Some Thoughts About Religion, Science and Theology.

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

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

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

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

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









[1]והעניינות הנקראין פרדס, בכלל התלמוד.

And in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 4:13 we read

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

And in 4:10

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

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

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

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

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

Similar statements are spread throughout Rambam’s writings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

Rambam's Relevance In Light of Contemporary Science -

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

A Personal Reflection On Why I Am A Jew.

I have been learning Rambam’s thought for many years now. I find his approach to Judaism extremely attractive and it has enhanced my innerand daily life tremendously. It is not Rambam’s supposed extreme rationalism as I am not a cold rationalist devoid of emotions and neither is Rambam. On the contrary, one has only to read the last chapters in Moreh Hanevuchim, the periodic emotional outbursts in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah and even more in Hilchot Teshuvah to appreciate the great internal fire that was burning inside the great man and Tzaddik. David Blumenthal even claims that Rambam had a mystical bend to him. I believe he misinterprets Rambam in some of the proofs he uses to make his point but there certainly is some truth to it. So why do I pick Rambam’s approach over others, say Ramban and his predecessor the Kuzari, Rabbeinu Sa’adyah, R. Chasdai Crescas and others?

It has to do with how Rambam understands the relationship of man to God. One of the great problems the traditional or to be more accurate, popular approach to religion has, is that it is seen as fantasy that makes people feel good rather than being the truth. When I am told that I have to believe in God, that He controls everything, directs everything that happens, that by doing Mitzvot I induce Him to make good things happen to me and to others and if they do not happen it is because I did not do the Mitzvah well enough, I get an urge to become an atheist. I see it as an escape for the helplessness we feel in our attempt to control our lives, as the opiate needed to calm our insecurities. I see prayer for the sick, Tehilim, Mi Sheberach et al, the way it is popularly understood, in the same vein. It is this distorted thinking, distorted in my view though it may work for others, that leads to the obnoxious and ridiculous explanation of the holocaust as punishment for lack of religiosity between the wars. It is this type of thinking that leads to the rejection of the State of Israel and all the nonsense we observe in our community including the latest Chilulei Hashem that keep on surfacing endlessly and that are so painful and difficult to observe. Unfortunately, these events are not surprising. The popular understanding of religion, unfortunately encouraged by our leaders, is responsible for the big discrepancy between the religious and ethical life of so many of our coreligionists. After all if I am zealous enough by observing every Chumra, I daven thrice daily, say a long Shemona Esreh and yell out Amen Yehei Shmei Raba with full force etc…, God must look at me with favor and no bad can befall me even if I steal, rob etc… especially from a goy! Isn’t there a mitzvah of Lo Techanem in their case?

This thinking is not exclusive to Judaism; it is the norm in all religions. The Richard Dawkins of this world have therefore a very good argument in their rejection of religion, seeing it as anti-science and a pure fantasy developed by fertile imaginations. According to my understanding of Rambam, he probably would agree (I am saying this tongue in cheek – it would be a travesty to place him in the same camp as Dawkins). Rambam’s understanding of Judaism is that it came into existence to reject and counter this kind of religion. Idolatry saw the gods as entities that when treated right would serve humankind. Give them the proper bribe and in return, your crops will flourish, sicknesses will be healed and all good things would happen. Judaism teaches that God is not in man’s service. Man is obligated to serve God. (See the second Parsha of Shema). Religion is the search for an answer to the ultimate existential questions, why are we here? Is there a meaning to our existence? Does humankind have a role to play in the whole of existence? If yes, what is it? What is good and bad? What is right and wrong? How do I, an individual, do what is right? What is our obligation to ourselves, to our surroundings, to the whole of existence and ultimately to God? In short, what is the ultimate Truth?

These questions can only be answered if we understand our environment and our part in it, how we came into existence, whether our existence is just there or was brought into being, if the latter, what entity was responsible for that and if yes, try to conceptualize that entity in the only way possible namely what He is not. The problem is that after answering the questions about our environment by learning the empirical sciences that describe how things work, the questions we confront do not have easy answers. There are no hard facts that can demonstrate what existed the split second before the Big Bang, the currently accepted theory of how things came into being, how the event was triggered, why at that moment or who was responsible for it. These questions are beyond physics and science. They belong to the realm of metaphysics which some will refer to as pseudo science. Notwithstanding these difficulties, how we answer these questions is very important because they will have a major influence on how we lead our life and our whole raison d’etre. How does one approach this without going off into a world of fantasy?

The central Mitzvah in Judaism is Talmud Torah, the learning of Torah. Torah in Rambam’s thought is not limited to religious texts and halachot but it includes all sciences and knowledge about our existence. Note the emphasis on the word Talmud – “learning”. There is a lifelong obligation of constantly “learning”, in other words, searching. The Rav Z”L has a beautiful shiur on tape in Yiddish where he defines Avraham Avinu as the ultimate searcher. He was searching for HKBH, for Truth, and found it by recognizing God, the definition of Truth. The Torah is full of admonitions to search. We just heard one of those admonitions in last week’s Parsha –

כט וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּם מִשָּׁם אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, וּמָצָאתָ: כִּי תִדְרְשֶׁנּוּ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשֶׁךָ. 29

But from there you will seek the LORD your God; and you will find Him, if you search after Him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Devarim 4:29)

This is not only an individual’s lifelong search but multi-generational throughout human history. That is why the concept of Yemot Hamashiach is so important in Judaism and is one of its dogmas. It is a paradigm for this continuous search and what it hopes to accomplish. Unlike other Rishonim who accepted Kabbalah, Rambam sets strict limits to the human ability to acquire knowledge. We can only know the physical world we live in and we can extrapolate back to a time after things came into existence. Before then and how the physical relates to the transcendental, the whole construct of the Mekubalim of Atzilut, Bria’ah and Yetzira, the process of emanation and all the rest of these theories are foreign to Rambam thought. He believes that humans do not have the ability to know these things and trying to do so is futile. By trying to understand our physical world, we have enough information that allows us to find the traces of God and get an understanding of how He wants us to act in His world. That is the Truth that we are seeking and that the Torah and Mitzvot are there to help us get in a proper, correct and true perspective.

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

One who worships for the sake of love, is involved with Torah and Mitzvot and walks in the paths of wisdom, not because he fears the bad or so that he can enjoy the good or for any other reason in the world. He acts the Truth because it is true, and the good will generally come eventually. (Hilchot Teshuvah 10:2)

We expect nothing. All we want to do is to “act the Truth” because it is Truth. Note how it is not “find” or “contemplate” or “connect” but “act” the Truth – Osseh Ha’emet. In other words, finding the Truth is not an intellectual exercise but a necessary exercise to know how to act responsibly emulating God’s ways, the understanding we acquire in this continuous search.

In this worldview, the Mitzvot that are regulated by Halacha, are only one part of the whole Torah. They are the tool, the exclusive and obligatory tool a Jew has, to insure that he really searches for Truth. It prompts him to do so and then teaches him how to act, keeps him focused on the goal, disciplines and perfects him so that he remains objective and leads him on the path to Truth. Judaism is thus divided into two parts, the practical and the theological, where the first is the tool necessary to acquire the second, which in turn allows man to emulate his Creator by acting responsibly towards the whole of Creation including humanity.

It is this understanding of our religion that speaks to me. I see it as a guide and a teaching, as the word Torah implies, challenging us to express our full potential by living a life of responsibility. It is not an opiate but a challenge.

Shabbat Shalom.

Rav Kook on Rambam and the Significance of his Theology to a Contemporary Jew - Continued - Rambam Was Not a Schizophrenic!

Rav Kook ZL, in his letter to Ya’avetz, continues to disagree with specific statements he made in his book about Rambam’s philosophy. I will end by quoting/translating/paraphrasing a few that I find relevant to our contemporary thinking.

One of the criticisms of Ya’avetz was that the philosophic approach to religion minimizes the importance of praxis. He argues that Greek philosophy values intellectual growth and devalues action. RK vehemently rejects Ya’avetz’s accusation that Rambam accepted that premise. In fact, RK argues, Rambam ends the Moreh with an emotionally laden chapter that depicts the service of one who has reached the intellectual heights of understanding God’s ways. It is only after reaching that understanding that one can act in concert with God. Action is the ultimate goal of intellectual growth and religious philosophy. RK quotes the whole segment in the Moreh and here is the pertinent excerpt –

“The object of the above passage [in Yirmyahu] is therefore to declare, that the perfection, in which man can truly glory, is attained by him when he has acquired--as far as this is possible for man--the knowledge of God, the knowledge of His Providence, and of the manner in which it influences His creatures in their production and continued existence. Having acquired the knowledge he will then be determined always to seek loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, and thus to imitate the ways of God. We have explained this many times in this treatise.”

Clearly, to Rambam the end goal of all knowledge as he reads it in the Torah is to know how to act, which is the opposite of the philosopher’s meditation. RK develops this argument from other quotes in Rambam’s writing.

I find this reading of Rambam by Rav Kook ZL very satisfying as it reinforces what I have come to realize a few years ago. I believe that Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz ZL did not see this in Rambam. He could not accept that one can really understand anything about God that could be translated into a practical act. He felt that it would border on anthropomorphism. Rav Kook did not see it the same way.

RK tries to defend Rambam’s Aristotelian understanding of the spheres as living entities. He uses the standard argument that science has not yet reached its limits and it is therefore possible that we will find out that the underlying force of gravity, for example, is some kind of sentience. I find this the least compelling part of the letter. I prefer to see Rambam as trying to show how to interpret reality within our theology. He was doing that with his reality and we have to do the same with ours. After all, isn’t that the goal of religion, seeing the world from a divine perspective?

RK then lauds Rambam’s position that it is wrong to think that everything was created for the sake of man and that we must rather accept that it is not possible to know what was God’s ultimate purpose in creation. RK says that this insight saved Judaism during the great leaps forward that science took since his days. As we started to understand the physics of the universe, Copernicus and the subsequent developments, it became clear that man and the earth we live on, is only a very minute component of the cosmos. As most religions base their theology on man’s centrality, and this has been shown to be incorrect, an artificial conflict between science and religion develops. Rambam taught us that Judaism is not built on that premise. The idea that man is important is only a perspective suggested by the Torah to be used, to help us retain our focus in the service of God. It is a way to look at ourselves in context of our immediate surroundings but it is not a theological foundation. In fact, the Torah also teaches us that man is nothing in the context of the cosmos. That is a useful reminder if one should become too infatuated with his own self-importance. The dialectics of these two perspectives keep man on the straight path. Rambam’s approach therefore shows that all the scientific knowledge that was developed up to our times, Newton, Einstein et al, does not conflict with Torah. On the contrary, Torah gives a divine perspective.

Rav Kook ends the letter with an admonition not to dare say that “our great Rabbi, who provided us with the intellectual and moral insights [literally: sun] and the great holiness and purity of Torah, which he was learning day and night to be close to God, had a split personality. [We dare not say that] in the Moreh, he presented one position while in his other writings he showed a different one. God forbid! Our Rabbi was a sincere Tzaddik. Just like, he was a genius in Torah and Sciences, so was he a genius in sincerity and belief. All his words, including the words he wrote in his great Sefer, Moreh Hanevuchim, will remain forever as a light to the world as to the wisdom of Israel. His Torah [will remain] as a sun of righteousness that brings healing in its wings.”

These final words of Rav Kook ZL address the canard that was bandied around by people who could not understand Rambam and felt that he was therefore a heretic at heart, that he had a schizophrenic personality. They claimed that the Mishne Torah, (except for Sefer Hamada), was written when he was a believer while the Moreh was when he was in his heretic state. [I am using a little hyperbole in describing these positions. They are mostly much tamer in their presentation though they leave us with the same message.] RK sees this as what it is, an insult. On the contrary, anybody that seriously studies Rambam finds how subtly he intertwines his philosophy with Halacha. One cannot understand one without the other. All the great Gedolim saw this. I can think of two other contemporaries of RK who came out with a similar statement, R. Meir Simcha and R. Yosef Rosen, both of Dvinsk.

And all this from Rav Kook the great Kabbalist! A passionate defense of the great rationalist, Rambam!

Rav Kook on Rambam and the Significance of his Theology to a Contemporary Jew Continued - Revelation, Creation and Providence

“Sure, the Rambam's contribution to Jewish thought is invaluable, but that influence has been eclipsed by other streams of hashkafah that have had a far more significant impact on all the ba'alei Machshavah who have lived since the medieval period. Who among modern Jewish thinkers works with the Rambam's philosophical system? Not Rav Kook. Not RYBS. Not R' Chaim Volozhiner, the GR"A, the Ba'al ha Tanya. Not any Chassidic thinker, any of the Mussar giants. I would not go so far as to say the Rambam's Shita is illegitimate, but legitimacy and relevance are two separate issues.”

The above is part of a comment by one of my favorite Bloggers, R. Chaim B. of Divrei Chaim. It represents the typical thought process of most of our brethrens. If the majority does not find something significant it must be wrong, irrelevant or outside the pale. It is this type of thinking, the fear of individualization that turns many of our brethrens away from Judaism or, what I consider even worse, makes for lukewarm Jews focused on meaningless rituals and superstitious fears. True Rav Kook was more inclined to Kabbalah, as I noted at the beginning of my post, however R. Chaim also missed the following insightful words which I will repeat here –

“There is no question that there are people, on whom certain types of approaches have a positive effect, bringing them closer to holiness and purity, service of Torah and Mitzvot while others are affected the same way by different approaches… Can we doubt that there are a great many among our brethren that these ideas will have the same holy and beneficent effect on their psyche?”

I also do not agree with R. Chaim’s take on the theology of the greats he enumerates. I do not know enough about the theology of the Gra but all the others are all deeply influenced by Rambam either when they espouse his position, which is in most areas, or when they react to it and disagree. It is Rambam’s thinking that triggered many of the ideas that came out in Chassidus. Anyone who learns the Moreh will see him reflected in the writings of every great theological book written since as the silent interlocutor. I already mentioned several times that a very insightful and important Pirush on Ramban was written recently, the Yekev Ephraim, where he shows the hidden dialogue he was having with Rambam across his commentary. I hope similar sefarim will be written addressing the other greats and their relationship to Rambam.

Anyway, continuing with Rav Kook’s letter, he now addresses Ya’avetz’s criticisms of Rambam which are the typical ones that were thrown at the great thinker during the centuries since he wrote the Moreh.

Ya’avetz wondered how Rambam could not see the difference between Judaism and Greek philosophy, comparing and basing Judaism on it. RK responds –

“Rambam created a vast and deep chasm between Greek philosophy and Judaism showing the essentially great difference between the two. There is such a difference between the holy and the secular that it cannot be missed by anyone that delves into the Moreh. That difference is based on three essential foundational teachings.

The first teaching is Revelation. Rambam established that one could apprehend things that no other human ability can through prophecy, for it is the word of God.

The second teaching is that the world is created. This uprooted the idolatrous Greek weltanschauung, giving us back the holy paths of the Torah which is the original Jewish outlook on the whole of existence. It is the opposite of the Greek dependence on an eternal world… This does not make Judaism just slightly different from Greek philosophy, but makes the two philosophies completely the opposite of each other. There is such a fundamental difference between the vision of the eternal and idolatrous world of those who “have not served the God of heaven and earth” (Yirmyahu 10:11), and the Jewish vision of a unique God, “He creates all, spreads the heavens by Himself and founded the earth, who is with Him?”[1], that we cannot even find one position or a point of commonality between these ideologies.

The third teaching is personal Providence in “the species man in all his details and deeds[2]” which is the complete opposite of the Greek consciousness, whose claim that God abandoned the world is common to all sinners from time immemorial.

The awesome difference and the complete oppositeness that is reflected from these three foundational beliefs is what our great Rabbi has established in his great wisdom and holiness as an eternal barrier between the holy and the profane, the human knowledge that is Greek philosophy and the divine wisdom of Israel. It so opposite that even when some seemingly common threads are detected in the formulation of the ideas, the separation and chasm remains and neither comes closer to the other.”

RK then explains further that the difference between the two philosophies is the same as the difference between God and His creations. Just like the two are not comparable neither are the two philosophies. In both the comparison is only in the metaphors used to communicate, but the essences are very different.

Rav Kook ZL makes a very important statement in this segment of the letter. Rambam has been accused of being an Aristotelian or a Neo–Platonist by some. This could not be further from the truth. During Rambam’s times, the science that explained nature and the world was based on an Aristotelian model. Rambam followed the Torah’s intent – interpret nature from a religious perspective. He accepted the Greek’s science but not their philosophy. It is a road map for us too on how to deal with our contemporary science. We have to learn the sciences and understand our existence from the scientific perspective. It is our reality. But we also have to interpret what we observe, ontologically within the context of God and His Torah. The two, science and torah, are completely intertwined and one cannot exist without the other. However, science is a subject we can show and prove empirically while the interpretation we are talking about cannot. It is after all an interpretation of “how” things came about. We are discussing pre-existence. Left in human hands imagination and fantasy take over spawning idolatry and superstition. Revelation is therefore the key and the only approach possible. Only a perfected individual, who has reined in his imaginative faculty, developed his psyche and controlled his urges, can have an objective revelatory experience. The Torah teaches us that by presenting Moshe Rabbeinu as the paradigm of such a prophet. He was the one who gave us the Torah.

More of Rav Kook’s letter to follow.

---

[1] I could not find this verse anywhere in this form. It seems to be a composite of Iyov 9:8 and some other one. Maybe someone has an idea. The original is

הוא יוצר כל נוטה שמים לבדו ויוסד הארץ מי אתו

[2] I translated carefully and literally, as the exact wording is important, as I hope to show in another post when discussing providence.

Rav Kook on Rambam and the Significance of his Theology to a Contemporary Jew.

Over time, I received several emails and comments from readers on different posts arguing that Rambam is irrelevant nowadays and his philosophy has been rejected and is unacceptable to the mainstream of "orthodox” Judaism. It shows that many people do not know how our contemporary mainstream beliefs came about and more importantly are unaware how deeply Rambam’s thought is embedded and at the core of most of them. Rambam’s influence on contemporary Jewish thought is ubiquitous whether when it agrees with it or when it is the catalyst for new ideas in reaction to it. As it seems to be an issue, I will address this issue periodically. Here I would like to start with a translation/paraphrase of a letter written by Rav Kook ZL to Yaakov Ya’avetz, the historian. The letter is printed in the back of volume 10 of the Ya’avetz History of the Jewish People (Heb.). The letter is quite long so I will post just pertinent excerpts and summarize the rest. If anyone is interested, email me and I will forward a PDF of the whole letter.

Rav Kook was responding to Ya’avetz's discussion of Rambam and his theology who apparently was critical of the Moreh as being foreign to Judaism and influenced by the Greeks. (I did not read the pertinent chapters in the book.) Remember, Rav Kook was a great Kabbalist and read with this in mind!

“In our times after the Maimonidean controversy has subsided and Rambam was shown to have been right, the Sefer Hamoreh has become part of the Sifrei Kodesh (holy literary patrimony) which are necessary for the acquisition of Torah knowledge. [RK is referring to the Braitha at the end of Avot that is called Kine’yan Torah]. We may not treat Rambam’s words with disrespect. Not only are we supposed to defend him but we must also delve deeply into his words and consider the resulting precepts as Torah precepts. [The Hebrew here is Midot. I am having difficulty finding a better word in context. I understand him to say that the conclusions we arrive at through this in depth analysis becomes part of our theology.]”

RK then states that just as in Halacha we consider two sides of an argument and do not discard the opinion that did not win out, so too in theology. We have to consider all the theological arguments of all the great Rabbis who are generally accepted based on their erudition and behavior, and we dare not consider any one of their opinions as external [foreign].

“The fact that our Rabbi [Rambam] for whom God’s Torah was the source of life, considered himself faithful to God and His Torah while espousing these opinions, is in itself proof enough that there isn’t the slightest possibility of questioning them or seeing someone who follows them as not being part of the holy Torah and Israel. The decision in this [whom to follow Rambam or the others] depends upon the personal state of mind of each one of us and how we understand spirituality, each according to his makeup and the type of person he is. There is no question that there are people, on whom certain types of approaches have a positive effect, bringing them closer to holiness and purity, service of Torah and Mitzvot while others are affected the same way by different approaches. Consider the following. The ideas presented in the Moreh were in accordance with the holy sense, the strong Emunah, the attachment [to God], the true and holy service, all of the treasures of goodness and holiness, the care and striving for holiness and purity and the tremendous love and fear of HKBH which was always blazing in the heart of the great giant and holy light our Rabbi Rambam ZL. Can we doubt that there are a great many among our brethren that these ideas will have the same holy and beneficent effect on their psyche? Should some of them not be able to accept all of the ideas proposed in the Moreh, they may follow other great thinkers but one may not consider Rambam’s approach as outside the pale. How much more have we got to be careful not to refer to ideas that the holy sense of our great Rabbi Rambam sanctified, as Greek and foreign?”

So far, RK presented a reverential and circumstantial perspective of Rambam’s legitimacy. He proceeds to now discuss the meat of Rambam’s philosophy and its impact on contemporary thought.

(As I am rereading the letter, I realize that I have to post many more of Rav Kook’s arguments than I thought when I started, as they are seminal, so this will expand to more than one post).

“I am wondering how we can be remiss and not thankful to our Rabbi Rambam for his great work in the Moreh, where he established the foundations of pure Jewish belief, eliminating from our midst the fearsome nonsense of God’s corporeality. It is easy to imagine what would have happened to our religion had he not done his great work in spite of the great sufferings that he had to endure for that. Only such a great and holy person could surmount the opposition with such grace and so peacefully. It is his great work that has brought about that Baruch Hashem, nowadays, that erroneous belief [in God’s corporeality] has been completely eradicated from the consciousness of our nation. The dogma of incorporeality, that God has no body nor does any physical occurrences have any affect on Him and nothing compares (is similar in any sense) with Him has now become a universally accepted dogma. God knows how much nonsense and fantasy this error of [belief in] corporeality could have generated if not for our Rabbi saving us from that? How much would heresy and nihilism have destroyed us had our religion remained so crude and populist even during our times when the sciences and freedom of thought has become so common and well known to all?”

RK then proceeds to criticize Ya’avetz for repeating the old arguments against Rambam, especially the one that he followed the Greeks blindly. RK argues that if we look at Rambam objectively, we can see how critical he was of everything the Greeks said [he expands on this further as we will see] and only when their ideas did not conflict with Torah were they accepted. As to the fact that contemporary science sees things differently -

“Is it possible to say that the metaphysical issues discussed in the Moreh can be proven empirically as to their details? It is enough that the general foundations such as, the existence of God, His unity and incorporeality, can be shown to be true based on scientific reality. The other opinions are visionary [based on revelation?] such that we can at most say that man, to the best of his limited knowledge, understands them as relatively true and proven. [In other words, they do not contradict reality and are more likely to be true than other opinions – DG].”

RK then continues to say, that when Rambam saw that the seeming contradiction between these metaphysical conjectures that were accepted as fact, and the Torah, created problems among the thinking elite, he decided to publish his ideas. He showed that not only does science not disagree but is in fact strengthened by Torah. This put our religion on a strong footing to survive and stay relevant as human knowledge advanced.

There is much more but keeping to my policy against too lengthy posts, I will leave the rest for the upcoming ones.

Science vs Chazal? Ra'avad vs Rambam. An interesting case and a lesson.

One of the enjoyable things that one encounters when learning Mishne Torah, are the sharp comments Ra’avad makes when he disagrees with Rambam. For whatever reason, whether it was customary for scholars to use sharp language when disagreeing or that Ra’avad wanted to bring Rambam down a peg for ideological reasons[1], they show that he had a sharp wit and a good sense of humor. While learning Hilchot Kilayim I came across one of the most explicit and, to my mind, interesting ones that shed light on the reality the Rishonim confronted when dealing with texts and their reaction. I will not go into the minute details of the Halacha just enough so that the exchange can be understood.

If one plants grain or vegetables in a vineyard, one draws a circle of 16 Amot around the grain and all vines within that circle are forbidden and must be destroyed. The Mishna in Kilayim 5:5 however gives the number of vines in the forbidden area. It says that if the vines are spaced at four or five Amot intervals a total of 45 trees will have to be destroyed. The Rishonim could not make headway on this Mishna. How could there be the same 45 trees whether they are spaced four or five Amot apart? In addition what is the meaning of giving the number of trees?

In an uncharacteristic long Pirush Hamishna Rambam explains that as in a spacing of five Amot the edge of the circle would pass beyond the last tree inside it and there will be exactly four or less Amot between the circle and the next tree. The next tree or trees are therefore also included in the prohibited batch as a vineyard includes space to work the vines which is four Amot. As the circle is expanded to the additional vines, 45 vines are included. (In the printed Mishnayot Rambam’s drawings are included.) Thus the Mishna was teaching us that one has to add any vine that is within 4 Amot from the circle. In fact that is what Rambam rules in MT.
רמב"ם הלכות כלאים פרק ו הלכה


במה דברים אמורים כשהיה בין שפתי העיגול הזה ובין שורות הגפנים שחוצה לו יותר על ארבע אמות, אבל אם היה ביניהם ארבע אמות מצומצמות או פחות רואין את העיגול כאילו הגיע לשורה הסמוכה לו וכאילו רוחב העיגול ארבעים אמה ורואין כל גפן שתפול בתוך עיגול זה של ארבעים אמה הרי היא מתקדשת

(I am too lazy to translate so those who have difficulty with the Hebrew trust me that is what he says). There is no need to discuss the 45 trees in the Halacha as it is incidental.

Rambam ends his discussion in Pirush Hamishna with the following comment:

וביארנו טעם כל זה. וכבר נתבארו עניני הלכה זו כולם בעז"ה. התבונן בהם היטיב, לפי שכשנשאל עליה רב מרבני התלמוד היתה תשובתו אחרי גמגום, ויש בדבר דקדוקין הרבה ואחרי כן יסייעו מן השמים ונצוה לפרשהו לכם.
We explained all the reasons [of this Mishna] and this Halacha was clarified with the help of God. Contemplate them [these halachot] well because when one of the Talmudic experts was asked to explain it his answer was obfuscating and there are many questions with his approach. [I am not sure how to translate the last few words so here is my best guess.]Thereafter heaven helped and we were ordered to explain it to you.

Ra’avad did not see the Pirush Hamishna. All he had is the Mishna and Rambam’s ruling about the additional four Amot that reach the next row of vines.

+/השגת הראב"דא"א כל מ"ש בכאן אין לו שרש בגמרא ולא בתוספתא ולא השכל מורה וחוץ לעיגול שלשים ושתים אמה למה יאסור כלל וחיי ראשי לולא כי מלאכה גדולה עשה באסיפתו דברי הגמרא והירושלמי והתוספתא הייתי מאסף עליו אסיפת עם וזקניו וחכמיו כי שנה עלינו הלשונות והמליצות וסבב פני השמועות לפנים אחרים וענינים שונים

All that he wrote here has no basis in Gemara or Tosefta nor does it make logical sense. Why should it be prohibited outside the circle that has a 32 Amot diameter? [IOW if the Halacha is that vines within a 16 Amot radius are prohibited why add on more?] By my head, if not for the fact [if I did not feel bad for him] that he put in a lot of work gathering the words of the Gemara, Yerushalmi and Tosefta, I would bring together a gathering of people and their elders and scholars [to protest!]. For he has changed the language and the euphemisms [Rambam does not repeat the Mishnayot verbatim] thus distorting their meaning into different directions. [Ra'avad proceeds to give his explanation of the Mishna].

Rosh (Rabbeinu Asher Ben Yechiel) came to Toledo, Spain from Germany in the 1300’s bringing with him the learning of the ba’alei hatosafot which included Rabbeinu Shimshon of Sens. Much was written about this Mishna especially by the latter in his Pirush on the Mishna. Here he had a Mesora from his Rebbis (including Ra’avad) and Rambam’s ruling but this time also his Pirush Hamishna (Rashba a friend and contemporary of Rosh had it translated. Rosh met him on his way to Spain and spent two weeks with him. What wouldn’t I give to have been a fly on the wall when this meeting occurred!) What does a seeker of the truth who is out of his depth do? (Rosh had no secular education. Furthermore, Northern Europe in those days was far behind Southern Europe especially Spain.) He asks an expert to look into it and report back. He therefore asked R. Yisrael ben Yosef (of the Yisraeli family who were known mathematicians? I am also not sure the name quoted here is correct.) to figure this out and tell him who is right.

.+
כסף משנה הלכות כלאים פרק ו הלכה ב

ומצאתי כתוב ששאל הרא"ש את ה"ר ישראל שהיה חכם בחכמות על דברי מי יש לסמוך והשיב לו כלשון הזה. אדוני ומרי תרב גדולתך כגודל כשרון פעולתך. עיינתי בפירוש משנת הנוטע ירק בכרם להר"מ ז"ל וראיתי כי הפליא עצה הגדיל תושיה בפירושה אבל נראה לי לפי עניות דעתי כי האריך בה הרבה והלשון אינו מחוור כפי הצורך כי נראה סתירה בדבריו למי שאינו מעיין בהם עיון דק. אבל כלם נכוחים למבין. והענין אין לנטות ממנו ימין ושמאל

. והנה פירשתים לפי דעתו ולא חדשתי בה כלום מלבי אלא קיצור הלשון ותיקונו
זהו מה שהבנתי מפירוש משנה זו מדברי רמז"ל והן הן הדברים שנאמרו למשה בסיני. ואל יתפתה אדוני ומורי במ"ש רבינו שמשון ז"ל בפירוש משנה זו ואל תשגיח עליו כלל כי חוץ מכבודו הוא שבוש נטוי על קו תוהו ואבני בוהו לא זה הדרך ולא זו העיר. ומה שכתב בשם חכמי המדות הוא אמת. ומ"ש ז"ל כי ברבוע שארכו יותר על רחבו אין על דבריהם הוכחה. יש ויש. ומה שכתב ליתיה להאי כללא, איתיה על כל פנים. ויהי כנהר שלומך ויעמוד לעד זרעך ושמך, כחפצך וכחפץ צעיר תלמידיך נוגה חסדיך, ישראל בר יוסף נ"ע

I looked into Rambam’s Pirush on this Mishna and I saw that he had marvelous insights and shows great power [of intellect] in its explanation. At first blush they are hard to understand as he elaborates too much to the point he appears to contradict himself to someone who does not pay great detailed attention. However once understood one sees that he is correct. One may not stray left or right from his approach. [R. Yisrael then explains Rambam and finishes as follows:]

I explained the Mishna as I understood him [Rambam] and I have not added a single idea to what he said. Those are the words that Moshe received at Sinai. Do not be distracted my master with the words of Rabbeinu Shimshon explaining this Mishna. Do not pay attention to his words at all as they do not bring him honor. They are a mistake, resting on a vacuous line [of thought?] and nonsensical foundations [literally stones]. That is neither the way nor the city! What he wrote based on the Mathematicians is correct. [Apparently RS quoted Pi]. As to his claim that in a rectangle there is no proof that Pi applies, there sure is such proof. [To explain the Mishna apparently (I did not delve into it but assume) RS tried to argue that the ratio between a circle and a square is different!) His argument that it does not apply to a rectangle is incorrect. It does!


Here we have a fascinating situation. Ra’avad missed Rambam’s point completely and understandably as he did not have the Pirush Hamishna. Not seeing the brilliant insight he called him a gatherer! It is a put down saying that he has no original ideas and sometimes errs in understanding the texts! (Where was the Brisker Rav?!)

R. Shimshon was aware of Pi but as he could not understand the Mishna according to it, imagined a disagreement between Chazal and science on a basic mathematical theory. He found himself pushed into a corner and came up with the absurdity that Pi is not universal.

Rosh who was steeped in the Franco – German school of the Ba’alei Hatosafot, could not ignore his Mesora but at the same time felt compelled to find the truth. He asks help and gets it. When he writes his Pirush on Mishna he quotes the words of R. Yisrael. Truth is the ultimate arbiter!

Another important point is that people have a habit jumping to conclusions when they think they understand a Chazal and seemingly it disagrees with science or reality. Is it possible that the saying of Chazal had another meaning that was lost over time? Rambam clearly did rediscover the true meaning of this Mishna as he himself attributes it to God’s help. No one before him understood it and it was lost in the tribulations of Galut. In the upcoming Hakirah there is an article that does a similar thing with a different Gemara. Once you read it, a Gemara that was a thorn in the gut of all Meforshim, becomes clear like day.

As an aside, Rosh was not a great fan of secular knowledge. He did not accept Rambam’s philosophy and weltanschauung but when it came to truth he had no problem looking into the secular sciences and accepting reality. Not only in this case but also in general he asked members of the Yisraeli family to teach him the basic sciences that he lacked.


Shabbat Shalom.

[1] See his sharp comment in the introduction to MT.

Rambam the Greek?

Rambam was accused over the generations for having been influenced by the Greeks especially Aristotle. Ramban in his disagreements with Rambam alludes to that many times. One of the most famous such accuser is Gra in Yoreh Deah 179 where he disagrees with Rambam’s stand on amulets.

As I was rereading an article that I just finished for the upcoming issue of Hakirah on Divine Providence, I realized that I was staring at a fascinating comment of Rambam that turns the table on his accusers. It also gives an insight of his intellectual honesty and fearlessness in disagreeing with anything that went against rational thought.

In his discussions on providence in MN 3:17 he presents five different opinions. The first two are the opinions of the Atomists, a school of Greek philosophers and Aristotle. Although he agrees with Aristotle on some of his ideas, he feels that it goes against Jewish theology. He then presents the opinions of the Ash’aryyah, school of Muslim philosophers who believed that everything is predestined and nothing happens without God’s minute involvement. Nothing happens by chance or choice. They are therefore forced to deny reward and punishment and see God as whimsical and ultimately unjust.

The next group is the Mu’tazilites who believes that man has freedom of choice and God is just but His ways are so deep and beyond our understanding. When we see a righteous man that suffers, we have to accept it as justice. We just do not know how it is just. We assume that God will reward him in the world to come. Sometimes one suffers so that he can get a greater reward in afterlife. If that sounds familiar, it is. In fact, I believe that this opinion is mainstream Judaism nowadays. Rambam in fact quotes the Gemara in Berachot that discusses the idea of afflictions of love, Yissurim Shel Ahavah, and suggests that it is a similar thinking but says that we cannot find it in the Torah.

But they contain an additional doctrine which is not found in the text of the Torah namely the doctrine of "afflictions of love," as taught by some of our Sages. According to this doctrine, it is possible that a person suffer misfortunes without having previously committed any sin, in order that his future reward may be greater. This is also the teaching of the Mu’tazilites. But there is no text in the Torah expressing this notion.

He also suggests that some of the Geonim, probably referring to R. Sa’adyah Gaon and Rav Hay Gaon, were influenced by that school in their philosophic thought.

When Rambam presents his own ideas, he prefaces them with the following statement:

My opinion on this principle of Divine Providence I will now explain to you. In the principle which I now proceed to expound, I do not rely on the conclusion to which demonstration has led me, but on what has clearly appeared as the intention of the book of God, and the writings of our Prophets.

His opinion will not be based on the Greek or Muslim philosophers, not even on rabbinical writings, but purely on Torah and the writings of the prophets!

Rambam dedicates 2 chapters, 3:22 and 23, to showing where he got his ideas. I hope to write my next article on that subject.

There is tremendous depth in this statement of Rambam and it has implications on many issues in Jewish theology. It is how one interprets the observations one makes about day-to-day life that is at the heart of Jewish thought. It is a constant balance and dialectics between reality and how one understands it.

Shabbat Shalom.

Rambam's Thought in Our Times. Part 1 - Tecnician's Summary.

Technician has posted further on Rambam’s theology in context of contemporary thought. As I have done before here are his comments in their original format. I will address and expand with my own ideas where and as I see fit in coming posts. I think I understand most of what he wrote and time will tell if I really do. In the meantime, those of you who understand, agree or disagree let us hear from you.

Blogger- But wait – all this stuff is still dogmatically medieval and incorrect science.

Answer- even Maimonides limited knowledge to what was epistemologically provable and therefore the metaphysical aspects of science and God’s essence are unknowable. We only know God’s existence through his actions in the material world, not his essence or the scientific proofs for creation. It is already a non-dogmatic position of a liberal theist.

Blogger – no this is still medieval. You cannot prove God and science works without God.

Premise 1- we acknowledge that Hume formally disproved the proofs for God. Then, in the Enlightenment - Voltaire, Thomas Paine, and Diderot destroyed them in public. Only a tyro or a charlatan would take the permission to deceive by ignoring Hume.

Premise 2 – Leibnitz and others reformulated the arguments without the medieval elements. Then, Kant formulated a moral argument.

P3 – Nihilists, materialists, and positivists in Germany socially destroyed the arguments again.

P4 - At the turn of the 20th century, Hermann Cohen reformulated the arguments as postulates of reason. It is not proof but a logical postulate to avoid the other approach of P3- the nihilists and materialists. We accept God as the giving reason and moral order to creation; Man’s role is to hear the moral call from God and act to make the world a better place.

P5 – as a Jew and former reform seminary student, Cohen formulates his approach using Maimonides and not Aquinas. Maimonides in the 20th century automatically means through the lens of Cohen. Leibowitz, Soloveitchik, Leo Baeck, Ken Seeskin, and most others formulate their approaches to Maimonides using Cohen.

Conclusion – When we say Maimonides we are already non-dogmatic and use this as shorthand for a general approach. Especially, since we are more concerned with fighting superstition and creating a moral order than with epistemology.


Blogger- Isn’t epistemology the most question so that you do not delude yourself into a false religion?

Answer: No, at this point it is already a choice among sophisticated liberal theologies. And saying that one is a Maimonidean already is shorthand for denying the dogmatic approach. And if you do not have answers, then aren’t you as dogmatic as those claiming Mesora?

P1 – Herman Cohen as above is my starting point

P2 - Bertrand Russell et al created an Anglo tradition of philosophy shorn of the social sciences and focusing on logic and verification. Cohen is wrong. All German philosophy is just misguided mysticism. Laws of science are only verified induction without proof.

P3 – Everyone from Einstein to Copleston wrote responses to this new approach. Einstein “God does not play dice with the universe” Conclusion – There is no formal proof on each side and it is acceptable to choose either. Tayku

P4 Read the debate of Copleston and Russell. Copleston makes argument from causality, moral order, and the need for a synthetic a-priori, pace Kant and Cohen. Russell rejecting Kant’s denies the need for any of the three.

P5 Russell is a strong agnostic knowing that he cannot prove his position, and follows Occam’s razor. Copleston is a weak agnostic choosing to return to Kant.

P6. Neither position is dogmatic, irrational, or relying on tradition. To follow, Kant, the Neo-Thomists, or Neo- Maimonides is a liberal non-dogmatic approach. The debate turns over the ability to accept a synthetic a priori- in this case causality.

P7 Russell’s position also undercuts science because without a synthetic a priori, then laws of science are only induction not real laws like in Newtonian physics. Yet, on the engineering level every day we work as if Newton is true.

Conclusion- it is acceptable to work with religion and Maimonides even if no proofs or laws.

Conclusion – Maimonides is more useful than Copleston or other defenses of metaphysics because of his rational Judaism.

I am sorry if that was not clear and it seemed that accepting Maimonides was dogmatic. My beloved Soloveitchik, Leibowitz and Faur and others are already within the limits of Kantian thought.

Blogger: What of Dennett, Harris, Dawkins and all the other skeptics?

P1 – In the last 25 years evangelicals and Yeshivish Jews take the permission to deceive and write dogmatic non-liberal proofs for God. Most of these are based on false dichotomies, the God of the gaps, if I find a fault with science then religion is true, or bad versions of the medieval arguments. In all of them they write as if Hume never wrote.

P2 – Scientists and atheists are mad at this and respond by rejecting religion entirely.

Conclusion – Blogger only knows P5. Maimonides is red flag of dogmatism with pre-determined conclusion. Blogger naively speaks about science as if it too could not be disproved, not by atheists but by philosophers of science.

Rambam's religion -Man serves God by emulating Him.

Finally, Technician takes us to Rambam: [again my comments in brackets]

Maimonides

P1 – There is a fixed Aristotelian natural order. God at the minimum is Aristotle’s first cause.

P2 – this natural order is the best of all possible worlds.

P3 – we see that the natural order is ethical.

[Rambam holds that the universe as we know it has a logic and system to it. Even what we may perceive as random is in reality orderly. We do not really know everything about science. Eventually humanity may, and at that time, we will understand that everything is orderly, logical and is the best way things could be. Thus as everything observable and that we know is contingent (dependent on each other) there must be one non-contingent entity. That entity we call God. As everything is perfect, meaning that it is here for eternity at least from now on (a parte post), that Entity, the First Cause (“First” does not mean temporal but hierarchical), the Non-Contingent Entity, must be perfect too. Perfection or what we call “good” is existence, “very good – Tov Me’od” is eternal existence, while Evil is destruction of existence or non-existence. If we look at our existence in a Macro, we see that everything is self-perpetuating. Even calamities and tragedies, they affect the individual of a group or species, but ultimately helps the whole to survive and sometimes even thrive. Looking at the natural order, we can therefore learn from it how to be “good”, how to partake in that system that ensures eternity and existence. Existence is the ethics we see in nature. That translates into actions that emulate God, the non-contingent, First Cause, the cause of everything that we now understand as ethical. Which leads us to the next three premises:]

P4 – this ethic is labeled “God’s attributes of Action”.

P5 – acting ethically imitates God – meaning the attributes of action in the natural order.

P6 – Our goal is to create a virtuous society based on reason.

P7 According to Ibn Tibon, Radak, Shem Tov, Herman Cohen, and even Isadore Twersky – this is for creating a virtuous society through ethics not ritual. Ritual Mitzvot are for the betterment of society – tikkun haguf – tikkun hamedinah- not to imitate God.

[If we can learn from the natural order what is the purpose of the Mitzvot? Why revelation if we can learn everything from observing the natural order? The answer is that we need to live in a society that allows man to spend time on studying and understanding his surroundings. We need a society that allows one to live without spending all his time on physical survival. The Mitzvot that deal with societal issues have as a goal to create that perfect society that will allow for man to focus on understanding the sciences and thus know God’s actions and thus how to emulate Him. Man being a material entity has urges and preferences. To properly judge and translate into action, the observations about the natural and ethical order, man has to control those urges otherwise he will be misled and act selfishly and narcissistically. His natural urges will make him do self-righteous things as long as they satisfy his own personal preferences. He may see objectivity where there is subjectivity. This may affect his interaction with society too working against this perfect society that is so necessary. Therefore, Mitzvot are there to bring discipline, train us in self-control, thinking of the other, acting beyond immediate self-gratification and also to remind us to think about God and existence. Mitzvot have no intrinsic value other than to train us. According to this school of thought, there are other ways of reaching the goal of emulating God, Torah and Mitzvot being one and we believe the best.]

P8– Meiri, Soloveitchik, Fox, Hartman and other Halachik thinkers connect the Mitzvot to intimating [imitating] God.

[This school agrees with the basic premises of the Tibon school, however goes one-step beyond arguing that Mitzvot, being revelatory and from God, are also a blueprint of how to translate what we learn from the natural order of the universe into human action. The Mitzvot start out as training tools. Once we understand them properly, we then realize that they are also in complete agreement with the ethical natural order. They are therefore the blueprint for how to emulate God. ]

Conclusion1 - therefore the epicureans are wrong about the world as random science, Sa’adyah is wrong because Mitzvot have a this worldly reward, religious ethics that are not natural are wrong.

Conclusion2: Mitzvot are the means to create a virtuous society.

Conclusion3: Providence is part of the natural order.

[I have written and will expand and write much more about P7, P8 and the conclusions over time as they are at the core of Judaism as I see it. ]

Personal note: The approach to religion Rambam teaches us, and there are many variations that developed over time based on his way of thinking, makes Judaism stand out from the religions of our contemporary society. Most of the religions I know, including some Jewish even orthodox schools of thought, have as their goal to make man live better materially and psychically. They see religion and ultimately God in the service of man. Rambam teaches us that man is here to serve God by emulating Him and partaking with Him in creation and existence. By doing that man will come as close as humanly possible to understand God. It is this process of melding with the eternal and becoming one with it that we become immortal. That immortality is Olam Haba which is Yediat Hashem. It is a personal experience which is why it cannot be understood and shared with anyone else. (See Hilchot Teshuvah chapters 8 through 10 with this in mind and it will be a “revelation”.) In this context, man is both a small entity among many with the ability to become an integral part of existence and eternity. Not only can he be an integral part but also an important player in that great scheme of things. To me that is an exhilarating thought and a worthwhile endeavor. It gives meaning to life.

I thank Technician for his contribution. I believe he has presented a cogent and clear description of the different approaches to religion.

Why are the theological ideas of the Medieval Rabbis relevant? Getting things off my chest!

I have chosen not to get too involved in the discussions on various Blogs about proofs for the existence of a First Cause. I have been watching from the sideline and my reluctance to enter the fray has proven prescient – people are talking at and not to each other. Terms are bandied around, Cause, Effect, Contingent, Space/time, creation etc… and each person has a different definition for these words. It is as cacophony of individual languages who do not understand each other, a veritable Tower of Babel. (Maybe that was what the story was referring to as a metaphor.)

I am however deeply pained by what I originally perceived, as irreverent comments thrown out in the heat of the argument, which I subsequently realized were heartfelt. I refer to the irreverence shown by most of our skeptic brethrens to the great thinkers in our heritage – the Rishonim and great Acharonim up to our times. It shows a level of ignorance coupled with arrogance that is beyond my comprehension. The most common argument is that they were wrong as they based their thinking on flawed science that has since been shown to be erroneous. I cannot sit and let this pass without putting in my protest. Let me explain.

The Torah, which is our reason for existence as a people without which Judaism has no meaning, has two components to it – the Legal and the theological. The Legal part which includes societal and ritual laws, the Mitzvot, is meant to help us in our daily existence and bring discipline into our lives. Living an orderly and satisfying life allows one to dedicate himself to the existential quest which is the second component of Torah. Without that component the Torah and keeping the Mitzvot lacks meaning. The theological component has one goal; understanding our existence through finding God and emulating Him. It is a personal quest undertaken within the broader auspices of a community and a people.

It is clear that the Torah was given at the dawn of the Bronze Age. Its divinity is evident because of its relevance then and through the ages up to our times. The way it works is that its followers in each era are obligated to understand its theology in context of the knowledge extant at each period. It is exactly this effort at interpretation and adaptation that focuses us on the important quest for meaning in our existence. Our Rabbis over the generations have shown us the way. We learn from them by understanding how they did it with the knowledge of their time. We therefore can take advantage of their experience and apply tried and true methods for our own needs.

Dismissing the Rabbis, claiming Rambam, Ramban, Rashba, Ralbag, Meiri et al are irrelevant because the science they based their conclusions on no longer is accepted, is the height of arrogance and stupidity. It shows a lack of brains. On the contrary, they took a document given during the times of idolatry and shamanism and showed us that it has exactly the same relevance in dealing with Aristotelian and Platonic cosmology. It is our task to emulate them and do the same in the scientific era of Darwin and Einstein. It will be the task of our descendants to apply the same thinking in a future world where the current science may turn out to be obsolete.

Exploring how they went about it, how they struggled and successfully addressed the issue during their times will give us the tools to succeed in our time. Great thinkers like R. Meir Simcha Hacohen and the Rogatchover, both of Dvinsk, Rav Kook and RYBS A’H are the closest contemporary greats who have begun the process. It is our task to continue this work and develop an understanding of the Torah in context of our times.

As to the specifics of the First Cause debate, a short comment. The argument I hear the most is that the Entity (God) that FC proposes is just that an unintelligible entity. Even if we were to accept the existence of such an entity, it would be meaningless. That is exactly so. All FC gives us is the deductive conclusion that a non-contingent Being exists. It is our task throughout our lives to figure out what He is not. If we apply ourselves, we believe we will find each to his level of accomplishment, this elusive but all-important Being. This is already a matter of choice and we as Jews have obligated ourselves to pursue in this quest.

כט וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּם מִשָּׁם אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, וּמָצָאתָ: כִּי תִדְרְשֶׁנּוּ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשֶׁךָ.
29 But from thence, ye will seek the LORD thy God; and thou shall find Him, if thou search after Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. (Devarim 4:29)


יט הַעִדֹתִי בָכֶם הַיּוֹם, אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ--הַחַיִּים וְהַמָּוֶת נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ, הַבְּרָכָה וְהַקְּלָלָה; וּבָחַרְתָּ, בַּחַיִּים--לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה, אַתָּה וְזַרְעֶךָ.
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed; (Devarim 30:19)


Of course, it is a matter of choice. Talking about it and arguing over whether every belief is empirically provable has no meaning. All we have empirically is that there is an Entity out there that is singularly non - contingent; no other Entity can be similar or even conceivable within this Entity’s category. The rest we accept as the ontological explanation of our existence based on this information. We trust that if we work at it we will acquire an understanding of this Entity to a certain extent. Our ancestors have told us that those among them who chose to go on this quest were successful each to his particular level.

So lets move on with the task at hand - understand our Theology in the context of our times.

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 Absolute Truth

I just read an excellent article in the latest Commentary by R. Meir Soloveitchik titled Of (Religious) Fences and Neighbors. An abstract of the article can be seen at
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10851 .

The article reviews a book by Maria Johnson Strangers and Neighbors: What I Have Learned About Christianity by Living Among Orthodox Jews which can be purchased at

http://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Neighbors-Learned-Christianity-Orthodox/dp/0849911516/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5063159-5948948?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173261779&sr=8-1

RMS contrasts the point of view of Rabbis Heschel, Greenberg and Hartman on pluralism with the view of the author and R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik in Confrontation. While Rabbis HGH, each using a different slant, argue for the acceptance of other religions as true, allowing for more than one truth, Ms. Johnson, a staunch catholic who befriended and lives closely with practicing Orthodox Jews, argues for agreeing to disagree on theology while accepting and even admiring those who have different beliefs. She understands and admires the love Jews have for Halacha, she even understands our obsession with details as a demonstration of that love. Although having great respect and acceptance she remains secure in her belief that her religion is the truth while acknowledging that her Jewish friends feel the same about theirs. Here is a quote by RMS from the book:

Johnson is quite matter of fact in acknowledging that her Jewish neighbors regard her as mistaken in her beliefs. Trying to guess what they tell their children about her and her Catholic family, she muses:

I’d imagine they say what I’d say to my [own] children if the nice family down the block were Mormons. I’d say, “They are great kids, and I’m really glad you’re friends. You’ve probably noticed that they go to a funny church and they have some odd ideas about God. If they tell you stories about an angel called Moroni or somebody called Joseph Smith and some tablets, you can just tell them that we’re Catholic and we don’t believe in that. Don’t argue with them; it’s really important to them, and we don’t want to hurt their feelings, but just between us, it’s pretty silly.”

There have been many discussions lately about Rambam’s Ikarim whether they are valid, stand up to scrutiny and even whether they have a place in Judaism, a religion based on actions and not on dogma. The utility of dogma in a closed society, where contact with the outside world is restricted, may be questionable. One may argue that devotion to Halacha suffices and accepting the existence of God as Creator is enough. Saying Shema twice daily and davening three times daily is all the theology needed for one to be a Frum Jew. Although most individuals who belong to such a group would not acquire any higher theological understanding, they would no different then the majority of any religious group. In each there are only individuals who aspire to a higher understanding of their existential state. It is however the modern Jew who does interact with society either because of his profession, his lifestyle or his personal preference that the need for the Ikarim, the dogma, is indispensable. The Jew, who confronts daily other points of view and is expected to deal with them, needs to have a clear understanding that, although he is respectful of other opinions, his is the truth. He also needs to know what his truth is. The Ikarim provide us with a summary of our truth.

There is only one truth and eventually all the other nations will recognize that. The fact that they think that their truth is absolute is based on mistaken theology. As human beings we can accept that they do not agree with us as long as they don’t try to force us to accept their theology. There is no possibility of a dialogue because the religious experience is personal and cannot be shared. As the Rav wrote that it is “both impertinent and unwise for an outsider to intrude upon… the way in which a faith community expresses its relationship to God”. Rambam so eloquently expressed our position in Hilchot Melachim 11:4

וכשיעמוד המלך המשיח באמת, ויצליח וירום ויינשא--מיד הם כולן חוזרין ויודעים ששקר נחלו אבותיהם, ושנביאיהם ואבותיהם הטעום

When the king Moshiach will truly arrive, and succeed, they [the nations] will all realize that their ancestors endowed them with falsehoods and that their prophets and parents misled them.

Prof. Menachem Kellner's "Maimonides' Confrontation with Mysticism" Reviewed in the Forward

I just finished reading this excellent review of Menachem Kellner's latest book "Maimonides' Confrontation with Mysticism" by Allan Nadler at
http://www.forward.com/articles/the-radical-rationalism-of-maimonides/

Contrast this with the nonsense I picked off a blog . http://zchusavos.blogspot.com/2007/02/sforim-that-have-segulas-associated.html

Rambam – Magid of Mezrich wrote in a letter to the Baal Hatanya that he should learn Rambam after Maariv, because it is a segula for yiras shomayim and to get rid of chitzonim. The Apta Rov says the golden language of the Rambam is a segula for the Nefesh, Ruach and Neshoma.

What is galling is that the Mezritcher and Apter Rav are talking about learning the Sefarim of Rambam which are the work of the great Ma'amin and Oved Hashem. Learning his non- mystical approach to Judaism is the greatest source of Yre'at shamayim. These nitwits understand this segula as a kind of amulet, keeping the Sefer under a baby's pillow, in the house etc... It is pure Avodah Zara and Chilul Hashem.

And they consider themselves hassidim and Frum! What a travesty!