Some Thoughts on Shaking the Lulav.

This Post is being rewritten. See comment by Yaakov.

Is There a Conflict Between Torah and Science?

What is Torah? Is it just the corpus that we customarily refer to as such, Tanach, Mishna, Gemara (Bavli and Yerushalmi) and the commentaries on them followed by the Possekim and their writings? Is that “Torah” an independent kind of knowledge that creates its own reality? Or is Torah a fully integrated system of Halacha, Kiyum Mitzvot, science, philosophy and a way of life and thinking? If we were to ask this question and poll Bnei Yeshivot in Lakewood, Bnei Brak and Yerushalaim, the majority would answer that it is the former. They will say that learning Torah is limited to Gemara, Rishonim, Acharonim and Halacha while science and all general knowledge of the world we live in is “secular”, relative and questionably true. There will be nuances in the exact understanding but generally, the argument will be that whatever Chazal say about the world and its science, verbatim as they say it without any interpretation, is how the world is. When confronted by contradicting empirical evidence, the assumption is that the data is wrong and Chazal knew better or that we are dealing with two different universes or existences, the physical here and now and the “spiritual” which is the “real” existence. Attempting to reconcile Chazal with reality by reinterpreting them or when that is impossible, assuming that they were telling us a philosophical idea based on the knowledge of their time which needs to be rethought and adapted to our current understanding, is considered blasphemy and Kefirah.

I believe that this position is a distortion of what Torah is and is at the root of most ills of our contemporary frum society. It puts people in a state of mind where the Torah and Halachot they learn and their way of life are at odds. We have to live in a physical world that operates on scientific principles which to these poor people are anathema. They therefore build a wall between these two worlds, they become schizophrenic and we therefore witness religious people who do not see that Torah is a way of life. To them all religion is a ritual that has nothing to do with how they live and operate in the outside world. They are two separate and different universes. Mashgichim in Yeshivot and Rabbanim in the community preach, focus on the symptoms which they cannot avoid seeing and reacting to, knowing instinctively that there is something wrong in the behavior of their flock but they themselves do not see the real problem. How many times have we heard the pronouncement that Torah and Yisrael are above or outside nature – Lema’alah min hateva? As long as they will educate, insisting on this flawed understanding of what Torah teaches, they are missing the point and misleading one or more generations. Without integrating the two worlds, seeing them as one, the malady will persist.

I was following a private email list discussion on the subject of the Torah Umaddah (TuM), Torah Im Derech Eretz (TIDE) and Chareidi philosophies, and one of the participants, Dr. Noam Stadlan, made the following extremely lucid and clear statement about what Torah is that I believe needs to be publicized. I post it here with his permission.

“I am sorry to say that I had to take a lot of TUMS when I read the discussion [on the thread by one member] of TuM. Nature is Hashem's way of making His world understandable to man. Without the laws of nature (and by definition the science that is necessary to explicate, understand, and apply those laws), we would not know that the apple that fell down off the tree yesterday will still fall down off the tree today, and tomorrow, etc. There would not be any dependable consistency in the world.

There is no inconsistency in believing in evolution to some extent [I am not sure why limit it by “to some extent” – DG] and also in Orthodox Jewish dogma. TuM means believing that there is intrinsic value to science, art, literature, and to many other fields of human endeavor. That understanding the laws of nature is a way to understand HKBH, because He created those laws. TuM mean believing that Torah and nature are all part of what Hashem created, and there do not have to be inconsistencies or conflicts. We may look at nature differently than Chachmei haTalmud, but if they had modern science, they also would look at nature differently than they recorded in Shas. … is finding conflicts where TuM does not find them. This is not a 'science first' approach. It is a belief that they do not conflict, and if they seem to conflict, it is because we do not know enough to realize they do not. It does not mean that we throw out the science, or throw out the belief. We can wait for more information. As they say, no one ever died from a kasha.

The Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah (second Perek I think) discusses how to achieve belief in God, and he begins not by recommending Talmud Torah, but by looking at the world. He could be thought of as a TuM kind of person. He studied science, astronomy, philosophy, and tried to apply what he knew of nature. He realized there was value in all of that, to the point he incorporated it in his approach to Yddishkeit. (Obviously Aristotle and Moslem philosophers are prominent influences. Platonic astronomy figures prominently in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah as well as discussions of spheres, etc)

Finally, if one is viewing TuM, it makes no sense to look at a population of people who barely know the term, much less have an idea of what it means and stands for. Being Modern Orthodox does not automatically mean that one is an advocate of Torah Umaddah. One can be Modern Orthodox and not really have a thought-out philosophy (like me not too long ago). One can legitimately be concerned that a philosophy is not retained by a community, or is not propagated, but the reality is that those who think about TuM, and are advocates of TuM, are likely to produce children who are TuMnicks.

On the other hand, those who are MO in practice but do not think deeply about the philosophy behind their actions, are probably less likely to produce practicing children. Lumping every MO person into the TuM category just because it may be the closest to what he or she practice is not an accurate way of measuring the success or failure of the philosophy.”

Dr. Stadlan has presented what to me is a most lucid description of what Torah and Avodah means. Torah is everything we know about God, starting from His Mitzvot to His world and the existence He gave us. It is the goal of Yddishkeit to integrate all this information, knowledge and actions and use it to worship God – Avodat Hashem – by emulating His ways.

Teaching the Masses - Was Rambam an Elitist?

I left off my last post with Rambam’s statement that in the Treatise on Resurrection he is not adding anything to what he already wrote on the subject because he intends it to be understood by the unsophisticated masses. At first blush, it would seem to be an elitist approach where the “masses” are discriminated against. As we will see this is far from the truth.

The word “knowledge” is not easy to define and is still a matter of discussion by philosophers. For our purpose, I will define it as the totality of information that a human can (theoretically) garner about existence. At a basic level, it is a practical quest for understanding. A person wants to know about his environment so that he can use it for his own, or for his specie’s survival. But there is a deeper need to satisfy a curiosity about everything that is out there and how it works, what made it come into existence and to what end. That curiosity has to be fostered and developed. It does not come naturally to most of us. Left to ourselves most of us would give the whole issue only passing attention. It is however an extremely important subject and is at the core of human existence. In Judaism’s view of the world, humanity has a role to play in the continuity of the whole of existence and it is up to humankind to discover that role and act on it at appropriate times. Discovering what that role is can only be accomplished if we question the reasons for our existence, how we came about and where all this is going. It also has to be a communal effort. The task is so daunting that a single individual alone in his short lifetime can never accomplish it. It is therefore crucial that as many human beings as possible during endless generations are made cognizant of this responsibility and are recruited to this great endeavor. That is the goal of Torah. It is supposed to teach us from childhood to focus on this quest. Although all human beings have to some degree the ability to embark on this quest, it is part of man’s nature that he has free will. For reasons known only to HKBH He wanted us to have that freedom, an apparently necessary trait for the fulfillment of our role and part in existence. Free will demands that we choose to pursue our destiny responsibly. Choice means we do not have to and our other natural tendencies drive us to focus on ourselves ignoring the existential questions that confront us. The Torah’s goal is to trigger us into thinking, questioning and searching for answers. How does it go about it?

One among much method is through the Mitzvah of Kryat Shema. The Halacha requires us to declare twice daily that God is unique – Hashem Echad. The saying of Shema is the first thing taught a Jewish child as soon as he acquires the ability to talk and is the last thing a person says at the time of death. It is so important that it is the only daily Torah obligation. There is no other Mitzvah that is a Torah mandated (as opposed to Rabbinic) daily obligation. When the child asks what the word unique in Shema means, he is told much more than just that God is unique.

“For in the same way as all people must be informed and even children must be trained in the belief that God is One, and that none besides Him is to be worshipped, so must all be taught by simple authority that God is incorporeal. There is no similarity in any way whatsoever between Him and His creatures. His existence is not like the existence of His creatures, His life not like that of any living being, His wisdom not like the wisdom of the wisest of men. The difference between Him and His creatures is not merely quantitative, but absolute [as between two individuals of two different classes]. I mean to say that all must understand that our wisdom and His or our power and His do not differ quantitatively or qualitatively, or in a similar manner. For two things, of which the one is strong and the other weak, are necessarily similar, belong to the same class, and can be included in one definition. The same is the case with any other comparisons: they can only be made between two things belonging to the same class, as has been shown in works on Natural Science. Anything predicated of God is totally different from our attributes; no definition can comprehend both; therefore His existence and that of any other being totally differ from each other, and the term existence is applied to both as homonyms, as I shall explain.” (MN1:35)

Of course, Rambam is describing a long process of education where a child is taught the basic ideas and slowly progresses as he matures to a more advanced understanding. However all this is taught “by simple authority” without any logical proof or argument. When the maturing child confronts the new texts he is now learning, the contrast and apparent contradiction with this teaching about God’s uniqueness and the text itself, triggers a series of questions. That forces those that are more intelligent and have the mental capacity to think, venturing farther afield and thus deal with the existential questions.

“That God is incorporeal, that He cannot be compared with His creatures, that He is not subject to external influence; these are things which must be explained to every one according to his capacity. They must be taught by way of tradition to children and women, to the stupid and ignorant, as they are taught that God is One, that He is eternal, and that He alone is to be worshipped. Without incorporeality, there is no unity, for a corporeal thing is in the first case not simple, but composed of matter and form which are two separate things by definition, and secondly, as it has extension it is also divisible. Persons having received this doctrine, having been trained in this belief are in consequence at a loss to reconcile it with the writings of the Prophets. The meaning of the latter must be made clear and explained to them by pointing out the homonymity and the figurative application of certain terms discussed in this part of the work. Their belief in the unity of God and in the words of the Prophets will then be a true and perfect belief.” (MN 1:35)

Rambam’s Torah does not suffer of an inferiority complex. On the contrary, it challenges man to question and search for Truth. When man understands rationally the meaning of uniqueness (unity) as applied to God, the idea of transcendence, omniscience, omnipotence etc… and his own place and status in that context, he truly understands the words of the prophets. The prophets teach man about his responsibility and need to discover his role in existence. The prophets teach that man has to try to understand God, His deeds and emulate Him in creation. The Torah defines this goal of humankind in the story of creation.

כו וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם

בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף

הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָאָרֶץ, וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ

עַל-הָאָרֶץ.

26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.'

The prophets continue this teaching and apply it to practical day-to-day behavior.

Of course, Torah is not one-dimensional. Shema is only one Mitzvah among many. There are many more Mitzvot that permeate our daily life and force us to constantly confront the question of why we are doing them. The search for an answer invariably leads us back to thinking about God, the lawgiver who is also the Creator and First Cause. Thus, all Mitzvot have the same goals – turn us into thoughtful human beings in search of God and our role in His universe.

Rambam believes that when the Torah and that includes the Prophets and the rabbis of the Mishna and Talmud, teach theology through direct edicts or through stories and metaphors, they use a multi-level language. It is a language that can be understood by the beginner child as well as by the sophisticated philosopher. They both will have an understanding that will trigger further thought at their respective level of apprehension. It is this dialectic between the written text and the “simple authority” at first and the logical understanding and conviction as the person progresses, that induces the person to question it and promotes thoughtfulness. When Rambam is telling us that he is not adding anything more than he has said in the past on the subject so that the masses understand him, he is emulating the way he understands Torah teaches. He will repeat and elaborate on what he has already said, without revealing more, expecting the reader according to his level, to question further and find the answer. He sees the masses, the women and children as he many times refers to them, as the beginners where each has the ability, if properly directed, to gather a deeper understanding of life and their role in it. They thus can contribute to the great mission of humanity; to know God and His ways and emulate Him doing good which is synonymous to promoting continuity of existence in Rambam’s parlance, as we have discussed many times.

I have digressed a little from my discussion of the verse in Devarim 6:19 and I will do so a little more in my next post to discuss Rambam’s presentation on Techyat Hametim and touch a little on the issue of miracles. Please indulge my wandering thoughts.

The Rationale for the Many Detailed Rules Against Idolatry - Eradication and Prevention.

In my last post, I analyzed Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot using the verse in Devarim 4:19 to support the prohibition of even contemplating the possibility of astrology being a science and true. I failed to point out that the idea that astrology (and for that matter magic) is false, was one of the most difficult things for a medieval thinker to accept. In fact, almost all ignored this position of Rambam and even his most ardent followers felt forced to disagree. His position was considered revolutionary and it was only much later in the history of human development that the truth of Rambam’s position was finally seen and accepted. Most of Rambam’s followers such as Ralbag, Rabbi Levi Ben Avraham, and Rabbi Yaakov Antuli (author of the seminal Malmad Hatalmidim) to name a few, all believed that astrology is an empirically proven science. As we will see, even direct communication with Rambam in a letter to the sages of Marseilles who queried him and where he clarified his position admonishing them to change their thinking made little impact. Ramban’s position that astrology is real but forbidden was accepted throughout Europe for centuries thereafter. It is a separate subject for discussion, but it is worthwhile to mention that here we see how philosophical thinking affected Halacha and that the two were never divorced from each other during the earlier periods of Jewish learning including the era of the Rishonim. The apparent disconnect and separation between the two in contemporary Jewish Halacha is a more recent development.

I would like to now analyze how Rambam addresses this verse (Devarim 4:19) in his Mishne Torah Hilchot Avodah Zara 2:1.

עיקר הציווי בעבודה זרה, שלא לעבוד אחד מכל הברואים--לא

מלאך, ולא גלגל, ולא כוכב, ולא אחד מארבע היסודות, ולא אחד מכל הנבראים

מהם. ואף על פי שהעובד יודע שה' הוא האלוהים, והוא עובד הנברא הזה על דרך

שעבד אנוש ואנשי דורו תחילה--הרי זה עובד עבודה זרה.

The core [literally: the root] of the commandment [forbidding] idol worship is that one may not worship any creation, whether an angel, a sphere, a star, one of the four elements or anything that is made from them [the elements]. Even if the worshipper knows that God is the [supreme] God and he [only] worships the created entity, the way Enosh and his generation did in the beginning – that is Idol Worship.

According to Rambam in the preceding Chapter, Enosh developed the idea of worshiping the forces of nature that run the world as God’s intermediaries. At first, it was just as a show of respect for God’s tools, just as one respects the king’s minister – which is what Rambam is referring to here with the words “in the beginning”. With time, people attributed independent powers to them. To understand what Rambam means when he introduces this chapter with the words “The core of the commandment” we need to differentiate between goal and method. The goal is the eradication of the concept of idolatry and once eradicated preventing recidivism. The method is the development of laws that will lead people to that goal. These laws will not only forbid idol worship itself but anything that might lead towards it. There is a fine line between being in awe and worshipping God as the source of all the beauty and wisdom we observe in the world around us and worshipping the beautiful and awesome world itself. Crossing that line is dangerous and the laws are there to prevent that from happening. Rambam here is laying out the underlying rationale for the many rules in minute details that follow in the coming chapters. He therefore explains that at the core of the rules, the underlying rationale for all the detailed laws that he will enumerate and discuss in the coming chapters is the eradication and prevention of this kind of thinking. That will explain why actions that at first blush do not seem to be real idol worship are prohibited because of the risk that they will take us across that fine line of seeing independent powers in created entities.

ועניין זה, הוא שהזהירה עליו תורה ואמרה "ופן תישא עיניך

השמיימה, וראית את השמש ואת הירח ואת הכוכבים . . . אשר חלק ה' אלוהיך,

אותם, לכול העמים

כלומר שמא תשוט בעין ליבך ותראה שאלו הם המנהיגים את העולם, והם שחלק ה'

אותם לכל העמים (העולם) להיותם חיים והווים ונפסדים כמנהגו של עולם; ותאמר שראוי

להשתחוות להן, ולעובדן. ובעניין זה ציווה ואמר "הישמרו לכם, פן יפתה

לבבכם"

כלומר שלא תטעו בהרהורי הלב לעבוד אלו, להיותם סרסור ביניכם ובין הבורא.

It is against this that the Torah warns when saying, “lest you raise your eyes heavenward and see the sun, the moon and the stars… for the LORD your God has allotted them unto all the peoples under the heavens”. Namely, should your mind wander and notice that these [the sun etc…] are responsible for the running of the world and God gave them to all the peoples [Rav Kafih edition: world] causing them to come into being [literally: live], exist and be destroyed, as is the natural way of the world. [A poetic way of saying, the cosmos is responsible for the existence of life on earth]. You will therefore think that it is proper to bow down to them and worship them. That is the meaning of the warning “careful, lest your mind be enticed”. Namely, do not stray in your mind thinking that these are worthy to be worshipped as intermediaries between you and the Creator.

To understand what Rambam means with “notice that these [the sun etc…] are responsible for the running of the world”, we need to know a little about how he saw the cosmos and its relationship to the world. Professor Twersky in his “Introduction to the Mishne Torah” writes that the MN is like a Gemara to the MT which is like the Mishna, when dealing with philosophic matters. It fleshes out and expands on the concepts presented in MT in a summary fashion. Rambam in MN 1:72 presents a very concise and clear exposition of his understanding of the Aristotelian cosmos. Summarizing what is pertinent to our discussion, Rambam proposes that we look at the universe as a single body with different interacting components very similar to the Gaia Hypothesis[1]. Our world is composed of the four elements that are inert. When some external force induces them to move, they have a natural tendency to return to their original position. The interplay between these two forces, the external force and the internal tendency, is responsible for the four elements’ interaction with each other. That interaction is responsible for all the things that exist in our world which all are different composites of these four elements in different combinations and ratios. The external force that is responsible for the movement of the four elements emanates from the spheres, the repository of the sun, moon and the stars. The spheres are a fifth element, an element that has the ability to think which is what induces them to stay in constant motion. The thinking that induces the spheres to stay in motion is the wish to emulate God’s perfection by being perfect[2]. Perfection to them is perfect motion which is circular and constant. Their motion in turn creates the movement in our world that is responsible for the four elements’ interaction. The spheres in this scenario are therefore responsible for our existence in this world of ours. The “thinking” that Rambam talks about is gravity which Newton eventually understood and explained. However, to the mind of a pre-Newtonian thinker it is a small step to seeing this force as an independent power. It is therefore not surprising that many did attribute independent thinking and power to the spheres, including great Jewish thinkers. It is to Rambam’s credit that he was able to insist that, though misunderstood by him, they were still only natural forces that were constant and subject to natures’ rules of cause and effect. It is exactly how he reads our verse. Although the spheres seem to be responsible for existence in our world, “responsible for the running of the world”, it warns us not to fall into the trap that they are independent from nature and the laws of cause and effect. Their force is a constant one unchanged since creation. There is therefore no reason to worship them.

Next post will address Rambam’s discussion of this verse in MN 2:5.

---

[1] See - http://www.answers.com/gaia+theory?cat=technology&gwp=11&ver=2.3.0.609&method=3 .

[2] This is the key to the very surprising chapter MN 2:7, very difficult to a contemporary to understand. I hope to discuss in a future post.

The immutable Oral Law.

When I grew up, went to yeshiva and for years after I always had this picture of Torah Sheba’al Peh – the oral law – as all encompassing. It covered everything from the early Mishna until the Halachik ruling of a current great Posek. Disagreeing with any of this large corpus was unthinkable. It created problems internally because it did not make sense that there is a body of such magnitude that is inviolate and sacred especially when many rules were irrational. I alternated between feeling guilty and stupid. I then realized that I was operating under a misconception and I should have felt guilty for being so ignorant and not for being rational. In this post, I will focus on a very limited aspect of the whole issue, trying to define the immutable part of the oral law, as I understand Rambam’s position.

In his introduction to the Pirush haMishna Rambam tells us that Moshe received the written law verbatim from God accompanied with detailed explanations of how each Mitzvah had to be implemented.

דע, כי כל מצווה שנתן הקב"ה למשה רבנו ע"ה, נתנה לו בפירושה: היה אומר לו

המצווה, ואחר כך אומר לו פירושה ועניינה, וכל מה שהוא כולל ספר התורה.

הנה לך משל: שהקב"ה אמר למשה, בסכות תשבו שבעת ימים (ויקרא כג). אחר כן

הודיע שהסוכה הזאת חובה על הזכרים לא על הנקבות, ושאין החולים חייבים בה

ולא הולכי דרך, ושלא יהיה סיכוכה אלא בצמח הארץ, ולא יסככנה בצמר ולא במשי

ולא בכלים, אפילו מאשר תצמח הארץ, כגון הכסתות והכרים והבגדים. והודיע

שהאכילה והשתייה והשינה בה כולו חובה, ושלא יהיה בחללה פחות משבעה טפחים

אורך על שבעה טפחים רוחב, ושלא יהיה גובה הסוכה פחות מעשרה טפחים.

וכן השש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות הם ופירושם: המצוות בכתב, והפירוש על פה.

For example, when God said to Moshe that you should sit in a Sukkah seven days he also told him that only males and not females are obligated, sick and travelers are exempt. He also told him that the covering should be only from plants of the earth, not from wool or silk. The covering could also not be made up of finished products even if they were made of plant, like pillows, covers or clothing. He was also told that eating and sleeping in the Sukkah is obligatory, that it has to have a space of seven by seven Tefachim and that it cannot be higher than twenty Amot.

So it went with all the 613 Mitzvot – the Mitzvah in writing and the explanation orally.

These explanations were memorized and transmitted from generation to generation as long as there was a gathering of scholars. We find these oral transmissions embedded in the Gemara and the Halacha. The last reliable source for this transmitted law is the Beit Din that sealed the Talmud (See Introduction to MT[1]). Rambam emphatically states that there never was any argument about these received and carefully transmitted explanations. (Discussion of this particular point covers many pages of commentators, critics and defenders).

Along with these explanations came a list of 13 hermeneutical rules to be used for extrapolating new applications of the basic law. During Moshe’s lifetime, the Sanhedrin convened almost constantly and new applications of the law were developed to address the circumstances as they arose. There were so many developed over the forty years that when Moshe died a small portion, three thousand, of these developed applications were forgotten. That gives us an idea of how many were developed during Moshe’s life - probably tens of thousands.

These new applications of the law were decided by the Sanhedrin using the hermeneutical rules. If there was a disagreement, the vote of the majority became law. These laws were not eternal and could be overturned by subsequent Sanhedrin if the majority of their era ruled differently.

The picture that emerges is that the oral law that is Sinaitic and immutable is limited to the ones that lay out the basic rule of how a Mitzvah is practiced. Any expansion of that explanation falls under a different rubric – a law established by Sanhedrin. That may change from Sanhedrin to Sanhedrin. The immutable corpus is thus quite limited. (Caution: I over simplified for coherence sake. There are categories within the corpus of laws developed by Sanhedrin that have different rules such as Gezeirot and Minhagim. Rules of precedent law differ in each category. I will leave this for another discussion.)

However, as times got bad and the Jewish people dispersed farther around the globe, Rebbi in his Mishna followed by Rav Ashi with the Talmud, collected and analyzed the rulings of the Sanhedrin and central Batei Din[2] up to their time. These laws, and only these laws, were now sealed and unchangeable until Sanhedrin return to us. Our law is built on that foundation. New applications and rulings that arise to deal with newly developing circumstances after the sealing of the Talmud, are only binding on each locality. There is no more universal law. [3]

The goal of Rambam in his Mishne Torah was to gather up in a systematic and organized format all the rulings found in the Mishna, Talmud and the corpus of sources that support them. Those were written in an argumentative style which makes it quite complicated to arrive at clear conclusions. Rambam undertook to present the conclusions in a clear and succinct presentation. These are the rulings that cannot be changed and are binding until Sanhedrin returns. (Of course, even here not everybody accepted Rambam’s conclusions. But that is so in a relatively few number of instances. This discussion is also not for here.)

In subsequent generations, codification of the subsequent rulings after the Talmud was attempted. The most famous ones were the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch and up to our times, this process continues with the Aruch Hashulchan and the Mishna Berurah. These are all-important works and are accepted in general by our communities. However, they are not inviolate and as anyone who learns knows, local custom and rulings supersedes these codes. They are more a collection of reliable rulings than conclusive codifications.

The point of this post is to respond to many comments and sometimes outraged ones, reacting to statements I made about laws being binding while at the same time suggesting that future Sanhedrin might change things. Because of the current state of affairs of the Jewish people, the discord, the attitude towards any “other”, paranoia about “kefirah” and other such aberrations, there is no possibility of a consensus for a Sanhedrin. We are therefore hobbled by our own fault, and many incongruous and unfortunate situations, some more painful than others, cannot be rectified. We desperately need some forceful and visionary leadership with a radical change in the general attitude.

---

אבל כל הדברים שבתלמוד הבבלי, חייבין כל בית ישראל ללכת בהם; וכופין[1]

כל עיר ועיר וכל מדינה ומדינה לנהוג בכל המנהגות שנהגו חכמים שבתלמוד,

ולגזור גזירותם וללכת בתקנותם.

לה הואיל וכל אותן הדברים שבתלמוד הסכימו עליהם כל ישראל,

ואותן החכמים שהתקינו או שגזרו או שהנהיגו או שדנו דין ולמדו שהמשפט כך

הוא הם כל חכמי ישראל או רובן, והם ששמעו הקבלה בעיקרי התורה כולה, איש

מפי איש עד משה רבנו.

[2] The Yeshivot in Bavel were considered as central Batei Din with authority similar to Sanhedrin in many areas.

[3] וכל בית דין שעמד אחר התלמוד בכל מדינה ומדינה וגזר או התקין או הנהיג

לבני מדינתו, או לבני מדינות--לא פשטו מעשיו בכל ישראל: מפני רוחק

מושבותיהם, ושיבוש הדרכים; והיות בית דין של אותה המדינה יחידים, ובית דין

הגדול של שבעים בטל מכמה שנים קודם חיבור התלמוד.

לג לפיכך אין כופין אנשי מדינה זו לנהוג במנהג מדינה אחרת,

ואין אומרין לבית דין זה לגזור גזירה שגזרה בית דין אחר במדינתו. וכן אם

למד אחד מן הגאונים שדרך המשפט כך הוא, ונתבאר לבית דין אחר שעמד אחריו

שאין זה דרך המשפט הכתוב בתלמוד--אין שומעין לראשון, אלא למי שהדעת נוטה

לדבריו, בין ראשון, בין אחרון.

Mila (Circumcision), Authority and the Historical Record.

In Rav Shailat’s edition of Rambam’s letters, (page 410) there is a letter to a simple Baghdad Jew, not a scholar. I already posted about a touching comment Rambam makes to this simple Jew http://yediah.blogspot.com/2007/04/was-rambam-elitist.html . Here is another part of this letter that opens up quite a vista about how Rambam viewed Torah and Mitzvot. The particular subject the letter deals with in this segment is repeated in Rambam’s Pirush Hamishna Chulin 7:6. Here is a translation/paraphrase as usual.

“You mentioned too, that people took exception with our statement that Mila (circumcision) was commanded by Moshe Rabbeinu and not our father Avraham. They argued that [I must be wrong] as the 13 covenants were made with Avraham. Whoever said this says a foolish thing and proves that he knows nothing about the foundations of the Law, while our statement is correct without a doubt. For among the 613 Mitzvot given to Moshe at Sinai, Mila and Gid Hanashe [the sciatic nerve which was forbidden based on the story of the fight between Yaakov and the angel] are included. It is as the Rabbis taught [in the Mishna Chulin 7:6], it was written in its place [as part of the story told in Chumash] but we follow the rule because it was given at Sinai that confirmed to us the prohibition of Gid Hanashe and [the mitzvah] of Mila which preceded it. As far as the 13 covenants mentioned at Mila [that apparently was the basis of the contention], it behooves to ask these blind people who are trying to compete with seeing men, the following question. Were those verses about the 13 covenants told to Avraham, written down and published by him and then Moshe Rabbeinu copied these verses and inserted them into the Torah as plagiarists do with the writings of others, or rather, the verses mentioned in the Torah were written by Moshe as he heard them from God? For anyone who does not believe that these verses including the whole Torah was told to Moshe from the mouth of God [literally – Hagevurah - the Power] is considered among those who claim the Torah is not from Heaven. How else would we know, and how did Moshe Rabbeinu know, what was told to Avraham when he was commanded to do Mila? We know it from Moshe at Sinai! Therefore, the source of this Mitzvah and its command is from Moshe Rabbeinu as are the 13 covenants, as told to him by God. This is obvious and is obscure only to one who has not learned the foundations of the law, wasting his days with the branches. There is no difference within parts of our Torah; the Torah commanded to us by Moshe, all of it comes from Moshe and Hashem. Everything that is in it that was given to an earlier person, such as the seven Mitzvot to Noach and Mila to Avraham we do not accept it because its earlier transmission but only because of the last command that was given to us, the community of Yaakov.”

Rambam offers a similar argument in his Pirush Hamishna on Chulin 7:6. Basically, the obligation that we have in keeping the Mitzvah of Mila stems from Sinai and not from the earlier command to Avraham. The same goes for the seven Noachide laws and Gid Hanashe, the obligation stems from Sinai and not the earlier revelation. The basis for this position is the Mishna in Chulin that sets this out regarding Gid Hanashe and Rambam extrapolates to all other similar Mitzvot. The theology underlying this is the uniqueness of Moshe’s prophecy and Rambam in MN 2:39 expands on it.

“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. … Men like Abraham, who received a large measure of prophetic inspiration, called their fellow men together and led them by training and instruction to the truth which they had perceived. … 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.”

I would also like to touch on two other rather revealing statements in this letter. When Rambam argues “Were those verses about the 13 covenants told to Avraham, written down and published by him and then Moshe Rabbeinu copied these verses and inserted them into the Torah as plagiarists do with the writings of others?” he rejects any possibility of a documentary basis for torah. IOW, according to him, he would have considered plagiarism were the Torah to quote an earlier source and not refer to it as such. Absent a clear reference[1], we must assume that the source was revelatory only. It does not negate the possibility of a written record by Avraham; it just does not accept it as a source. When Rambam asks “How else would we know, and how did Moshe Rabbeinu know, what was told to Avraham when he was commanded to do Mila?” he is saying that the Torah is telling the story its way and from its perspective. The historical record is much less important than the interpretation thereof.

The other comment I find fascinating is “This is obvious and is obscure only to one who has not learned the foundations of the law, wasting his days with the branches.” Rambam sees the Torah as a tree with roots, a trunk and branches. The roots contain the basic theology and the trunk is the corpus of philosophy and laws that grow out of those roots. How to perform the Mitzvot in detail are the branches. Focusing on the branches alone is like seeing the trees without the forest. (I know, at least I think I know, Rambam uses this metaphor “Shoresh and Anaf” in a similar context elsewhere. I, for the life of me, cannot think where. I could use some help.)

---

[1] יד עַל-כֵּן, יֵאָמַר, בְּסֵפֶר, מִלְחֲמֹת יְהוָה: אֶת-וָהֵב בְּסוּפָה, וְאֶת-הַנְּחָלִים אַרְנוֹן. 14 wherefore it is said in the book of the Wars of the LORD: Vaheb in Suphah, and the valleys of Arnon, (Bamidbar 21:14)

A Rationale for the Detailed Rules in the Performance of a Mitzvah -

In my earlier post

http://yediah.blogspot.com/2008/03/korbanot-as-paradigm-for-all-mitzvot.html

I argued that all Mitzvot like Korbanot have no meaning to God. They are all concessions to the human condition. Some Mitzvot, those that deal with societal and interpersonal relationship issues are clearly to create a livable and peaceful environment and promote cooperation between people. It is only a peaceful and cooperative society that can have people dedicated to intellectual pursuits and thus help humankind fulfill its role and destiny. Clearly, the Mitzvot that belong to this category are utilitarian and have no direct religious value. I say directly because indirectly we are fulfilling God’s will of insuring the continuity of existence which is the meaning of “good”.

Other Mitzvot inculcate correct opinions about God and our perspective on our existence in this context. Those, like Shabbat and the Moadim, the holidays, have a more direct religious content. As they promote theological thinking, they eventually connect us with God. Mitzvot in this category include study and prayer which at first blush seem to be a religious devotional practice. Ultimately however even the latter are just concessions to our human nature and are necessary if we, as humans, want to attain the ultimate goal – know God and worship Him intellectually to our utmost capability. They are after all physical activities and can only help us come as close as possible to the transcendental God. The actions themselves are not directed at God, only at ourselves. The only possible if tenuous connection with God is intellectual.

“The second perfection of man [the objective and principal, in context] consists in his becoming an actually intelligent being. He knows about the things in existence all that a person perfectly developed is capable of knowing. This second perfection certainly does not include any action or good conduct, but only knowledge, which is arrived at by speculation, or established by research.” (MN 3:27)

This human trait, the need to act and actualize our emotions and feelings of devotion, uses a variety of our faculties. In its natural unregulated form, the rational faculty might play a role at the early stages when a rationale for worship is developed. However, the imaginative is the central player in this process as we model our devotional action on how we revere and worship authority figures in our daily life. It is how idolaters developed their practices for worshipping their gods and idols. Those practices flourish and develop in the fertile imagination of the worshippers. One only has to read the books of antiquity that describe the practices in the temples of Greece and Rome and other idolatrous civilizations to see how fertile the imagination of men can be in developing these practices.

That however only works for gods that are the fruit of people’s imagination. The transcendental and unique God we worship is apprehended through the rational faculty. The imaginative has to always be under complete control of the rational faculty at all times while this intellectual quest is ongoing. That is why this quest is referred to as Yediat Hashem, the “knowledge” of God. The love and devotion one has to God is commensurate with the knowledge one has of Him. The imaginative faculty only plays a role in translating for us and to us what the rational perceives. It is also in a way a necessary concession to the human condition. There is therefore no place for a rampant imagination when we worship this transcendental but rational God. That is why the rules and regulations that direct Mitzvot are so detailed and strict. One has to be fully alert and aware of every little detail while performing the Mitzvah, the devotional worship. That keeps the rational faculty engaged all the time, but more importantly, it takes the imaginative out of the process and places emotions under the control of the rational mind. The need for practical devotion that springs from the emotions triggered by the apprehension of a great, powerful and fearsome [Hagadol, Hagibor veHanorah] God must be regulated and controlled.

I believe that this thought is what Rambam is trying to convey in what I always found to be a very difficult chapter in Moreh Hanevuchim. After discussing whether commandments must have rational reasons and concluding that they all have, including the ones called Chukim, (I plan to dedicate a post to this) Rambam proceeds to discuss a “wondrous[1]” Midrash.

“What difference does it make to God whether animals are slaughtered by cutting the neck in front or in the back? Surely, the commandments are only intended as a means of purifying man; in accordance with the verse, "The word of God is purified" (Tehilim 18:31)… I will now tell you what intelligent persons ought to believe in this respect; namely, that each commandment has necessarily a cause, as far as its general character is concerned, and serves a certain object; but as regards its details we hold that they were given merely for the sake of commanding something. Thus killing animals for the purpose of obtaining good food is certainly useful, as we intend to show. The prescription, however, that the killing should be performed by having the upper and not the lower part of the throat cut and having the esophagus and the windpipe severed in a certain place is like other prescriptions of this kind, imposed with a view to purifying the people.” (MN3:26)

The details of how the Mitzvot have to be performed are exact and meticulous. Even when one can find a reason for the particular rule, and Chazal purposely picked one that had an apparent reason, the real impetus for the specificity of the detail is to “purify”. Although we can explain the need for a knife, the cutting of the neck and the location as practical and humane, that is not the real reason for the specifics. There could have been a similar rule that would have been just as practical and humane. The real reason is to “purify”. It is by harnessing the rational faculty through detailed rules and restraining the imaginative, that we differentiate this type of worship from idolatrous practices. “Purification” is having the rational faculty take over exclusively the process of worship. That is accomplished by setting specific and detailed rules. Rambam continues –

“A more suitable instance can be cited from the detailed commandments concerning sacrifices. The law that sacrifices should be brought is evidently of great use, as will be shown by us but we cannot say why one offering should be a lamb, whilst another is a ram; and why a fixed number of them should be brought. Those who trouble themselves to find a cause for any of these detailed rules are in my eyes void of sense: they do not remove any difficulties, but rather increase them. Those who believe that these detailed rules originate in a certain cause are as far from the truth as those who assume that the whole law is useless.”

In this instance, there clearly is no reason for the choice of what type of animal should be sacrificed for a specific Korban. The choice is arbitrary but the rule is binding. There was the need to make a rule even if there was no rationale for the specific choice. Trying to find one is a waste of effort and time. The last sentence - Those who believe that these detailed rules originate in a certain cause are as far from the truth as those who assume that the whole law is useless - I believe is addressed to those who attempt a mystical explanation.

I believe that this understanding explains the underlying rationale for the importance we see in Sifrei Halacha to the details of how to perform a Mitzvah. Of course if the detail becomes an obsession, it is counterproductive but there is a need to define, limit and set boundaries on the performance of each Mitzvah. We now understand why Gra for example, frowned on the practices the early Chassidim introduced that was outside the minute rules laid down by Halacha. Ecstatic devotion that overflows the boundaries of Halacha smacks of idolatry.

---

[1] Pines translates strange. I chose wondrous based on an article by Prof. Avraham Nuriel.

Knowledge for the Sake of Action - Torah, Science and Metaphysics - a Definition of Talmud.

There are things about our existence that cannot be proven empirically. There are limits to human knowledge. We can understand our physical world and eventually we hope humankind will get to know it well enough to insure its continuity. We however cannot empirically prove how things came about. Were they created in time? Assuming the Big Bang theory is correct, how did that singularity happen? What was there before? The Rabbis have a term for it “מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים מה לאחור” “what is on top, bottom, before and after”. In modern parlance, we refer to this type of knowledge as Metaphysics. The questions that we try to answer are intimately tied in with the empirical sciences, as they are the questions that science leads to but cannot answer. The answers to these types of questions are subjective and are addressed by religion through what we call revelation – Nevuah. These answers are very important because they have a lot to say about how we behave, act and what we do with the scientific knowledge we have acquired. As an example, one of the most important questions is whether the world was created in time. Depending on how we answer this question, God has or does not have will. The implications are obvious. The answers to these types of questions are alluded to in the Torah which is revelation par excellence. It is our task to decipher these ideas correctly and apply the lessons to our daily life. To understand the importance of this task we have to turn to Rambam in Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:11-12.

וחייב לשלש את זמן למידתו: שליש בתורה שבכתב; ושליש בתורה שבעל פה;

ושליש יבין וישכיל אחרית דבר מראשיתו, ויוציא דבר מדבר, וידמה דבר לדבר,

וידין במידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן עד שיידע היאך הוא עיקר המידות והיאך יוציא

האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן מדברים שלמד מפי השמועה--ועניין זה, הוא הנקרא

תלמוד.

יב] כיצד: היה בעל אומנות--יהיה עוסק במלאכה שלוש שעות

ביום, ובתורה תשע: אותן התשע--קורא בשלוש מהן, בתורה שבכתב; ובשלוש,

בתורה שבעל פה; ובשלוש, מתבונן בדעתו להבין דבר מדבר. ודברי קבלה, בכלל

תורה שבכתב הן; ופירושן, בכלל תורה שבעל פה; והעניינות הנקראין פרדס, בכלל

התלמוד

במה דברים אמורים, בתחילת תלמודו של אדם; אבל כשיגדיל בחכמה

ולא יהיה צריך לא ללמוד תורה שבכתב, ולא לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה--יקרא

בעיתים מזומנים תורה שבכתב ודברי השמועה, כדי שלא ישכח דבר מדברי דיני

תורה, וייפנה כל ימיו לתלמוד בלבד, לפי רוחב ליבו ויישוב דעתו.

A person is obligated to divide the time he devotes to learning into three parts. One third [of his time should be devoted] to the written Torah; one third to the oral Torah and one third he should [dedicate to] understanding how to deduce and compare one thing and another using the hermeneutical rules. Thus, he will understand the foundation of the hermeneutics, how one can know what is permitted and prohibited and other such things deducing them from things received through aural transmission. This [last category of learning] is referred to as Talmud.

For example, if one is an artisan, he should labor three hours each day and the other nine, learn Torah. From those nine hours, three should be used for learning the written Torah, three for the oral Torah and during the other three one should meditate and deduce one thing from another. Kabbalah [received information] are included in the written Torah category. Their explanation is included in the oral Torah category. Those things that are referred to as Pardes [literally: orchard] belong to the Talmud category.

That is only at the beginning when a person starts to acquire knowledge. However, once a person acquired wisdom and no longer needs to study the written Torah nor always study the oral Torah, he should read at specified times the written Torah and the transmitted laws so that he does not forget one of the Torah precepts. He should free his days and apply himself exclusively to Talmud commensurate with the breadth of his heart and how settled his mind is.

Rambam has given us several definitions in these halachot that clarify things. Written Torah includes Kabbalah, not in the sense we know it today as mystical concepts, but rather in its classical one - transmitted laws. Oral Torah includes the explanation of the written law category. These two categories jointly are referred to as מפי השמועה – heard [aural] transmission. This corpus is the basis used in developing rules and laws that are applied to our daily life and the new circumstances that may arise. The process of developing these new applications of the laws forms a part of what is called Talmud. [A discussion of these categories and the implications to practical Halacha is a lengthy subject which I plan one day to tackle. Rambam discusses them in his introductions to the Pirush Hamishna and to MT and in Hilchot Mamrim and Hilchot Sanhedrin].Talmud itself is the total intellectual development of an individual and it includes Pardes – the orchard. In Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 4:13 Rambam defines Pardes as comprising Ma’aseh Breishit and Ma’aseh Merkavah – sciences and metaphysics. When Rambam said

והיאך יוציא

האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן מדברים שלמד מפי השמועה

I understand “other such things” - וכיוצא בהן - to refer to Pardes. Talmud, the category of learning a person should dedicate his time to, after absorbing all the transmitted information which includes Metaphysics, is an extension of and is deduced from that received information. Once a person understands the science of the world we live in and inquires about the Metaphysical questions, he has to base the answer on received aural knowledge (מפי השמועה) just like the permitted and prohibited[1]. I also understand that not only the sparse clear theological statements but also many of the laws that we study help us in that process of developing a metaphysical understanding of our existence. Not only the theological laws like Shabbat for example are an important tool for that but also so are the societal laws. If the ultimate goal of the metaphysical knowledge is to act and emulate God, knowing His thinking about how we should interact with our fellow man is also a good indication of how He expects us to act in general. The same thinking applies to all Mitzvot. Torah in Rambam’s eyes is the integration of all possible human knowledge with the goal to know God and emulate Him. It is meant to take each individual person and teach him how to become a perfect human being. It also takes the human race, which is composed of these potential perfected individuals, and over millennia and generations will make it into a perfected humanity.

Reading Rambam this way starts to bring to our minds a picture of how integral keeping the Mitzvot and studying them is in our intended goal of emulating God. Not only to they train us to be better and less narcissistic human beings, disciplined and aware of our environment thus allowing us to have a less biased outlook when dealing with subjective Metaphysical questions, it also suggests answers to those questions. To properly address these questions we therefore have to first acquire basic information both as it relates to Mitzvot and science, analyze and develop answers to the questions about our existence based on this knowledge while at the same time, improve ourselves by keeping the Mitzvot. As we develop these answers, we slowly learn of God’s ways and try to emulate them. In Rambam’s world, Torah, Science, Philosophy and Metaphysics with all leading to action, form the integrated perfected human being. He rejects out of hand and as wrong, the schizophrenic theological world we unfortunately live in.

In my next post, I will try to address where and why the great Rishonim had different opinions in this area.

To be Continued...

---

[1] See my post http://yediah.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-rational-belief-possible-or-are-they.html for a discussion how to deal with this information.

Four Cubits of Halacha - Rambam Shows How to Interpret an Aggadeta.

After writing my last three posts on Aggadeta, I would be remiss ignoring the following discussion of Rambam in his Introduction to Pirush Hamishna . After explaining the correct way of reading Chazal, he quotes a Gemara that supports his position and being an Aggadeta Rambam explains it, giving us an immediate example of how we should analyze and understand a Chazal. I believe that Rambam’s understanding of this Chazal is earth shattering for our times as it highlights a major deficiency in the thinking of our community and what I believe is the greatest threat to our long-term growth and survival.

ואמרו אין לו להקב"ה בעולמו אלא ארבע אמות של

הלכה. והתבונן בדברים אלו, שאם תבינם כפשטם ייראו בעיניך רחוקים מאד מן

האמת, כאלו ארבע אמות של הלכה בלבד הם התכלית, ולהזניח שאר המדעים

והחכמות, ובזמן שם ועבר ושאחריהם שלא היתה הלכה בלי ספק שלא היה להקב"ה

בעולמו כלום. אבל אם תתבונן בדברים אלו התבוננות מעמיקה, תמצא בזה חכמה

נפלאה, ותמצאהו כולל הרבה מן המושכלות, והנני מבארו לך כדי שיהיה לך זה

דוגמא לכל מה שיזדמן לך ולכן התבונן בו היטב.

“The Gemara [in Berachot 8a] says, “HKBH only has in His world four cubits of Halacha[1]”. Think about these words, for if you will interpret them literally, they will seem far from truth, as if the only objective [for man to attain perfection] are the four cubits of Halacha ignoring all other knowledge and wisdom. [This would intimate that] at the time of Shem and Ever and the following [generations], when there was no Halacha, God had nothing in the world! However if you will ponder these word thoughtfully, you will discover in them marvelous wisdom, encompassing much of acquired knowledge. I will now explain [this Gemara] as an example for other such sayings, therefore pay attention well!”

Rambam has laid out the problem with this statement of the rabbis. It just does not make sense that they would be telling us that we should only concentrate on learning what is nowadays called Torah, Halacha, exclusively of any other knowledge! Furthermore, it is inconceivable that before Torah was given, God had no place in the world. Were there not righteous people, starting with Shem and Ever, Noach’s children after the flood and continuing with Avraham and his children?

Rambam then has a lengthy discussion of how the different components of the world are interdependent and are needed for each other’s existence allowing for the most advanced creature, man, to exist. The need of the whole of existence for each component is its Raison D’etre, the reason it exists. The question therefore comes to mind what is Man’s reason to exist? Now that this advanced creature came into being, we still need to understand what is man’s reason for being? When philosophers looked at the role each component plays, they found that unlike all the others who had one or two roles and thus limited activities, man has multiple abilities and tasks. For example, an ant is a gatherer and that is its main activity, a spider weaves and that is its main activity while man can do many more and varied activities. As the philosophers thought about this more, “they concluded that man can do many things but they all have one goal - to help him survive so that he can accomplish one central and focused task, apprehension of acquired knowledge and knowing the Truths thoroughly.”

ומצאו שתכליתו

פעולה אחת בלבד ושאר פעולותיו אינן אלא להמשכת קיומו כדי שתושלם בו אותה

הפעולה היחידית והיא השגת המושכלות וידיעת האמתיות על בורים.

They realized that, because it does not make sense that man has no purpose other than promoting his own temporal survival without any other objective. If the whole of the universe apparently exists within a system that promotes its own eternal survival, man must have a role beyond his own personal survival, at the service of the whole. Furthermore, if we compare man to other living entities, he is no different from all of them except in his ability for abstract thought thus acquiring knowledge of his surrounding. Potential for acquiring knowledge is man’s uniqueness and he is no more than an animal until he actualizes this potential.

וגדול שבמושכלות השגת

אחדות הבורא יתעלה וישתבח וכל הקשור בכך מן המדעים האלקיים, לפי ששאר

המדעים אינם אלא כדי שיוכשר בהם עד אשר יגיע אל מדעי האלקות,

“The most advanced acquired knowledge is the apprehension of the Creator and all that pe