XGH just posted on faith ( I prefer belief) http://extremegh.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-faith-noble.html and I commented as follows: (some minor editing)
פֶּתִי, יַאֲמִין לְכָל-דָּבָר
The thoughtless believeth every word
(Mishlei 14:16)
עֵדוּת יְהוָה נֶאֱמָנָה, מַחְכִּימַת פֶּתִי
the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple
(Tehilim 19:8)
The problem you have is with the "evidence". You have to clearly define what kind of evidence is required for each type of belief. Do not jump to a hasty response but think about it a little. How can one expect time dependent and physical evidence for a non-physical pre- time event like creation or actions (for that matter inaction) of such an Entity? If such evidence is unattainable and the possibility still exists, in fact there is about the same probability for it as against it, what is one to do? Go Dawkins way and say unless I have proof positive it is ridiculous or go the Jewish way and say it is something that requires serious investigation and what method do I follow in that journey?
Here is an excerpt of a letter written by Rambam to the wise men of Montpellier who asked him his opinion about astrology.
דעו רבותי, שאין ראוי לו לאדם להאמין אלא באחד משלשה דברים. הראשון דבר שתהיה עליו ראיה ברורה מדעתו של אדם כגון חכמת החשבון, וגימטריאות, ותקופות. והשני דבר שישיגנו האדם באחד מהחמש הרגשות, כגון שידע ויראה שזה שחור וזה אדום וכיוצא בזה בראית עינו. או שיטעום שזה מר וזה מתוק. או שימשש שזה חם וזה קר. או שישמע שזה קול צלול וזה קול הברה. או שיריח שזה ריח באוש וזה ריח ערב וכיוצא באלו. והשלישי דבר שיקבל אותו האדם מן הנביאים ע"ה ומן הצדיקים. וצריך האדם, שהוא בעל דעה, לחלק בדעתו גם במחשבתו כל הדברים שהוא מאמין בהם, ויאמר:
שזה האמנתי בו מפני הקבלה, וזה האמנתי בו מפני ההרגשה, וזה האמנתי בו מפני הדעה.
אבל מי שיאמין בדבר אחד שאינו משלושת המינים האלה, עליו נאמר "פתי יאמין לכל דבר" [משלי יד,טו].
Translation/Paraphrase as usual:
Know the following, my Teachers:
A person may only believe in three categories of knowledge.
The first types of belief are things that a person can prove empirically like mathematics, geometry and astronomy.
The second type of acceptable beliefs are those a person experiences with his five senses. With his eye he can verify the color of an observed object; he can taste a food if it is bitter or sweet; he can feel heat or cold; he can discern sounds whether they are clear or echoes; his olfactory sense tells him how things smell.
The third acceptable types of beliefs are those he receives from the prophets and the righteous.
A thinking person has to further identify each type of belief and categorize it properly by saying:
This I believe in because of Tradition,
This I believe in because I sense it.
This I believe in because I can prove it empirically (I know it).
However, someone who believes in things other than the above three is the person referred to in the following verse:
פֶּתִי, יַאֲמִין לְכָל-דָּבָרThe thoughtless believeth every word(Mishlei 14:16)
I understand the categorization Rambam requires of a thinking person, is done by a process of elimination. First one checks if the belief is empirically provable, if not, can it be something that we sense – in other words is it a physical reality or a concept. Only if it is the latter can one rely on tradition. Both skeptics and fundamentalists are unable to categorize things properly and this is the underlying cause of their misguided floundering when it comes to theological issues. The skeptics look for empirical proofs where none are possible or required. The fundamentalists believe that tradition supersedes reality. Both are equally in an alogical quandary.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Non Discriminatory Brachot - Blessings.
Frankel’s Rambam Ahavah finally came out a few weeks ago and it is fantastic. One of its most attractive features to me is the addition of the Pirush of Rabeinu Manoach. As I am learning Hilchot Tefilah, I came across a very interesting comment about the Berachot (blessings) Shelo Assani Goy (Akum) – Shelo Assani Aved and Shelo Assani Isha – Blessing God for not making me a gentile, a slave and a woman respectively. He explains that as we are expected to encounter one of those three in our daily endeavors, we are reminded that we are not one of them so that we should keep our distance and not become too intimate with any of them.
He says it without any sense of apologetics. I never heard this perspective and thought it quite enlightening. As I keep on saying the Rishonim were really broad – Libam Kepitcho Shel Ulam.
He says it without any sense of apologetics. I never heard this perspective and thought it quite enlightening. As I keep on saying the Rishonim were really broad – Libam Kepitcho Shel Ulam.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Is rational belief possible or are they two contradictory terms?
Isaac Franck in A Philosopher’s Harvest, Georgetown University Press, 1988 page 36 discusses how one deals rationally with Mekubalot – Beliefs that we receive through Tradition. He suggests that is what Rambam is saying in MN 1:50 when he says:
“For belief is only possible after the apprehension of a thing; it consists in the conviction that the thing apprehended has its existence beyond the mind [in reality] exactly as it is conceived in the mind.”
The way Isaac Franck puts it: He (Rambam) then proceeds to state his view on the relation between Reason and Faith in what, from a philosophico-methodological point of view, I am inclined to consider the most important passage in the Guide:
"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 the belief or for the admission of any deviation from it, then the belief is true."
In other words among the mental activities of human beings is the activity we call Belief. Through this activity we apprehend certain data. We are convinced that corresponding to our belief – state there is a belief- object which has its existence in reality exactly as it is apprehended by us. In addition to this knowledge through Belief there is knowledge through Reason. It is incumbent on us to examine all our Beliefs thoroughly in the light of Reason, and if we find them to be in conflict with reason i.e. to be absurd we must discard them.
Rambam had no patience with those who start with their beliefs and then attempt to justify these beliefs. The task as he saw it was almost the opposite. We must examine our beliefs in the light of Reason, and we must honestly attempt almost to disprove them. In the course of this process of critical examination, we may find that our beliefs are supported by Reason or by Natural Law, as in the case of the existence of God. When such support or verification is found, we of course accept it; but then the emphasis must be on Natural Law and on the scientific validity of the proof and of the ground for our belief. When Reason disproves our beliefs we must discard them as superstition.
If in the course of our thoroughgoing examinations we can find no reasonable argument for rejecting our belief, if we find that science and logic break down and cease to be relevant to the belief under consideration (e.g. Creation ab-nihilo in time), only then may we hold on to our belief with clear conscience even though we cannot supply any logical proof of its truth.
I believe that it is a very important point that needs to be made to all who try to rationally understand Judaism and its beliefs. In matters that are accepted on belief, when religion proposes an ontological explanation for an observation of a phenomenon, one must make sure it is such an explanation and not an empirically provable opinion. If it is not, one must make sure it is not in conflict with reality and only then can it be confidently accepted as true.
When we discuss what is referred to as “metaphysics”, we are talking about things that cannot ever be proven. They are outside the physical realm though they are related to it. For example if we were asked to prove empirically that God created the universe in time from nothingness, we could not do it. That question deals with something that happened at the moment when nothingness turned into something. That moment is at the exact finite instant time itself began. All we can do is see if it is not in conflict with observations that we can ascertain. If it does not conflict, we can then rely on tradition from revelation and accept it as true.
(See MN2:25 for a great read with this point in mind).
“For belief is only possible after the apprehension of a thing; it consists in the conviction that the thing apprehended has its existence beyond the mind [in reality] exactly as it is conceived in the mind.”
The way Isaac Franck puts it: He (Rambam) then proceeds to state his view on the relation between Reason and Faith in what, from a philosophico-methodological point of view, I am inclined to consider the most important passage in the Guide:
"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 the belief or for the admission of any deviation from it, then the belief is true."
In other words among the mental activities of human beings is the activity we call Belief. Through this activity we apprehend certain data. We are convinced that corresponding to our belief – state there is a belief- object which has its existence in reality exactly as it is apprehended by us. In addition to this knowledge through Belief there is knowledge through Reason. It is incumbent on us to examine all our Beliefs thoroughly in the light of Reason, and if we find them to be in conflict with reason i.e. to be absurd we must discard them.
Rambam had no patience with those who start with their beliefs and then attempt to justify these beliefs. The task as he saw it was almost the opposite. We must examine our beliefs in the light of Reason, and we must honestly attempt almost to disprove them. In the course of this process of critical examination, we may find that our beliefs are supported by Reason or by Natural Law, as in the case of the existence of God. When such support or verification is found, we of course accept it; but then the emphasis must be on Natural Law and on the scientific validity of the proof and of the ground for our belief. When Reason disproves our beliefs we must discard them as superstition.
If in the course of our thoroughgoing examinations we can find no reasonable argument for rejecting our belief, if we find that science and logic break down and cease to be relevant to the belief under consideration (e.g. Creation ab-nihilo in time), only then may we hold on to our belief with clear conscience even though we cannot supply any logical proof of its truth.
I believe that it is a very important point that needs to be made to all who try to rationally understand Judaism and its beliefs. In matters that are accepted on belief, when religion proposes an ontological explanation for an observation of a phenomenon, one must make sure it is such an explanation and not an empirically provable opinion. If it is not, one must make sure it is not in conflict with reality and only then can it be confidently accepted as true.
When we discuss what is referred to as “metaphysics”, we are talking about things that cannot ever be proven. They are outside the physical realm though they are related to it. For example if we were asked to prove empirically that God created the universe in time from nothingness, we could not do it. That question deals with something that happened at the moment when nothingness turned into something. That moment is at the exact finite instant time itself began. All we can do is see if it is not in conflict with observations that we can ascertain. If it does not conflict, we can then rely on tradition from revelation and accept it as true.
(See MN2:25 for a great read with this point in mind).
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Is the Law Evolutionary? Part1 - Some sources.
A close friend gave two Shiurim this Shavuot, one at midnight which I missed as I was in bed sleeping the other between Mincha and Ma’ariv which I attended. However I got a synopsis of the one I missed which is related to the second one. It got me thinking about a few issues that were touched on in comments here and elsewhere. It is a long discussion so I will break it up in several posts.
First a few sources -
Rambam in Hilchot Melachim Umilchamotehem 9:1 writes:
א על שישה דברים נצטווה אדם הראשון--על עבודה זרה, ועל ברכת השם, ועל שפיכות דמים, ועל גילוי עריות, ועל הגזל, ועל הדינים.
ב אף על פי שכולן קבלה הן בידינו ממשה רבנו, והדעת נוטה להן, מכלל דברי התורה, ייראה שעל אלו נצטוו. הוסיף לנוח אבר מן החי, שנאמר "אך בשר, בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו" (בראשית ט,ד); נמצאו שבע מצוות.
ג וכן היה הדבר בכל העולם, עד אברהם נצטווה יתר על אלו במילה, והוא התפלל שחרית. ויצחק הפריש מעשר, והוסיף תפילה אחרת לפנות היום. ויעקוב הוסיף גיד הנשה, והתפלל ערבית. ובמצריים נצטווה עמרם במצוות יתרות, עד שבא משה רבנו ונשלמה תורה על ידו.
As usual my paraphrase/translation/interspersed with my comment/explanation:
The First Man received six commandments – five are negative- that he should not do: Idol worship – cursing God – murder – promiscuity – robbery.
One is a positive commandment: to set up a legal system.
Although all were transmitted to us from Moshe Rabeinu and are also logical, it would seem from the general words of the Torah that these were the ones that man was commanded. [In other words, reading carefully the words in the Torah, one can conclude that early man was commanded to follow these six laws]. Noach added to humankind the prohibition to eat a limb from a living animal as it says “but meat, that its blood is still alive in it, you shall not eat”. That adds up to seven Mitzvot.
And so things continued in the world until Avraham was given additional commandments. He was ordered to perform the Mila (circumcision) and he prayed Shacharit (the Morning Prayer). Yitzchak teethed and added the prayer of Mincha (afternoon). Yaakov added the prohibition to eat Gid Hanashe (sinew of the thigh) and prayed Ma’ariv (evening prayer). In Egypt Amram received additional Mitzvot until Moshe came on the scene and the Torah was completed.
Reading this presentation we get a sense of an evolutionary process where laws are promulgated by different generations and people all this culminating with a final burst of legislation when Moshe arrived.
Rambam in Pirush Hamishna on Chulin chapter 7:6 writes:
פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת חולין פרק ז משנה ו
ושים לבך לכלל הגדול הזה המובא במשנה זו והוא אמרם מסיני נאסר, והוא, שאתה צריך לדעת שכל מה שאנו נזהרים ממנו או עושים אותו היום אין אנו עושים זאת אלא מפני צווי ה' על ידי משה, לא מפני שה' צוה בכך לנביאים שקדמוהו, דוגמא לכך, אין אנו אוכלים אבר מן החי לא מפני שה' אסר על בני נח אבר מן החי, אלא מפני שמשה אסר עלינו אבר מן החי במה שנצטווה בסיני שישאר אבר מן החי אסור. וכן אין אנו מלים בגלל שאברהם מל את עצמו ואנשי ביתו, אלא מפני שה' צונו על ידי משה להמול כמו שמל אברהם עליו השלום, וכן גיד הנשה אין אנו נמשכים בו אחרי אסור יעקב אבינו אלא צווי משה רבינו, הלא תראה אמרם שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות נאמרו לו למשה בסיני, וכל אלה מכלל המצות.
Pay attention to the great rule mentioned in this Mishna when the rabbis said [Gid Hanashe] was forbidden at Sinai. You need to know that all we are prohibited from doing or ordered to do nowadays; we follow those directives only because God gave them to Moshe. It is not because prophets that preceded him were ordered. For example, we do not refrain from eating a limb from a living animal because God prohibited the children of Noach from eating it. Rather it is because Moshe prohibited us from eating it when ordered at Sinai. Likewise we do not circumcise because Avraham did so for himself and the members of his family, but because ordered us through Moshe to emulate what Avraham our Father did. Likewise Gid Hanashe, we do not follow the prohibition that was placed on it at the time of Yaakov but rather because of the order given to Moshe. Proof is that there are 613 Mitzvot which Moshe received at Sinai and these are included.
This statement though not contradictory is not exactly the same as saying that it is an evolutionary process. Rather we get the sense that although traditionally these things were part of the praxis, they would not automatically remain unless sanctioned by Moshe at Sinai.
MN 2:39 we read-
“According to what is written in Scripture and handed down by tradition, the fact may be explained in the following way: There were prophets before Moses, as the patriarchs Shem, Ever, Noah, Methuselah, and Enoch, but of these none said to any portion of mankind that God sent him to them and commanded him to convey to them a certain message or to prohibit or to command a certain thing. Such a thing is not related in Scripture, or in authentic tradition. … Abraham did not tell the people that God had sent him to them with the command concerning certain things which should or should not be done. Even when it was commanded that he, his sons, and his servants should be circumcised, he fulfilled that commandment, but he did not address his fellow men prophetically on this subject... Also Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kehat, and Amram influenced their fellow men in the same way. Our Sages, when speaking of prophets before Moses, used expressions like the following: The bet-din (court of justice) of Ever, the bet-din of Methuselah, and in the college of Methuselah; although all these were prophets, yet they taught their fellow-men in the manner of preachers, teachers, and pedagogues, but did not use such phrases as the following: "And God said to me, Speak to certain people so and so." This was the state of prophecy before Moses.”
This text implies that until Moshe there was a group of people who voluntarily kept certain Mitzvot. It was at Sinai that it became obligatory.
In a letter to R. Yosef Ibn J’bar (Sheilat edition page 410-411) responding to an attack by some of Rambam’s detractors that he mistakenly holds that Moshe is the one who gave us the Mitzvah of Mila (circumcision) while Rambam himself in Hil Mila 3:9 writes that Avraham was given 13 treaties with God when commanded to perform it. He explains that although the commandment of circumcision was written in its place when the story of Avraham is recounted in the Torah, we keep it only after it was given to us in Sinai. Now comes a very interesting comment:
“We should ask these blind people who are trying to compete with those who can see (!) ‘Is it possible that the verses that contain the 13 words Brit (treaty – from where we learn that God made these treaties with Avraham) were told to Avraham who then wrote them down; Moshe found those texts and copied them into the Torah, just like plagiarists copy the words and poems of others? Or is it rather that God told Moshe these verses? For anyone who does not believe that these verses, together with the rest of the torah, was not given to Moshe – is among those who do not accept torah min Hashamayim. For how else would we know, or would Moshe know, what was told to Avraham at the time he was commanded the mitzvah of Mila? The only way we know it is because Moshe gave us the Torah at Sinai, therefore the obligation to us stems from Moshe and it is from him that we heard about the 13 Treaties based on what God told him. This is clear to all but those who have not learned the roots of the Law and wasted their whole life in the branches (!). [He is referring to the rabbis of his time, similar to many of our days who are only interested in the minutia of the law without paying any attention to the underlying theology]. There is no difference in our Torah; it is all given to us by Moshe based on what he received from God. Whatever it contains that refers to his predecessors, like the seven Mitzvot of the Bnei Noach and Mila to Avraham, we, the congregation of Yaakov, do not accept it because it is an old praxis, but rather because of the last commandment to us directly.”
These sources so far present us with an interesting and a little confusing picture. We start with what seems to be an historical and evolutionary presentation followed by sharp comments about Sinaitic legitimization. The last quote expands on how we are required to understand the sources of the Torah. Even when it refers to events that precede it, only prophecy, Moshe’s prophecy, legitimizes it. Copying sources is seen as plagiarism. So much for DH as a possible acceptable doctrine!
There are a few more discussions in Rambam about this matter. I will address them and put what we have here into a proper context in upcoming posts. In the meantime please feel free to interject and share your thoughts with me.
First a few sources -
Rambam in Hilchot Melachim Umilchamotehem 9:1 writes:
א על שישה דברים נצטווה אדם הראשון--על עבודה זרה, ועל ברכת השם, ועל שפיכות דמים, ועל גילוי עריות, ועל הגזל, ועל הדינים.
ב אף על פי שכולן קבלה הן בידינו ממשה רבנו, והדעת נוטה להן, מכלל דברי התורה, ייראה שעל אלו נצטוו. הוסיף לנוח אבר מן החי, שנאמר "אך בשר, בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו" (בראשית ט,ד); נמצאו שבע מצוות.
ג וכן היה הדבר בכל העולם, עד אברהם נצטווה יתר על אלו במילה, והוא התפלל שחרית. ויצחק הפריש מעשר, והוסיף תפילה אחרת לפנות היום. ויעקוב הוסיף גיד הנשה, והתפלל ערבית. ובמצריים נצטווה עמרם במצוות יתרות, עד שבא משה רבנו ונשלמה תורה על ידו.
As usual my paraphrase/translation/interspersed with my comment/explanation:
The First Man received six commandments – five are negative- that he should not do: Idol worship – cursing God – murder – promiscuity – robbery.
One is a positive commandment: to set up a legal system.
Although all were transmitted to us from Moshe Rabeinu and are also logical, it would seem from the general words of the Torah that these were the ones that man was commanded. [In other words, reading carefully the words in the Torah, one can conclude that early man was commanded to follow these six laws]. Noach added to humankind the prohibition to eat a limb from a living animal as it says “but meat, that its blood is still alive in it, you shall not eat”. That adds up to seven Mitzvot.
And so things continued in the world until Avraham was given additional commandments. He was ordered to perform the Mila (circumcision) and he prayed Shacharit (the Morning Prayer). Yitzchak teethed and added the prayer of Mincha (afternoon). Yaakov added the prohibition to eat Gid Hanashe (sinew of the thigh) and prayed Ma’ariv (evening prayer). In Egypt Amram received additional Mitzvot until Moshe came on the scene and the Torah was completed.
Reading this presentation we get a sense of an evolutionary process where laws are promulgated by different generations and people all this culminating with a final burst of legislation when Moshe arrived.
Rambam in Pirush Hamishna on Chulin chapter 7:6 writes:
פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת חולין פרק ז משנה ו
ושים לבך לכלל הגדול הזה המובא במשנה זו והוא אמרם מסיני נאסר, והוא, שאתה צריך לדעת שכל מה שאנו נזהרים ממנו או עושים אותו היום אין אנו עושים זאת אלא מפני צווי ה' על ידי משה, לא מפני שה' צוה בכך לנביאים שקדמוהו, דוגמא לכך, אין אנו אוכלים אבר מן החי לא מפני שה' אסר על בני נח אבר מן החי, אלא מפני שמשה אסר עלינו אבר מן החי במה שנצטווה בסיני שישאר אבר מן החי אסור. וכן אין אנו מלים בגלל שאברהם מל את עצמו ואנשי ביתו, אלא מפני שה' צונו על ידי משה להמול כמו שמל אברהם עליו השלום, וכן גיד הנשה אין אנו נמשכים בו אחרי אסור יעקב אבינו אלא צווי משה רבינו, הלא תראה אמרם שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות נאמרו לו למשה בסיני, וכל אלה מכלל המצות.
Pay attention to the great rule mentioned in this Mishna when the rabbis said [Gid Hanashe] was forbidden at Sinai. You need to know that all we are prohibited from doing or ordered to do nowadays; we follow those directives only because God gave them to Moshe. It is not because prophets that preceded him were ordered. For example, we do not refrain from eating a limb from a living animal because God prohibited the children of Noach from eating it. Rather it is because Moshe prohibited us from eating it when ordered at Sinai. Likewise we do not circumcise because Avraham did so for himself and the members of his family, but because ordered us through Moshe to emulate what Avraham our Father did. Likewise Gid Hanashe, we do not follow the prohibition that was placed on it at the time of Yaakov but rather because of the order given to Moshe. Proof is that there are 613 Mitzvot which Moshe received at Sinai and these are included.
This statement though not contradictory is not exactly the same as saying that it is an evolutionary process. Rather we get the sense that although traditionally these things were part of the praxis, they would not automatically remain unless sanctioned by Moshe at Sinai.
MN 2:39 we read-
“According to what is written in Scripture and handed down by tradition, the fact may be explained in the following way: There were prophets before Moses, as the patriarchs Shem, Ever, Noah, Methuselah, and Enoch, but of these none said to any portion of mankind that God sent him to them and commanded him to convey to them a certain message or to prohibit or to command a certain thing. Such a thing is not related in Scripture, or in authentic tradition. … Abraham did not tell the people that God had sent him to them with the command concerning certain things which should or should not be done. Even when it was commanded that he, his sons, and his servants should be circumcised, he fulfilled that commandment, but he did not address his fellow men prophetically on this subject... Also Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kehat, and Amram influenced their fellow men in the same way. Our Sages, when speaking of prophets before Moses, used expressions like the following: The bet-din (court of justice) of Ever, the bet-din of Methuselah, and in the college of Methuselah; although all these were prophets, yet they taught their fellow-men in the manner of preachers, teachers, and pedagogues, but did not use such phrases as the following: "And God said to me, Speak to certain people so and so." This was the state of prophecy before Moses.”
This text implies that until Moshe there was a group of people who voluntarily kept certain Mitzvot. It was at Sinai that it became obligatory.
In a letter to R. Yosef Ibn J’bar (Sheilat edition page 410-411) responding to an attack by some of Rambam’s detractors that he mistakenly holds that Moshe is the one who gave us the Mitzvah of Mila (circumcision) while Rambam himself in Hil Mila 3:9 writes that Avraham was given 13 treaties with God when commanded to perform it. He explains that although the commandment of circumcision was written in its place when the story of Avraham is recounted in the Torah, we keep it only after it was given to us in Sinai. Now comes a very interesting comment:
“We should ask these blind people who are trying to compete with those who can see (!) ‘Is it possible that the verses that contain the 13 words Brit (treaty – from where we learn that God made these treaties with Avraham) were told to Avraham who then wrote them down; Moshe found those texts and copied them into the Torah, just like plagiarists copy the words and poems of others? Or is it rather that God told Moshe these verses? For anyone who does not believe that these verses, together with the rest of the torah, was not given to Moshe – is among those who do not accept torah min Hashamayim. For how else would we know, or would Moshe know, what was told to Avraham at the time he was commanded the mitzvah of Mila? The only way we know it is because Moshe gave us the Torah at Sinai, therefore the obligation to us stems from Moshe and it is from him that we heard about the 13 Treaties based on what God told him. This is clear to all but those who have not learned the roots of the Law and wasted their whole life in the branches (!). [He is referring to the rabbis of his time, similar to many of our days who are only interested in the minutia of the law without paying any attention to the underlying theology]. There is no difference in our Torah; it is all given to us by Moshe based on what he received from God. Whatever it contains that refers to his predecessors, like the seven Mitzvot of the Bnei Noach and Mila to Avraham, we, the congregation of Yaakov, do not accept it because it is an old praxis, but rather because of the last commandment to us directly.”
These sources so far present us with an interesting and a little confusing picture. We start with what seems to be an historical and evolutionary presentation followed by sharp comments about Sinaitic legitimization. The last quote expands on how we are required to understand the sources of the Torah. Even when it refers to events that precede it, only prophecy, Moshe’s prophecy, legitimizes it. Copying sources is seen as plagiarism. So much for DH as a possible acceptable doctrine!
There are a few more discussions in Rambam about this matter. I will address them and put what we have here into a proper context in upcoming posts. In the meantime please feel free to interject and share your thoughts with me.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Why in the Cemetery? - Meiri on Prayer.
Rabbi Menachem Meiri (1249-c.1310) was a famous Talmudist and Halachist . (Courtesy of Answers.com)
What is fascinating about the Meiri is that his works were lost to us for centuries and were discovered a little more than a century ago. He was one of the great Rabbanim in Provence, a contemporary of Rashba and Rosh. He was an opponent of Rashba’s ban on learning philosophy which was promoted by his colleague Rabbi Aba Mari. The latter wrote Minchat Kena’ot which discusses the whole controversy. Professor Moshe Halbertal in his Bein Torah Lachochma conjectures that there was an informal ban imposed by the followers of Rashba on all writings from Provence which explains the disappearance of many of their sefarim. In fact Professor Kreisel has recently published two – Ma’aseh Nissim on Torah miracles by Rabbi Nissim of Marseilles and Livyat Chen by Rabbi Levi ben Avraham, a correspondent of Rashba and possibly a Rebbi of Meiri.
The following is a Translation/Paraphrase of a selection of the Meiri in Chibur Hateshuvah on prayer. (Pages 505 – 507 in the Kedem edition).
After explaining that prayer consists of both a petitionary and contemplative component:
The other type of prayer, the contemplative, which is the primary in importance, consists of repeating God’s praises and his wonderful and great acts. The goal is that by paying attention to the words a person perfects himself by attaching himself to God and follow in his ways. That is the meaning in the first and last three benedictions in the Amidah… There is a mistaken concept that has been accepted that there is profit in praying to the souls of the dead relying on the Gemara (Ta’anit 16a)”why in the cemetery [do they go there during a drought]? So that they should pray for us”. Rambam (Hilchot Ta’aniyot 4:18) already explained that the meaning is that we should contemplate and see ourselves dead like those buried here unless we repent. Some ignorant people believe that one person can pray for the many. [Similarly] that is not the concept behind the Chazzan (Shaliach Tzibur) who says the prayer loud so that those who are not well versed are included. The concept is rather as having the Chazzan seen as the leader who by example teaches the people how to repent. He shows those who are not well versed how one changes his ways by emulating him. That is why it is important that the Chazzan be a decent person especially during the days that are dedicated to contemplation such as the holy Days and Fast Days.
How different is the Meiri’s take on what prayer is and what it is meant to accomplish from the popular misconceptions of our times.
What is fascinating about the Meiri is that his works were lost to us for centuries and were discovered a little more than a century ago. He was one of the great Rabbanim in Provence, a contemporary of Rashba and Rosh. He was an opponent of Rashba’s ban on learning philosophy which was promoted by his colleague Rabbi Aba Mari. The latter wrote Minchat Kena’ot which discusses the whole controversy. Professor Moshe Halbertal in his Bein Torah Lachochma conjectures that there was an informal ban imposed by the followers of Rashba on all writings from Provence which explains the disappearance of many of their sefarim. In fact Professor Kreisel has recently published two – Ma’aseh Nissim on Torah miracles by Rabbi Nissim of Marseilles and Livyat Chen by Rabbi Levi ben Avraham, a correspondent of Rashba and possibly a Rebbi of Meiri.
The following is a Translation/Paraphrase of a selection of the Meiri in Chibur Hateshuvah on prayer. (Pages 505 – 507 in the Kedem edition).
After explaining that prayer consists of both a petitionary and contemplative component:
The other type of prayer, the contemplative, which is the primary in importance, consists of repeating God’s praises and his wonderful and great acts. The goal is that by paying attention to the words a person perfects himself by attaching himself to God and follow in his ways. That is the meaning in the first and last three benedictions in the Amidah… There is a mistaken concept that has been accepted that there is profit in praying to the souls of the dead relying on the Gemara (Ta’anit 16a)”why in the cemetery [do they go there during a drought]? So that they should pray for us”. Rambam (Hilchot Ta’aniyot 4:18) already explained that the meaning is that we should contemplate and see ourselves dead like those buried here unless we repent. Some ignorant people believe that one person can pray for the many. [Similarly] that is not the concept behind the Chazzan (Shaliach Tzibur) who says the prayer loud so that those who are not well versed are included. The concept is rather as having the Chazzan seen as the leader who by example teaches the people how to repent. He shows those who are not well versed how one changes his ways by emulating him. That is why it is important that the Chazzan be a decent person especially during the days that are dedicated to contemplation such as the holy Days and Fast Days.
How different is the Meiri’s take on what prayer is and what it is meant to accomplish from the popular misconceptions of our times.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
How does one rejoice? Vesamachta Bechagecha.
I am extremely busy working on a project and have not had time to write a post. However I feel that I have to start getting myself into the Shavuot mood so here are a few thoughts.
In MN 3:43 after discussing Yom Kippur Rambam explains the reason for Chag in general as follows:
Other holy days are all for rejoicing and for such pleasurable gatherings, which in most cases are indispensable for man. They also promote friendship that men should have to each other in their social and political relations.
In Hilchot Yom Tov 6:18 we are told how this rejoicing and practical gathering is put into practice.
[יח] כיצד: הקטנים, נותן להם קליות ואגוזים ומגדנות; והנשים, קונה להן בגדים ותכשיט כפי ממונו; והאנשים, אוכלין בשר ושותין יין, שאין שמחה אלא בבשר, ואין שמחה אלא ביין. וכשהוא אוכל ושותה, חייב להאכיל לגר ליתום ולאלמנה עם שאר העניים האמיללים. אבל מי שנועל דלתות חצרו ואוכל ושותה הוא ובניו ואשתו, ואינו מאכיל ומשקה לעניים ולמרי נפש--אין זו שמחת מצוה, אלא שמחת כרסו.
Paraphrase/Translation:
To the children one should give them candies (literally: Roasted wheat, nuts and sweets) to the wives, one should buy them clothing and a piece of jewelry, each according to his abilities. Men eat meat and drink wine, for there is no rejoicing except with wine. When one eats and drinks one must also feed the convert, the orphan and the widow together with the other unfortunate poor people. For someone who closes his doors, drinks and eats with his wife and children, and does not feed the poor and the bitter souls, it is not a rejoicing that is considered to be a Mitzvah, but the rejoicing of his belly.
And as we mentioned eating and drinking, as usual there is a cautionary note.
כשאדם אוכל ושותה ושמח ברגל, לא יימשך ביין ובשחוק ובקלות ראש ויאמר שכל שיוסיף בזה ירבה במצוה, שהשכרות והשחוק הרבה וקלות הראש, אינה שמחה אלא הוללות וסכלות. ולא נצטווינו על ההוללות והסכלות, אלא על השמחה שיש בה עבודת יוצר הכול, שנאמר "תחת, אשר לא עבדת את ה' אלוהיך, בשמחה, ובטוב לבב"
, הא למדת שהעבודה בשמחה. ואי אפשר לעבוד את ה'--לא מתוך שחוק, ולא מתוך קלות ראש, ולא מתוך שכרות.
When a person eats and drinks on the Chag, he should not let himself be pulled along with wine, laughter and lightheadedness assuming that as it is a Mitzvah, the more the better. Drunkenness and lightheadedness [lack of seriousness] are not rejoicing but stupidity. We were not commanded to act stupidly! We are told to rejoice in a way that is a service to the Creator. The verse says [the reason you are punished is] because you did not serve God with rejoicing and a good heart (Devarim 28:47). We see from this that rejoicing is seen as service. It is impossible to serve God through laughter, lightheadedness and drunkenness.
So what is rejoicing?
Hil Lulav 8:15
שהשמחה שישמח אדם בעשיית המצוות ובאהבת האל שציווה בהן, עבודה גדולה היא; וכל המונע עצמו משמחה זו, ראוי להיפרע ממנו, שנאמר "תחת, אשר לא עבדת את ה' אלוהיך, בשמחה, ובטוב לבב
After describing the special rejoicing that occurred in the Beit Hamikdash on Sukkoth where only the leaders and the sages partook in the dancing while the people watched, Rambam explains:
For the rejoicing a person experiences when he performs Mitzvot and in his love of God who ordered him to do them, is a great Service. Whoever refuses to rejoice is worthy of punishment …
I believe the addition here of the “his love of God who ordered him to do them” is the key. Love of God to Rambam is synonymous with knowing God. It is only through knowledge that one can love Him just like one can only love a spouse when there is intimacy between the couple.[1] Doing the Mitzvah and meditating about why I am doing it, who ordered me to do it, who that entity is and remembering to continue in the quest to find and know Him, brings about an intellectual high. That is the real joy that Yom Tov is supposed to bring about. The good food and the wine are the props that help us get into the right frame of mind to concentrate on the existential questions we face all our lives.
Chag Sameach.
[1] See Hilchot Teshuvah 10:6 and Ra’avad gloss there.
In MN 3:43 after discussing Yom Kippur Rambam explains the reason for Chag in general as follows:
Other holy days are all for rejoicing and for such pleasurable gatherings, which in most cases are indispensable for man. They also promote friendship that men should have to each other in their social and political relations.
In Hilchot Yom Tov 6:18 we are told how this rejoicing and practical gathering is put into practice.
[יח] כיצד: הקטנים, נותן להם קליות ואגוזים ומגדנות; והנשים, קונה להן בגדים ותכשיט כפי ממונו; והאנשים, אוכלין בשר ושותין יין, שאין שמחה אלא בבשר, ואין שמחה אלא ביין. וכשהוא אוכל ושותה, חייב להאכיל לגר ליתום ולאלמנה עם שאר העניים האמיללים. אבל מי שנועל דלתות חצרו ואוכל ושותה הוא ובניו ואשתו, ואינו מאכיל ומשקה לעניים ולמרי נפש--אין זו שמחת מצוה, אלא שמחת כרסו.
Paraphrase/Translation:
To the children one should give them candies (literally: Roasted wheat, nuts and sweets) to the wives, one should buy them clothing and a piece of jewelry, each according to his abilities. Men eat meat and drink wine, for there is no rejoicing except with wine. When one eats and drinks one must also feed the convert, the orphan and the widow together with the other unfortunate poor people. For someone who closes his doors, drinks and eats with his wife and children, and does not feed the poor and the bitter souls, it is not a rejoicing that is considered to be a Mitzvah, but the rejoicing of his belly.
And as we mentioned eating and drinking, as usual there is a cautionary note.
כשאדם אוכל ושותה ושמח ברגל, לא יימשך ביין ובשחוק ובקלות ראש ויאמר שכל שיוסיף בזה ירבה במצוה, שהשכרות והשחוק הרבה וקלות הראש, אינה שמחה אלא הוללות וסכלות. ולא נצטווינו על ההוללות והסכלות, אלא על השמחה שיש בה עבודת יוצר הכול, שנאמר "תחת, אשר לא עבדת את ה' אלוהיך, בשמחה, ובטוב לבב"
, הא למדת שהעבודה בשמחה. ואי אפשר לעבוד את ה'--לא מתוך שחוק, ולא מתוך קלות ראש, ולא מתוך שכרות.
When a person eats and drinks on the Chag, he should not let himself be pulled along with wine, laughter and lightheadedness assuming that as it is a Mitzvah, the more the better. Drunkenness and lightheadedness [lack of seriousness] are not rejoicing but stupidity. We were not commanded to act stupidly! We are told to rejoice in a way that is a service to the Creator. The verse says [the reason you are punished is] because you did not serve God with rejoicing and a good heart (Devarim 28:47). We see from this that rejoicing is seen as service. It is impossible to serve God through laughter, lightheadedness and drunkenness.
So what is rejoicing?
Hil Lulav 8:15
שהשמחה שישמח אדם בעשיית המצוות ובאהבת האל שציווה בהן, עבודה גדולה היא; וכל המונע עצמו משמחה זו, ראוי להיפרע ממנו, שנאמר "תחת, אשר לא עבדת את ה' אלוהיך, בשמחה, ובטוב לבב
After describing the special rejoicing that occurred in the Beit Hamikdash on Sukkoth where only the leaders and the sages partook in the dancing while the people watched, Rambam explains:
For the rejoicing a person experiences when he performs Mitzvot and in his love of God who ordered him to do them, is a great Service. Whoever refuses to rejoice is worthy of punishment …
I believe the addition here of the “his love of God who ordered him to do them” is the key. Love of God to Rambam is synonymous with knowing God. It is only through knowledge that one can love Him just like one can only love a spouse when there is intimacy between the couple.[1] Doing the Mitzvah and meditating about why I am doing it, who ordered me to do it, who that entity is and remembering to continue in the quest to find and know Him, brings about an intellectual high. That is the real joy that Yom Tov is supposed to bring about. The good food and the wine are the props that help us get into the right frame of mind to concentrate on the existential questions we face all our lives.
Chag Sameach.
[1] See Hilchot Teshuvah 10:6 and Ra’avad gloss there.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Harav Chaim Kanievsky on Rambam Hilchot Zera'im - a very useful Sefer
I am learning currently with a Chavruta Rambam Hilchot Kilayim and Rav Moshe Chodosh during a visit recommended to me Derech Emunah by Harav Chaim Kanievsky. It is excellent. Although he is not a Ba’al mechadesh, he has taken the commentaries of the Rishonim, especially his uncle the Chazon Ish’s work on Zeraim and written a concise synopsis of all that is pertinent to the understanding of the Halacha. In the Mishna Berurah style, it is composed of three sections written around Rambam’s Mishne Torah. Derech Emunah is the explanation; Bi'ur Halacha discusses the source and reasoning behind the more complex discussions and Tziyun Hahalacha contains the references for the sources.
Like I said there is not much of Rav Chaim’s own Hidushim in there but it is a great help and a starting point from where to go deeper into the Halachot. Anybody that has tried to work directly with the Chazon Ish knows how difficult it is and requires time. Furthermore the organization of CI is by subject which can take one all over Shas. I highly recommend this sefer to anyone that decides to learn Zeraim. .
There is a separate volume that contains notes and references. I have not yet had a chance to delve into it. When I do I plan to share my impressions.
Like I said there is not much of Rav Chaim’s own Hidushim in there but it is a great help and a starting point from where to go deeper into the Halachot. Anybody that has tried to work directly with the Chazon Ish knows how difficult it is and requires time. Furthermore the organization of CI is by subject which can take one all over Shas. I highly recommend this sefer to anyone that decides to learn Zeraim. .
There is a separate volume that contains notes and references. I have not yet had a chance to delve into it. When I do I plan to share my impressions.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Who needs Doctors? Malpractice,Amulets and Faith.
In last week’s Parsha on the verse
יא וְנָתַתִּי מִשְׁכָּנִי, בְּתוֹכְכֶם; וְלֹא-תִגְעַל נַפְשִׁי, אֶתְכֶם.
11 And I will set My tabernacle among you, and My soul shall not abhor you.
[1]Ramban in a long comment discusses the meaning of these promised blessings. Basing it on his general understanding of Providence where everything is the result of hidden miracles[2]. He then goes on to say that doctors are not needed for the righteous.
רמב"ן ויקרא פרק כו פסוק יא
והכלל כי בהיות ישראל שלמים והם רבים, לא יתנהג ענינם בטבע כלל, לא בגופם, ולא בארצם, לא בכללם, ולא ביחיד מהם, כי יברך השם לחמם ומימם, ויסיר מחלה מקרבם, עד שלא יצטרכו לרופא ולהשתמר בדרך מדרכי הרפואות כלל, כמו שאמר (שמות טו כו) כי אני ה' רופאך. וכן היו הצדיקים עושים בזמן הנבואה, גם כי יקרם עון שיחלו לא ידרשו ברופאים רק בנביאים…
אבל הדורש השם בנביא לא ידרוש ברופאים. ומה חלק לרופאים בבית עושי רצון השם, אחר שהבטיח וברך את לחמך ואת מימיך והסירותי מחלה מקרבך…:
וזו היא כונתם באמרם (שם) ורפא ירפא מכאן שנתנה רשות לרופא לרפאות, לא אמרו שנתנה רשות לחולה להתרפאות, אלא כיון שחלה החולה ובא להתרפאות כי נהג ברפואות והוא לא היה מעדת השם שחלקם בחיים, אין לרופא לאסור עצמו מרפואתו, לא מפני חשש שמא ימות בידו, אחרי שהוא בקי במלאכה ההיא, ולא בעבור שיאמר כי השם לבדו הוא רופא כל בשר, שכבר נהגו. .... אבל ברצות השם דרכי איש אין לו עסק ברופאים:
My usual Paraphrase/translation/comments.
When the majority of Israel is perfect, they are not controlled by nature. That is so with their bodies, their land, as a group or as individuals, for God will bless their food and water and remove illness from among them so that they will not need doctors. They will also not need to follow medical practices as God Himself is their doctor. The righteous did thus at the time of prophecy, when, due to a sin, they did get sick, they did not turn to doctors but the prophets…
Someone who can ask God through a prophet will not turn to doctors. What place do doctors have in the house of those who do God’s will who promised that “He will bless your bread and water and remove sickness from among you”?...When the Rabbis say “Heal he shall” from here we see that a doctor may [is permitted to] heal, they do not say that the sick person may heal himself, rather they say the if one chooses to go to doctors, because he is not among the righteous, a doctor should not refuse to treat him. The doctor does not have to worry about possible malpractice liabilities because he is an expert. He also should not refuse because God heals all flesh, as it is customary to go to doctors! [These last words are fascinating – the only reason to go to a doctor is because it is a minhag!]… But when God approves of a person’s deeds he has no use for doctors.
Ramban is saying that sin is the cause of sickness. Repentance alone and getting close to God negates the need for doctors. Every time I read this I am amazed as Ramban made a living as a doctor. Apparently with the medicine of his time in Christian Spain a sick person was better off ignoring doctors and relying on natural healing! I remember reading that wealthy people during the renaissance had a shorter life span than the poor. The rich could afford doctors who killed them while the poor could not.
The Mishna in Pessachim says that Chizkyahu hid the Sefer Harefuot.
פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת פסחים פרק ד משנה י
הלכה זו היא תוספתא, אבל ראיתי לפרשה ג"כ לפי שיש בה תועליות. ספר רפואות, היה ספר שהיה בו סדר רפואות במה שאין מן הדין להתרפות בו, כגון מה שמדמין בעלי "הטלסמאת" שאם עושין "טלסם" בסדר מסוים מועיל לחולי פלוני וכיוצא בזה מדברים האסורים, ומחברו לא חברו אלא על דרך הלימוד בטבעי המציאות לא כדי להשתמש במשהו ממה שנכלל בו, וזה מותר כמו שיתבאר לך שדברים שהזהיר ה' מלעשותם מותר ללמדם ולדעת אותם, כי ה' אמר לא תלמד לעשות ובא בקבלה אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות. וכאשר קלקלו בני אדם ונתרפאו בו גנזו. ואפשר שהיה ספר שיש בו הרכבת סמים המזיקין כגון סם פלוני מרכיבין אותו כך, ומשקין אותו כך, וגורם למחלה זו וזו, ורפואתו בכך וכך, שכשיראה הרופא אותם המחלות ידע שסם פלוני השקוהו ונותן לו דברים נגדיים שיצילוהו, וכאשר קלקלו בני אדם והיו הורגין בו גנזו. ולא הארכתי לדבר בענין זה אלא מפני ששמעתי וגם פירשו לי ששלמה חבר ספר רפואות שאם חלה אדם באיזו מחלה שהיא פנה אליו ועשה כמו שהוא אומר ומתרפא, וראה חזקיה שלא היו בני אדם בוטחים בה' במחלותיהם אלא על ספר הרפואות, עמד וגנזו. ומלבד אפסות דבר זה ומה שיש בו מן ההזיות, הנה ייחסו לחזקיה ולסיעתו שהודו לו סכלות שאין ליחס דוגמתה אלא לגרועים שבהמון. ולפי דמיונם המשובש והמטופש אם רעב אדם ופנה אל הלחם ואכלו שמתרפא מאותו הצער הגדול בלי ספק, האם נאמר שהסיר בטחונו מה', והוי שוטים יאמר להם, כי כמו שאני מודה לה' בעת האוכל שהמציא לי דבר להסיר רעבוני ולהחיותני ולקיימני, כך נודה לו על שהמציא רפואה המרפאה את מחלתי כשאשתמש בה. ולא הייתי צריך לסתור פירוש זה הגרוע לולי פרסומו.
Rough Paraphrase:
Rambam proposes two possibilities for why this book of medicines was hidden. Either it was a book of talismans which someone had written as a report of what people did. Although it is forbidden to use the talismans one may learn about them so that one may rule about what is permissible and not. [I understand that he is referring to the need of members of Sanhedrin to know all about Avodah Zara so they can recognize it when a case comes to them]. As people started using it Chizkyahu decided to hide it away.
The other possibility is that it contained a list of poisons and their antidote. It was useful for doctors to know how to treat patients who developed symptoms that suggested they had ingested those poisons. As people started using it to kill others he decided to hide it.
Rambam then continues that the reason he is talking about this at length is that he has seen wrong interpretations of this Mishna. Some understood that this book was written by Shlomo and it contained very efficient medicines. As people relied on this rather than God Chizkyahu decided to hide it. Besides the nonsense and imaginings that go into this opinion they also attribute to Chizkyahu and his followers stupidity that only the lowest of the masses could be expected to be so stupid. Furthermore how can the Rabbis praise such stupidity?! According to this ignorant and idiotic [Rambam’s words not mine] thinking, a hungry person who turns to bread and eats it has lost his faith in God? O idiots shall they be called! For just like I thank God for the food he gave me so do I thank Him for providing me with medicines to heal me from my sickness! I had to debunk this wrong understanding because of how widely it is accepted!
I am not sure that Ramban would not agree with Rambam that Chizkyahu would not hide a good medicine book, but Rambam certainly does not agree with Ramban that a righteous man does not turn to natural healing methods. On the contrary, he takes the medicines and thanks God for having provided them. That is Avodat Hashem!
I just find it fascinating contrasting the opinions of these two greats. Whose opinion won out into our times? I heard this anecdote about the Steipler that during the last few years of his life he refused to see a doctor repeating the Ramban statement - ומה חלק לרופאים בבית עושי רצון השם. I am not sure how true this story is but just the telling is indicative of the current state of mind of the community.
[1] Art scroll translates; וְלֹא-תִגְעַל נַפְשִׁי, אֶתְכֶם. My spirit will not reject you which agrees with Ramban reading of it. He explains the rejection that after death the soul will not require transmigration (Gilgul). That is a separate discussion. To Ramban it is central in his understanding of reward and punishment while it is anathema to Rav Sa’adyah Gaon, Rambam and many other Rishonim.
[2] Yes I know Rabbi Dr. David Berger’s article. Dr. Berger holds that when Ramban is talking about hidden miracles, it applies only to the righteous who have special status. The general population is controlled by Mikreh – chance. It is a discussion for another post.
יא וְנָתַתִּי מִשְׁכָּנִי, בְּתוֹכְכֶם; וְלֹא-תִגְעַל נַפְשִׁי, אֶתְכֶם.
11 And I will set My tabernacle among you, and My soul shall not abhor you.
[1]Ramban in a long comment discusses the meaning of these promised blessings. Basing it on his general understanding of Providence where everything is the result of hidden miracles[2]. He then goes on to say that doctors are not needed for the righteous.
רמב"ן ויקרא פרק כו פסוק יא
והכלל כי בהיות ישראל שלמים והם רבים, לא יתנהג ענינם בטבע כלל, לא בגופם, ולא בארצם, לא בכללם, ולא ביחיד מהם, כי יברך השם לחמם ומימם, ויסיר מחלה מקרבם, עד שלא יצטרכו לרופא ולהשתמר בדרך מדרכי הרפואות כלל, כמו שאמר (שמות טו כו) כי אני ה' רופאך. וכן היו הצדיקים עושים בזמן הנבואה, גם כי יקרם עון שיחלו לא ידרשו ברופאים רק בנביאים…
אבל הדורש השם בנביא לא ידרוש ברופאים. ומה חלק לרופאים בבית עושי רצון השם, אחר שהבטיח וברך את לחמך ואת מימיך והסירותי מחלה מקרבך…:
וזו היא כונתם באמרם (שם) ורפא ירפא מכאן שנתנה רשות לרופא לרפאות, לא אמרו שנתנה רשות לחולה להתרפאות, אלא כיון שחלה החולה ובא להתרפאות כי נהג ברפואות והוא לא היה מעדת השם שחלקם בחיים, אין לרופא לאסור עצמו מרפואתו, לא מפני חשש שמא ימות בידו, אחרי שהוא בקי במלאכה ההיא, ולא בעבור שיאמר כי השם לבדו הוא רופא כל בשר, שכבר נהגו. .... אבל ברצות השם דרכי איש אין לו עסק ברופאים:
My usual Paraphrase/translation/comments.
When the majority of Israel is perfect, they are not controlled by nature. That is so with their bodies, their land, as a group or as individuals, for God will bless their food and water and remove illness from among them so that they will not need doctors. They will also not need to follow medical practices as God Himself is their doctor. The righteous did thus at the time of prophecy, when, due to a sin, they did get sick, they did not turn to doctors but the prophets…
Someone who can ask God through a prophet will not turn to doctors. What place do doctors have in the house of those who do God’s will who promised that “He will bless your bread and water and remove sickness from among you”?...When the Rabbis say “Heal he shall” from here we see that a doctor may [is permitted to] heal, they do not say that the sick person may heal himself, rather they say the if one chooses to go to doctors, because he is not among the righteous, a doctor should not refuse to treat him. The doctor does not have to worry about possible malpractice liabilities because he is an expert. He also should not refuse because God heals all flesh, as it is customary to go to doctors! [These last words are fascinating – the only reason to go to a doctor is because it is a minhag!]… But when God approves of a person’s deeds he has no use for doctors.
Ramban is saying that sin is the cause of sickness. Repentance alone and getting close to God negates the need for doctors. Every time I read this I am amazed as Ramban made a living as a doctor. Apparently with the medicine of his time in Christian Spain a sick person was better off ignoring doctors and relying on natural healing! I remember reading that wealthy people during the renaissance had a shorter life span than the poor. The rich could afford doctors who killed them while the poor could not.
The Mishna in Pessachim says that Chizkyahu hid the Sefer Harefuot.
פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת פסחים פרק ד משנה י
הלכה זו היא תוספתא, אבל ראיתי לפרשה ג"כ לפי שיש בה תועליות. ספר רפואות, היה ספר שהיה בו סדר רפואות במה שאין מן הדין להתרפות בו, כגון מה שמדמין בעלי "הטלסמאת" שאם עושין "טלסם" בסדר מסוים מועיל לחולי פלוני וכיוצא בזה מדברים האסורים, ומחברו לא חברו אלא על דרך הלימוד בטבעי המציאות לא כדי להשתמש במשהו ממה שנכלל בו, וזה מותר כמו שיתבאר לך שדברים שהזהיר ה' מלעשותם מותר ללמדם ולדעת אותם, כי ה' אמר לא תלמד לעשות ובא בקבלה אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות. וכאשר קלקלו בני אדם ונתרפאו בו גנזו. ואפשר שהיה ספר שיש בו הרכבת סמים המזיקין כגון סם פלוני מרכיבין אותו כך, ומשקין אותו כך, וגורם למחלה זו וזו, ורפואתו בכך וכך, שכשיראה הרופא אותם המחלות ידע שסם פלוני השקוהו ונותן לו דברים נגדיים שיצילוהו, וכאשר קלקלו בני אדם והיו הורגין בו גנזו. ולא הארכתי לדבר בענין זה אלא מפני ששמעתי וגם פירשו לי ששלמה חבר ספר רפואות שאם חלה אדם באיזו מחלה שהיא פנה אליו ועשה כמו שהוא אומר ומתרפא, וראה חזקיה שלא היו בני אדם בוטחים בה' במחלותיהם אלא על ספר הרפואות, עמד וגנזו. ומלבד אפסות דבר זה ומה שיש בו מן ההזיות, הנה ייחסו לחזקיה ולסיעתו שהודו לו סכלות שאין ליחס דוגמתה אלא לגרועים שבהמון. ולפי דמיונם המשובש והמטופש אם רעב אדם ופנה אל הלחם ואכלו שמתרפא מאותו הצער הגדול בלי ספק, האם נאמר שהסיר בטחונו מה', והוי שוטים יאמר להם, כי כמו שאני מודה לה' בעת האוכל שהמציא לי דבר להסיר רעבוני ולהחיותני ולקיימני, כך נודה לו על שהמציא רפואה המרפאה את מחלתי כשאשתמש בה. ולא הייתי צריך לסתור פירוש זה הגרוע לולי פרסומו.
Rough Paraphrase:
Rambam proposes two possibilities for why this book of medicines was hidden. Either it was a book of talismans which someone had written as a report of what people did. Although it is forbidden to use the talismans one may learn about them so that one may rule about what is permissible and not. [I understand that he is referring to the need of members of Sanhedrin to know all about Avodah Zara so they can recognize it when a case comes to them]. As people started using it Chizkyahu decided to hide it away.
The other possibility is that it contained a list of poisons and their antidote. It was useful for doctors to know how to treat patients who developed symptoms that suggested they had ingested those poisons. As people started using it to kill others he decided to hide it.
Rambam then continues that the reason he is talking about this at length is that he has seen wrong interpretations of this Mishna. Some understood that this book was written by Shlomo and it contained very efficient medicines. As people relied on this rather than God Chizkyahu decided to hide it. Besides the nonsense and imaginings that go into this opinion they also attribute to Chizkyahu and his followers stupidity that only the lowest of the masses could be expected to be so stupid. Furthermore how can the Rabbis praise such stupidity?! According to this ignorant and idiotic [Rambam’s words not mine] thinking, a hungry person who turns to bread and eats it has lost his faith in God? O idiots shall they be called! For just like I thank God for the food he gave me so do I thank Him for providing me with medicines to heal me from my sickness! I had to debunk this wrong understanding because of how widely it is accepted!
I am not sure that Ramban would not agree with Rambam that Chizkyahu would not hide a good medicine book, but Rambam certainly does not agree with Ramban that a righteous man does not turn to natural healing methods. On the contrary, he takes the medicines and thanks God for having provided them. That is Avodat Hashem!
I just find it fascinating contrasting the opinions of these two greats. Whose opinion won out into our times? I heard this anecdote about the Steipler that during the last few years of his life he refused to see a doctor repeating the Ramban statement - ומה חלק לרופאים בבית עושי רצון השם. I am not sure how true this story is but just the telling is indicative of the current state of mind of the community.
[1] Art scroll translates; וְלֹא-תִגְעַל נַפְשִׁי, אֶתְכֶם. My spirit will not reject you which agrees with Ramban reading of it. He explains the rejection that after death the soul will not require transmigration (Gilgul). That is a separate discussion. To Ramban it is central in his understanding of reward and punishment while it is anathema to Rav Sa’adyah Gaon, Rambam and many other Rishonim.
[2] Yes I know Rabbi Dr. David Berger’s article. Dr. Berger holds that when Ramban is talking about hidden miracles, it applies only to the righteous who have special status. The general population is controlled by Mikreh – chance. It is a discussion for another post.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Can Carnivores and Omnivores become exclusively Herbivores?
In yesterday’s Parsha we read (Vaykra 26:6)[1]:
וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי חַיָּה רָעָה, מִן-הָאָרֶץ - and I will cause evil beasts to cease out of the land
Ramban quotes a Torat Kohanim where Rabbi Yehudah understands it to mean a natural result of prosperity. As the inhabitants follow the ways of the Torah, Eretz Israel is populated and wild animals will no longer roam freely. Rabbi Shimon understands it to mean that although the wild animals will remain, they will no longer be aggressive and attack people. Ramban accepts Rabbi Shimon’s approach. He notes that in Breishit in the story of creation we read:
ל וּלְכָל-חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, אֶת-כָּל-יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב, לְאָכְלָה; וַיְהִי-כֵן.
30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so.
Suggesting that there were no carnivores originally and only after Adam’s sin some became meat eaters. He therefore argues that all animals and beasts were originally meant to be vegetarian which is their natural state. As a reward for the Jews following the Mitzvot, they will revert to their natural state. In his discussion Ramban brings the following verse in Yeshayahu 11:7-8 as proof text:
ז וּפָרָה וָדֹב תִּרְעֶינָה, יַחְדָּו יִרְבְּצוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן; וְאַרְיֵה, כַּבָּקָר יֹאכַל-תֶּבֶן.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
ח וְשִׁעֲשַׁע יוֹנֵק, עַל-חֻר פָּתֶן; וְעַל מְאוּרַת צִפְעוֹנִי, גָּמוּל יָדוֹ הָדָה.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk's den.
The first verse where the bear joins the cow in the pasture (תִּרְעֶינָה) proves that the bear is no longer a carnivore as does the lion and the ox. The second verse proves that children will play with snakes without being harmed; the snakes having lost their carnivorous interest are no longer aggressive to humans.
The preceding verse to these two reads as follows:
ו וְגָר זְאֵב עִם-כֶּבֶשׂ, וְנָמֵר עִם-גְּדִי יִרְבָּץ; וְעֵגֶל וּכְפִיר וּמְרִיא יַחְדָּו, וְנַעַר קָטֹן נֹהֵג בָּם.
6 And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 12:1 addresses this as follows:
רמב"ם מלכים יב:א
אל יעלה על הלב שבימות המשיח יבטל דבר ממנהגו של עולם, או יהיה שם חידוש במעשה בראשית, אלא עולם כמנהגו נוהג, וזה שנאמר בישעיה וגר זאב עם כבש ונמר עם גדי ירבץ משל וחידה, ענין הדבר שיהיו ישראל יושבין לבטח עם רשעי עכו"ם המשולים כזאב ונמר, שנאמר זאב ערבות ישדדם ונמר שוקד על עריהם, ויחזרו כולם לדת האמת, ולא יגזלו ולא ישחיתו, אלא יאכלו דבר המותר בנחת עם ישראל, שנאמר ואריה כבקר יאכל תבן,[2]
Paraphrase/translation/comments as usual:
Do not think that during the times of Mashiach the way the world works will change [i.e. miraculous events will occur] or that new natural law will come about. The world will continue in its regular ways. The verse “And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid” [which seems to indicate a change in nature] is an allegory and riddle. It means that Israel will exist securely together with the evil nations who are compared to the wolf and the leopard as it says (Yirmyahu 5:6) a wolf of the deserts doth spoil them, a leopard watches over their cities, [clearly a reference to human enemies] and they will all turn to the law of truth, they will no longer rob and destroy but eat what is permissible to them [as opposed to spoils of war] while living peacefully with Israel as it says “and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.”
Rambam does not accept the approach of Ramban that nature can change fundamentally. Interestingly in Iggeret Techyat Hametim[3] Rambam discusses this verse and suggests two other interpretations, one as Rabbi Yehudah explained that prosperity will bring about greater urbanization. The other possibility is that it applies only to the Beit Hamikdash as the verse continues:
ט לֹא-יָרֵעוּ וְלֹא-יַשְׁחִיתוּ, בְּכָל-הַר קָדְשִׁי: כִּי-מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ, דֵּעָה אֶת-יְהוָה, כַּמַּיִם, לַיָּם מְכַסִּים. {ס}
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. {S}
The Mishna Avot 5:4 lists ten things that were unusual in the Beit Hamikdash, among which are that a snake or scorpion never bit anyone. Rambam in his Pirush Hamishna explains them all as natural occurrences. He explains that there was never a wind that spread the smoke coming off the altar and that people who were standing in a crush were able to bow comfortably because they were respectful to each other out of awe in being in such a holy place. He would therefore understand that snakes and scorpions were not present intimidated because of the throngs of people that were there.
In MN 3:11 Rambam dedicates a whole chapter to this. It is part of his introductory chapters to the long discussion on Providence:
“All the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, are likewise due to nonbeing, because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. A blind man, for example, who has no guide, stumbles constantly, because he cannot see, and causes injury and harm to himself and others. In the same manner various classes of men, each man in proportion to his ignorance, bring great evils upon themselves and upon other individual members of the species. If men possessed wisdom, which stands in the same relation to the form of man as the sight to the eye, they would not cause any injury to themselves or to others: for the knowledge of truth removes hatred and quarrels, and prevents mutual injuries. This state of society is promised to us by the prophet in the words: "And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb," etc.; "and the cow and the bear shall feed together," etc.; and "the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp," etc. (Isa. xi. 6 seq.). The prophet also points out what will be the cause of this change: for he says that hatred, quarrel, and fighting will come to an end, because men will then have a true knowledge of God. "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (ibid. ver. 9). Note it.”
Another clear difference between the understandings of these two great thinkers.
[1] רמב"ן ויקרא פרק כו פסוק ו
והוא הנכון, כי תהיה ארץ ישראל בעת קיום המצות כאשר היה העולם מתחילתו קודם חטאו של אדם הראשון אין חיה ורמש ממית אדם, וכמו שאמרו (ברכות לג א) אין ערוד ממית אלא חטא ממית. וזה שאמר הכתוב (ישעיה יא ח) ושעשע יונק על חור פתן, וכן ופרה ודוב תרענה ואריה כבקר יאכל תבן (שם פסוק ז), כי לא היה הטרף בחיות הרעות, רק מפני חטאו של אדם כי נגזר עליו להיות טרף לשניהם והושם הטרף טבע להם גם לטרוף זו את זו, כידוע כי בטרפם האדם פעם אחת יוסיפו להיות רעים יותר, וכן אמר הכתוב (יחזקאל יט ג) וילמד לטרוף טרף אדם אכל:
והנה בבריאתו של עולם נאמר בחיות שנתן להם העשב לאכלה דכתיב (בראשית א ל) ולכל חית הארץ ולכל עוף השמים ולכל רומש על הארץ אשר בו נפש חיה את כל ירק עשב לאכלה, ואמר הכתוב "ויהי כן", כי הוא הטבע אשר הושם בהם לעד, ואחר כך למדו הטרף פני החטא הממית כאשר פירשתי. וכשהותר שחיטת בעלי החיים לבני נח אחרי המבול והזהיר על האדם (שם ט ה) ואך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש וגו' את נפש האדם, ולא נפש חיה מיד חיה בחברתה, נשארו על מנהגם לטרוף. ובהיות ארץ ישראל על השלמות, תשבת רעת מנהגם ויעמדו על הטבע הראשון אשר הושם בהם בעת יצירתם, וכבר הזכרתי מזה בסדר תולדות נח (בראשית ט ו):
ועל כן אמר הכתוב על ימי הגואל היוצא מגזע ישי, שישוב השלום בעולם ויחדל הטרף ורעת הבהמה וכל הרמש כאשר היה בטבעם מתחילה. והכוונה היתה בו על חזקיהו שביקש הקב"ה לעשותו משיח (סנהדרין צד א), ולא עלתה זכותם לכך, ויהיה המעשה על המשיח העתיד לבא:
[2] . +/השגת הראב"ד/ אל יעלה על הלב שבימות המשיח כו' עד משלים. א"א והלא בתורה והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ.+
Note the Ra’avad comment where he reads this like Rabbi Shimon!
[3] http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/mekorot/thiyat-2.htm
וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי חַיָּה רָעָה, מִן-הָאָרֶץ - and I will cause evil beasts to cease out of the land
Ramban quotes a Torat Kohanim where Rabbi Yehudah understands it to mean a natural result of prosperity. As the inhabitants follow the ways of the Torah, Eretz Israel is populated and wild animals will no longer roam freely. Rabbi Shimon understands it to mean that although the wild animals will remain, they will no longer be aggressive and attack people. Ramban accepts Rabbi Shimon’s approach. He notes that in Breishit in the story of creation we read:
ל וּלְכָל-חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, אֶת-כָּל-יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב, לְאָכְלָה; וַיְהִי-כֵן.
30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so.
Suggesting that there were no carnivores originally and only after Adam’s sin some became meat eaters. He therefore argues that all animals and beasts were originally meant to be vegetarian which is their natural state. As a reward for the Jews following the Mitzvot, they will revert to their natural state. In his discussion Ramban brings the following verse in Yeshayahu 11:7-8 as proof text:
ז וּפָרָה וָדֹב תִּרְעֶינָה, יַחְדָּו יִרְבְּצוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן; וְאַרְיֵה, כַּבָּקָר יֹאכַל-תֶּבֶן.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
ח וְשִׁעֲשַׁע יוֹנֵק, עַל-חֻר פָּתֶן; וְעַל מְאוּרַת צִפְעוֹנִי, גָּמוּל יָדוֹ הָדָה.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk's den.
The first verse where the bear joins the cow in the pasture (תִּרְעֶינָה) proves that the bear is no longer a carnivore as does the lion and the ox. The second verse proves that children will play with snakes without being harmed; the snakes having lost their carnivorous interest are no longer aggressive to humans.
The preceding verse to these two reads as follows:
ו וְגָר זְאֵב עִם-כֶּבֶשׂ, וְנָמֵר עִם-גְּדִי יִרְבָּץ; וְעֵגֶל וּכְפִיר וּמְרִיא יַחְדָּו, וְנַעַר קָטֹן נֹהֵג בָּם.
6 And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 12:1 addresses this as follows:
רמב"ם מלכים יב:א
אל יעלה על הלב שבימות המשיח יבטל דבר ממנהגו של עולם, או יהיה שם חידוש במעשה בראשית, אלא עולם כמנהגו נוהג, וזה שנאמר בישעיה וגר זאב עם כבש ונמר עם גדי ירבץ משל וחידה, ענין הדבר שיהיו ישראל יושבין לבטח עם רשעי עכו"ם המשולים כזאב ונמר, שנאמר זאב ערבות ישדדם ונמר שוקד על עריהם, ויחזרו כולם לדת האמת, ולא יגזלו ולא ישחיתו, אלא יאכלו דבר המותר בנחת עם ישראל, שנאמר ואריה כבקר יאכל תבן,[2]
Paraphrase/translation/comments as usual:
Do not think that during the times of Mashiach the way the world works will change [i.e. miraculous events will occur] or that new natural law will come about. The world will continue in its regular ways. The verse “And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid” [which seems to indicate a change in nature] is an allegory and riddle. It means that Israel will exist securely together with the evil nations who are compared to the wolf and the leopard as it says (Yirmyahu 5:6) a wolf of the deserts doth spoil them, a leopard watches over their cities, [clearly a reference to human enemies] and they will all turn to the law of truth, they will no longer rob and destroy but eat what is permissible to them [as opposed to spoils of war] while living peacefully with Israel as it says “and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.”
Rambam does not accept the approach of Ramban that nature can change fundamentally. Interestingly in Iggeret Techyat Hametim[3] Rambam discusses this verse and suggests two other interpretations, one as Rabbi Yehudah explained that prosperity will bring about greater urbanization. The other possibility is that it applies only to the Beit Hamikdash as the verse continues:
ט לֹא-יָרֵעוּ וְלֹא-יַשְׁחִיתוּ, בְּכָל-הַר קָדְשִׁי: כִּי-מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ, דֵּעָה אֶת-יְהוָה, כַּמַּיִם, לַיָּם מְכַסִּים. {ס}
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. {S}
The Mishna Avot 5:4 lists ten things that were unusual in the Beit Hamikdash, among which are that a snake or scorpion never bit anyone. Rambam in his Pirush Hamishna explains them all as natural occurrences. He explains that there was never a wind that spread the smoke coming off the altar and that people who were standing in a crush were able to bow comfortably because they were respectful to each other out of awe in being in such a holy place. He would therefore understand that snakes and scorpions were not present intimidated because of the throngs of people that were there.
In MN 3:11 Rambam dedicates a whole chapter to this. It is part of his introductory chapters to the long discussion on Providence:
“All the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, are likewise due to nonbeing, because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. A blind man, for example, who has no guide, stumbles constantly, because he cannot see, and causes injury and harm to himself and others. In the same manner various classes of men, each man in proportion to his ignorance, bring great evils upon themselves and upon other individual members of the species. If men possessed wisdom, which stands in the same relation to the form of man as the sight to the eye, they would not cause any injury to themselves or to others: for the knowledge of truth removes hatred and quarrels, and prevents mutual injuries. This state of society is promised to us by the prophet in the words: "And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb," etc.; "and the cow and the bear shall feed together," etc.; and "the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp," etc. (Isa. xi. 6 seq.). The prophet also points out what will be the cause of this change: for he says that hatred, quarrel, and fighting will come to an end, because men will then have a true knowledge of God. "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (ibid. ver. 9). Note it.”
Another clear difference between the understandings of these two great thinkers.
[1] רמב"ן ויקרא פרק כו פסוק ו
והוא הנכון, כי תהיה ארץ ישראל בעת קיום המצות כאשר היה העולם מתחילתו קודם חטאו של אדם הראשון אין חיה ורמש ממית אדם, וכמו שאמרו (ברכות לג א) אין ערוד ממית אלא חטא ממית. וזה שאמר הכתוב (ישעיה יא ח) ושעשע יונק על חור פתן, וכן ופרה ודוב תרענה ואריה כבקר יאכל תבן (שם פסוק ז), כי לא היה הטרף בחיות הרעות, רק מפני חטאו של אדם כי נגזר עליו להיות טרף לשניהם והושם הטרף טבע להם גם לטרוף זו את זו, כידוע כי בטרפם האדם פעם אחת יוסיפו להיות רעים יותר, וכן אמר הכתוב (יחזקאל יט ג) וילמד לטרוף טרף אדם אכל:
והנה בבריאתו של עולם נאמר בחיות שנתן להם העשב לאכלה דכתיב (בראשית א ל) ולכל חית הארץ ולכל עוף השמים ולכל רומש על הארץ אשר בו נפש חיה את כל ירק עשב לאכלה, ואמר הכתוב "ויהי כן", כי הוא הטבע אשר הושם בהם לעד, ואחר כך למדו הטרף פני החטא הממית כאשר פירשתי. וכשהותר שחיטת בעלי החיים לבני נח אחרי המבול והזהיר על האדם (שם ט ה) ואך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש וגו' את נפש האדם, ולא נפש חיה מיד חיה בחברתה, נשארו על מנהגם לטרוף. ובהיות ארץ ישראל על השלמות, תשבת רעת מנהגם ויעמדו על הטבע הראשון אשר הושם בהם בעת יצירתם, וכבר הזכרתי מזה בסדר תולדות נח (בראשית ט ו):
ועל כן אמר הכתוב על ימי הגואל היוצא מגזע ישי, שישוב השלום בעולם ויחדל הטרף ורעת הבהמה וכל הרמש כאשר היה בטבעם מתחילה. והכוונה היתה בו על חזקיהו שביקש הקב"ה לעשותו משיח (סנהדרין צד א), ולא עלתה זכותם לכך, ויהיה המעשה על המשיח העתיד לבא:
[2] . +/השגת הראב"ד/ אל יעלה על הלב שבימות המשיח כו' עד משלים. א"א והלא בתורה והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ.+
Note the Ra’avad comment where he reads this like Rabbi Shimon!
[3] http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/mekorot/thiyat-2.htm
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Why do I pray?
There have been some heated discussions at XGH regarding davening and I thought I would like to put it my two senses. Rambam rule that if someone prays saying the Amidah without proper intent one has to repeat it.
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים י:א
מי שהתפלל ולא כיון את לבו יחזור ויתפלל בכוונה
What exactly is the proper intent?
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים ד:טז
כיצד היא הכוונה שיפנה את לבו מכל המחשבות ויראה עצמו כאלו הוא עומד לפני השכינה,
The intent should be that one clears the mind from all thoughts and pictures himself standing in front of the Shechinah. (Shechinah is a term used to describe the presence of God.)
The intent that is binding and without which the prayer is nullified is not thinking about the mystical “secret” or even the meaning of the words. One just has to see himself as standing in front of God and if one does not one has not prayed. That explains why the body language, the stance and every aspect of the person that prays have to show that he is standing in front of God.
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים ה:א
שמונה דברים צריך המתפלל להזהר בהן ולעשותן, ואם היה דחוק או נאנס או שעבר ולא עשה אותן אין מעכבין, ואלו הן: עמידה, ונוכח המקדש, ותקון הגוף, ותקון המלבושים, ותקון המקום, והשויית הקול, והכריעה, והשתחויה.
(Translation/Paraphrase)- Eight things are required from a person that prays … They are: Standing; facing the Beit Hamikdash; preparation of the body, the clothes, the place one prays in; the voice has to be balanced; genuflection and prostration.
In context of the Halacha it is clear that all these outward manifestations are required to reinforce in the mind of the person that is praying that he is standing in front of God.
What does that mean? Why is it important that three times a day we stop everything and visualize ourselves standing in front of God? In MN 3:51 we read:
“We must bear in mind that all such religious acts as reading the Law, praying, and the performance of other precepts, serve exclusively as the means of causing us to occupy and fill our mind with the precepts of God, and free it from worldly business; for we are thus, as it were, in communication with God, and undisturbed by any other thing.”
The quest for knowing the unknowable, for increasing our awareness of that glimpse of the unknown I mentioned in my earlier post, is at the center of man’s search for the meaning of his own existence. It is a quest that requires keeping it constantly in front of our eyes. It is not an easy task and requires constant reminder to take us away from our daily grind and refocus on the big question. That is why we have Mitzvot that affect our every action. When eating, working even going to sleep there are rules to remind us to stop and think why am I doing this? That is one of the aspects of Avodat Hashem, submitting to this constant reminder to question. Unfortunately, once these actions become ingrained in us, they become rote and we do not pay attention to what they are meant to remind us of. We focus on the act only and not on its meaning and what it is meant to teach us. Praying thrice daily are moments that make us pause and see ourselves standing in front of God. There is no action to distract us just words we say while seeing ourselves standing in front of God. Rambam continues:
“I will now commence to show you the way how to educate and train yourselves in order to attain that great perfection. The first thing you must do is this: Turn your thoughts away from everything while you read Shema or during the Tefilah, and do not content yourself with being devout when you read the first verse of Shema, or the first paragraph of the prayer. When you have successfully practiced this for many years, try in reading the Law or listening to it, to have all your heart and all your thought occupied with understanding what you read or hear. After some time when you have mastered this, accustom yourself to have your mind free from all other thoughts when you read any portion of the other books of the prophets, or when you say any blessing; and to have your attention directed exclusively to the perception and the understanding of what you utter. When you have succeeded in properly performing these acts of divine service, and you have your thought, during their performance, entirely abstracted from worldly affairs, take then care that your thought be not disturbed by thinking of your wants or of superfluous things. In short, think of worldly matters when you eat, drink, bathe, talk with your wife and little children, or when you converse with other people. These times, which are frequent and long, I think must suffice to you for reflecting on everything that is necessary as regards business, household, and health. But when you are engaged in the performance of religious duties, have your mind exclusively directed to what you are doing.”
In addition to its inherent purpose of giving us times to meditate, prayer is also one of several other Mitzvot that helps develop our capacity for focus and concentration. Seen this way prayer is an important part of that total dedication to finding the truth which is the purpose of the whole Torah and Mitzvot. It is an important part because it addresses the human condition of distraction and involvement in daily survival. It teaches us to always stop and keep things in their proper perspective.
As to the content, in its pure original form prayer was a spontaneous expression of man’s thoughts and requests. There was a required format which consisted of at first praise God followed by presenting petitions followed by praise and thanks for all the good already received. As time progressed and we mixed with the nations, we lost the ability to properly express our thoughts in the correct format, the rabbis put together a prepackaged prayer book that contains a synopsis of all the different praises and requests one may have. I have appended excerpts of the pertinent Halachot at the end without translation for those who want the sources.
The issue of petition is one that occupies many people’s minds. (At least it does mine). I can see praise and thanks as a way of focusing on God as the creator, the Cause of everything. What is the meaning in asking for our daily needs? It would appear that we are taking the focus away from God and the big existential questions and bringing it back to our daily life. What can we expect our prayers will result in? What does God answering our requests mean? I will address this in my next post as this one is already longer than intended.
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים א:ב
אלא חיוב מצוה זו כך הוא שיהא אדם מתחנן ומתפלל בכל יום ומגיד שבחו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ואחר כך שואל צרכיו שהוא צריך להם בבקשה ובתחנה ואחר כך נותן שבח והודיה לה' על הטובה שהשפיע לו כל אחד לפי כחו.
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים א:ג
אם היה רגיל מרבה בתחנה ובקשה ואם היה ערל שפתים מדבר כפי יכלתו ובכל עת שירצה, וכן מנין התפלות כל אחד כפי יכלתו, יש מתפלל פעם אחת ביום, ויש מתפללין פעמים הרבה, והכל יהיו מתפללין נכח המקדש בכל מקום שיהיה, וכן היה הדבר תמיד ממשה רבינו ועד עזרא.
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים א:ד
כיון שגלו ישראל בימי נבוכדנצר הרשע נתערבו בפרס ויון ושאר האומות ונולדו להם בנים בארצות הגוים ואותן הבנים נתבלבלו שפתם והיתה שפת כל אחד ואחד מעורבת מלשונות הרבה וכיון שהיה מדבר אינו יכול לדבר כל צורכו בלשון אחת אלא בשיבוש שנאמר ובניהם חצי מדבר אשדודית וגו' ואינם מכירים לדבר יהודית וכלשון עם ועם ומפני זה כשהיה אחד מהן מתפלל תקצר לשונו לשאול חפציו או להגיד שבח הקדוש ברוך הוא בלשון הקדש עד שיערבו עמה לשונות אחרות, וכיון שראה עזרא ובית דינו כך עמדו ותקנו להם שמנה עשרה ברכות על הסדר, שלש ראשונות שבח לה' ושלש אחרונות הודיה, ואמצעיות יש בהן שאלת כל הדברים שהן כמו אבות לכל חפצי איש ואיש ולצרכי הציבור כולן, כדי שיהיו ערוכות בפי הכל וילמדו אותן ותהיה תפלת אלו העלגים תפלה שלימה כתפלת בעלי הלשון הצחה, ומפני ענין זה תקנו כל הברכות והתפלות מסודרות בפי כל ישראל כדי שיהא ענין כל ברכה ערוך בפי העלג
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים י:א
מי שהתפלל ולא כיון את לבו יחזור ויתפלל בכוונה
What exactly is the proper intent?
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים ד:טז
כיצד היא הכוונה שיפנה את לבו מכל המחשבות ויראה עצמו כאלו הוא עומד לפני השכינה,
The intent should be that one clears the mind from all thoughts and pictures himself standing in front of the Shechinah. (Shechinah is a term used to describe the presence of God.)
The intent that is binding and without which the prayer is nullified is not thinking about the mystical “secret” or even the meaning of the words. One just has to see himself as standing in front of God and if one does not one has not prayed. That explains why the body language, the stance and every aspect of the person that prays have to show that he is standing in front of God.
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים ה:א
שמונה דברים צריך המתפלל להזהר בהן ולעשותן, ואם היה דחוק או נאנס או שעבר ולא עשה אותן אין מעכבין, ואלו הן: עמידה, ונוכח המקדש, ותקון הגוף, ותקון המלבושים, ותקון המקום, והשויית הקול, והכריעה, והשתחויה.
(Translation/Paraphrase)- Eight things are required from a person that prays … They are: Standing; facing the Beit Hamikdash; preparation of the body, the clothes, the place one prays in; the voice has to be balanced; genuflection and prostration.
In context of the Halacha it is clear that all these outward manifestations are required to reinforce in the mind of the person that is praying that he is standing in front of God.
What does that mean? Why is it important that three times a day we stop everything and visualize ourselves standing in front of God? In MN 3:51 we read:
“We must bear in mind that all such religious acts as reading the Law, praying, and the performance of other precepts, serve exclusively as the means of causing us to occupy and fill our mind with the precepts of God, and free it from worldly business; for we are thus, as it were, in communication with God, and undisturbed by any other thing.”
The quest for knowing the unknowable, for increasing our awareness of that glimpse of the unknown I mentioned in my earlier post, is at the center of man’s search for the meaning of his own existence. It is a quest that requires keeping it constantly in front of our eyes. It is not an easy task and requires constant reminder to take us away from our daily grind and refocus on the big question. That is why we have Mitzvot that affect our every action. When eating, working even going to sleep there are rules to remind us to stop and think why am I doing this? That is one of the aspects of Avodat Hashem, submitting to this constant reminder to question. Unfortunately, once these actions become ingrained in us, they become rote and we do not pay attention to what they are meant to remind us of. We focus on the act only and not on its meaning and what it is meant to teach us. Praying thrice daily are moments that make us pause and see ourselves standing in front of God. There is no action to distract us just words we say while seeing ourselves standing in front of God. Rambam continues:
“I will now commence to show you the way how to educate and train yourselves in order to attain that great perfection. The first thing you must do is this: Turn your thoughts away from everything while you read Shema or during the Tefilah, and do not content yourself with being devout when you read the first verse of Shema, or the first paragraph of the prayer. When you have successfully practiced this for many years, try in reading the Law or listening to it, to have all your heart and all your thought occupied with understanding what you read or hear. After some time when you have mastered this, accustom yourself to have your mind free from all other thoughts when you read any portion of the other books of the prophets, or when you say any blessing; and to have your attention directed exclusively to the perception and the understanding of what you utter. When you have succeeded in properly performing these acts of divine service, and you have your thought, during their performance, entirely abstracted from worldly affairs, take then care that your thought be not disturbed by thinking of your wants or of superfluous things. In short, think of worldly matters when you eat, drink, bathe, talk with your wife and little children, or when you converse with other people. These times, which are frequent and long, I think must suffice to you for reflecting on everything that is necessary as regards business, household, and health. But when you are engaged in the performance of religious duties, have your mind exclusively directed to what you are doing.”
In addition to its inherent purpose of giving us times to meditate, prayer is also one of several other Mitzvot that helps develop our capacity for focus and concentration. Seen this way prayer is an important part of that total dedication to finding the truth which is the purpose of the whole Torah and Mitzvot. It is an important part because it addresses the human condition of distraction and involvement in daily survival. It teaches us to always stop and keep things in their proper perspective.
As to the content, in its pure original form prayer was a spontaneous expression of man’s thoughts and requests. There was a required format which consisted of at first praise God followed by presenting petitions followed by praise and thanks for all the good already received. As time progressed and we mixed with the nations, we lost the ability to properly express our thoughts in the correct format, the rabbis put together a prepackaged prayer book that contains a synopsis of all the different praises and requests one may have. I have appended excerpts of the pertinent Halachot at the end without translation for those who want the sources.
The issue of petition is one that occupies many people’s minds. (At least it does mine). I can see praise and thanks as a way of focusing on God as the creator, the Cause of everything. What is the meaning in asking for our daily needs? It would appear that we are taking the focus away from God and the big existential questions and bringing it back to our daily life. What can we expect our prayers will result in? What does God answering our requests mean? I will address this in my next post as this one is already longer than intended.
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים א:ב
אלא חיוב מצוה זו כך הוא שיהא אדם מתחנן ומתפלל בכל יום ומגיד שבחו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ואחר כך שואל צרכיו שהוא צריך להם בבקשה ובתחנה ואחר כך נותן שבח והודיה לה' על הטובה שהשפיע לו כל אחד לפי כחו.
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים א:ג
אם היה רגיל מרבה בתחנה ובקשה ואם היה ערל שפתים מדבר כפי יכלתו ובכל עת שירצה, וכן מנין התפלות כל אחד כפי יכלתו, יש מתפלל פעם אחת ביום, ויש מתפללין פעמים הרבה, והכל יהיו מתפללין נכח המקדש בכל מקום שיהיה, וכן היה הדבר תמיד ממשה רבינו ועד עזרא.
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים א:ד
כיון שגלו ישראל בימי נבוכדנצר הרשע נתערבו בפרס ויון ושאר האומות ונולדו להם בנים בארצות הגוים ואותן הבנים נתבלבלו שפתם והיתה שפת כל אחד ואחד מעורבת מלשונות הרבה וכיון שהיה מדבר אינו יכול לדבר כל צורכו בלשון אחת אלא בשיבוש שנאמר ובניהם חצי מדבר אשדודית וגו' ואינם מכירים לדבר יהודית וכלשון עם ועם ומפני זה כשהיה אחד מהן מתפלל תקצר לשונו לשאול חפציו או להגיד שבח הקדוש ברוך הוא בלשון הקדש עד שיערבו עמה לשונות אחרות, וכיון שראה עזרא ובית דינו כך עמדו ותקנו להם שמנה עשרה ברכות על הסדר, שלש ראשונות שבח לה' ושלש אחרונות הודיה, ואמצעיות יש בהן שאלת כל הדברים שהן כמו אבות לכל חפצי איש ואיש ולצרכי הציבור כולן, כדי שיהיו ערוכות בפי הכל וילמדו אותן ותהיה תפלת אלו העלגים תפלה שלימה כתפלת בעלי הלשון הצחה, ומפני ענין זה תקנו כל הברכות והתפלות מסודרות בפי כל ישראל כדי שיהא ענין כל ברכה ערוך בפי העלג
Monday, May 07, 2007
Form and Matter - Inseparable Duo - A glimpse of the immaterial.
I have been convinced for some time that it is imperative to translate the philosophy developed by our great medieval thinkers into contemporary language and concepts. The theology they developed was not dependent on the science they knew but was appended to it. In the back of their minds they knew that they did not have all the answers to the questions that confronted them, with the science of their time just as we know that we do not have them either with the science of our time. Therefore it is my contention that they were teaching us, by example, how to integrate theological thought with the reality at each step in the development of man’s knowledge and understanding of his surrounding. Here is my attempt to describe the concept of Matter and Form in a language that we can relate to in our contemporary mode of thinking. I leave it to the reader to go the final step and visualize it in the current scientific reality.
The concept of Matter and Form in Aristotelian physics is foreign to our contemporary understanding of science. It was a way of explaining how the non-physical “idea” or “concept” interacts with the physical world[1]. It visualized everything material as composed of the physical entity and the concept behind it. The example used[2] is a table where the artisan who has the picture of the final product in his mind takes a formless piece of wood and molds it into its final form. The “picture in his mind” is the Form which is now actualized as part of the final object. Looked at it relatively, Matter is controlled by Form. Matter will not change without Form acting on it, in fact it will not “exist” without Form, or concept preceding its existence. Form will also not be actualized without interacting with Matter. They are always interdependent[3]. Matter also has the propensity to change[4]. It takes on a certain form and with time it starts to deteriorate, return to its original and is now ready to receive a different Form. Rambam understands that this concept of Matter is represented metaphorically as a promiscuous woman who is impregnated by different men and constantly seeks out new companions.
"How wonderfully wise is the simile of King Solomon, in which he compares matter to a faithless wife: for matter is never found without form, and is therefore always like such a wife who is never without a husband, never single; and yet, though being wedded, constantly seeks another man in the place of her husband: she entices and attracts him in every possible manner till he obtains from her what her husband has obtained. The same is the case with matter. Whatever form it has, it is disposed to receive another form; it never leaves off moving and casting off the form which it has in order to receive another. The same takes place when this second form is received." (MN3:8)
The importance of this discussion as it relates to theology is that the concept of Form is the prototype of non-material existence. The difference between Form and the First Cause idea is that Form and Matter are interdependent while First Cause by definition is the ultimate concept of independence. However it opens our mind to thinking in the direction of the possibility of non-material existence. It is at the cusp of the transition between physics and metaphysics.
[1] The mind – body relationship is an old philosophical debate that is still ongoing. The Self and its Brain, an Argument for Interactionism, Karl Popper and John C. Eccles is a good starting point. Also see Yeshayahu Leibowitz excellent booklet Guf Venefesh.
[2] See Milot Hahegayon, Magnes Press, chapter 9.
[3] רמב"ם יסודי התורה ד:ז
לעולם אין אתה רואה גולם בלא צורה או צורה בלא גולם, אלא לב האדם הוא שמחלק גוף הנמצא בדעתו ויודע שהוא מחובר מגולם וצורה, ויודע שיש שם גופים שגולמם מחובר מארבעת היסודות, וגופים שגולמם פשוט ואינו מחובר רק מגולם אחד, והצורות שאין להם גולם אינן נראין לעין אלא בעין הלב הן ידועין, כמו שידענו אדון הכל בלא ראיית עין.
[4] Of course there has to be an entity that conceptualizes the Form that will be appended to Matter but that is a different subject.
The concept of Matter and Form in Aristotelian physics is foreign to our contemporary understanding of science. It was a way of explaining how the non-physical “idea” or “concept” interacts with the physical world[1]. It visualized everything material as composed of the physical entity and the concept behind it. The example used[2] is a table where the artisan who has the picture of the final product in his mind takes a formless piece of wood and molds it into its final form. The “picture in his mind” is the Form which is now actualized as part of the final object. Looked at it relatively, Matter is controlled by Form. Matter will not change without Form acting on it, in fact it will not “exist” without Form, or concept preceding its existence. Form will also not be actualized without interacting with Matter. They are always interdependent[3]. Matter also has the propensity to change[4]. It takes on a certain form and with time it starts to deteriorate, return to its original and is now ready to receive a different Form. Rambam understands that this concept of Matter is represented metaphorically as a promiscuous woman who is impregnated by different men and constantly seeks out new companions.
"How wonderfully wise is the simile of King Solomon, in which he compares matter to a faithless wife: for matter is never found without form, and is therefore always like such a wife who is never without a husband, never single; and yet, though being wedded, constantly seeks another man in the place of her husband: she entices and attracts him in every possible manner till he obtains from her what her husband has obtained. The same is the case with matter. Whatever form it has, it is disposed to receive another form; it never leaves off moving and casting off the form which it has in order to receive another. The same takes place when this second form is received." (MN3:8)
The importance of this discussion as it relates to theology is that the concept of Form is the prototype of non-material existence. The difference between Form and the First Cause idea is that Form and Matter are interdependent while First Cause by definition is the ultimate concept of independence. However it opens our mind to thinking in the direction of the possibility of non-material existence. It is at the cusp of the transition between physics and metaphysics.
[1] The mind – body relationship is an old philosophical debate that is still ongoing. The Self and its Brain, an Argument for Interactionism, Karl Popper and John C. Eccles is a good starting point. Also see Yeshayahu Leibowitz excellent booklet Guf Venefesh.
[2] See Milot Hahegayon, Magnes Press, chapter 9.
[3] רמב"ם יסודי התורה ד:ז
לעולם אין אתה רואה גולם בלא צורה או צורה בלא גולם, אלא לב האדם הוא שמחלק גוף הנמצא בדעתו ויודע שהוא מחובר מגולם וצורה, ויודע שיש שם גופים שגולמם מחובר מארבעת היסודות, וגופים שגולמם פשוט ואינו מחובר רק מגולם אחד, והצורות שאין להם גולם אינן נראין לעין אלא בעין הלב הן ידועין, כמו שידענו אדון הכל בלא ראיית עין.
[4] Of course there has to be an entity that conceptualizes the Form that will be appended to Matter but that is a different subject.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
What do Lag BaOmer and Birchot Shema have in common?
Steg wrote this excellent post about Aveilut and Lag Ba’omer http://boroparkpyro.blogspot.com/2007/05/philosophy-of-lag.html which got me to thinking about this day.
תלמוד בבלי יבמות סב ע"ב
שנים עשר אלף זוגים תלמידים היו לו לרבי עקיבא, מגבת עד אנטיפרס, וכולן מתו בפרק …. תנא: כולם מתו מפסח ועד עצרת.
R. Akivah had 12,000 pairs of pupils who died in one period… A Braitha: They all died between Pessach and Shavuot.
So where does Lag Ba’omer enter?
The sefer Hamanhig (one of the medieval Possekim) quotes in the name of the Ba’al Hamaor (R. Zerachya Halevi) that in an old Spanish text the reading was – Ad Peros Ha’atzeret. The word “Peros” is translated by some as breaking the period in half, half way between Pessach and Shavuot, and Lag Ba’omer is kind of in the middle. It is a weak explanation, as it should have been the 25th day as opposed to the 33d, but it gets even weaker.
In Minhagei Yisrael by Professor Daniel Sperber volume 4 page 239 he quotes R. Saul Lieberman who in a lengthy discussion proves that Peros means preceding or the day before thus in this context - Erev Shavuot. That being the case Steg’s Rabbi was correct and there is no real Halachik (Talmudic which as discussed many times is binding) basis for Lag Ba’omer. That is why Rambam, who tells us that he brings anonymously only the Dinim that were arrived at in the Talmud, does not mention Lag Ba’omer. [He does not bring the Dinim of Sefira as to mourning as far as I know either.]
[For further discussion see the Gra in Orach Chaim 493 who quotes the Midrash and says that Peros is 15 days before without explaining the basis for that. The Taz brings a possibility that 33 is the number of days that they died if one eliminates Shabbatot, chagim and Rosh Chodesh.]
The word Peros is discussed in the Rishonim. Rashi translates in Megilah 23b as breaking in half just as the word Perussa means breaking a loaf in half. In Hilchot Tefilah we find the following Halacha:
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים ח:ה
וכן לא יהיה אחד מברך ברכת שמע והכל שומעים ועונין אחריו אמן אלא בעשרה, וזה הוא הנקרא פורס על שמע
One should not make the Birchot Kryat Shema while the others listen to him and answer Amen unless there are ten present. This is what is referred to as Pores al Shema. [This Halacha is part of the Tefilat Hatzibur rules. It was the custom that the Chazzan said the Berachot loud so that those who did not know them would be able to partake and be Yotze through him]
Again the same question arises what is the meaning of “Pores”? According to Rashi it would mean half and thus only the first half of Birchot Kryat Shema would require a Minyan. The assumption would be that it is because it contains the Kedusha. The second Bracha and at Ma’ariv this rule would not apply. Rambam does not distinguish and seems to read it as meaning the Berachot preceding the Shema are considered Devarim Shebikdusha and therefore require a Minyan. Thus Rambam reads further:
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים ח:ו
וכל דבר קדושה לא יהא אלא בתוך העדה מישראל שנאמר ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל
All Devarim Shebikdusha [a category of sayings that have special status and require special treatment] must be among a community of Jews as it says I will be sanctified among the children of Israel. [“Among” connotes a communal obligation].
תלמוד בבלי יבמות סב ע"ב
שנים עשר אלף זוגים תלמידים היו לו לרבי עקיבא, מגבת עד אנטיפרס, וכולן מתו בפרק …. תנא: כולם מתו מפסח ועד עצרת.
R. Akivah had 12,000 pairs of pupils who died in one period… A Braitha: They all died between Pessach and Shavuot.
So where does Lag Ba’omer enter?
The sefer Hamanhig (one of the medieval Possekim) quotes in the name of the Ba’al Hamaor (R. Zerachya Halevi) that in an old Spanish text the reading was – Ad Peros Ha’atzeret. The word “Peros” is translated by some as breaking the period in half, half way between Pessach and Shavuot, and Lag Ba’omer is kind of in the middle. It is a weak explanation, as it should have been the 25th day as opposed to the 33d, but it gets even weaker.
In Minhagei Yisrael by Professor Daniel Sperber volume 4 page 239 he quotes R. Saul Lieberman who in a lengthy discussion proves that Peros means preceding or the day before thus in this context - Erev Shavuot. That being the case Steg’s Rabbi was correct and there is no real Halachik (Talmudic which as discussed many times is binding) basis for Lag Ba’omer. That is why Rambam, who tells us that he brings anonymously only the Dinim that were arrived at in the Talmud, does not mention Lag Ba’omer. [He does not bring the Dinim of Sefira as to mourning as far as I know either.]
[For further discussion see the Gra in Orach Chaim 493 who quotes the Midrash and says that Peros is 15 days before without explaining the basis for that. The Taz brings a possibility that 33 is the number of days that they died if one eliminates Shabbatot, chagim and Rosh Chodesh.]
The word Peros is discussed in the Rishonim. Rashi translates in Megilah 23b as breaking in half just as the word Perussa means breaking a loaf in half. In Hilchot Tefilah we find the following Halacha:
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים ח:ה
וכן לא יהיה אחד מברך ברכת שמע והכל שומעים ועונין אחריו אמן אלא בעשרה, וזה הוא הנקרא פורס על שמע
One should not make the Birchot Kryat Shema while the others listen to him and answer Amen unless there are ten present. This is what is referred to as Pores al Shema. [This Halacha is part of the Tefilat Hatzibur rules. It was the custom that the Chazzan said the Berachot loud so that those who did not know them would be able to partake and be Yotze through him]
Again the same question arises what is the meaning of “Pores”? According to Rashi it would mean half and thus only the first half of Birchot Kryat Shema would require a Minyan. The assumption would be that it is because it contains the Kedusha. The second Bracha and at Ma’ariv this rule would not apply. Rambam does not distinguish and seems to read it as meaning the Berachot preceding the Shema are considered Devarim Shebikdusha and therefore require a Minyan. Thus Rambam reads further:
רמב"ם תפילה ונשיאת כפים ח:ו
וכל דבר קדושה לא יהא אלא בתוך העדה מישראל שנאמר ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל
All Devarim Shebikdusha [a category of sayings that have special status and require special treatment] must be among a community of Jews as it says I will be sanctified among the children of Israel. [“Among” connotes a communal obligation].
Free will or God?
The Gemara in Yoma 38b says:
תלמוד בבלי יומא לח ע"ב
אמר ריש לקיש: מאי דכתיב +משלי ג+ אם ללצים הוא יליץ ולענוים יתן חן. בא לטמא - פותחין לו, בא לטהר - מסייעין אותו.
Resh Lakish explains the verse: If it concerns the scorners, He scorns them, but unto the humble He gives grace - If someone wants to defile himself they open the door; if someone wants to become pure they help him.
Who is the “they”?
Rashi explains:
רש"י מסכת יומא דף לח עמוד ב
כיון שבא אדם לטמא - להיות רשע.
פותחין לו - פתח הטומאה ליכנס בו, מספיקין בידו, ואין מונעין ממנו מן השמים לעכבו.
If someone wants to defile himself – to become evil – they open the door to impurity to allow him to enter it. Heaven does not stop him.
Rashi’s is the common understanding of this popular saying. “They” is God (Heaven). God does not stop a person when he wants to defile himself but helps him when he wants to improve himself.
What exactly does this mean? Especially if we accept that we have free will, what part does God play in our choices?
Rambam, explains this as follows:
רמב"ם תשובה ו:ה
מהו זה שאמר דוד טוב וישר ה' על כן יורה חטאים בדרך ידרך ענוים וגו', זה ששלח נביאים להם מודיעים דרכי ה' ומחזירין אותן בתשובה, ועוד שנתן בהם כח ללמוד ולהבין, שמדה זו בכל אדם שכל זמן שהוא נמשך בדרכי החכמה והצדק מתאוה להן ורודף אותם, והוא מה שאמרו רז"ל בא לטהר מסייעין אותו כלומר ימצא עצמו נעזר על הדבר,
What did David mean when he said, "Good and upright is the Lord - therefore He instructs sinners in the way, He directs the humble in justice, and He shows the meek His way"? This is referring to the Prophets who were sent to publicize the ways of God and to make the people return by repentance.
It could also mean that people have been given the power to learn and understand. This is characteristic of any person: Whenever he follows the ways of wisdom and righteousness he desires them and pursues them. That is the saying of the Rabbis “if someone wants to become pure, they help him” i.e. that one will find oneself helped in this matter. (Courtesy of Jonathan Baker with my edits).
In other words “finding oneself helped in this matter” means that it is the characteristic of any person. God is not involved other than having created man all the way at the beginning of time with this characteristic of wanting to pursue wisdom and righteousness. “They” is human nature! Free will has been preserved!
תלמוד בבלי יומא לח ע"ב
אמר ריש לקיש: מאי דכתיב +משלי ג+ אם ללצים הוא יליץ ולענוים יתן חן. בא לטמא - פותחין לו, בא לטהר - מסייעין אותו.
Resh Lakish explains the verse: If it concerns the scorners, He scorns them, but unto the humble He gives grace - If someone wants to defile himself they open the door; if someone wants to become pure they help him.
Who is the “they”?
Rashi explains:
רש"י מסכת יומא דף לח עמוד ב
כיון שבא אדם לטמא - להיות רשע.
פותחין לו - פתח הטומאה ליכנס בו, מספיקין בידו, ואין מונעין ממנו מן השמים לעכבו.
If someone wants to defile himself – to become evil – they open the door to impurity to allow him to enter it. Heaven does not stop him.
Rashi’s is the common understanding of this popular saying. “They” is God (Heaven). God does not stop a person when he wants to defile himself but helps him when he wants to improve himself.
What exactly does this mean? Especially if we accept that we have free will, what part does God play in our choices?
Rambam, explains this as follows:
רמב"ם תשובה ו:ה
מהו זה שאמר דוד טוב וישר ה' על כן יורה חטאים בדרך ידרך ענוים וגו', זה ששלח נביאים להם מודיעים דרכי ה' ומחזירין אותן בתשובה, ועוד שנתן בהם כח ללמוד ולהבין, שמדה זו בכל אדם שכל זמן שהוא נמשך בדרכי החכמה והצדק מתאוה להן ורודף אותם, והוא מה שאמרו רז"ל בא לטהר מסייעין אותו כלומר ימצא עצמו נעזר על הדבר,
What did David mean when he said, "Good and upright is the Lord - therefore He instructs sinners in the way, He directs the humble in justice, and He shows the meek His way"? This is referring to the Prophets who were sent to publicize the ways of God and to make the people return by repentance.
It could also mean that people have been given the power to learn and understand. This is characteristic of any person: Whenever he follows the ways of wisdom and righteousness he desires them and pursues them. That is the saying of the Rabbis “if someone wants to become pure, they help him” i.e. that one will find oneself helped in this matter. (Courtesy of Jonathan Baker with my edits).
In other words “finding oneself helped in this matter” means that it is the characteristic of any person. God is not involved other than having created man all the way at the beginning of time with this characteristic of wanting to pursue wisdom and righteousness. “They” is human nature! Free will has been preserved!
Friday, May 04, 2007
Torah, Science, Philosophy and Gentiles - The Perspective of a Medieval Thinker.
My friend Rabbi Benzion Buchman brought to my attention a short excerpt from a letter written by R. Yedayah HaPenini to R. Shlomo ben Aderet – the Rashba (1235-1310). The Teshuvah can be found in the Shut Harashba 1:415.
The background of this letter is a quite interesting controversy that broke out in Provence at the time. Provence had become a center of learning where Rambam’s approach to Hashkafah took deep roots. It was in fact a Maimonidean haven that gave out great thinkers and where the works of Rambam were translated and disseminated. At the same time, Jewish immigrants from Muslim Spain who came north escaping the turmoil of the Reconquista (the retaking of Spain from the Muslims by the Christians) were encouraged by local scholars to translate the Arab philosophic literature. Averroes, Avicenna (Ibn Sinna) Al Farabi as well as the Greek philosophies that were translated earlier into Arabic, were now translated into Hebrew and from that eventually into Latin. This great work was the impetus for the great European intellectual development, the Renaissance. The Tibon family, R. Shmuel and his son R. Moshe as well as R. Yaakov Anatoly (R. Shmuel’s son or father in law) and many others were instrumental in that work. Besides being translators these great intellectuals took philosophy seriously and integrated it into Judaism, using it to further Rambam’s work and develop a rational theology that brought great depth into the religious rituals. Great works were written that are classics of Jewish thought. Just to name a few, Malmad Hatalmidim (R. Yaakov Anatoly), Milchamot Hashem (Ralbag), and Yikavu Hamayim (R. Shmuel Tibon), Chibur Hateshuvah (Meiri), Bechinat Olam (R. Yedayah HaPenini) and more. As usual when great people innovate they are always copied by more mediocre ones and a trend developed where Greek philosophy took precedence on Limud Hatorah among these masses. What made things worse is that some of these mediocre scholars began to emulate the approach of the great thinkers in explaining difficult verses in Tanach and sayings of the Rabbis through allegorical interpretations. Some ideas that were heretical were preached in the Batei Midrash on Shabbat. R. Abba Mari approached the Meiri and asked him to join him in banning the reading of Greek philosophers before the age of 25. Meiri and other rabbis of Provence did not feel it appropriate to put out bans and refused to join him. He approached Rashba who was seen as the Gadol Hador and he acquiesced putting out a cherem on whoever learned philosophy before the age of 25. R. Yedayah HaPenini (RYP) wrote the letter to Rashba defending the position of the Provencal Rabbis and explaining the importance and in fact, the deep rooting this approach has in Rabbinic thought going back to the times of the Mishna.
Here is the pertinent excerpt in its original Hebrew with my usual Paraphrase/Translation:
. והוא הפרדס העליון שנכנסו בו חכמי ישראל בשלום ויצאו בשלום. ופירוש שלום, הכנס השגת הדעות העיוניות האמיתיות על אמיתותם עם הסכמתם למה שראוי שיאמן בחוק התורה וזהו עם זריקת הקליפות. ופירוש שלום היציאה הוא תיקון המידות והמעשים שהוא כשייפרד השלם מהתבודדותו להתעסק בצרכי העולם וגם כן אינו נמנע שיעמדו על פתחו קצת מיחידי האומות המוציאים כל זמנם בלימוד ובידיעה אמיתית. כבר זכרו החכמים ז"ל שחסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא. ובמה כי אם בידיעת אמתות בבורא הכל.
After discussing the importance of philosophy to Jewish thought, RYP refers to the Gemara (Hagigah) about the four who went into the Pardes (vineyard).
The Pardes refers to the High Vineyard (abstract thought) into which the Chachmei Yisrael entered in peace and exited in peace. The word “peace” in the context of entering means to integrate the philosophic truths with what one has to believe based on the Torah. That includes throwing away the shells. [In modern parlance it would mean uncovering the deep meanings of the Torah (removing the outer shell) and thus showing its compatibility with scientific truths - DG]. The word “peace” in context of exiting means how the now perfected person leaving his meditative isolation to partake in the practical world has perfected his Midot and his actions. [Meditation’s goal is to now, with the greater understanding of God, act in the practical world according to these insights – See the last chapter in MN – DG]. It is also not impossible that some unique gentiles, who spend all their time on learning and true knowledge, will arrive at the same place. The Rabbis already mentioned that Gentile Sages may have a part in Olam Haba. How else can one acquire that if not through knowing the truth about the Creator of the world?
Shabbat Shalom
The background of this letter is a quite interesting controversy that broke out in Provence at the time. Provence had become a center of learning where Rambam’s approach to Hashkafah took deep roots. It was in fact a Maimonidean haven that gave out great thinkers and where the works of Rambam were translated and disseminated. At the same time, Jewish immigrants from Muslim Spain who came north escaping the turmoil of the Reconquista (the retaking of Spain from the Muslims by the Christians) were encouraged by local scholars to translate the Arab philosophic literature. Averroes, Avicenna (Ibn Sinna) Al Farabi as well as the Greek philosophies that were translated earlier into Arabic, were now translated into Hebrew and from that eventually into Latin. This great work was the impetus for the great European intellectual development, the Renaissance. The Tibon family, R. Shmuel and his son R. Moshe as well as R. Yaakov Anatoly (R. Shmuel’s son or father in law) and many others were instrumental in that work. Besides being translators these great intellectuals took philosophy seriously and integrated it into Judaism, using it to further Rambam’s work and develop a rational theology that brought great depth into the religious rituals. Great works were written that are classics of Jewish thought. Just to name a few, Malmad Hatalmidim (R. Yaakov Anatoly), Milchamot Hashem (Ralbag), and Yikavu Hamayim (R. Shmuel Tibon), Chibur Hateshuvah (Meiri), Bechinat Olam (R. Yedayah HaPenini) and more. As usual when great people innovate they are always copied by more mediocre ones and a trend developed where Greek philosophy took precedence on Limud Hatorah among these masses. What made things worse is that some of these mediocre scholars began to emulate the approach of the great thinkers in explaining difficult verses in Tanach and sayings of the Rabbis through allegorical interpretations. Some ideas that were heretical were preached in the Batei Midrash on Shabbat. R. Abba Mari approached the Meiri and asked him to join him in banning the reading of Greek philosophers before the age of 25. Meiri and other rabbis of Provence did not feel it appropriate to put out bans and refused to join him. He approached Rashba who was seen as the Gadol Hador and he acquiesced putting out a cherem on whoever learned philosophy before the age of 25. R. Yedayah HaPenini (RYP) wrote the letter to Rashba defending the position of the Provencal Rabbis and explaining the importance and in fact, the deep rooting this approach has in Rabbinic thought going back to the times of the Mishna.
Here is the pertinent excerpt in its original Hebrew with my usual Paraphrase/Translation:
. והוא הפרדס העליון שנכנסו בו חכמי ישראל בשלום ויצאו בשלום. ופירוש שלום, הכנס השגת הדעות העיוניות האמיתיות על אמיתותם עם הסכמתם למה שראוי שיאמן בחוק התורה וזהו עם זריקת הקליפות. ופירוש שלום היציאה הוא תיקון המידות והמעשים שהוא כשייפרד השלם מהתבודדותו להתעסק בצרכי העולם וגם כן אינו נמנע שיעמדו על פתחו קצת מיחידי האומות המוציאים כל זמנם בלימוד ובידיעה אמיתית. כבר זכרו החכמים ז"ל שחסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא. ובמה כי אם בידיעת אמתות בבורא הכל.
After discussing the importance of philosophy to Jewish thought, RYP refers to the Gemara (Hagigah) about the four who went into the Pardes (vineyard).
The Pardes refers to the High Vineyard (abstract thought) into which the Chachmei Yisrael entered in peace and exited in peace. The word “peace” in the context of entering means to integrate the philosophic truths with what one has to believe based on the Torah. That includes throwing away the shells. [In modern parlance it would mean uncovering the deep meanings of the Torah (removing the outer shell) and thus showing its compatibility with scientific truths - DG]. The word “peace” in context of exiting means how the now perfected person leaving his meditative isolation to partake in the practical world has perfected his Midot and his actions. [Meditation’s goal is to now, with the greater understanding of God, act in the practical world according to these insights – See the last chapter in MN – DG]. It is also not impossible that some unique gentiles, who spend all their time on learning and true knowledge, will arrive at the same place. The Rabbis already mentioned that Gentile Sages may have a part in Olam Haba. How else can one acquire that if not through knowing the truth about the Creator of the world?
Shabbat Shalom
Thursday, May 03, 2007
What is the purpose of our existence?
The accepted wisdom in the community is that Man is the purpose of creation. God created the universe so that man, in particular the Jewish man, who acknowledges God and serves Him can thrive and populate it. It is an important philosophical and theological question and I would like to take a stab at it to clarify it for myself. I hope to dedicate several posts to this subject “where the spirit takes me”.
Here I would like to focus on a striking paradox. If you were to ask which theory of existence lends itself more to man being the purpose of it all, the Creationists or those who believe in the eternity of the Universe? Most people would (I would) intuitively say of course the Creationists! Well think again.
When we say “purpose” it needs to be defined. In a universe of cause and effect it becomes clear that there is a connection between different species. Our whole environment is interdependent and is the basis of our conservationist instinct. One can say the purpose of vegetation is to feed the animal kingdom; the purpose of water is to sustain both the vegetal and the animal and so on. There clearly is an internal purpose for each component of our existence which is to perpetuate itself and the whole. The scientific enterprise is to understand, describe and take control of this observed phenomenon. From this perspective, the “purpose” of everything is the preservation of itself and consequently of the whole. Everything that exists is to perpetuate the continued existence of the whole. In an eternal universe the question of “purpose” has no other meaning. It is just there to remain there. Man looking at himself and his role can easily succumb to the narcissistic view of himself being the center and “purpose” of all this. After all he is the one with the brains and the ambition to take control and mold everything to serve him.
It is when we accept that God created existence (I prefer “existence” to “universe” as it is more accurate) that we are faced with trying to explain why He created it. Just as we do not do things without a purpose we assume that a perfect Entity would perforce have to have a goal in mind. We conflate the “purpose” I described in the previous paragraph and conclude that as man is the highest sentient being, the being that discovered God the Creator, he must also be the goal God had in mind when He began all this. Rambam in one of what is to me one of the most difficult chapters in the Moreh presents the problem as follows: (MN 3:13)
“But of those who accept our theory that the whole Universe has been created from nothing, some hold that the inquiry after the purpose of the Creation is necessary, and assume that the Universe was only created for the sake of man's existence, that he might serve God. Everything that is done they believe is done for man's sake; even the spheres move only for his benefit, in order that his wants might be supplied… On examining this opinion as intelligent persons ought to examine all different opinions, we shall discover the errors it includes. Those who hold this view, namely, that the existence of man is the object of the whole creation, may be asked whether God could have created man without those previous creations, or whether man could only have come into existence after the creation of all other things. If they answer in the affirmative, that man could have been created even if, e.g., the heavens did not exist, they will be asked “what is the object of all these things, since they do not exist for their own sake but for the sake of something that could exist without them?” Even if the Universe existed for man's sake and man existed for the purpose of serving God, as has been mentioned, the question remains, “What is the end of serving God?” He does not become more perfect if all His creatures serve Him and comprehend Him as far as possible; nor would He lose anything if nothing existed beside Him. It might perhaps be replied that the service of God is not intended for God's perfection; it is intended for our own perfection,--it is good for us, it makes us perfect. But then the question might be repeated, “What is the object of our being perfect?” We must in continuing the inquiries as to the purpose of the creation at last arrive at the answer; it was the Will of God, or His Wisdom decreed it. This is the correct answer.”
If man could be narcissistic according to the believers in the eternity of material existence he has lost all such illusions according to Rambam’s creationist view!
“This must be our belief when we have a correct knowledge of our own self, and comprehend the true nature of everything; we must be content, and not trouble our mind with seeking a certain final cause for things that have none, or have no other final cause but their own existence, which depends on the Will of God, or, if you prefer, on the Divine Wisdom.”
The implications of this approach are enormous. We are used to thinking that we are the most important thing in existence. When great tragedies befall humankind we tend to ask how it is possible that there is a God when such injustices occur? That question loses some of its edge if man is only another part of a greater whole. It also changes our perspective of what is good and bad. That is why Rambam has this discussion as an introduction to his explanation of providence – what is referred to as Pirkei Hashgacha. He is preempting the popular understanding that the universe is anthropocentric and that all was created to serve man. (There are Chazal who seem to say that – another interesting discussion addressed by Rambam. To follow).
How this thinking is in tune with the Mitzvah of Vehalachta Biderachav – emulating God’s ways – is the subject of another post.
Here I would like to focus on a striking paradox. If you were to ask which theory of existence lends itself more to man being the purpose of it all, the Creationists or those who believe in the eternity of the Universe? Most people would (I would) intuitively say of course the Creationists! Well think again.
When we say “purpose” it needs to be defined. In a universe of cause and effect it becomes clear that there is a connection between different species. Our whole environment is interdependent and is the basis of our conservationist instinct. One can say the purpose of vegetation is to feed the animal kingdom; the purpose of water is to sustain both the vegetal and the animal and so on. There clearly is an internal purpose for each component of our existence which is to perpetuate itself and the whole. The scientific enterprise is to understand, describe and take control of this observed phenomenon. From this perspective, the “purpose” of everything is the preservation of itself and consequently of the whole. Everything that exists is to perpetuate the continued existence of the whole. In an eternal universe the question of “purpose” has no other meaning. It is just there to remain there. Man looking at himself and his role can easily succumb to the narcissistic view of himself being the center and “purpose” of all this. After all he is the one with the brains and the ambition to take control and mold everything to serve him.
It is when we accept that God created existence (I prefer “existence” to “universe” as it is more accurate) that we are faced with trying to explain why He created it. Just as we do not do things without a purpose we assume that a perfect Entity would perforce have to have a goal in mind. We conflate the “purpose” I described in the previous paragraph and conclude that as man is the highest sentient being, the being that discovered God the Creator, he must also be the goal God had in mind when He began all this. Rambam in one of what is to me one of the most difficult chapters in the Moreh presents the problem as follows: (MN 3:13)
“But of those who accept our theory that the whole Universe has been created from nothing, some hold that the inquiry after the purpose of the Creation is necessary, and assume that the Universe was only created for the sake of man's existence, that he might serve God. Everything that is done they believe is done for man's sake; even the spheres move only for his benefit, in order that his wants might be supplied… On examining this opinion as intelligent persons ought to examine all different opinions, we shall discover the errors it includes. Those who hold this view, namely, that the existence of man is the object of the whole creation, may be asked whether God could have created man without those previous creations, or whether man could only have come into existence after the creation of all other things. If they answer in the affirmative, that man could have been created even if, e.g., the heavens did not exist, they will be asked “what is the object of all these things, since they do not exist for their own sake but for the sake of something that could exist without them?” Even if the Universe existed for man's sake and man existed for the purpose of serving God, as has been mentioned, the question remains, “What is the end of serving God?” He does not become more perfect if all His creatures serve Him and comprehend Him as far as possible; nor would He lose anything if nothing existed beside Him. It might perhaps be replied that the service of God is not intended for God's perfection; it is intended for our own perfection,--it is good for us, it makes us perfect. But then the question might be repeated, “What is the object of our being perfect?” We must in continuing the inquiries as to the purpose of the creation at last arrive at the answer; it was the Will of God, or His Wisdom decreed it. This is the correct answer.”
If man could be narcissistic according to the believers in the eternity of material existence he has lost all such illusions according to Rambam’s creationist view!
“This must be our belief when we have a correct knowledge of our own self, and comprehend the true nature of everything; we must be content, and not trouble our mind with seeking a certain final cause for things that have none, or have no other final cause but their own existence, which depends on the Will of God, or, if you prefer, on the Divine Wisdom.”
The implications of this approach are enormous. We are used to thinking that we are the most important thing in existence. When great tragedies befall humankind we tend to ask how it is possible that there is a God when such injustices occur? That question loses some of its edge if man is only another part of a greater whole. It also changes our perspective of what is good and bad. That is why Rambam has this discussion as an introduction to his explanation of providence – what is referred to as Pirkei Hashgacha. He is preempting the popular understanding that the universe is anthropocentric and that all was created to serve man. (There are Chazal who seem to say that – another interesting discussion addressed by Rambam. To follow).
How this thinking is in tune with the Mitzvah of Vehalachta Biderachav – emulating God’s ways – is the subject of another post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)