Contemporary science has not changed this. We still do not know what preceded the Big Bang or what triggered the event.

In MN 1:50 Rambam teaches us that, “If in addition to this we are convinced that the thing cannot be different in any way from what we believe it to be, and that no reasonable argument can be found for the rejection of this belief or for the admission of any deviation from it, then the belief is true.” From a theological point of view, we cannot accept anything other than that God has free will. We cannot accept the deterministically bound God of Aristotle as that would negate religion. We therefore have to make sure and check that belief in a God with free will does not contradict any laws of science and consequently reality. If it does not, we must accept it as truth. Rambam teaches us this in Moreh Hanevuchim showing us how he dealt with the science of his times. The same applies to us and is extremely relevant to us. No matter how science evolves, the same will remain true. Science deals with the here and now while theology deals with the “before and after, the whys and the wherefores”.

I have written about this many times on my blog and I keep on coming back to it. I struggled with this immensely during many years having the notion that there must be a proof for God having created the world from nothingness. Without that, I thought that religion and its teachings stood on very shaky grounds. We have this notion because that is how science is viewed. It requires actual confirmation of any new theory[5]. Realizing that religion was not science, it only had to be compatible with science, was an eye opener to me. I believe that this is the underlying teaching of Rambam’s Moreh and makes his treatise as relevant to us as is his Mishne Torah.






[1] The conclusion in this last sentence is my own – not Rabbi Becker.
[2] and also modify some details in Rabbi Becker’s presentation
[3] Not as Rabbi Becker writes, “did not hold”.
[4] They are “ontological” explanations.
[5] For an interesting discussion of this subject, see Rabbi Dr. Dror Fixler’s article in the latest issue of BDD.

True Knowledge - וישיגו דעת בוראם כפי כוח האדם,

S. on his superb Blog, pointed to an article by Rav Herzog eulogizing the great R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk. In the article, Rav Herzog refers to a comment RMS makes on Rambam Hilchot Melachim that during the Messianic era people will be able to discern where science ends and religion begins. Since to me this is a very important point that I always make about Rambam’s approach as opposed to the Mekubalim, I would like to elaborate a little.
Rambam in Hilchot Melachim Umilchamotehem 12:8 writes:
　

ולא יהיה עסק כל העולם, אלא לדעת את ה' בלבד ולפיכך יהיו חכמים גדולים, ויודעים דברים הסתומים העמוקים; וישיגו דעת בוראם כפי כוח האדם, שנאמר "כי מלאה הארץ, דעה את ה', כמים, לים מכסים

… [During messianic times] the whole world will be focused on one thing only: to get to know God. There will therefore be great sages who know those deep hidden matters and they will apprehend the mind of their Creator, as far as humanly possible…

RMS picks up on this statement in his Ohr Sameach and explains,

אור שמח הלכות מלכים פרק יב
וכתב עוד רבינו וישיגו דעת בוראם כפי כח האדם, שנאמר כי מלאה הארץ דעה את ה' כמים לים מכסים, וכוון בזה, שבעת אשר ההשגות שבכח המורכב מחומר ונפש להשיג אינן מבוררין, אז עלול לצאת גם לחקור אף במה שנמנע מהשגת האנושי להשיג, אבל בהשיגו מה שבכח האדם להשיג על אמיתתו בלא שבושים וספיקות אז יבין מה שאינו יכול להשיג, ולא יתפרץ מגבולו לחקור במה דמופלא ממין האנושי, וכמו שאמרו (חגיגה י"ד ע"ב) בד' שנכנסו לפרדס, שמפני שצפייתו היתה בהטעה לכן יצא מגבול ההשגה לבקש מה שא"א להשיג רק בהתפרד הנפש מהחומר, וזה שאמר הכתוב ומלאה הארץ דעה, שהדעת יהיה על בוריו, בלא שום סכסוך וספק, ויהיה כמים לים מכסים, שממלאים את הים ואינם מתפרצים חוץ לגבולם, שע"ז הפליגו בכתובים ובמדרשים שאינם יוצאים מגבולם, וחוק שם לים ויסך אותו בדלתים (איוב ל"ח, ח'), כן יהיה מעלת האדם אז, שלא יתפרצו מגבולם, לסיבת ידיעתם מה שבכח האדם באמת, וזה ומלאה הארץ דעה את ה' כו', ודוק:

Rambam writes further; and they will apprehend the mind of their Creator, as far as humanly possible. Rambam is teaching that while the intellectual capacity of someone composed of matter and form [lit: soul] to apprehend are not well developed [lit: defined], he is liable to attempt to apprehend things that are beyond human comprehension. But once a person understands the true human limitations without error and doubt, he then realizes what cannot be apprehended and he will not step outside the limits and attempt to apprehend things that a human cannot grasp. That is the meaning of the Gemara in Hagigah (14b) “Four entered the vineyard… [Ben Azai peeked and died…]. [Death means that] he looked [apprehended] erroneously, going beyond the capacity of human comprehension seeking such matters that one can only apprehend once the soul separates from the body. [IOW, the death of Ben Azai alludes to the type of apprehension he was seeking, which was beyond human capacity]. That is how Rambam interprets the verse, “and the earth will be filled with knowledge of God”, namely [knowledge of]the mind [of human beings] will be perfected, without any doubts or disagreements, just like water that cover the seas, it fills the sea without going beyond its borders… So too will be the perfected man at that time, who because of their knowing all that a human being can truly apprehend, will not overstep their boundaries. That is the meaning “the land will be filled with knowledge of God…”

Real knowledge is to understand human limitation. We humans, whose only experience is the physical world we inhabit, cannot hope to know anything but the physical. Any knowledge beyond that belongs to the realm of metaphysics and religion. It can only be known through conjecture or revelation. Conjecture is the product of a fertile imagination and has nothing to do with reality or truth. Revelation is limited to what we have in our authentic sources and texts being that oral transmissions in those areas were lost to us. We are much better off admitting that we do not know how the metaphysical works rather than using imaginary concepts that eventually will be debunked and shown to be no more than the fruits of an overactive imagination. True knowledge is knowing one's limitations.

Oral Law With Equal Authority of a Written Law - Torah Sheba'al Peh as Revelation Based Explanation of Torah Shebiktav.

Rambam in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 2:1 rules that one who eats from a non-permissible animal transgresses a negative commandment that is derived from a positive one-לאו הבא מכלל עשה. This is a special category of prohibition that are presented in the positive - one may eat from ruminating animals who also have split hooves – which leads to the logical conclusion that it is prohibited to eat from those that lack these characteristics.

מכלל שנאמר וכל בהמה מפרסת פרסה ושוסעת שסע שתי פרסות מעלת גרה שומע אני שכל שאינה מעלת גרה ומפרסת פרסה אסורה. ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה הוא.

Normally, if someone transgresses a negative commandment he becomes liable for corporeal punishment if certain conditions are met. However, contravening a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment generally does not merit any corporeal punishment. However, the Torah also specifically prohibits animals that have only one characteristic (Siman), which again leads to the logical conclusion that those that have neither are of course prohibited. Since this prohibition is given in the negative form, eating all prohibited animals, whether those who lack both Simanim or only one Siman, makes one liable for corporeal punishment.

ובגמל ובחזיר ובארנבת ובשפן נאמר את זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה וגו' הרי למדת שהן בלא תעשה ואע"פ שיש בהן סימן אחד. וכל שכן שאר בהמה טמאה וחיה טמאה שאין בה סימן כלל שאיסור אכילתם בלא תעשה יתר על עשה הבא מכלל אותה תאכלו:
לפיכך כל האוכל מבשר בהמה וחיה טמאה כזית לוקה מן התורה.

The problem is that there is a general rule in Halacha that אין מזהירין מדין ק"ו, a prohibition that is derived through an extrapolation from a minor premise to a major one, (Kal Vechomer), which is the case here, does not warrant corporeal punishment. For a liability for corporeal punishment to take effect, the prohibition must be clearly stated in the negative. As the prohibition to eat animals lacking both Simanim is derived through a Kal Vechomer, there should be no corporeal punishment for transgressing. Why is this case different?

Rambam addresses this in his Sefer Hamitzvot Negative Commandment 172 by referring us to Negative Commandment 336 where he promises to explain it. He also comments that just like in that later case, the negative commandment is only a clarification.

אלא שקל וחמר זה לגלויי מלתא בעלמא הוא, כדרך שאמרו בבתו", כמו שנבאר במקומו

The Torah prohibits sexual relations with one’s granddaughter whether she is the daughter of a son or of a daughter. Nowhere does it expressly forbid relations with one’s own daughter whether she was born through marriage or out of wedlock. That prohibition itself is derived logically through a Kal Vechomer (according To Rambam – Rashi disagrees) while the corporeal punishment is derived through another hermeneutical process, a Gezeirah Shava. (I do not want to get into the particulars of this Derasha here and leave to the interested reader to look it up in sefer Hamitzvot ). Here the Halacha goes even a step further; the Kal Vechomer creates a separate negative commandment. After explaining the process, Rambam makes an interesting statement.

ולשון גמרא כריתות:
"אל תהי גזרה שווה קלה בעיניך, שהרי 'בתו' אחד מגופי תורה,
ולא למדה הכתוב אלא בגזרה שווה: אתיא הנה הנה אתיא זמה זמה".
והתבונן באמרם: לא למדה הכתוב, ולא אמרו לא למדנוה, לפי שכל הדברים האלה קבלה מפי השליח והוא פירוש מקובל, כמו שביארנו בהקדמת חיבורנו בפירוש המשנה, ולא שתק הכתוב מלהזכירה אלא מפני שאפשר ללמדה בגזרה שווה.
וזהו עניין אמרם:
"לא למדה הכתוב אלא בגזרה שווה".
ומספיק אמרם "גוף תורה".

Rambam notes that the Gemara refers to this prohibition as a גוף תורה – part of the body of Torah – in other words an integral commandment within Torah, which though not explicit it has the same status as an explicitly written commandment allowing for corporeal punishment. However, he notes that the hermeneutical derivation, the Gezeirah Shava, is not the basis for the separate commandment. That hermeneutical process, though it could have made the act a Torah prohibition (more on this later), would not have it counted as a separate commandment nor would it have allowed corporeal punishment. The basis for it being a separate commandment is that it is Pirush Mekubal, a revelation based explanation of the text that Moshe received directly from God. That gives this law the same authority as an explicitly written law. Rambam consequently offers an original interpretation of the Gemara statement "לא למדה הכתוב אלא בגזרה שווה. Traditionally it is explained that the Gemara is pointing out that a Gezeirah Shava is authoritative because it teaches a Guf Torah, a commandment. IOW it defines the authority of a Gezeirah Shava. Rambam notes that if that were the meaning the Gemara should have read -לא למדנוה - we, the Rabbis, do not know it except by using a GS. The Gemara reads - לא למדה – the Torah did not teach it. The Gemara is telling us that the Torah did not find it necessary to specifically teach this prohibition because it was taught orally and it relied on the GS as a mnemonic and/or as support, which is generally referred to as Assmachta. Rambam legislates it in Hil. Issurei Biah 2:6

הבא על אשה דרך זנות והוליד ממנה בת אותה הבת ערוה עליו משום בתו ואע"פ שלא נאמר בתורה ערות בתך לא תגלה מאחר שאסר בת הבת שתק מן הבת ואיסורה מן התורה. ואינו מדברי סופרים.

The last words, ואינו מדברי סופרים – they are not of rabbinical origin – means that the derivation is not hermeneutical. It could be a Torah law and still be considered Divrei Soferim. IOW the Rabbis may derive a law logically through a Kal Vechomer and that law would have the authority of a Torah law, a De’oraita, but it would not be counted as a separate commandment nor would it make the transgressor liable for corporeal punishment. This law, because it is a revelation-based law, is not considered Divrei Soferim but Guf Torah and warrants to be counted separately. The hermeneutics, as Rambam explained in his introduction to Pirush Hamishna, is only for support.

שכולן פירושים מקובלים מפי משה. ועליהם ועל דומיהם אמרו, כל התורה נאמרו כללותיה ופרטותיה ודקדוקיה מסיני.
אבל אע"פ שהן מקובלים ואין מחלוקת בהם מחכמת התורה הנתונה לנו, נוכל להוציא ממנה אלו הפירושים בדרך מדרכי הסברות והאסמכתות והראיות והרמזים המצויים במקרא
　

Coming back to our original Halacha about prohibited animals,

אלא שקל וחמר זה לגלויי מלתא בעלמא הוא, כדרך שאמרו בבתו",

We now understand that לגלויי מלתא בעלמא הוא, means it is a Pirush Hamekubal that found support through hermeneutics. Both the prohibition to eat forbidden animals and the prohibition of sexual relationship with a daughter are in that category of Torah Sheba’al Peh and have the same authority as a written commandment.


We gained several insights working through this comment of Rambam. We have a clear case here of a category – Pirush Hamekubal – that Rambam defines in his introduction to Pirush Hamishna and is central to his understanding of what Torah Sheba’al Peh – the oral Torah is. It has the exact same authority as a written law including to be counted separately and also allows for corporeal punishment if transgressed.


We also learned that Divrei Soferim is not necessarily a rabbinic law, a Derabanan, but could have the authority of Torah law if it is derived logically or hermeneutically. It however cannot be counted as separate but rather as an extension of an existing law ( see Shoresh 2 in SHM) and has implications on the punishment a transgressor is liable.

The sugya of the prohibition of sexual relationship with a daughter is very complicated and I have just focused on one aspect of it according to Rambam. Rashi and other Rishonim understand it differently. I have followed Rambam here and his approach points to some very important basic concepts of what TSBP is.

The Chilul Hashem of Chumrot: Parasites in Salmon

Hearing the latest controversy about the Kashrut of Salmon reminded me of a comment Rambam makes in a letter to his pupil regarding the controversies that broke out about the Mishne Torah after its publication. Apparently it threatened the authority of the then Gaon in Baghdad, Rabbi Shmuel Ben Eli and other rabbinical leaders so they went on the attack against many of the MT Halachik rulings as well as theological positions. The controversy turned nasty and Rambam’s pupil Rabbi Yosef ben Yehudah corresponded with him about it. In a lengthy letter (or as some claim a series of letters gathered into one), Rambam advises his pupil, amongst other quite fascinating comments, to refrain from getting caught up in the dispute and restrain himself from responding.

“And about your being upset because he (R. Shmuel Ben Eli) attacked you in a public document – do not let this bother you because no person would remain quiet when hurt by another one. You must realize that you hurt him very much. You destroyed his reputation and blunted his arrows. Without you, the Rosh Hagalut (apparently the title of the leader of the community in Aleppo where Rav Yosef lived) would have been like a dove in the talons of a kite (bird of prey) as he would have shamed him in the matter of the Get and other such matters, destroying him. (Apparently Rav Yosef defended the Rosh Hagalut against an attack by RSBE on a ruling he made and RY defended him). You cannot expect that someone you caused harm to should love you and praise you! There is also no point in your asking where his Fear of Heaven is? For this man (RSBE) and others like him, even those who are greater than he is, even those that preceded him, see Yra’at Shamayim (fear of heaven) to be punctiliousness in Chumrot just as it is in the perception of the masses. However, the obligations that pertain to developing good character traits are not considered by these people to be a part of Yra’at Shamayim. They also are not careful with their speech, like those who have perfected their Yire’ah are. Furthermore, all the people of religion, especially those that have positions of authority, once a matter threatens their authority, their Yire’ah (fear of heaven) disappears!” (Translated from Iggerot Harambam by Rav Sheilat page 308).

The insistence of these technocrats of Halacha in how to ensure that every technical detail of a Halacha even to its illogical conclusion is foisted on their followers and public is done without any regard or thought to the underlying theology of the Mitzvah. If they did not put up this great barrier between thought and technical detail, if they did not dismiss theology as unnecessary, and questioned a little the whys and wherefores, we might end up with less Chumrot and more Yire’ah. Furthermore, by continuing this nonsense, they erode the authority of Halacha in the eyes of people and create a great Chilul Hashem. They are trying to assert themselves and impose their control at the detriment of the truth, without any regard to the consequences that their actions have on the Klal. In fact they are eroding legitimate Halachik authority and the influence of authentic rulings.

This is just from a religious perspective. From a practical Halachik perspective, there is plenty of discussion already in the press and online. Here is a synopsis in one article.

The Mitzvat Asseh To Establish Criteria for the Forbidden and the Permitted.

Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot begin with an interesting statement.

מצוות עשה הן הסימנין שמבדילין בהן בין בהמה וחיה ועוף ודג וחגב שמותר לאוכלן, ובין שאין מותר לאוכלן--שנאמר "והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהורה, לטמאה, ובין העוף הטמא, לטהור"
ובין החיה, הנאכלת, ובין החיה, אשר לא תיאכל"

“The features that differentiate between animals, beasts, birds, fish and locust that one may eat and those that one may not eat are a Mitzvat Asseh (positive command). [We know this] from the verse, “and you shall differentiate between the clean and unclean animal, between the unclean bird and the clean one, between the edible beast and the inedible one”.”

The Rav Kafieh edition reads as above מצוות עשה הן which at first blush is hard to understand. What does it mean that the features are the mitzvah? Of course, as is common with Rambam, whenever his concepts seemed alien to their readers, especially when hand copying was in vogue, emendations and clarifications were common. These emendations eventually found their way into the text. In the Frankel Edition, we read מצות עשה לידע הסימנין שמבדילין where the Mitzvah is to know these features. Much has been written about this language and most commentators build their explanation on this version. Besides Rav Kafieh, I have not found any that refer us back to Rambam who explains what he means quite succinctly and that in fact confirms the version of the Kafieh edition. In Sefer Hamitzvot Asseh 152, after listing the Mitzvot Asseh that pertain to animals, beasts and locusts, he lists the one pertaining to fish. He then makes the following comment,

והעניין באומרנו שהיא מצוות עשה הוא כמו שהזכרתי לך, שאנו נצטווינו לדון בסימנים אלו ונאמר: זה מותר לאוכלו וזה אינו מותר, כמו שבאר הכתוב ואמר: "והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהרה לטמאה וגו'" (שם כ, כה) ולא תהא הבדלה אלא בסימנים

“When we said that it is a Mitzvat Asseh it means, as I mentioned, that we were commanded to deliberate in these features and say: This [specific feature found in an animal – DG] one may eat and this one may not [IOW makes it permissible or forbidden – DG]. That is the meaning of the verse “and you shall differentiate between the clean and unclean animal”. The only possible way to differentiate is with features.”

The Mitzvah is the deliberation itself to arrive at a conclusion on the features that help us differentiate between the permissible and the forbidden. Defining and establishing the features, is the Mitzvah. Hence, Rav Kafieh version must be the original one, eliminating many conjectures of the meaning.

The idea that defining the rule itself is so important and the significance of that is emphasized in another related Halacha. In Mitzvat Asseh 150 regarding birds, we read,

הציווי שנצטווינו בסמני העוף,
והוא שרק כמה מינים ממנו יהיו
מותרים. וסימני העוף לא נאמרו מן התורה אלא הושגו בחקירה, כי כאשר אנו מתבוננים בכל
המינים שנתבאר איסורם אחד אחד, מוצאים אנו בהם דברים הכוללים אותם, והם סמני עוף
טמא

“The command that we were commanded regarding the features of birds is that only few categories are permitted. The features of birds were not given in the Torah but were attained through inquiry. For as we contemplate all the categories that were forbidden, one by one, we find the common features that apply to all of them. Those are the features of unclean birds.”

While the other groups, animals, beasts, fish and locusts the Torah specifies the features that make them permissible, a limited list of forbidden birds are listed without any explanation. Extrapolation from this limited list is done through inquiry by establishing their common features, using that as a basis to permit or forbid other birds.

I am not sure why establishing criteria and refining those already stated is important. In MN 3:48, Rambam states “The characteristics given in the Law (Lev. xi. and Deut. xiv.) of the permitted animals, viz., chewing the cud and divided hoofs for cattle, and fins and scales for fish, are in themselves neither the cause of the permission when they are present, nor of the prohibition when they are absent; but merely signs by which the recommended species of animals can be discerned from those that are forbidden.” IOW there is nothing intrinsic about these features; they are just tools that we use to identify the permitted and the forbidden. In general, Rambam sees these laws as a way of developing restraint and self-control. That is the thinking behind the negative commandment, the Lo Ta’asseh of “you shall not eat…” What does the positive commandment of “you shall eat…” mean? If restraint is the underlying concept, why is there a commandment to eat? Eating itself cannot be the Mitzvah. Developing the criteria, applying these to specific species is a way of using the restraint in a positive way by immersing oneself in God and His laws. Ascetic behavior alone does no good without replacing the void created with a positive action. Restraint is for the purpose of allowing intellectual growth. Without that, it is incomplete and misses its intended goal.

May One Doubt? Faith On the Way to Knowledge.

Last Shabbat we were discussing in our learning group whether it is permitted to question Ikkarei Emunah. The problem becomes extremely important as Rambam demands that one arrive rationally at the conviction that God exists and counts this obligation as a Mitzvat Asseh

לידע שיש שם אלוה.

הלכות יסודי התורה פרק א
א יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות, לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון.

“The Foundation of all foundations and the supporting beam of all knowledge is to KNOW that there is, out there, a Prime Existent.”

Clearly the choice of word to KNOW as opposed to BELIEVE demands an in depth analysis of the issue. How can one do that without analyzing contrary opinions? As we know and I discussed on this blog many times, the reality is that it is a lifelong goal to arrive at that conclusion rationally and it also is the ultimate goal of every human being. In fact, it is the reason for the torah and Mitzvot. They all are here to help one arrive, through proper speculation, and full rational conviction to that conclusion. How can one do it without doubting during the process? One who is working on the problem honestly, is it not inevitable that he is going to doubt along the way? Is doubt not definitional until one is convinced of the conclusion?

Similarly, Rambam tells us in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 7:1

מיסודי הדת, לידע שהאל מנבא את בני האדם

“One of the foundations of the law is to KNOW that God prophesizes people.”

Indeed, at the beginning of Yesodei Hatorah Rambam counts the Mitzvat Asseh to listen to a prophet -לשמוע מן הנביא המדבר בשמו which is a natural outcome of this foundation. Again, we see Rambam using the word, לידע - to know as opposed to believe. This requires rational conviction rather than Faith. How is one to do it without at some point analyzing opposing possibilities without ever doubting? The problem seems even more acute when we read the following Halachot in Hilchot Avodah Zara chapter 2.

ג [ב] ספרים רבים חיברו עובדי עבודה זרה בעבודתה, היאך עיקר עבודתה ומה משפטה ומעשיה. ציוונו הקדוש ברוך הוא, שלא לקרות באותן הספרים כלל, ולא נהרהר בה, ולא בדבר מדבריה. ואפילו להסתכל בדמות הצורה--אסור, שנאמר "אל תפנו, אל האלילים" (ויקרא יט,ד). ובעניין זה נאמר "ופן תדרוש לאלוהיהם לאמור, איכה יעבדו" (דברים יב,ל)--שלא תשאל על דרך עבודתה היאך היא, ואף על פי שאין אתה עובד: שדבר זה גורם לך להיפנות אחריה ולעשות כמו שהן עושין, שנאמר "ואעשה כן, גם אני" (שם). [ג] וכל הלאוין הללו בעניין אחד הן, והוא שלא ייפנה אחר עבודה זרה; וכל הנפנה אחריה בדרך שהוא עושה בו מעשה, הרי זה לוקה
ד ולא עבודה זרה בלבד הוא שאסור להיפנות אחריה במחשבה, אלא כל מחשבה שגורמת לו לאדם לעקור עיקר מעיקרי התורה--מוזהרין אנו שלא להעלותה על ליבנו, ולא נסיח דעתנו לכך ונחשוב ונימשך אחר הרהורי הלב: מפני שדעתו של אדם קצרה, ולא כל הדעות יכולות להשיג האמת על בורייו; ואם יימשך כל אדם אחר מחשבות ליבו, נמצא מחריב את העולם לפי קוצר דעתו.
ה כיצד: פעמים יתור אחר עבודה זרה; ופעמים יחשוב בייחוד הבורא, שמא הוא שמא אינו, מה למעלה מה למטה, מה לפנים מה לאחור; ופעמים בנבואה, שמא היא אמת שמא אינה; ופעמים בתורה, שמא היא מן השמיים שמא אינה. ואינו יודע המידות שידון בהן עד שיידע האמת על בורייו, ונמצא יוצא לידי מינות.
ו ועל עניין זה הזהירה תורה, ונאמר בה "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם, ואחרי עיניכם, אשר אתם זונים, אחריהם" (במדבר טו,לט)--כלומר לא יימשך כל אחד מכם אחר דעתו הקצרה, וידמה שמחשבתו משגת האמת. כך אמרו חכמים, "אחרי לבבכם", זו מינות; "ואחרי עיניכם", זו זנות. ולאו זה, אף על פי שהוא גורם לאדם לטורדו מן העולם הבא, אין בו מלקות.

The first Halacha above tells us that idol worshippers have written many books about idol worship and the modalities of that worship. God forbids us to read these books or to think about these issues for fear of us being attracted by the idolaters, their idols and their methods of worship. Considering Rambam’s understanding of Avodah Zara, idol worship as falsehood and nonsense, the source and cause of the dark ages that humanity periodically went through throughout history, there is no surprise there. (For a thorough analysis of this issue, see my article in Hakirah available online here ).

However, the next Halacha seems to be quite problematic at first blush. Rambam tells us that not only AZ but also any thought that might seed doubts about any of the Ikarim is prohibited. Does that not include reading philosophical texts? After all, Aristotle did not believe in God as Creator - one of the Ikkarim - and still Rambam recommends reading him in a letter to Ibn Tibon. Rambam himself quotes Aristotle at length and praises him over and over as the greatest of thinkers. What about reading later philosophers? May one read Kant? But even more problematic is the issue I started this post with, how is one to honestly become convinced rationally that God exists, to KNOW rather than BELIEVE that he does, or that God prophesizes humankind, without questioning the premise along the way? At the same time, it is a Mitzvat Asseh to work towards knowing God rationally as well as to listen to the prophet’s revelation. How is one to understand these conflicting Halachot?

A careful reading of these Halachot however, solves the problem and clarifies how one has to go about the Mitzvot that require Yediah, to KNOW rather than just believe. When discussing AZ in the earlier Halacha, Rambam forbids reading their books for fear that will lead to possible acceptance of idol worship, a total falsehood and lie. In the next Halacha however, Rambam changes the theme and does not talk about reading books anymore but forbids any random thought that may lead to the negation of an Ikar.

ולא נסיח דעתנו לכך ונחשוב ונימשך אחר הרהורי הלב – we may not turn our mind to that (forbidden thoughts), thinking and letting ourselves follow the cogitations of our mind.

מפני שדעתו של אדם קצרה, ולא כל הדעות יכולות להשיג האמת על בורייו – for a person’s mind is limited and not all minds can apprehend the Truth in its entirety.

ואם יימשך כל אדם אחר מחשבות ליבו, נמצא מחריב את העולם לפי קוצר דעתו
And if every person were to follow his mind’s cogitations, he would destroy the world because of his mind’s limitations.

In other words, one may not just contemplate in a vacuum, letting one’s mind go and speculate without any further preparations. One may not speculate, without having first studied all the necessary sciences. One must be well versed in logic and the sciences to know where scientific knowledge ends and where metaphysical speculation begins. Lacking that -

ואינו יודע המידות שידון בהן עד שיידע האמת על בורייו
“He is unaware of the proper methods of logical and rational thought that lead to truth.”

It is only when a person can differentiate between empiric proofs and matters that cannot be proven empirically, and never will be, that he can undertake this speculation. Those matters that deal with questions like whether the world was created in time from nothingness must be approached from a completely different perspective than regular scientific knowledge. One must first make sure that the question cannot be answered scientifically and only then must one turn to tradition and revelation for the answer. To be convinced of the veracity of the answers furnished by tradition one must be convinced that it does not contradict scientific reality. Only then, can one rely on tradition with conviction. The methods used in this process are different from those used in a purely scientific investigation. Without realizing that, the person is going to come up with false and erroneous conclusions. At times, the person will wander after AZ –
יתור אחר עבודה זרה at others, ופעמים יחשוב בייחוד הבורא, שמא הוא שמא אינו He will question God’s unity

Rambam lists a series of subjects that such a person will touch upon in this process of speculation. The speculation itself is not the problem. The problem is when he is doing it without the proper parameters needed for such a speculation - ואינו יודע המידות שידון בהן. This will inevitably lead to wrong conclusions. On the other hand, when one approaches metaphysical speculation systematically, first getting a good understanding of the sciences and at the same time assimilating the Torah and its tradition and revelation, he is following the proper path to knowledge – Yediah.Hil Yesodei Hatorah at the end of the fourth chapter -

ואני אומר שאין ראוי להיטייל בפרדס, אלא מי שנתמלא כרסו לחם ובשר; ולחם ובשר זה, הוא לידע ביאור האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן משאר המצוות. ואף על פי שדברים אלו, דבר קטן קראו אותם חכמים, שהרי אמרו חכמים דבר גדול מעשה מרכבה, ודבר קטן הוויה דאביי ורבא; אף על פי כן, ראויין הן להקדימן: שהן מיישבין דעתו של אדם תחילה, ועוד שהן הטובה הגדולה שהשפיע הקדוש ברוך הוא ליישוב העולם הזה, כדי לנחול חיי העולם הבא. ואפשר שיידעם הכול--גדול וקטן, איש ואישה, בעל לב רחב ובעל לב קצר.

And even using this approach, not everyone may conclude the process and that includes great people.

ואף על פי שגדולי ישראל היו וחכמים גדולים היו, לא כולם היה בהן כוח לידע ולהשיג כל הדברים על בוריין

In MN 1:34 (which can be read in full here - a poor translation but the only English version available online) Rambam dedicates a whole chapter explaining the importance of preparatory study and listing many of the subjects needed before speculating about metaphysical questions.

“There are also many subjects of speculation, which, though not preparing the way for metaphysics, help to train the reasoning power, enabling it to understand the nature of a proof, and to test truth by characteristics essential to it. They remove the confusion arising in the minds of most thinkers, who confound accidental with essential properties, and likewise the wrong opinions resulting from that. We may add that although they do not form the basis for metaphysical research, they assist in forming a correct notion of these things, and are certainly useful in many other things connected with that discipline. Consequently, he who wishes to attain to human perfection must therefore first study Logic, next the various branches of Mathematics in their proper order, then Physics, and lastly Metaphysics.”

It is clear from all the above that all the sciences and philosophy are not only not forbidden, but are a required study necessary to properly fulfill the Mitzvot that require knowledge – לידע –. There is no question that at some point in the process doubts and questions may arise and one may possibly never conclude the process. One is however obligated to try their best and do the work that leads to knowledge. The last Halacha highlights the problem.

ועל עניין זה הזהירה תורה, ונאמר בה "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם, ואחרי עיניכם, אשר אתם זונים, אחריהם" --כלומר לא יימשך כל אחד מכם אחר דעתו הקצרה, וידמה שמחשבתו משגת האמת

“This is what the Torah warned against saying “you should not wander after your hearts and eyes, after which you are currently straying”, meaning that you should not follow, each one of you his own limited mind, thinking that he has attained the Truth.”

Ignorance and hubris are forbidden. Knowledge and humility are mandated. Doubt is permitted and is natural in the process of honest speculation. Conclusions that negate tradition and revelations on matters that cannot be resolved through scientific methods and do not contradict reality, are forbidden. Faith is very much part of Judaism. It is however, faith based on knowledge and on the way to knowledge.

ד הִנֵּה עֻפְּלָה, לֹא-יָשְׁרָה נַפְשׁוֹ בּוֹ; וְצַדִּיק, בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה.

Behold, his spirit within him is puffed up, it is not upright; but the righteous man is rewarded with life for his fidelity. {S} (Habakkuk 2:4)

A Great Person Sees A Doctor.

In a recent post on the excellent blog Bein Din Ledin there was a discussion about the two opposing positions of Rambam and Ramban on whether it is appropriate to seek help from a doctor, when one is ill. I discussed this several years ago here where I showed that each of these great Rishonim followed their own understanding of how the world operates as a result of HKBH’s will. What I found disturbing is the quote from Rav Dessler who suggests that Rambam and Ramban do not disagree but rather are talking about two different people at different levels of perfection. Ramban is talking about the truly perfect human being who relies completely on HKBH who should not use doctors but rely on God’s intervention to heal him when sick. Rambam is talking about a regular person who of course cannot rely on a miracle to save him. Such a person and these people are the majority of the population, should go to doctors and doctors are for them. I find this kind of “synthesis” very disturbing and counterproductive. Rav Dessler’s interpretation suggests that there are no binding natural laws, that a perfected person can transcend these laws and live according to a different reality. Once a person truly relies on God, he no longer is bound by nature. BTW, this is the general consensus in the Yeshiva world that real religiosity is total reliance on HKBH and any slack in that belief is at the root of all the evil that befalls Klal Israel. (I believe that this belief, in the sense it is presented, is at the root of all the bad things we currently witness in our community.) RD implies that Rambam would agree with that statement. In my opinion, he is trivializing a great thinker and does not even give justice to Ramban’s approach. In this post, I will analyze Rambam’s position and show why RD is wrong. In a following one, I will present Ramban’s position.
Rambam in his Pirush on the Mishna clearly states that anyone who suggests that King Chizkyahu hid the Sefer Refuot because he did not want people to avail themselves of it, when sick, instead of praying to God, is a fool impugning evil deeds to great people.

ואתה שמע הפסד זה המאמר ומה שיש בו מן השגיונות ואיך יחסו לחזקיהו מן האולת מה שאין
ראוי ליחס כמותו לרעועי ההמון וכמו כן לסיעתו שהודו לו

You must understand how faulty this idea is, how much nonsense it contains. How could they attribute such evil to Chizkyahu, when it does not befit the lowest of the populace to do such a thing? How much more to [attribute such evildoing] to his retinue [of sages] who supposedly agreed with him.

Rambam is unequivocal in stating that this idea is not only nonsense but also evil. Rambam’s world is the reality of material existence that we live in and human beings, with their unique ability, must study it, understand it and by doing that decipher God’s will at creation and act in accordance with that will. It is axiomatic in Rambam’s world that “good” is not necessarily that which makes a particular person happy and “bad” is not that which makes him unhappy. “Good” is continuity and existence and “bad” or “evil” is destruction and any action that might lead to it. We are not talking just about the existence or destruction of the individual, but rather that of his current family and future descendants, the community present and future, all of humanity present and future and even our world and its future. When man was created with his special ability of freedom of thought and choice, the creation of the world was completed. It now had a component that could alter and make changes and adjustments to it as needed. It now had the tools for its long-term survival as a planet for human habitation. We believe that this happened as a result of God’s will, a will whose ultimate purpose and goal we cannot and should not try to understand. It would be a futile quest. However, we do know that God wants it to exist forever and that He has given humankind the responsibility to see to it that it does.

כח וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, אֱלֹהִים, וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְכִבְשֻׁהָ; וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם, וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבְכָל-חַיָּה, הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל-הָאָרֶץ. 28

And God blessed them; and God said unto them, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creep upon the earth.'

This verse reads as a command to initiate an ongoing process without any timeline or end point. It is a constant responsibility that goes on forever. Man must multiply so that he can subdue and dominate his surroundings. Part of that dominion and subjugation is to understand the world we live in, its physics, chemistry, biology and all sciences that pertain to it. It is in this process of thinking that man discovers God, His will and ways, and learns how to emulate them.

המצווה השמינית
הציווי שנצטווינו להדמות לו ית' כפי יכלתנו, והוא אמרו:
"והלכת בדרכיו" (דברים כח, ט). וכבר כפל ציווי זה ואמר: "ללכת בכל-דרכיו" (שם יא, כב), ובא בפירוש עניין זה:
"מה הקב"ה נקרא רחום - אף אתה היה רחום;
הקב"ה נקרא חנון - אף אתה היה חנון;
הקב"ה נקרא צדיק - אף אתה היה צדיק;
הקב"ה נקרא חסיד - אף אתה היה חסיד" - זהו לשון ספרי.
וכבר כפל צווי זה בלשון אחר ואמר: "אחרי ה' אלקיכם תלכו" (שם יג, ה), וגם בפירושו בא, שעניינו להתדמות למעשים הטובים ולמידות הנכבדות שבהם מתואר יתעלה על דרך המשל - יתעלה על הכל עילוי רב.

This is the eighth Mitzvat Asseh. The first example of emulating of God is

"מה הקב"ה נקרא רחום - אף אתה היה רחום
Just as God is merciful, so you be merciful.

What exactly is merciful?

“We see, for example, how well He provides for the life of the embryo of living beings. How He endows with certain faculties both the embryo itself and those who have to rear it after its birth, in order that it may be protected from death and destruction, guarded against all harm, and assisted in the performance of all that is required [for its development]. Similar acts, when performed by us, are due to a certain emotion and tenderness called mercy and pity. God therefore, is said to be merciful.” (MN1:54)

Isn’t healing others and ourselves by developing and administering medicines that prolong life and existence, what emulating God in this context mean? Is it not what Rambam means when he says, “Similar acts, when performed by us, are due to a certain emotion and tenderness called mercy and pity”? It is a Mitzvat Asseh thus a-priori obligation that commands us to follow in God’s ways and give or take medicines when sick. Doing nothing and relying on God, according to this approach is not an option, it is sinful and wrong and probably even borders on apostasy.
So where does prayer come into play? What does the prophet mean when he criticizes King Assa for turning to doctors without praying?

דהי”ב טז יב
גם בחליו לא דרש את ה’ כי ברופאים

When we decide how to act based on our understanding of the healing sciences, we want to make sure that it is the correct decision long term, that it fits in with HKBH’s will for the continuity of the whole. We acknowledge the human limitations of not seeing beyond the immediate and in that humble moment, we turn to God to help us overcome our own failings that may influence our decision. It is only in this state of realism and humility than we can hope to make the correct decision and act properly. It is in this state of true self-analysis that we can hope for an answer to our prayer. King Assa was criticized for not acknowledging his humanity, his human limitations.

The greater the man the greater is his understanding of the human frailty and the greater his humility.

ג וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה, עָנָו מְאֹד--מִכֹּל, הָאָדָם, אֲשֶׁר, עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה. {ס} 3

Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were upon the face of the earth.--

The paradigm of a perfect human being was the humblest. He too would have turned to medicine when sick after acknowledging his limitations and praying for guidance.
Shabbat Shalom.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Prophecy

Rabbi Sacks has a great post on Prophecy here. Worthwhile read.

Rambam and Aristotles - A Complex and Nuanced Relationship. (Part 5 of a Series)

Continuing with Elyahu’s comment on this post.

Elyahu said-

“First chapter of MT which Creation (ברא):
יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות, לידע
שיש שם מצוי ראשון.
והוא ממציא כל
הנמצא; וכל הנמצאים מן שמיים וארץ ומה
ביניהם, לא נמצאו אלא מאמיתת הימצאו. ואם יעלה על הדעת שהוא אינו מצוי, אין דבר אחר
יכול להימצאות. ואם יעלה על הדעת שאין כל הנמצאים מלבדו מצויים, הוא לבדו יהיה מצוי
ולא ייבטל הוא לביטולם: שכל הנמצאים צריכין לו; והוא ברוך הוא אינו צריך להם, ולא
לאחד מהם

As R. Yehuda Halevi, pointed out, no one prays to the הראשון מצוי but rather to the God of his fathers. In fact, the Bible never deals with the possibility of Ha-Shem's non-existence, but rather it goes at length to prove that he is present in history.
History is also the third issue.

Rambam clearly favors metaphysical interpretations over the historic experience like the Exodus:

וידיעת דבר זה מצות עשה, שנאמר "אנוכי ה' אלוהיך" (שמות כ,ב; דברים ה,ו).
וכל המעלה על דעתו שיש שם אלוה אחר, חוץ מזה--עובר בלא
תעשה, שנאמר "לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים, על פניי" (שמות כ,ב; דברים ה,ו); וכפר
בעיקר, שזה הוא העיקר הגדול שהכול תלוי בו.

He completely omitted אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים, thus, which is the core of this passage. Only because God took us out of Egypt, can he demand our loyalty. "Just" God is a mere fact, with no moral implications.

While one could say that in the MN he addressed a "perplexed" audience, it is hard to justify his reasoning in the MT. I do not think that he really believed the Eternity of the world, but he was not sure, and he could not make himself rely on scriptures.”

Elyahu is arguing that Rambam interprets scriptural texts a-priori in conformity with his system. He argues that Rambam describes the belief in God as a belief in a First Cause, an impersonal God, rather than God of history who is deeply involved in our daily life. Basing himself on R. Yehudah Halevi, he claims that belief in God is based on an understanding of history, the God of our fathers, the God who freed us from Egypt, rather than God the Creator and First Cause. The scriptures, according to Elyahu, seem to follow this approach. Rambam ignores that and as proof text for his understanding he uses the verse where God declares, “I am your God” ignoring the second part of the sentence, “that took you out of the land of Egypt”. Clearly, Rambam just forces his theology into the text.

I believe that there is a misunderstanding of what Rambam is saying. He is not teaching us a philosophical fact, the existence of God and His hierarchical position in existence. He is just stating certain philosophical facts – beliefs – which the Mitzvah of knowing God commands us to investigate and to develop a deep understanding of those beliefs – each according to his ability. It is not sufficient to just believe but also to know why that is so and apprehend correctly, what it means. He does not prove God’s existence or what one has to believe about Him from the verse "אנוכי ה' אלוהיך but rather uses it as prooftext that there is a Mitzvat Asseh to engage in this kind of speculation. This becomes clear if we turn to Sefer Hamitzvot Asseh 1.

המצווה הראשונה
היא הציווי שנצטווינו להאמין באלהות, והוא: שנאמין שיש (שם) עילה וסיבה, שהיא הפועל לכל הנמצאים.
וזהו אמרו יתעלה: "אנכי ה' אלקיך" (שמות כ, ב ודברים ה, ו).
ובסוף גמרא מכות אמרו:
"תרי"ג מצוות נאמרו לו למשה בסיני.
מאי קרא? תורה ציווה לנו משה" (דברים לג, ד)
כלומר: מנין ת'ו'ר'ה'.
והקשו על זה ואמרו:
"תורה בגימטריא הכי הוי? שש מאות וחד סרי הוי!".
ובאה התשובה:
"אנכי ה' אלקיך' ו'לא יהיה לך' מפי הגבורה שמעום".
הנה נתבאר לך, שאנכי ה' מכלל תרי"ג מצוות, והוא ציווי להאמין, כמו שביארנו.

(BTW, although www.Daat.co.il claims that this internet version of Sefer Hamitzvot is the Rav Kapach translation – it is definitely not).

Ramban disagrees vehemently with Rambam who counts this as a Mitzvat Asseh. He sees the passuk as a statement of fact. Ramban does not accept the possibility that philosophical speculation can be commanded. Rambam on the other hand confronts the Gemara in Makot that clearly counts the Mitzvah based on the verse and the correct reading - מפי הגבורה שמעום. He understands גבורה to mean the power of the mind and God commanding to use our minds to understand these two Mitzvot. These two Mitzvot are both issues that deal with speculation rather than action. ו'לא יהיה לך' is not an act of worship of Avodah Zara, that is a separate negative command, it is a prohibition to accept polytheism and one has to arrive at that by rational conviction to fulfill the mitzvah properly. In Sefer Hamitzvot Rambam just lists and discusses the source and sometimes the reason for Mitzvot without going into detail about how they are practiced. In MT, he explains the Halacha, the practical aspect of the Mitzvah. In the Halacha above, he tells us that the two Mitzvot, the Asseh and the Lo Ta’asseh are linked. A proper understanding of God is one that negates the possibility of another god(s). The proof texts are
אנכי ה' אלקיך' ו'לא יהיה לך' which the Gemara explained meant philosophical speculation according to Rambam’s interpretation. If that is the case הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים is not a proof or a pointer to God but rather a statement of fact. The idea that what obligates loyalty to God is the redemption is a Nachmanidean concept and not a Maimonidean. Rambam sees it as the obligation of every human being to develop his uniqueness – the Sechel – and therefore want to find and attach himself to Truth. That is why, earlier in the Halacha, in his description of what one has to demonstrate rationally, the emphasis is Truth.

לפיכך אין אמיתתו כאמיתת אחד מהם. [ד] הוא שהנביא אומר "וה' אלוהים אמת" (ירמיהו י,י)--הוא לבדו האמת, ואין לאחר אמת כאמיתו. והוא שהתורה אומרת "אין עוד, מלבדו" (דברים ד,לה), כלומר אין שם מצוי אמת מלבדו כמותו.

Couple this with Hilchot Teshuvah Perek 10

העובד מאהבה, עוסק בתורה ובמצוות והולך בנתיבות החכמה--לא מפני דבר בעולם, לא מפני יראת הרעה, ולא כדי לירש הטובה: אלא עושה האמת, מפני שהוא אמת; וסוף הטובה לבוא בכלל

History to Rambam is important as a fact, an understanding of how human nature developed, we are the sum total of our past and our ancestors, but History is not a religious issue. Yetziat Mitzraim is remembered because it formed us as a nation and we made a covenant with God at the time and put us on the trajectory we are on through history. It made us into what we are and how we act in the world. Even Matan Torah, unlike Halevi, is not based on Historical facts but on Philosophical/Theological concepts. But that is a completely different subject.

Rambam does pray to the הראשון מצוי - the First Existent or Cause. His Tefilah is not the same as Ramban’s. It is meditation and contemplation as part of the obligation to speculate about God. I will hopefully have an article explaining this in detail in next Hakirah.

Rambam did not believe in the Eternity of the World, not because he had scientific proof to the contrary. He held, rightfully so, that such proof is not possible and does not exist and never will in our physical existence. He could not accept it theologically, and that is the only criteria that one can have for this non-scientific issue, because it negates will to HKBH. Will is one of the pillars upon which we base how we understand HKBH.

Elyahu, I thank you for a very edifying comment. It gave me an opportunity to really clarify these Halachot in Rambam and points out his unique approach.

Rambam and Aristotles - A Complex and Nuanced Relationship. (Part 4 of a Series)

Elyahu in a comment on a this post writes: (slightly edited)

“David,

I think the accusations were not far fetched at all. Unlike other thinkers, say R. Yehuda Halevi, Rambam's system of thought doesn't arise from the scriptures but rather the system dictates the scriptures' interpretations; a-priori. This approach can be demonstrated in both the MN, and the MT.

1. MN 2:25:
“WE do not reject the Eternity of the Universe, because certain passages in Scripture confirm the Creation; for such passages are not more numerous than those in which God is represented as a corporeal being; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable interpretation. We might have explained them in the same manner as we did in respect to the Incorporeality of God. We should perhaps have had an easier task in showing that the Scriptural passages referred to are in harmony with the theory of the Eternity of the Universe if we accepted the latter, than we had in explaining the anthropomorphisms in the Bible when we rejected the idea that God is corporeal.”

While there are many passages in the Tanach which describe God in corporeal terms, there are also many that describe him as abstract. Not to mention that the sages also insisted that he is abstract. However, it is very hard to find passages which describe the universe as Eternal.”


I believe that the comment warrants a post as an answer. I will first deal with this quote from MN and follow up with another post for the second proof Elyahu brings from MT.

Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that as Rambam compares the question of Eternity to corporeality as to texts that have to be reinterpreted to be in accord with the accepted belief, yet we do not find texts that argue for eternity. It must therefore be that Rambam interprets texts a-priori. It is true that there are very few verses that may be read as intimating an eternal universe. I do not see where Rambam claims otherwise in the passage above. He only addresses the verses that talk about Creation and says that he would have had an easier time interpreting them in accordance with an eternal universe if that had been proven. Where do you see a-priori interpretation here? I however believe that Rambam reads the scriptural verses in a way that is in harmony with science. There is no question about that. Thus if Eternal Universe were proven scientifically he would have had no problem interpreting the text to conform to that scientific fact. After all, there are a great many corporeal verses that he managed to reinterpret because corporeality is unacceptable.

I want to use this opportunity to further clarify how I see the issue of science and theology especially if we base our thinking on a medieval thinker like Rambam. The problem is where does science end and where does theology begin. As scientific knowledge advances, the transition point from science to theology recedes and some things that were considered to have only a theological explanation are shown to be scientific. The clearest example is the one I discuss about the thinking spheres. Until gravity was understood, the spheres were seen to be composed of a fifth element that could think and therefore self-propelled. Rambam therefore vehemently insists that when the passuk in Tehilim 19:2 says that the “heavens declare the glory of God” they are really speaking (MN2:5) and it is not an allegory.

“SCRIPTURE supports the theory that the spheres are animate and intellectual, i.e., capable of comprehending things. They are not, as ignorant persons believe, inanimate masses like fire and earth, but are, as the philosophers assert, endowed with life, and serve their Lord, whom they mightily praise and glorify; "The heavens declare the glory of God," etc. (Ps. xix. 2). It is a great error to think that this is a mere figure of speech: for the verbs "to declare" and "to relate," when joined together, are, in Hebrew, only used of intellectual beings.”

There are however certain theological concepts that by definition will never be provable scientifically no matter how advanced science becomes. Those theological concepts are therefore taught by tradition and scriptural texts that are indirectly affected by that position. Eternal Universe is one of those positions that can never be proven or refuted scientifically. We are dealing with pre-science. The reason that Jewish theology insists it is not eternal is because theology insists that God has will (Ratzon) and is not just the Platonic demiurge that has no choice or will. With this in mind, we can understand the next few sentences that follow the MN text Elyahu quotes above,

“For two reasons, however, we have not done so, and have not accepted the Eternity of the Universe. First, the Incorporeality of God has been demonstrated by proof: those passages in the Bible, which in their literal sense contain statements that can be refuted by proof, must and can be interpreted otherwise. But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; a mere argument in favor of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text, and explaining it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be supported by an equally good argument. Secondly, our belief in the Incorporeality of God is not contrary to any of the fundamental principles of our religion: it is not contrary to the words of any prophet. Only ignorant people believe that it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture: but we have shown that this is not the case: on the contrary, Scripture teaches the Incorporeality of God. If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion. We should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively”.

Rambam is thus saying first, “the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved”. Furthermore, theology, the foundation of our religion, teaches us about miracles, signs, reward and punishment which all are dependent on a God that has will and can chose how to act. Denying will to God is against these traditions. Accepting an eternal universe accomplishes just that, it takes will away from God. A universe that always existed does not require will to exist. We must therefore reject it and accept creation in time, which can never be proven or disproven by science no matter how far it advances. Rambam dedicates the whole chapter 2:15 to make the argument that shows why eternity of the universe is one of those questions that will never be resolved by science. He further shows that even Aristotle saw it that way and therefore used tentative language when he introduced the theory.

The question of whether creation in time was from absolute nothingness or from an eternal Materia Prima is another matter. From a theological point of view, Rambam can accept both positions because they both require will on the part of the Creator to create whether from nothingness or form the universe from a Materia Prima. Scientifically neither can be proved or disproved. He therefore admits the possibility that Creation was not from nothingness. He therefore sees no reason to interpret the scriptural verses. He reads them as is.

“If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (MN2:23), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion. This theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory. But there is no necessity for this expedient, so long as the theory has not been proved. As there is no proof sufficient to convince us, this theory need not be taken into consideration, or the other one; we take the text of the Bible literally, and say that it teaches us a truth which we cannot prove”.

Some refer to this last passage and claim that Rambam says that we should take the text literally at all times as long as there is no hard proof that it should be read otherwise. If what I said here is correct, and I am sure it is, the reverse is true. One reads the text literally only when it deals with something that is and never can be provable scientifically. If it is something we do not understand now, but it is conceivable that science one day may find a plausible explanation that may contradict the literal text, we must be cautious and not lock ourselves into a position that may prove embarrassing and problematic in the future. However, this last comment of Rambam shows that he did not interpret texts a-priori – “we take the text of the Bible literally, and say that it teaches us a truth which we cannot prove”. It is only when there are actual or potential conflicts with science that texts have to be read and interpreted with great caution so as to not lock ourselves into a position where theology and reality are in conflict. Why have so many of our contemporary leaders ignored this creating so much anxiety, pain and conflict in our community?

Hakirah Volume 9 Has Arrived

Hakirah volume 9 is being distributed. Again we have a very exciting issue. Here is the table of contents.


Letters to the Editor

FORUM
No, Rashi Was Not a Corporealist Saul Zucker

Rashi’s Stance on Corporealism:
A Response to Rabbi Zucker
Natan Slifkin

JEWISH THOUGHT

To Flee Or To Stay? Joe Bobker

“They Could Say It, We Cannot”:
Defining the Charge of Heresy
Natan Slifkin

COMMUNITY
The Respect We Owe Each Other—
For the Sake of Our Children
Aharon Hersh Fried

Get-Refusal and the Agreement for Mutual Respect:
Israel Today
Rachel Levmore

JEWISH LAW
Mourning Abusive Parents
Joel B. Wolowelsky

Mishneh Torah—Science and Art Asher Benzion Buchman

“To Know the Forbidden and the Permitted”:
An Analysis of Rambam’s View of the Purpose and Goals
of Talmud Study
Yitzchok Shapiro

TALMUD TORAH
Anatomy and the Doctrine of the Seven-Chamber Uterus in
Rabbinic Literature
Edward Reichman

Counting Blessings: The Role of Numbers in Prayers Sheldon Epstein and Yonah Wilamowsky

Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Non-Literal Interpretations H. Norman Strickman

הלכה
השמות המיוחדים יוסף יצחק ליפשיץ

היסטוריה
מכתב מן הרב משה סאלאווייציק אל הרב דוב כ"ץ

Read and enjoy.

Shabbat Shalom.

Rambam's Relevance In Light of Contemporary Science -

As Rambam used Aristotelian physics in explaining his theology, many argue that it became irrelevant in the modern world, once the science of the Greeks has been debunked and shown to be utterly wrong. I struggled with this for a long time until I realized that I was missing a very important point – I realized that Physics and Metaphysics, though related, operate on very different modes of thinking. Medieval science or what we refer to in contemporary language as physics, astrophysics, chemistry and biology, deal with demonstrable phenomena. Metaphysics begins where physics ends. It tries to explain the non-demonstrable. If something can possibly be demonstrated, it cannot be categorized metaphysics. Physics deals with existence and how it is explained and understood, the underlying science that makes things function the way we know them, while metaphysics deals with the why, when and Who that precede, so to say, existence. The questions that metaphysics deals with, many times, have more than one possible answer and as long as the proposed answer does not contradict physical reality, it may be true. Which answer one chooses to believe is therefore a theological issue and can only be resolved that way. This is how I understand the Halacha in Hilchot Avodah Zara 2:4-5 we discussed at our shiur this Shabbat.

ד ולא עבודה זרה בלבד הוא שאסור להיפנות אחריה במחשבה, אלא כל מחשבה שגורמת לו לאדם לעקור עיקר מעיקרי התורה--מוזהרין אנו שלא להעלותה על ליבנו, ולא נסיח דעתנו לכך ונחשוב ונימשך אחר הרהורי הלב: מפני שדעתו של אדם קצרה, ולא כל הדעות יכולות להשיג האמת על בורייו; ואם יימשך כל אדם אחר מחשבות ליבו, נמצא מחריב את העולם לפי קוצר דעתו.

ה כיצד: פעמים יתור אחר עבודה זרה; ופעמים יחשוב בייחוד הבורא, שמא הוא שמא אינו, מה למעלה מה למטה, מה לפנים מה

לאחור; ופעמים בנבואה, שמא היא אמת שמא אינה; ופעמים בתורה, שמא היא מן השמיים שמא אינה. ואינו יודע המידות שידון בהן עד שיידע האמת על בורייו, ונמצא יוצא לידי מינות.

Note that in Halacha 5, the listing of prohibited thoughts is in areas of metaphysics which cannot be demonstrably proven. It does not list the question of the existence of God because according to Rambam that is demonstrable, as I have shown many times (see label “Existence of God). It is the questions that can never be demonstrated, that we have to accept based on tradition and revelation, which we may not question. One may not question the unity of God, how and where existence came into being, prophecy, and the divinity of Torah because these questions can only be answered through revelatory tradition. However, it does not mean that we should not strive for a better understanding and insight into what these beliefs mean and how they dictate how we think about and deal with our existence. On the contrary, this search for understanding is part of the commandment to love God, for love is commensurate with intimate knowledge.


How are we to define the boundaries that separate physics from metaphysics? As I said earlier, metaphysics deals with matters that can never be demonstrated. As our understanding of science advances, that boundary keeps shifting where physics takes over areas that until now were thought to belong to metaphysics. Some of the issues that Rambam held to belong to metaphysics are now demonstrably explained by science. For example, Rambam had no concept of gravity and therefore could not explain the movement of the heavens through physics. He accepted Aristotelian conjecture that the spheres had a built in urge to perfection which encouraged them to self propel in a perfect movement – the circle. As the four elements we know (fire, air, earth and water), do not have the ability to think, the spheres must therefore be made of a fifth element that is of a higher matter that allows the heavens to think. As humans are composed of the four elements, the coarser elements, they cannot have an as advanced ability to comprehend the abstract as the heavens do. It is based on this that the heavens and how they operate was seen as belonging to metaphysics. Apparently, Rambam had his doubts about the accuracy of this conjecture.


“For as regards the things in the sublunary world, his [Aristotle] explanations are in accordance with facts, and the relation between cause and effect is clearly shown. It can therefore be assumed that everything is the necessary result of the motions and influences of the spheres. But when he treats of the properties of the spheres, he does not clearly show the causal relation, nor does he explain the phenomena in that systematic way which the hypothesis of natural laws would demand.” (MN 2:19)


Of course, we now know that this whole construct was fiction and can be explained through the Newtonian laws of physics. However, the basic questions still remain – who was responsible for it to be as it is? Is God in fact responsible for existence, as we know it? Is God a static force in the universe or was He responsible for willing creation in time? If He willed it, for what purpose did He do so? Does God have a plan for existence or is it all left to chance? The answers to these questions have not changed with all the technological advances and scientific insights and are still based on revelation and revelatory tradition. These questions remain whether the world is 6000 years old or millions and the basic answer does not change either. We may have to tweak the questions and answers a little so that they conform to our new understanding but the underlying thought and concept does not change. With the current understanding of the Big Bang, the question of what was there before remains. We still have to answer how was it triggered? If we now suggest that there was some kind of event based on quantum theory the question still remains what and how was that quantum induced event triggered and how did this quantum based system come into existence? We just pushed the question back up the cause and effect ladder but the question remained.


It is with this in mind that I learn Rambam and his thought. It is why I do not see it as irrelevant. I find that he was the most thought out amongst the Rishonim, the medieval thinkers, when it came to understanding the divide between the physical and metaphysical. I think we can see this clearly when Rambam went against almost all thinkers in his time and considered astrology to be nonsense. He clearly understood that although the heavens think, they do not think for us. They may influence the physical on our world through whatever force (gravity of course was unknown), that force is physical only and has no influence on how human minds act. That was so outside the thinking at the time that even Maimonidean followers in Provence could not accept it. His letter to Montpellier which laid out his thinking on this had no impact whatsoever. Maimonideans like R. Yaakov Anatoly, Nissim of Marseilles, Ralbag and many others held on fiercely to astrology. To them that was pure physics just like astronomy. Even as late as the 18th century, the great Gra could not accept that. He accused Rambam of being too influenced by the Greeks when he denied the spiritual forces exerted by the heavens.

It is this clear outlook that rambam teaches that attracts me to his thought and theology and keeps it fresh even during our fast paced scientific age.

A Post You Must Read -

An Excellent post on an excellent Blog here

It is gratifying when one finds a Jew who turns to religion in a rational way without all the nonsensical PR used by the Kiruv professionals. Our Torah and the religion it promulgates does not require all that hype for an intelligent human being to understand that it teaches how to find meaning and purpose in life.

Shavua Tov

Mesorah According To Rabbi Eliezer Hagadol

While learning Massechet Negaim I came across a fascinating Pirush Hamishna. There are different types of Negaim – skin abnormalities – that can cause Tume’ah and each has its peculiar rules. A Nega (Baheret) that appears within a wound or a burn becomes Tameh if after a week of segregation, it expands within the wound or if it grows a white hair. If it remains stationary and does not grow a white hair the person is sent home and is Tahor. Furthermore, the expansion must be within the wound. If it expands outside the wound into healthy skin, it does not count. The Mishna 9:3 posits a situation where there is a wound and a Nega within it, covering completely the wound both as large as a sela, located in the palm of a hand. Hair does not grow nor can expansion matter as it would have to be outside the wound as the Nega covers the whole wound. At first blush, it would seem that this kind of Nega could not ever become Tameh. Rabbi Eliezer was asked what the Halacha would be in such a case. To segregate the person for a week to see if any change may occur does not seem to be practical as there apparently is no possibility of Tume’ah. He answered that you do segregate that person for observation. At their surprise, he explained that it is possible that after a week, the Nega would shrink and the person would be sent home and a few days later the Nega would increase in size. Such a case makes the person a definite Tameh (Vaykra 8:35-36). They then asked him what if the wound and the Nega were exactly a Griss (a smaller size, the minimum size of a Nega) in which case shrinking would mean no Nega at all. A further enlargement back to a Griss would be seen as a new Nega and keep the person in limbo without ever becoming a definite Tameh. And here things become interesting –

אמרו לו, והלוא מקומה כגריס. אמר להן, לא שמעתי.

They said to him [Rabbi Eliezer] what if its size is a Griss? He answered I did not hear.

A little background is needed here. Rabbi Eliezer was the greatest pupil of Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai, the leader of the Sanhedrin during the destruction of the second temple. RE was a survivor of the war and took part in the immense effort organized by RYBZ to collect and organize the whole Masorah of Torah up to their time. They foresaw the spiritual upheavals facing the nation and worked to protect our spiritual heritage. RE had a brilliant memory and never forgot anything (Avot 2:8). He also claimed that he never said anything that he did not hear from his teachers. (Much has been written about the meaning of this statement see Rav Reuven Margulies in his Olelot and recently Professor Gilat published a book on R. Eliezer where he addresses the issue). His answer here therefore is quite meaningful.

אמר לו רבי יהודה בן בתירה, אלמד בו. אמר לו, אם לקיים דברי חכמים, הין.

Rabbi Yehudah Ben Beteira offers “Alamed” [to use logical and exegetical tools] to deduce the Halacha for this case. RE responds that if it will support the Chachamim yes, go ahead.
Rambam in his Pirush Hamishnah comments – (my translation/paraphrase)

When RE said I did not hear, he meant that he did not hear a good reason why the person in this case should be segregated. When RYBB suggested that he would give a reason, he told him that if, his reasoning will support segregation and explain the logic for it, to go ahead. However, should he reinforce the question and give more reasons why he should not be segregated, RE did not want to hear it. RE had a kabala that in this case the person has to be segregated but did not know what could happen at the end of the segregation for a conclusive Tume’ah to be decided.

Not being able to think of a reason why a Halacha should be so is not enough to reverse a Mesora of a Halacha. I am not sure to what category of kabala this belongs to, whether the Pirushim Hamekubalim from Sinai or some later Takanah or Gezeirah. The reason I place this Halacha in one of these two categories and not as a precedent decided by an earlier Sanhedrin based on the hermeneutic rules of logic, because those can be reversed by later Sanhedrin. In any case, this gives us a clearer picture of what RE meant when he said he would not say things that he did not learn from his teachers. He meant that he would not second-guess an authentic Mesora and even if he could not figure out the reasoning and come up with a plausible application, he would not amend it. In fact, RYBB came up with a possibility that made sense of the Halacha.

אמר לו, שמא ייוולד לו שחין אחר חוצה לו, ויפסה לתוכו. אמר לו, חכם גדול אתה, שקיימת דברי חכמים

RYBB pointed out that it is possible for the segregated Nega to expand beyond the wound it was covering to an adjoining one that may spring up during the segregation period. That would satisfy the requirement of expansion within a wound as opposed to healthy skin. I am not sure, why this was so far fetched that Rabbi Eliezer could not come up with it, but be it as it may, it is an interesting insight into his thinking. It is also notable, the effusive praise RE gave RYBB for coming up with this possibility, calling him Chacham Gadol.

Shabbat Shalom.

Rambam and Aristotles - A Complex and Nuanced Relationship. - Creation From Nothingness - The Creation of Time. (Part two of a series)

Stephen Hawking in a lecture about creation from nothingness makes the following statement:

“The problem of whether or not the universe had a beginning was a great concern to the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He felt there were logical contradictions, or Antimonies, either way. If the universe had a beginning, why did it wait an infinite time before it began? He called that the thesis. On the other hand, if the universe had existed forever why did it take an infinite time to reach the present stage? He called that the anti thesis. Both the thesis, and the anti thesis, depended on Kant's assumption, along with almost everyone else, that time was Absolute. That is to say, it went from the infinite past, to the infinite future, independently of any universe that might or might not exist in this background.

This is still the picture in the mind of many scientists today. However, in 1915, Einstein introduced his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity. In this, space and time were no longer Absolute, no longer a fixed background to events. Instead, they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole. It is not defined.” (For the whole lecture, see here )

In MN 2:13 Rambam has the following discussion:

“Even time itself is among the things created; for time depends on motion, i.e., on an accident in things which move, and the things upon whose motion time depends are themselves created beings, which have passed from non-existence into existence. … For time is undoubtedly an accident and according to our opinion one of the created accidents like blackness and whiteness. It is not a quality, but an accident connected with motion. This must be clear to all who understand what Aristotle has said on time and its real existence…. We consider time a thing created: it comes into existence in the same manner as other accidents, and the substances which form the substratum for the accidents. For this reason, viz., because time belongs to the things created, it cannot be said that God produced the Universe in the beginning…. Consider this well; for he who does not understand it is unable to refute forcible objections that are raised against the theory of Creatio ex nihilo. If you admit the existence of time before the Creation, you will be compelled to accept the theory of the Eternity of the Universe. For time is an accident and requires a substratum. You will therefore have to assume that something [beside God] existed before this Universe was created, an assumption which it is our duty to oppose.”

I am not a historian of medieval philosophy and I do not have the expertise to know whether this insight of Rambam about time was accepted generally in his time. From the presentation (including the pieces I skipped), it would seem that Rambam considered his opinion as novel in his time. This however is very important in Rambam’s thinking and has major implication in our ongoing discussion. In the previous post, I explained that although Rambam bases his thinking on Aristotelian physics, when it comes to metaphysics he deviates strongly and disagrees with Aristotles. It is not because he can prove that Aristotle is wrong but rather because Aristotle cannot prove his position nor is there a possibility that anyone will ever be able to do so.

“Everything produced comes into existence from non-existence. Even when the substance of a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from potentiality to reality, or before that time… It is therefore quite impossible to infer from the nature which a thing possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the condition of the thing has been in the moment when this process commenced; nor does the condition of a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into great confusion: you will reject evident truths and admit false opinions.” (MN2:17)

We extrapolate how things were based on the nature we know and the science we develop to explain it. That is based on the world we know. It is however impossible to extrapolate from the present state of our existence to how it was before everything we know came into existence. Therefore, Rambam argues that Aristotle when he talks about things that are beyond or before our existence is only conjecturing and trying to argue for what he considers the most likely, not truly what it was. In other words, Aristotle when he talks about creation is talking about something no one can ever know based on science and factual evidence.

The important thing that we have to take away from this is that Rambam believes that a scientific answer to how the Universe came into existence will never be demonstrated. We live in this universe, the physical one and we will never be able to extrapolate and definitely prove how it was before existence came to be. It is with this preamble in mind that we read Rambam in (MN2:25)

“Owing to the absence of all proof, we reject the theory of the Eternity of the Universe; and it is for this very reason that the noblest minds spent and will spend their days in research. For if, the Creation had been demonstrated by proof, even if only according to the Platonic hypothesis, all arguments of the philosophers against us would be of no avail. If, on the other hand, Aristotle had a proof for his theory, the whole teaching of Scripture would be rejected, and we should be forced to other opinions. I have thus shown that all depends on this question. Note it.”

Many have picked on these words of Rambam that he had an esoteric position that Aristotle was right. Some even made him out to be a hidden heretic, a precursor of Spinoza. But if read in the proper context it is clear that Rambam rejects Aristotle’s position and even Plato’s Materia Prima theory as conjectures that can never be proven. The answer to the question is therefore relegated to religion and revelation. It is a matter of accepting a position taught by prophecy without worrying that it can ever be disproved. We can confidently accept it.

Clearly, this confirms Rabbeinu Avraham rejection of those who accused Rambam of being an Aristotelian. In an upcoming post, I will discuss and show how Rambam was cautious and when it came to a matter that Aristotle believed to be scientific while Rambam felt that science might one day find a different explanation, he was extremely cautious and accepted Aristotle for lack of a better explanation.

Before I leave this, Hawking in his presentation does not necessarily accept that creation from nothingness was a result of God’s will. He conjectures a merging of Einstein’s relativity and quantum physics as the explanation of how things came into being from nothing. That will still only be a theory and will also leave us with the question: was this a spontaneous singularity or a willed one. I am confident that a scientific answer is impossible.