Thoughts on Ramban, Aharon, The Golden Calf, Azazel and Rambam.

As one learns Ramban on Chumash it becomes clear that as he declared in his introduction, he is having a dialogue with his predecessors. He discloses in that introduction the names of two of them: Rashi and Ibn Ezra. But a person familiar with Rambam’s thought will detect a constant underlying dialogue with Rambam especially when the subject deals with theological matters even when he does not explicitly tell us so. An example of such a subtle dialogue can be detected in this week’s Parsha (Shemini) Vaykra 9:7-8.

ז  וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, קְרַב אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת-חַטָּאתְךָ וְאֶת-עֹלָתֶךָ, וְכַפֵּר בַּעַדְךָ, וּבְעַד הָעָם; וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת-קָרְבַּן הָעָם, וְכַפֵּר בַּעֲדָם, כַּאֲשֶׁר, צִוָּה יְהוָה.    

And Moses said unto Aaron: 'Draw near unto the altar, and offer thy sin-offering, and thy burnt-offering, and make atonement for thyself, and for the people; and present the offering of the people, and make atonement for them; as the LORD commanded.'

ח  וַיִּקְרַב אַהֲרֹן, אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; וַיִּשְׁחַט אֶת-עֵגֶל הַחַטָּאת, אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ.           

 So Aaron drew near unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin-offering, which was for himself.

The obvious question that comes to mind is what was the purpose of this dialogue? Didn’t Aharon know that it was his job as Cohen to go up to the altar to do the Avodah? Chazal detect reluctance on his part and comment on it. Rashi abbreviates their comment and just points out that Aharon was shy and reluctant. One gets the impression that it was possibly a lack of self-confidence or humility, Aharon feeling that he was not worthy.  Ramban is not content with leaving that impression. After offering a somewhat strained Peshuto Shel Mikra explanation he quotes the Midrash (Mechilta DeMiluim 7, Sifra ad locum) verbatim.

 “But in Torat Kohanim [our Rabbis] commented on this matter by offering a parable. This is comparable to a king who married a woman who was ashamed [to be intimate] with him. She came to her sister who told her – isn’t it for this purpose that you married him? Be bold and come serve the king. So too Moshe told Aharon, brother weren’t you chosen to be Cohen Gadol to serve God? Be bold and do your work. Some say, that to Aharon the altar took the shape of an ox (Ketavnit Shor) and Aharon feared him, Moshe came to him and told him not to let his fears take over, be bold and go closer. That is why it says קְרַב אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ and  וַיִּקְרַב אַהֲרֹן, אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ;”

When one reads that Midrash second explanation one can interpret it that Aharon was feeling guilty about having been instrumental in the Egel episode. A more sophisticated read, and probably that is how Rambam would read it, is that he was trying to understand how is the concept of bringing offerings to an idol different than burnt offerings on the altar in the Mishkan. Why when he created the Egel which was ultimately directed to God, he was so harshly censured, isn’t this similar?  Isn’t the idea of bringing an offering a sort of bribe exchanging it for goodwill? Aren’t we attempting to bribe God here too? Moshe’s response was that despite the questions he must do as ordered because it is God’s wish to allow the people to indulge a little in their superstitious illusion and thereby slowly lead them to a more advanced understanding of worship. This is a very directed and regulated worship while the Egel was an unregulated spontaneous outburst of superstition and even worse, to an intermediary, a representation of God.

Ramban however, at the beginning of Vaykra (1:9) has already voiced his vehement disagreement with Rambam’s understanding that Korbanot are a concession to human frailty. He does believe that offerings impact God if brought with the proper intention. The Egel was to an intermediary which is prohibited while Korbanot are directed to the Hallowed Name of Hashem. He now worries that this Midrash will be interpreted support Rambam’s position.

“The meaning of this Midrash is because Aharon who was a holy person and only had sinned once at the Egel, that sin stood out in his mind, … and he saw the form of the calf, namely that it was preventing him from successfully getting forgiveness.  Moshe tells him not worry as he is already forgiven for that misstep. Others say that the Satan was showing him the calf, as the Rabbis say there, Aharon my brother, even though God forgave you, you still have to offer something to the Satan to stop him from interfering when you come into the Holy places…”

Ramban interprets the Midrash as saying that Aharon was worried about his having sinned and that will stand in the way of his worship. He makes that point lest we interpret that the Korbanot themselves were problematic. Ramban does not see a problem with offerings as long as they are directed to God. The second explanation offered by the Rabbis he interprets as the Satan appearing to Aharon demanding a bribe for himself.  There are circumstances where even the Torah sanctions bringing offerings other than to God. Satan at times may have to be placated just like the Azazel offering on Yom Kippur see Ramban and Ibn Ezra on Vayikra 16:8.

Rambam in MN 3:46 explains that the Azazel offering does not imply that one can transfer one’s sins onto another entity (reminds us of Kaparot and I would not be surprised that was in his mind as the custom goes back to Geonim) but rather to symbolically awaken in us the thought that we have left our past behind and we are starting afresh with the undertaking of not repeating past mistakes. This offering represents the most abhorrent sins of the whole people which are so bad that they cannot be bought into the sanctuary in front of God. I also believe that at the end of the whole charged Avodah of the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur, the last offering does not come onto the altar as a symbol that the burning is not what a Korban is. God does not need it and to Him it is all the same whether offered to him as a burnt offering or whether it is gratuitously destroyed. It is all to get us thinking about our actions and improving them. We have here a classic redirection of a habit that cannot be stopped.

"Why Does The World Exist?" - Towards a Jewish Answer - Part 1.- Divine "Existence".

In his book “Why Does the World Exist?”(Which I highly recommend to all those who think about existential issues), Jim Holt interviews a series of philosophers, physicists and writers. He poses to them the question “why is there a world rather than nothing at all?” and reports their answers.  The answers can be divided into three camps listed by the author as; “optimists” who hold that there has to be a reason for the world to exist; the “pessimists” who believe there might be a reason for the world to exist but we will never know for sure; the “rejectionists” who believe there cannot be a reason for the world to exist and the question itself is meaningless.  The fact that thinkers in each group grapple with the question, while even the rejectionists work hard to explain why the question is meaningless, proves that the question is important and begs for an answer.  With the Big Bang, the currently accepted theory of how the world began, the question is; what triggered the singular event? How did the Big Bang come about? The answers given by the different interviewees vary from, it just happened; to it was started by some quantum induced or other possible scientifically explained event; to God as the Creator being behind the event. Each of these answers leaves us with a mystery as the question still remains; who made God, who or what established the scientific law that triggered the event or what was behind the “just happened” event. The book’s point is that the question still begs for a definite answer and will continue to do so for a long time if not forever.

The same question is posed by Rambam in Hilchot Avodah Zara 1:3 –

ט  [ג] כיון שנגמל איתן זה, התחיל לשוטט בדעתו והוא קטן, ולחשוב ביום ובלילה, והיה תמיה:  היאך אפשר שיהיה הגלגל הזה נוהג תמיד, ולא יהיה לו מנהיג; ומי יסבב אותו, לפי שאי אפשר שיסבב את עצמו.  ולא היה לו לא מלמד ולא מודיע דבר, אלא מושקע באור כשדים בין עובדי עבודה זרה הטיפשים

As this solid individual (Avraham Avinu) matured, while still a youth, his mind began to wander and think day and night pondering; how is it possible for this sphere to always circle without it having a driver? Who is making it circle? After all it cannot do so by itself. He had no teacher or someone who could inform him for he was ensconced in Ur of the Chaldeans amongst the stupid idol worshipers.

Rambam presents the question in context of the Aristotelian physics of his time putting it into Avraham Avinu’s mouth. The movement of the spheres was seen as the force that made earthly existence possible; the movement caused the elements to mix together creating the endless combinations of matter that make up the world. The outer sphere, הגלגל הזה, causes all the other spheres to move. The question is what is behind that moving force just as contemporary thinkers ask what is behind the Big Bang. That question has not changed with our more advanced understanding of how things work and there is no outlook that it will change with further advances in our understanding of our environment and universe. The answer that Avraham arrives at according to Rambam is

וליבו משוטט ומבין, עד שהשיג דרך האמת, והבין קו הצדק, מדעתו הנכונה; וידע שיש שם אלוה אחד, והוא מנהיג הגלגל, והוא ברא הכול, ואין בכל הנמצא אלוה חוץ ממנו.

As his mind wanders and contemplates, he arrives at the true path, and thanks to his straight thinking he develops the correct line of thought; he knows that there is out there one God who directs the sphere, who created all and no other God exists besides Him.

Avraham’s God is the Creator and His existence is a deduction that Avraham arrives at through questioning the provenance of the natural environment he lived in. He deduces that there is a Creator, a unique God that is also the continuous force that is responsible for all physical existence. The exact definition of “unique” had not yet been developed completely and therefore he had not answered the ultimate question; how did God himself come into being? That question remained even with Avraham’s understanding of God’s uniqueness. It is only when Moshe comes onto the scene that the question is finally answered with his introduction of a more advanced concept of God that addresses the question.

“For all men, with few exceptions, were ignorant of the existence of God; their highest thoughts did not extend beyond the heavenly sphere, its forms or its influences. They could not yet emancipate themselves from sensation, and had not yet attained to any intellectual perfection. Then God taught Moses how to teach them, and how to establish amongst them the belief in the existence of Himself, namely, by saying Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, a name derived from the verb hayah in the sense of "existing," for the verb hayah denotes "to be," and in Hebrew no difference is made between the verbs "to be" and "to exist."… This is, therefore, the expression of the idea that God exists, but not in the ordinary sense of the term; or, in other words, He is "the existing Being which is the existing Being," that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute. The proof which he was to give consisted in demonstrating that there is a Being of absolute existence, that has never been and never will be without existence.” (MN 1:63)

Moshe introduces the concept of negative knowledge when dealing with God’s existence leaving us with the only possible expression, “the existent Being which is the existent Being”. When we say that God exists we mean that His existence is absolute. He does not exist in the way we understand and use the word existence which is qualitative. Existence is not a quality of God but His essence meaning that God by definition cannot NOT exist. This concept cannot be grasped by the human mind because our senses attach existence to things. In our experience all things we know are brought into existence by another thing, by an event or another type of cause. We live in a world of cause and effect and that is what we can understand. The only way we can get a sense of God’s existence is by understanding that whatever we understand existence to be it does not apply to God just as the concept of cause and effect does not apply either. The great understanding of Moshe Rabbeinu was that any concept of God we arrive at, that concept cannot be God. God is inconceivable; He is the Great Mystery and also the ultimate Truth. (For a fuller treatment of Rambam’s understanding see my article in Hakirah.) This concept was taught to us as a nation at Sinai where the Torah continuously repeats that God appeared in darkness and clouds on the one hand and fire and sound on the other, a metaphor for this tension between knowing that there is an Entity responsible for existence while at the same time, that Entity is unknowable to the point that even “existence” is equivocal when used in this context. It is only once this new concept of God has been accepted that we can move to the next step and say that this Existent is the Creator. We are thus saying that there is a singular incomprehensible Entity which we call God, an Entity that has a singular existence that is responsible for all that exists.

This understanding of God makes the question “who created God?” incomprehensible. Time, space and therefore location have no meaning when thinking about such an “existent”. He “is” but not in the sense we understand “is” to be. Creation is needed for the common existent who therefore has to have been caused but the kind of “existent” we think of when talking about God is not in the same category. To summarize; we sense that there must be something out there that is responsible for this existence but this something is completely incomprehensible to us to the point we cannot even imagine anything about His essence nor ask questions about His existence which cannot be what “existence” is to us. The closer a person can come to internalizing these opposing ideas, the closer he is to God. At Moshe’s first encounter with God (Shemot 3:6) he immediately hid his face and refrained from looking. He had internalized that God is incomprehensible. The Rabbis tell us metaphorically (TB Brachot 7a) that as a reward for this it is said about Moshe (Bamidbar 12:8) that he saw God’s image. In other words the true apprehension of God is the “not” apprehension, the deep acceptance that whatever one thinks is God, it is not. No wonder Moshe was the humblest of men.  (See Rav Adin Steinsaltz edition of Sha’ar Hayichud Veha’emunah of the Ba’al Hatanya page 98 in his wonderful comments).

This is how Judaism according to Rambam explains existence and how it came to be caused by the incomprehensible God. Had it stopped here we would have a nice abstract explanation of an existential question.  But Judaism goes a step further. This Entity that we sense its "existence" and is responsible for ours whom we find incomprehensible, can however be traced via that same existence. Our own existence results from His existence. We are therefore one of the results of His “actions” and so is everything that surrounds us. By looking at all that objectively and very carefully we can develop a sense of where He wants to take this whole enterprise namely existence. That is the focus Judaism puts on this speculation and redirects it to the practical; how do we emulate God’s actions? In next post(s) I will attempt to address this and how it affects our question “why does the world exist?”    

The Waters of Merivah - Punishment Commensurate With The Sin - What Sin?

Last week’s Parsha we read about the waters of Merivah where the people found themselves without water and clamored for Moshe and Aharon to provide it for them. Moshe eventually took care of the problem but his reaction was deemed inappropriate and was the cause for him and Aharon not entering Israel later. The Midrashim followed by the Rishonim discuss at length what exactly the sin that produced such a harsh punishment was and the reasons cover a wide range which I do not want to get into here. Rambam in Shemona Perakim (introduction to Massechet Avot) chapter 4 has a very unique approach which is strongly rejected by Ramban in his Pirush on the Torah. Although this exchange is quite well known I would like to focus on a detail that I have not seen discussed and I believe is a very important point that needs to be fleshed out.  

Here is how to Rambam presents his position:

ואתה יודע, שאדון הראשונים והאחרונים, משה רבנו, כבר אמר עליו השם יתברך:

יען לא האמנתם בי להקדישני לעיני בני ישראל (במדבר כ', י"ב

על אשר מריתם את פי למי מריבה (שם, כ"ד

על אשר לא קדשתם אותי (דברים ל"ב, נ"א

כל זה! וחטאו, עליו השלום, הוא שנטה לצד אחד הקצוות במעלה אחת שבמעלות המידות, והיא הסבלנות!

כאשר נטה לצד הרגזנות, באומרו: שמעו נא המורים (במדבר כ', י'). דקדק עמו הקדוש ברוך הוא: שיהיה אדם כמוהו מתרגז לעיני עדת ישראל, במקום שאין הרגזנות ראויה

וכגון זה באדם שכמותו חילול השם הוא, שכן תנועותיו כולן ודיברותיו, הכל למדים מהם וחומדים בהם האושר בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא. ואיך ייראו בו הרגזנות, והיא ממעשי הרעים כמו שבארנו, ואינה נובעת אלא מתכונה רעה שבנפש.

אבל אמרו בעניין הזה: "מריתם את פי" אינו אלא כמו שאבאר. וזה, שלא היה מדבר עם עמי הארץ, ולא עם מי שאין להם מעלה, אבל עם קהל שהקטנה שבנשיהם הייתה כיחזקאל בן בוזי, כמו שזכרו החכמים. וכל מה שיאמר או יעשה, יבחנוהו. וכאשר ראוהו שהתרגז, אמרו:

“ודאי אין הוא, עליו השלום, מאלה שיש להם פחיתות מידה! ולולא ידע שהאלוהים התאנף בנו על דרישת המים, ושאנחנו הכעסנוהו, יתברך, לא היה מתרגז”.

ואנו לא מצאנו לשם יתברך שהתרגז או שכעס בדברו אליו בעניין הזה; אלא אמר: קח את המטה והקהל את העדה, וגומר (במדבר כ', ח’).

This comes in a discussion of the importance of self-control in the perfection of an individual. Rambam points out that Moshe, the master of all prophets (considered perfected individuals having attained prophecy) was punished, as the quoted verses make clear, in the harshest tone. Moshe and Aharon are accused of (i) not having enough faith which would have sanctified God in the eyes of the people; (ii) to have rebelled against His word; (iii) for not having sanctified Me. Rambam exclaims:

“So much [punishment]?! Moshe’s sin was for having strayed to one of the extremes of a [human] trait namely equanimity, straying toward anger by saying “listen O rebels!” HKBH took issue with him that a man of his caliber should become angry in front of all the people when anger had no place under the circumstances. Such a behavior for a person of his caliber is a Chilul Hashem (desecration of God’s name) for every move and word of his is watched carefully [by the people] so that they can learn from his actions in their desire for happiness in this world and in the world to come. How can they countenance in him anger which is one of the negative [human] traits that stem from an unperfected personality?  I will now explain the meaning of [the accusation] “for you have rebelled against My word”. He [Moshe] was not talking to Amei Ha’aretz [ignoramuses] neither was he talking to persons who did not have a certain level of perfection; he was talking to a crowd where the lowliest amongst its women was at the level of [the prophet] Yechezkel ben Buzi[1].  Everything that Moshe said or did was analyzed [tested]. When they saw his anger they assumed that a perfect person like Moshe would not become angry unless God was angry about our actions too. However we do not find any hint that God was agitated or angry when He spoke with Moshe on this matter; all He told him to do was to take the staff and gather up the people.”  

This last sentence is of utmost importance. When we read the story in the Chumash, our first impression is that the anxiety and fear induced agitation that comes across from the way the people spoke to Moshe is misplaced and wrong. The impression one gets from the way the text reports the reaction of the people is that it is critical of them. Indeed, Moshe and Aharon felt attacked and it would seem almost fled to the tent of gathering from their wrath. However, according to Rambam’s understanding, that was not correct. The people had every right to be angry at Moshe for having brought them to a place without water and without adequate preparation to deal with that shortage. The Rabbis confirm this way of thinking. Several Midrashim (see Yalkut Shimoni ad locum) point out that God criticized Moshe and Aharon for sitting Shiva for the death of Miriam while the people are dying of thirst urging them to do something about it! When a problem faces people they are expected to act to resolve the problem and not turn to what I term misguided “Bitachon”.  The Midah of Bitachon is to have self-confidence and act after having become convinced that the action about to be undertaken is in concord with HKBH’s will and not refraining from acting relying that God will take care of things. Moshe with his reaction misinformed the Jewish people. He taught them an erroneous hashkafah - theology. That is the greatest sin that warrants the harsh punishment - loss of leadership after the goal was reached!

Ramban in his analysis picks up on this idea and seems to agree that in general there is no criticism of the people for acting anxiously when it is warranted. He however reads in between the lines that God was not very pleased with the people and also points to a verse in Tehillim 106:32 that clearly say that the people angered God during this episode. However a careful read of that verse in its context lessens the problem. The important thing about Ramban is that he does not disagree with the premise that it is appropriate for people to be anxious when they are confronted with a situation such as this and that it is required of the leaders to prepare for such eventualities. Even in the desert where the impression we get is that God led them and micromanaged them, ultimately the responsibility fell on the people and their leaders to provide for themselves.

I believe this is an important point that needs to be made in our contemporary society where the mainstream thinking is that frumkeit requires what I term misguided Bitachon. 

---

[1] Rambam refers to Chazal who say the vision seen by a woman slave at the Red Sea, was not seen by Yechezkel ben Buzi (at the vision of the chariots).  According to Rambam’s understanding of prophetic visions, these do not appear to unworthy people. A prophetic vision is the result of a person intellectually advanced and with a developed personality. 

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

All The Words Of Rabbeinu Moshe Are Of One Mind In All His Writings.

Many argue that Rambam’s Halachik work is completely independent from his philosophic writings. Some point to the title of his philosophic magnum opus, Moreh Hanevuchim – the Guide of the Perplexed – that its intended audience is the “perplexed”, the skeptics. In other words, Rambam really did not subscribe to philosophy but wrote the Guide as an apologetic work to satisfy those who are perplexed by the apparent irrationality of Torah. Those who are therefore not bothered by these issues should refrain from thinking about these things. This position is the official stance of most contemporary Chareidi Yeshivot. In the opposing camp, the argument goes that Rambam presents an exoteric position to the traditional public, the philosophically unsophisticated, and an esoteric position which reflects his “real” belief, to the more advanced thinker. This latter approach to Rambam goes back to his early traditional commentators and was keenly embraced by modern scholars, especially the Leo Strauss School. As I showed in my last two posts, I believe Rambam is a Man of Truth par excellence and says it as he sees it. He may sometimes write in a manner that requires great care and precision to his wording to really understand what he means, and he warns us in his introduction to the Moreh that he may tactically present an intermediate position that is inexact as a teaching method. However, Rambam held that Torah and philosophy are intertwined and interdependent as both present the truth. Not only is the theological component of Torah steeped in philosophy and the sciences but so too is Halacha.

I am reading Professor Menachem Kellner’s excellent Torat Ha’ikkarim and he points me to an interesting observation that he credits Professor Yaakov Blidstein. The last Mishna in the first Perek of Hagigah categorizes the different Halachot. Some are based on a detailed textual prescription while others are based on minimal text metaphorically described as “mountains hanging on a hair”. The Mishna ends by pointing out that all these different categories of Halacha are equally “the body of the Law”. In other words notwithstanding how little or how much textual support a Halacha has, all categories are equally authentic and binding.

The next Mishna, the first of the second Perek, deals with how different Halachot have to be taught. Matters that deal with family issues should not be taught to more than two pupils at once while scientific matters to no more that one pupil. Metaphysics should not be taught to anyone in an explicit manner but rather should be presented in a way that allows the intelligent pupil to develop an understanding on his own. At the end of a long discussion of the reasons for the restrictions, Rambam addresses the placement of this Mishna here and its continuity from the last Mishna.

. והזכיר ענין זה במקום זה לפי שאמר לעיל הן הן גופי תורה, לפיכך הזכיר ענינים שהם יסודות גופי תורה.

He [Rebbi the editor of the Mishna] mentions this subject [sciences and metaphysics – Ma’aseh Breishit and Ma’aseh Merkavah] here because he said [in the earlier] Mishna that “these and these are the body of the Law”. He therefore discusses now those matters that are the foundation [on which] “the body of the Law” [are based].

In other words, Halacha’s basis, its foundation and rationale is science and philosophy. Halacha is based on reality; it does not create its own reality as I have heard it argued many times. A true understanding of Halacha can only come if it is rooted in reality – sciences and philosophy. As Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk writes, “all the words of Rabbeinu Moshe are of one mind in all his writings”. There is no disconnect between his philosophical and his Halachik positions in fact they are complementary and interdependent. When one learns a Rambam in Mishne Torah, one has to look for the underlying scientific or philosophical concept to understand him correctly. That was the approach of the great Halachik giants, among them, Rav Meir Simcha and the Rogatchover; they saw the Moreh as the key to understanding Rambam in MT and vice versa.

A Clarification On The Subject Of "Necessary Beliefs".

In the previous post, I argued that Rambam does not require people to believe in “untruths” for expediency’s sake although this is an almost universally accepted credo by Rambam’s traditional commentators and modern scholars. I showed that Rambam holds there are “ultimate end” Truths that we have to accept at first on faith and then work towards developing as deep an understanding as possible of these Truths. These Truths, when understood properly elevate us from in-potentia into in-actu human beings. To arrive at a correct understanding of these Truths, there are many other Truths, Intermediate Truths that need to be learned. These Truths are not only the sciences but also ontological observations about our existence. While the sciences deal with the physical world and the laws that underlie it, the ontological observations look for answers that explain the purpose and goal of our existence, deal with ethical and moral issues and generally encompass the world of ideas. Just like the sciences, these ontological observations that are part of the Intermediate Truths, have to be grasped rationally and arrived at through learning.

However, among these Intermediate Truths there are some that, for the sake of expediency, have to be accepted on faith even before we learn them and then convince ourselves rationally of their truth. One of these is Reward and Punishment. For a person to really understand the concept of long-term consequence to his actions, how everything we do may influence for good or bad things what may happen even long after we pass away, requires much learning and thought. It is only after having experienced repeatedly how our actions have consequences in the short term that we can slowly appreciate the medium and long-term effect they have. Many people do not even have the capacity for self-awareness and observation and will never develop an understanding that actions have consequences – they attribute every outcome to chance. To prevent the breakdown of an orderly society, the Torah presents this idea of consequences in a way that can be appreciated by all and requires us to accept it as a fundamental belief. It therefore tells us that if we act badly God will punish us and if we act properly, He will reward us. The psychological effect of such a belief coupled with a few experiences of short-term consequences to one’s actions, will convince most people to behave properly. It will take a thoughtful person to realize that what that means is that God created a world which is run on a system of cause and effect which translates to action and consequences when applied to people who have freedom of will. Just as we are required to accept on faith that God is unique and then develop an understanding of what that means, so too must we accept that God punishes the transgressor and then figure out what that really means.

Rambam in Hilchot Teshuvah chapter 3 lists all those that do not partake in Olam Haba. As we know, Olam Haba in Rambam’s worldview is a state that a person experiences when he becomes a man in-actu and acquires a correct understanding of God. Those who do not partake are therefore those that either have developed erroneous opinions or have acted in ways that prevents them from acquiring the necessary opinions. The belief in reward and punishment is omitted. Clearly, it is not an opinion that when misunderstood would preclude one from partaking in Olam Haba.

I just wanted to clarify my earlier post as I believe it is important to correctly read Rambam on this issue. It has implication on the whole issue of Ikarim, which I hope to address at some future date.

Why Was Moshe Punished?

One of the most fascinating things about reading Rambam is that no matter how many times I revisit an idea of his, invariably, I get a new insight or realize that I missed something seminal the last time I looked at it. On Chag, I was learning the Eight Chapters, Rambam’s introduction to Massechet Avot, with young Chaverim and we read Rambam’s explanation of Moshe’s sin that prevented him from entering the land of Israel. It is at the end of chapter 4 and here is the Hebrew (R. Shmuel Tibon translation) with my translation interspersed with comments.

After a lengthy discussion of the Golden Mean, Rambam addresses the problem of Moshe’s sin –

ואתה יודע, שאדון הראשונים והאחרונים, משה רבנו, כבר אמר עליו השם יתברך:
יען לא האמנתם בי להקדישני לעיני בני ישראל (במדבר כ', י"ב); על אשר מריתם את פי למי מריבה (שם, כ"ד); על אשר לא קדשתם אותי (דברים ל"ב, נ"א).
כל זה! וחטאו, עליו השלום, הוא שנטה לצד אחד הקצוות במעלה אחת שבמעלות המידות, והיא הסבלנות! כאשר נטה לצד הרגזנות, באומרו: שמעו נא המורים (במדבר כ', י'). דקדק
עמו הקדוש ברוך הוא: שיהיה אדם כמוהו מתרגז לעיני עדת ישראל, במקום שאין
הרגזנות ראויה?! וכגון זה באדם שכמותו חילול השם הוא, שכן תנועותיו כולן ודיברותיו,
הכל למדים מהם וחומדים בהם האושר בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא. ואיך ייראו בו
הרגזנות, והיא ממעשי הרעים כמו שבארנו, ואינה נובעת אלא מתכונה רעה שבנפש.

You already know that the Master of earlier and later generations, Moshe Rabbeinu, HKBH said to him-

Inasmuch as you did not make them believe in Me [see R. Sa’adyah Gaon and below] to sanctify me before the eyes of the children of Israel [you shall not bring this assembly to the land that I have given to them]. (Bamidbar 20:12)

[Let Aharon be gathered to his kin, for he shall not come into the land that I have given to the children of Israel,] for you both have rebelled against My word at the Waters of Merivah. (Bamidbar 20:24)

…For you have not sanctified Me… (Devarim 32:51)

All this! [Such punishment for so little!] His [Moshe’s] sin was that he went to one of the extremes in behavior, namely he had a deficiency in the virtue of tolerance. [Rambam explained earlier in the chapter, that a perfect human being should be balanced, not too tolerant or too intolerant.] As he crossed over into anger [intolerance] saying [to the people] “listen you rebels!” God was upset with him. A person of his caliber, to whom all eyes are directed to learn from him the ways that lead to happiness in this world and the world to come, should become angry in a situation that does not warrant it? That is a Chilul Hashem [desecration of God’s name]! How can he let them see unwarranted anger, a bad act that stems from a deficiency in his character?

Rambam addresses the first verse that criticizes Moshe for being a bad role model. He showed that he had not perfected one of his character traits. Moshe, who was seen as the paradigm of a perfect human being, who had reached the level of prophecy no other human had until then nor will another reach in the future, could not be seen as having a moral deficiency. Rambam in MN 2:40 explains that what makes the Torah divine as opposed to other laws that are promulgated by humans, is that it teaches not only about personal and societal behavior but also truths that helps a man understand his own existence and the world he lives in. That is an internal condition, a value judgment of the content of the torah. There is however, an additional external condition that relates to the person who teaches it and gives it to us.

“The question which now remains to be settled is this: Is the person who proclaimed these laws the same perfect man that received them by prophetic inspiration, or a plagiarist, who has stolen these ideas from a true prophet? In order to be enabled to answer this question, we must examine the merits of the person, obtain an accurate account of his actions, and consider his character.”

Seeing a deficiency in Moshe’s character casts a doubt on the divinity of the Torah and thus desecrates God’s name. That is the meaning of Bamidbar 20:12 and why I chose to translate according to R. Sa’adyah, “Inasmuch as you did not make them believe in Me”, which I believe is Rambam’s translation of this verse.

Rambam now addresses the other statement in Bamidbar 20:24 where Moshe and Aharon are accused of rebelling against God.

אבל אמרו בעניין הזה: "מריתם את פי" אינו אלא כמו שאבאר. וזה, שלא היה
מדבר עם עמי הארץ, ולא עם מי שאין להם מעלה, אבל עם קהל שהקטנה שבנשיהם
הייתה כיחזקאל בן בוזי, כמו שזכרו החכמים. וכל מה שיאמר או יעשה, יבחנוהו.
וכאשר ראוהו שהתרגז, אמרו
ודאי אין הוא, עליו השלום, מאלה שיש להם פחיתות מידה! ולולא ידע שהאלוהים
התאנף בנו על דרישת המים, ושאנחנו הכעסנוהו, יתברך, לא היה מתרגז
ואנו לא מצאנו לשם יתברך שהתרגז או שכעס בדברו אליו בעניין הזה; אלא אמר: קח את המטה והקהל את העדה, וגומר (במדבר כ', ח').

The explanation of the verse, “you have rebelled against My word” is as follows. Moshe was not talking to ignorant people or to a lowly caste. He was talking to a people that the least among their women was like [the prophet] Yechezkel ben Buzi according to the rabbis! [Rambam is referring to the Rabbis who note that a lowly woman slave apprehended at Kryat Yam Suf as much as Yechezkel in all his prophecies. In other words, the people were quite sophisticated theologians by now, having experienced Yam Suf and Sinai]. They therefore looked with a critical eye on everything Moshe did. When they saw him get angry, they assumed that he, a perfect human being, was transmitting to them God’s position. Had he not known that God was wrathful at us for asking for water, that we angered Him, he would not have gotten angry with us. We, however, do not find anywhere that God was angry [for our asking for water]. God only said, “Take the staff and gather the assembly…”

Moshe and Aharon “rebelled against God’s word” by teaching the people an erroneous understanding of Bitachon – reliance on God. Bitachon does not mean that when faced with a problem, one relies on God and does nothing. When there is no water one should do all that is humanly possible to resolve the crisis. Approaching Moshe and asking him to act was the correct thing to do. In fact, God told Moshe to act by taking the staff and finding the proper rock that would be a source of water for them.

Putting the story in context, the people who saw Moshe as the perfect human being he was had two choices when confronted by his actions. If they saw his anger as a moral deficiency, it jeopardized their acceptance of the torah as divine. On the other hand, if they idolized him and saw him as infallible, they learned a wrong concept of what it means to trust and rely on God. The punishment was therefore commensurate and necessary to rectify these two possible misconceptions. That is how I understand the verse – (Devarim 3:26)

וַיִּתְעַבֵּר יְהוָה בִּי לְמַעַנְכֶם, וְלֹא
שָׁמַע אֵלָי.

26 But the LORD was wrathful with me for your sakes, and hearkened not unto me.

When Moshe asked that he be allowed to enter the land, it was refused for the sake of the people. An important lesson had to be taught about the divinity of the Torah and the meaning of trusting God.

Rambam ends this explanation very appropriately.

והנה יצאנו מעניין השער, אבל היתרנו ספק מספקי התורה, שנאמרו בו דברים
רבים ונשאל פעמים רבות: "איזה חטא חטא?" וערוך מה שאמרנו אנחנו מול מה
שנאמר בה. והאמת תעשה דרכה

We digressed from the subject discussed but we gained an answer to one of the questions that arise in the Torah and to which many words were addressed. It was asked many times, “what was their sin?” Compare what we said to what was already said about this and the truth will show the way.

Shabbat Shalom.

Teshuvah and Consequences

As I am quite busy with Yom Tov this year falling in the middle of the week which puts a lot of pressure on doing as much as possible in the few available days, I have not had time to continue with the subject I am in the midst of working through. However, I just want to share a few thoughts that have been at the forefront during RH and YK. I understand that one of the big Hidushim of Teshuvah, the novelty about repentance, is that there is such a possibility to begin with. As we live in a world of cause and effect where every action has a consequence, it would appear that once a sequence of events has been put in motion, nothing short of a miracle can stop it. It would take a tremendous amount of prescience to figure out how to effect a change in a negative sequence that his been put in motion even after the person who started it becomes aware of the detrimental consequences. As an example from our current news, very few recognized the toxicity of derivatives a few years ago. Now that the problem is upon us, the world wants to repent but is at a loss to figure out what will work. Derivatives may no longer be written in the future but the negative effect they caused will never totally disappear. One way or the other it will influence the financial world for years to come. The same is with every action that we do. Some have a greater impact, others a lesser one while some are catastrophic. The only thing the repentant person can do is avoid repeating his mistakes and try to somehow mitigate the consequences his actions have wrought. That is how I understood the end of Viduy –


יהי רצון מלפניך, שלא אחטא, ומה שחטאתי מרוק ברחמיך הרבים, אבל לא על ידי ייסורין


May it please You that I not sin anymore and my past sins be cleansed thanks to Your having great pity on us, but (please) not through pain.

In other words, we acknowledge that the consequences are hard to stop but we still pray that somehow they be mitigated. I also see this statement as self-inducement to try to find ways and actions that will mitigate these consequences. It is not always possible but we still have to at least try.

That is also how I understand the words of Viduy -

אבל חטאנו אנחנו, ואבותינו


But, our ancestors and we sinned.

We bring our ancestors into the picture because their actions, possibly even millennia ago, have consequences that affect us even so many years later. A chain of cause and effect is not easy to stop.

I wish all a Chag Sameach.

Religious and Observant - The Unifiers of Committed Judaism.

As a follow up to the previous post, I take exception with the labeling - TuM, TIDE, Chareidi and Modern Orthodox as well as with all the other labels that are used in general. I think that there are only two groups in the Jewish religious and observant community; those that understand that the goal is to find and get close to HKBH by learning His ways and emulating them and those that keep the Mitzvot as part of society and emulate their fellow coreligionists. For convenience, I will refer to the first group as “Religious and Observant - RO” and to the latter group as “Just Observant – JO”.

The O component in both groups, the observance, is pretty much the same. Although there may appear to be an endless amount of different opinions about how exactly to perform a mitzvah, the core of a particular Halacha is universal – the way it is presented in the Gemara and the rules of Psak therein.

There is however a great variation in the composition of the RO. People are different. Some are more intellectual while others are more emotional and there is a need for a variety of approaches to allow these different personalities to reach their goals. Some people are action oriented and their need to worship HKBH, their Avodat Hashem is manifested through keeping HKBH’s Mitzvot to their minute detail. Others accomplish that by focusing on their intellect or their emotions. The different approaches are at the core of the different Chassidic and Misnagdic groups that existed in Europe and that have survived, at least in form if not always in content, in our contemporary society as well as among the Sephardic Jews. However, all have one goal, discovering as much as a human being can, about HKBH by observing the results of His actions and emulate Him by doing their part in achieving God’s goals, as they understand them. This verse in Devarim 11:22 summarizes it very well.

כִּי אִם-שָׁמֹר תִּשְׁמְרוּן

אֶת-כָּל-הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה

אֶתְכֶם—לַעֲשֹׂתָהּ: לְאַהֲבָה אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, לָלֶכֶת

בְּכָל-דְּרָכָיו--וּלְדָבְקָה-בוֹ

For if, you shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do it, to love the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways, and to cleave unto Him,

We do the Mitzvot so that we get to love HKBH. They are a tool that HKBH gave us by commanding us to do them. That awareness itself, that they are God’s commands, is a constant reminder that the goal is to use the Mitzvot as a tool to get close to HKBH thinking of Him at all times. That is why we make the Bracha “Asher Kideshanu Bemitzvotav” whenever we do a Mitzvah. As humans, we need physical acts to keep us focused on a goal. We do not do well with intellectual or emotional connections only. We tend to get distracted. That is where Mitzvot come into play, especially the ones that are rituals. Love connotes intimate knowledge of the other person. To love HKBH means getting to know Him. The only knowledge we as humans can achieve is by looking at His creations, the result of His “actions” so to say, His ways. The way we cleave unto Him is by emulating those ways. That is the closest we, as humans, can get to Him. To me that is what I hear every time I read that verse.

That is the goal that RO Jews see and develop methods that fit each person’s character and personality to help them reach that goal. The JO group just emulates these people externally without even wanting to understand the why and how, just do so that they belong. The polarization we see in the community stems from the JO groups which are unfortunately the majority. They include some of the leaders, those regarded as Gedolei Torah and Gedolei Hador. However when one reads the writings of the real ideologues of the different groups of RO, the thinkers of the different sects of Chassidus, TuM, Tide, Ashkenazim, Sephardim etc… it comes through loud and clear that all of them have one goal only – Yediat Hashem, loving and fearing Him. People who have one common goal cannot be polarized!

We see the same thing when we learn the Torah of the Rishonim. Although we find sometimes quite sharp language by one towards the other’s position. That is because they cared and were committed to the truth as they saw it. Ultimately, they all respected each other and saw themselves as partaking in the same endeavor – finding HKBH. One only has to learn Ramban when he argues with Rambam or Ibn Ezra[1], Ibn Ezra against some of his predecessors such as R. Shmuel ben Hofni, Rambam in his undertone of disagreement with Rav Sa’adyah Gaon or R. Hasdai Crescas in his Or Hashem against Rambam to see this phenomenon. We see sharp words but respect and admiration for a fellow traveler.

My point here is that there is no polarization among those that seriously are working towards the common goal. Modern Orthodox, Orthodox, Chareidi etc… are not contradictory and exclusive approaches but personal preferences to arrive at a common goal. In fact I have a hard time with the concept that if one’s parents and family belong to one group, they should remain within it. It is not a matter of heritage but personality – Chanoch Lana’ar Al pi Darko.

Shabbat Shalom.

---

[1] See Ramban’s introduction to his Pirush al Hatorah

רמב"ן הקדמה לתורה

ועם רבי אברהם בן עזרא. תהיה לנו תוכחת מגולה ואהבה מסותרה.

A Questionnaire on Korbanot.

On Shabbat, we had a discussion in our learning group about Korbanot. The debate got quite interesting and the issue at hand was how to understand the return of Korbanot when the Beit Hamikdash is rebuilt. I would like to put out the question and try to get an honest answer from readers about their true feelings on the subject. The questions are as follows:

1. Do you believe Korbanot are going to be reinstated as they were during the times of the Beit Hamikdash?

2. If yes, can you see yourself inspired by the practice? Be honest with yourself and answer truthfully.

3. If no, why do you say “Vehashev et Ha’avodah Lidvir Beitecha” thrice daily? What do you have in mind when you say it?

I do not want to impose on anyone’s sensitivity to anonymity, but it would make it more interesting if you could include how you view yourself: Yeshivish, Chareidi, Dati Leumi, Chassidish, MO, Amorphous, etc… (I am more interested how you view yourself – not how people perceive you.)

My answer? I promise I will post it after some time passes. I do not want to lead with an opinion.

Yaakov's Ladder - Ramban Deciphers the Metaphor.

Ramban when interpreting the metaphor of Yaakov’s ladder dream writes as follows - (my paraphrase/translation with comments in brackets)

והנה סלם מצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה והנה מלאכי אלוהים
עולים ויורדים בו

הראהו בחלום הנבואה כי כל הנעשה בארץ נעשה על ידי המלאכים
והכל בגזרת עליון עליהם
, כי מלאכי אלוהים
אשר שלח ה' להתהלך בארץ לא יעשו
קטנה או גדולה עד שובם להתיצב על אדון כל הארץ לאמר לפניו התהלכנו
בארץ והנה יושבת
בשלוה או מלאה חרב ודם, והוא יצווה עליהם לשוב לרדת בארץ ולעשות דברו:והראהו כי הוא יתברך נצב על הסלם

He was shown in the prophetic dream that all that is done on earth is done by the angels, all a decree from on high. For God’s angels, who are sent by Him to walk the earth will not do anything, from the smallest to the biggest, until they return to stand in front of the Lord of the whole earth and report to Him. [They tell Him] whether she [the earth] is peaceful or full of swords and blood, and he will order them to return to earth and do His bidding. He also showed him [Yaakov] that He is on top of the ladder.

(For those who have not used Chavel’s original Hebrew edition of Ramban, I highly recommend it. Ramban is a master at using verses from Tanach as the basis for his sentences and ideas. Chavel refers each citation to its original source. Here the poetic language is based on Iyov 1 and 2).

Ramban has a different view of nature. As he explains many times in his writings, we are fooled when we think that because nature is repetitive, there are natural laws that govern everything. Ramban did not accept that there are natural laws at all. His understanding of how things operate is that everything is governed by stars. God gave over to the stars the power to decide how things work. Every occurrence we see, whether when we lift our finger or when a leaf falls, every occurrence is caused by the external influence of a star. There is in general a predictive quality to how things will go, but that is only because the forces generated by the stars have set things in motion and they, the stars, have decided not to interfere or change. Should they arbitrarily decide to interfere those things will not happen. The “souls” of the stars, the “thinking” element in them, are the angels and are represented in this dream as climbing to report to God. (See Ramban Devarim 18:9- ועשה עוד על הכוכבים והמזלות מנהיגים מלאכים ושרים שהם נפש להם)

The point is that the stars themselves, though generally left to their own machinations, do so only because God allows it. Should He decide to change the rules, He will. (For an in-depth discussion of Ramban’s position on this and the underlying thinking, see this article http://hakirah.org/Vol%202%20Buchman.pdf by R. Asher Benzion Buchman in Hakirah vol. 2). This understanding of how the world operates, though foreign and viewed as magical and absurd by contemporary intelligent people, was however the view of Ramban’s contemporaries in Catholic Europe, forced on them by their lack of understanding of the physical sciences. The point of the dream was to tell Yaakov that although in the natural order of things, God leaves it to the stars (angels), a person can remove himself from their control and be placed under God’s direct oversight and protection.

ומבטיחו ליעקב בהבטחה גדולה
להודיע שהוא לא יהיה ביד המלאכים אבל יהיה חלק ה' ויהיה עמו תמיד
כמו שאמר והנה אנכי עמך ושמרתיך בכל אשר תלך
כי מעלתו גדולה משאר הצדיקים שנאמר בהם
תהלים צא יא) כי מלאכיו יצווה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך: )

He offered Yaakov a great promise telling him that he will not depend on the angels. He will belong to HKBH who will be with him always. As He told him, [the following verse] I am with you and I will protect you wherever you go. For his [Yaakov’s] status is greater than all the Tzadikkim [righteous] about whom it is said He will send His angels to protect you in all your ways.

Although even the righteous remain under the direction of the angels, the thinking part of the stars who report to God and can be ordered not to harm him, special great Tzadikkim who cleave to HKBH bypass this array of intermediaries and fall under God’s direct oversight. In other words, Ramban argues that Divine Providence is also only available to the very righteous. There is no Hashgacha Pratit on every individual human being. Ramban is consistent as he also tells us in Breishit 18:19 –

ירמוז, כי ידיעת השם שהיא השגחתו בעולם השפל, היא לשמור הכללים

[The verse saying that God “knows” Avraham] indicates that God’s knowledge, which is identical with his Hashgacha [providence – oversight] on the lower world, is only to protect the generalities [groups and the whole].

וגם בני האדם מונחים בו למקרים עד בא עת פקודתם

Even people are left in it [the world] to chance until their time [of death] comes.

אבל בחסידיו ישום אליו לבו לדעת אותו בפרט, להיות שמירתו דבקה בו תמיד, לא תפרד
הידיעה והזכירה ממנו כלל

But to His devotees, He makes it a point [literally puts His heart on them] to know each in detail, so that His protection is with each at all times, [His] knowledge and remembrance of them is never separated from them.

This idea of Ramban is repeated in many of his theological writings and is an interesting study of how the early Spanish Kabbalah understood the world’s workings and God’s place in it.

Although he agrees with Rambam that Divine Providence is dependent on the state of perfection of the individual, the mechanism of Divine Providence is completely different in Ramban’s world. We saw that to Rambam, Divine Providence is a natural consequence that results from the insight and knowledge acquired by the prophet when he understands the natural functioning of the universe from God’s perspective. Ramban’s world does not have a self-functioning natural order. It either is a directed system controlled indirectly by God via the stars or, in the case of the very righteous, controlled directly by God. The protection the righteous gets is not a result of his decision and action but rather, if the decision and action are made with the proper intention, God makes sure that no evil befalls him. Ramban can therefore see nature as a continuous miracle unnoticeable when things happen repetitively as predicted and noticeable when they deviate from the norm. Both, the normal and the abnormal are actively controlled by non-physical forces. The spiritual world is very much a reality. Magic is deeply entwined in the makeup of the universe. It is man’s goal to bypass this array of magical forces by submitting himself to God’s will. That is done through the Mitzvot, through offerings (Korbanot) and prayers, through meditative attachment to God.

So what is Ramban’s understanding of the Mitzvah to go in God’s ways? It cannot mean emulating Him and partaking in nature. Nature after all is not consistent. It is always dependent on God’s direct or indirect direction.

I will address this in my next post.

Note:

The purpose of this discussion is to clarify to myself and to my readers the basic positions of these two great thinkers. The current mainstream Jewish Hashkafah on Divine Providence is not compatible with Rambam’s thought. Rambam has influenced our Hashkafah greatly in many areas such as the incorporeality of God and in general, his 13 Ikkarim have been accepted though with many modifications and misinterpretations. Rambam is not accepted in the area of Providence. As Ramban’s approach is the one that has evolved (note that I use the word evolved rather than basis for) into the current thinking, it is important to understand it. In writing this post, I have clarified to myself several little points in Ramban’s thinking that I had misunderstood until now. I hope my readers will benefit too.

Confronting Anthropomorphic Texts - a Stratagem for True Apprehension..

Rambam in his introduction to the Moreh has a famous list of seven types of contradictions that can be found in different writings. One of them, the fifth one, is used when a difficult subject has to be communicated, a subject that requires preparation before a person can understand it.

“The fifth cause is traceable to the use of a certain method adopted in teaching and expounding profound problems. Namely, a difficult and obscure theorem must sometimes be mentioned and assumed as known, for the illustration of some elementary and intelligible subject which must be taught beforehand the commencement being always made with the easier thing. The teacher must therefore facilitate, in any manner which he can devise, the explanation of those theorems, which have to be assumed as known, and he must content himself with giving a general though somewhat inaccurate notion on the subject. It is, for the present, explained according to the capacity of the students, that they may comprehend it as far as they are required to understand the subject. Later on, the same subject is thoroughly treated and fully developed in its right place.”

This explains the fact that we find so many anthropomorphic texts in the Torah. They are there as a stepping-stone to a more sophisticated understanding which eventually will lead to true knowledge. Rambam takes an even more interesting tack and gets more specific on how this works in MN 1:35 –

“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. When persons have received this doctrine, and have been trained in this belief, they 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.”

Here he goes a step further and argues that it is an a priori approach. One teaches that God is non-physical and unknowable by tradition without any in depth explanation of what it means. After all we teach little children the Shema, a declaration of God’s uniqueness which is synonymous with transcendental. (Note also, in passing, the important teaching “that He is not subject to external influence”, a quite sophisticated doctrine on prayer unlike the contemporary approach!). As they grow up and are confronted with the anthropomorphic text, they are forced to reconcile the received tradition with the received text. They are thus introduced to metaphor which is an important component of abstract thought. Only once that is absorbed, true understanding of what God is not, can be appreciated.

Just a short thought in view of the Parshyot we are currently reading.

Shabbat Shalom.

How can one be commanded to believe?

The discussion whether believing in God can be commanded is an old one and already Rambam and Ramban discuss it. Rambam counts it as a Mitzvat Asseh while Ramban notes that the Behag does not, explaining that it is a general principle of accepting the yoke of heaven which is the reason for all Mitzvot. The argument is much more subtle than appears at first blush, as we will see.

As I was driving home last night, it crossed my mind that I could not remember there being a command in Tanach to believe in God. Nowhere is Emunat Hashem a command in the scriptures. I checked in the concordance and confirmed it. There is no such command using the words which have the root אמן in the sense of a commandment related to belief in God. The words used are Yediah as in

אַתָּה הָרְאֵתָ לָדַעַת, כִּי יְהוָה הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים: אֵין עוֹד, מִלְּבַדּוֹ.

35 Unto thee it was shown, that thou might know that the LORD, He is God; there is none else beside Him.

Or love of God as in

ה וְאָהַבְתָּ, אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ, וּבְכָל-מְאֹדֶךָ.
5 And thou shall love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Or to fear as in
יג אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא, וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד; וּבִשְׁמוֹ, תִּשָּׁבֵעַ.
13 Thou shall fear the LORD thy God; and Him shall thou serve, and by His name shall thou swear.

Some bloggers where going at it earlier this week where one argued that one does not have to believe as long as one performs Mitzvot while R. Chaim B., (http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2007/09/you-cant-mandate-belief-or-can-you.html and the two posts following this one), quoting Ramban and Rabbeinu Yonah argued that without belief where is Kabbalat Malchut Shamayim. I agree with R. Chaim B. but with a different twist. I also believe that I can pinpoint the problem that XGH and some other so-called skeptics are having and the source of their frustration, which comes through loud and clear. Let me explain:

To understand trigonometry and advanced mathematics one needs to know the basics and slowly progress until one gets the more difficult concepts. One certainly cannot comprehend advanced math, which is conceptual, without proper preparation. I do not understand it nor do I even have inkling what exactly it is all about. There is a parallel, though not exactly comparable, with believing in God. Emunah is a state that one has to arrive at. It is not an a priori state but one that a person has to grow into. How he arrives at it, what he believes about God, the God he believes in are the criteria for the kind of believer that person is. It is the goal of the whole Torah, the Mitzvot, the learning, even the Brisker Torah to bring us to some level of Emunah. So what is this process? How do we know that we are not deluding ourselves into believing a fairy tale? That fear, believing in a fantasy, is in fact the greatest challenge and the underlying meaning of Avodah Zara. It is exactly why Chazal tell us that Avodah Zara is the greatest challenge and is the sine qua non of the whole Torah. It is a misunderstanding that it has been eliminated nowadays (see this lucid explanation at http://kankanchadash.blogspot.com/2007/08/avodah-zarah-introduction.html ). People still believe in a fairy tale God!

If we look at the way the Torah presents itself to us, we see this process quite clearly. Sinai, the experience that all had of God, is to me like a goal post. It is telling us that we can glimpse where we want to be at the end of the process, know God. It is the goal to strive for and we all can attain a certain level of it. To make sure that we don’t get off the track and fantasize (this is the meaning of the story of the Egel), we are given a process that has to be followed very carefully. If followed properly we will then end up with not only an intellectual but also an experiential belief in God. The process is multifaceted and is composed of Yediah, knowledge, philosophical and theological study and Mitzvot that direct us towards that (Shabbat etc…), while at the same time experiencing God through the action oriented Mitzvot. Intellectually we try to understand an entity that is the ultimate transcendence. One tries to find Him through our environment, the sciences and general observation of all that He caused to exist. At the same time, we accept the yoke of heaven by doing the Mitzvot. I understand that to mean that if we do the Mitzvot thoughtfully, we keep God as the source of the commandment, in our consciousness. It permeates our daily life and is thus the impetus for us to continue with the philosophical/theological quest. It reminds us of it and keeps our minds focused on the search for understanding. We also come to realize that our minds are the connecting link between God and us and the closest experience to a non-physical existence we can experience. Our mind is a ubiquitous part of our existence as man, thus we are always connected with God if we allow ourselves. That is the meaning of fear of God and is the experiential part of the process. Rambam in MN 3:52 explains this:

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

How do we arrive at a state where we feel God’s presence, we experience Him?

“What I have here pointed out to you is the object of all our religious acts. For by [carrying out] all the details of the prescribed practices, and repeating them continually, some excellent men may attain human perfection. They will be filled with respect and reverence towards God; and bearing in mind Who is with them, they will perform their duty. God declares in plain words that it is the object of all religious acts to produce in man fear of God and obedience to His word - the state of mind which we have demonstrated in this chapter for those who desire to know the truth, as being our duty to seek.”

Inducing this feeling of fear of God is the purpose of all the Mitzvot that require us to act. Many of both the positive and negative commandments are there to remind us of God’s ubiquitous presence.

At the same time, we also try to understand God and in that, process is also experiential. It generates a desire to cleave to god. That is described as love of God. (See my recent posts on this)

“But the truths which the Law teaches us--the knowledge of God's Existence and Unity--create in us love of God, as we have shown repeatedly. You know how frequently the Law exhorts us to love God.”

It is this dual process that brings us to the ultimate goal.

“The two objects, love and fear of God, are acquired by two different means. The love is the result of the truths taught in the Law, including the true knowledge of the Existence of God; whilst fear of God is produced by the practices prescribed in the Law. Note this explanation.”

So coming back to the original question. Yes, there is a commandment to believe in God. However, one cannot be ordered to believe. One can however be commanded to work towards believing. One can be shown a goal and told to now work towards attaining it. Both Rambam and Ramban agree here totally. Kabbalat Ol Malchut Shamayim, is accepting upon oneself the commitment to develop an understanding and a belief in God. That is accomplished through first accepting the strictures of the Mitzvot. They are structured in such a way that if you follow them properly at the end you will find God and not a fantasy. Properly means both the action oriented Mitzvot as well as the intellectual/theological ones. (Much more about this as I discuss Ta’amei Hamitzvot.)[1]

[NOTE added after posting: The astute reader will note that Ramban explains the first mitzvah, Yediat Hashem, as the acceptance of the yoke of heaven while Rambam sees it only in Mitzvah 2, Yichud Hashem, the unity of God. I will discuss that in a separate post.]

Shabbat Shalom


[1] Re the argument in Sefer Hamitzvot, Ramban explains that though he agrees with Rambam he can see the point of Behag. Behag argues that a goal is not a commandment.

Can there be a Halachik consensus on Hashkafah? Part 3 conclusion - Does Menashe get Olam Haba?

I have so far analyzed two of the cases where Rambam makes his statement that there is no Halachik determination on an argument where there is no practical outcome. The first argument dealt with how to interpret an observation and the second was an argument about an action attributed to God. The third time Rambam makes this statement is in Sanhedrin 10:4, which chronologically is between the two cases above. I arbitrarily decided to leave it for last because I had an intuition that it would work out better in our discussion. I hope I was right.

The Mishna starts with a statement that all Jews have a part in Olam Haba. Rambam as an introduction to the Mishna goes through a lengthy discussion about how to interpret Aggadah followed by a definition of what are Olam Haba, Techyat Hametim, Gan Eden and the 13 Ikkarim. He explains that Olam Haba is a natural result of the understanding and knowledge that man attains during his lifetime. The level of Olam Haba is commensurate with how much and how deeply one has acquired correct opinions. Therefore a Jew that has acquired correct opinions even if only by acceptance rather than full understanding already has a certain insight that is Olam Haba – a perfected Nefesh. The word Nefesh is traditionally translated as soul or spirit. It is not exactly correct. Rambam in his Eight Chapters describes it as what we call the total array of functions a human mind performs. I say human because animals too have a mind of sorts which they use for their survival. They even have freedom of choice, communication skills and other capabilities. What differentiates the human “Nefesh” from other animals is its ability to abstract, conceptualize and act beyond survival only. Man has the potential to behave ethically and morally even if it is against what he perceives as his immediate survival needs. Acting morally and ethically is a step in the direction of acquiring correct opinions and a knowledge of God which is the highest level of abstract thought. It shows an understanding that there is something more than just physical existence. That insight and understanding is Olam Haba. I am just scratching the surface here of an issue that is quite lengthy and complicated and ultimately impossible to totally grasp. It is also a very personal and individual experience which is difficult to share with others.

The Mishna then continues by listing certain things which a person who believes in or acts in certain ways, indicate that he is on the wrong path and has not even perfected his “Nefesh” at the most basic level thus may not experience Olam Haba. (It is interesting to note that the word Chelek, as in Chelek Le’olam Haba, connotes partaking rather than receiving. It is something out there that one can partake in. Also see R. Chaim Volozhiner in his Ruach Chaim on Avot that the reading Le’olam as opposed to Be’olam connotes a current state rather than a future one.)After listing a series of those negative things (which deserves a post of its own comparing the listing in the Mishna with the one in Rambam in Hilchot Teshuvah), the Mishna lists individual people and groups of people who have not acquired Olam Haba. Some of those listed generated arguments among the Rabbis.

Rambam explains that the reason the individuals were listed, Yerovam, Ahab, Menashe etc… was because of their great intellectual achievements and in spite of that they had not acquired the necessary understanding that allows the experience of Olam Haba. In other words it is teaching us that by examining the history of these people we will learn why they failed and thus learn how to avoid the same error. When the Rabbis argue whether Menashe has acquired Olam Haba they are arguing whether at some point he acquired correct opinions. Another way of putting it is whether the Teshuvah that he reputedly did, the opinions that he developed in that process, were correct or not. The Rabbis are therefore arguing whether a certain opinion is correct or not. The other arguments in the Mishna are analogous. It is on these arguments that Rambam says, “I already mentioned several times that any argument between sages which does not depend on an action, when it only establishes an opinion, there is no place for a determining the Halacha like one of the sides”.

Here we are clearly dealing with a matter of philosophical understanding and Rambam is telling us that a variety of opinions are acceptable. But before we jump to conclusions lets take a little closer look at one of our cases, the case of Menashe. When the Chachamim said that he does not partake in Olam Haba Rabbi Yehudah argued with them basing his argument on the interpretation of a text. It was not something he pulled from his own repertoire. In the case of the sin offerings which we discussed in my last post on the subject, Rambam noted that the argument was interpreting a text too - והם נחלקו בראיות ולמידות מפסוקים. The argument in Sotah also revolves around reconciling reality with a text. In other words the arguments that we cannot arrive at a Halachik determination all revolve around reliable and traditional sources. At least one part of the discussion has to be rooted on reliable sources. Jewish theology is really a point of view that we have when analyzing and interpreting our existence. As many of these interpretations cannot be empirically proven, as scientific theory can, because they try to explain, from a theological perspective, scientific facts. There are therefore certain conditions required before anyone can just make them up. First one has to see if the theory developed has a basis in the texts that we hold sacred because we accept them as revelatory, Tanach. They may also not disagree with reality. When we are confronted with a reality that we cannot find in those texts, we have to make sure that our interpretation does not clash with other interpretations that are based on the texts. Our Rabbis did that and all theological opinions in Chazal meet these criteria. Rambam makes that point many times in his writing. Here is one that stands out. In his discussion about Divine Providence Rambam makes the following statement: (MN 3:17)

I will show you [first] what has been literally expressed on this subject in our prophetical books, and generally accepted by the multitude of our scholars. I will then give the opinion of some of our later day scholars, and lastly, I will explain my own belief.

And then when he presents his own opinion he states:

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. The principle which I accept contains fewer incongruities[1], and is nearer to intellectual reasoning than the opinions mentioned before.

What is interesting is that he has no problem disagreeing with the earlier Rabbis as long as he can base his opinion on the “writings of our Prophets” in other words interpretation of revelatory opinions. In our Mishna Menashe is the cautionary note. After all he is the one the Rabbis say was proficient in Derashot Shel Dofi, faulty interpretations (DH?).

The common ground of all three cases where Rambam voiced his opinion is that they all are text related. Sotah was a trial at reconciling reality with a text; Sin Offerings was also explaining textual obligations and our Mishna interpreting reality based on textual analysis.

Conclusion: Philosophical theories have to be rooted in text and developed by competent authorities who have the vast knowledge to do that. Interpreting revelation is not up to every Tom, Dick and Harry. We however are allowed to choose an opinion developed by such authorities that fits best with our honest understanding. What makes an opinion reliable? I believe it has to go through a kind of peer review. A great person who develops an idea presents it to the community of learned men who then, over time, take it apart until it is accepted as a legitimate position.

Rambam does not sanction a free for all!


[1] Pines and Friedlander translate “less disgraceful”.