A Great Person Sees A Doctor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What exactly is merciful?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Prophecy

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

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

Continuing with Elyahu’s comment on this post.

Elyahu said-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Couple this with Hilchot Teshuvah Perek 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“David,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hakirah Volume 9 Has Arrived

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


Letters to the Editor

FORUM
No, Rashi Was Not a Corporealist Saul Zucker

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

JEWISH THOUGHT

To Flee Or To Stay? Joe Bobker

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

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

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

JEWISH LAW
Mourning Abusive Parents
Joel B. Wolowelsky

Mishneh Torah—Science and Art Asher Benzion Buchman

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

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

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

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

הלכה
השמות המיוחדים יוסף יצחק ליפשיץ

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

Read and enjoy.

Shabbat Shalom.

Rambam's Relevance In Light of Contemporary Science -

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

A Post You Must Read -

An Excellent post on an excellent Blog here

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

Shavua Tov

Mesorah According To Rabbi Eliezer Hagadol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shabbat Shalom.

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

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

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

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

In MN 2:13 Rambam has the following discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rambam and Aristotles - A Complex and Nuanced Relationship.

Rambam is accused of explaining Judaism in a way that adapts it to Aristotelian philosophy, the physics and science of his time. He is accused of this, not only by modern scholars, but also by many traditional great Jewish thinkers such as Ramban – many times in his writings – and Gra in Yoreh Deah Hilchot Avodah Zara. This accusation and misunderstanding of Rambam has taken root. It is why many people, especially the Bnei Hayeshivot nowadays consider Rambam’s philosophy as passé and to be ignored accepting the more mystical approaches that clearly differentiate between religion and science, giving primacy to the former. This approach keeps us deep in Galut (a subject worth talking about at some future time) and is a hindrance to our religion’s ultimate goal of bringing its light to all the nations of the world.

A well-educated person must develop a split personality to accept the contemporary popular understanding of religion as a way of life while acting and thriving in society and the world. This disconnect between religion and daily life has compelled the “really religious” to remove themselves into their segregated communities and spend their life sitting in Beit Hamidrash, never acting on what the Torah teaches them. Torah is no longer “Chukei Chaim”, laws of living. In fact, many teachings of the Torah are distorted to fit this misguided understanding of what is required of us. It is also at the root of the unethical and immoral behavior we witness almost daily in our community. That Torah, especially when it deals with daily life in society, is for learning not living is a conclusion that results from this way of thinking.

At the end of Rambam’s life (died 1204), controversies about his teachings began and continued uninterrupted for decades and centuries after his death. The first Maimonidean opposition was led by great Rabbis of Southern France and Northern Spain, among them such luminaries as Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerona (near Barcelona died 1263) and Rabbeinu Shlomo Min Hahar (Montpellier in Provence). Rabbeinu Yonah was a Chaver and relative of Ramban who penned the famous letter which starts with “Terem A’aneh Ani Shogeg” (page 336 in Chavel’s Kitvei Haramban), defending Rambam and castigating Rambam’s detractors. Of course, we all know that Ramban did not see eye to eye with Rambam on many theological issues but he was great enough to dissent gracefully and with respect with the great thinker. This controversy ended in 1233 with the first burning of Jewish Sefarim, the books of Rambam, by the monks who could not pass such a great opportunity. This began the tragic cycle of burning Shas and all Sifrei Yisrael in France and subsequently all over Europe, leaving only two original reliable manuscripts of Shas for later printers. Rabbeinu Yonah it is said had great misgivings about his earlier stand and as repentance undertook not to openly disagree with Rambam in his Halachik writings after that time.

Rambam’s son Rabbeinu Avraham, when he heard about the controversy and its consequence, penned a letter named Milchamot Hashem, which Rav Reuven Margulies edited and published. Rabbeinu Avraham addresses the accusation that his father was misled by Aristotle the Greek. The following is my translation:

“The fools who lack intelligence, were not satisfied with their lack of thought and knowledge to the point that the prophet refers to such people - יִִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יָדַע, עַמִּי לֹא הִתְבּוֹנָן - but Israel doth not know, My people doth not consider. They also decided in their foolishness that anyone that is interested in knowledge is a Min and Kofer in the Torah and anyone that studied philosophy has acquired the beliefs of the philosophers. [That is incorrect] for they [the philosophers] believe the world to be eternal without a beginning while we disagree with them based on the belief promulgated by the torah. We bring arguments against the philosophers to clarify the Torah belief that the world is new and created and that there is only One eternal entity that is First and Last, and that is HKBH… That is how the sages told us (in Avot 2:16), “be steadfast to learn Torah and know how to answer an Apikores”. We do the same with all their other beliefs which do not agree with Torah’s beliefs. This [disagreement on specific subjects] does not compel us to disagree with their [the philosopher’s correct] beliefs that agree with Torah, such as that God is unique and True, He is not a body nor has features. However, we do disagree with these [Rabbis] who have a faulty theology about the uniqueness of God claiming in their mistaken and erroneous thinking that God is in a place, sits on a throne, because it is a belief that is proven to be wrong.”

I believe it is important to understand what Rabbeinu Avraham is telling us as it has practical implications to how we must deal with the sciences of our time and our religion.
Rambam makes a clear distinction between scientific facts and metaphysics. In medieval science, that distinction was not clear. Science was based on what were considered philosophical truths rather than empirical evidence. For example, it was believed that the planets have a circular orbit because that is a perfect movement. The universe strives for perfection, thus the orbits must be perfect. Observations to the contrary had to be explained away using complicated formulae that fit the underlying philosophy. Rambam accepted the observations and the explanations given with a grain of salt. Here are two (amongst many) of his comments on the subject where his skepticism comes across clearly.

“The theory of Aristotle in respect to the causes of the motion of the spheres led him to assume the existence of Intelligences. Although this theory consists of assertions which cannot be proved, yet it is the least open to doubt, and is more systematic than any other, as has been stated by Alexander in the book called The Origin of the Universe.” (MN 2:3)

“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)

The sense we get is that Rambam confronted the difficulties presented by observations and had to live with the best explanation he could find until a better one could be found. That is so with clear observations that needed explaining and he could not do so with the tools he had at hand without resorting to Metaphysical theories. He had to be tentative because he had a sense that future generations may come up with better explanations.

How did he deal with matters that could never be explained by science such as the eternity of the world, creation from nothingness, whether the universe was willed into being or is it the result of some singularity? Aristotle addressed these questions and tried to answer them rationally. Rambam points out that if we read Aristotle carefully we can see that his theories in this area were very tentative.

“As to the proofs of Aristotle and his followers for the Eternity of the Universe, they are, according to my opinion, not conclusive; they are open to strong objections, as will be explained.” (MN2:16)

In fact, the way Aristotle presents his ideas on the subject of Eternity show that he had doubts about how conclusive his own thinking was.

“In this chapter I intend to show that Aristotle was well aware that he had not proved the Eternity of the Universe. He was not mistaken in this respect. He knew that he could not prove his theory, and that his arguments and proofs were only apparent and plausible… He says in his book Physics (8, chap. 1.) as follows: "All the Physicists before us believed that motion is eternal, except Plato, who holds that motion is transient; according to his opinion the heavens are likewise transient." Now, if Aristotle had conclusive proofs for his theory he would not have considered it necessary to support it by citing the opinions of preceding Physicists, nor would he have found it necessary to point out the folly and absurdity of his opponents. For a truth, once established by proof, does neither gain force nor certainty by the consent of all scholars, nor lose by the general dissent.” (MN 2:15)(This whole chapter is worth reading. You can find it here )

As I want to keep posts to an acceptable length, I will discuss Rambam’s approach to these matters that cannot be proven scientifically in an upcoming post. We will also see on what basis subjects belong to this category.

Does a Non-philosophical Person Gain Rights to the World To Come (Olam Haba)? Nomenclature(Part 5 in a series)

Rambam in Hilchot Teshuvah 8:4 lists the different terms the prophets used when referring to Olam Haba.

ד] וכמה שמות קראו לה דרך משל: הר ה', ומקום קדשו, ודרך הקודש, וחצרות ה', ואוהל ה', ונועם ה', והיכל ה', ובית ה', ושער ה'

If we look at the verses where these terms for Olam Haba are used, we find that the term refer to different types and levels of apprehension and knowledge. The first two in the above Halacha are found in Tehilim 24:3.

ג מִי-יַעֲלֶה בְהַר-יְהוָה; וּמִי-יָקוּם, בִּמְקוֹם קָדְשׁוֹ.

3 Who shall ascend into the mountain of the LORD? And who shall stand in His holy place?

ד נְקִי כַפַּיִם, וּבַר-לֵבָב
אֲשֶׁר לֹא-נָשָׂא לַשָּׁוְא נַפְשִׁי; וְלֹא נִשְׁבַּע לְמִרְמָה.

4 He that has clean hands, and a pure heart; who has not taken My name in vain, and has not sworn deceitfully.
　
Ethical behavior allows entry into “God’s mountain and holy place”.

The next term, way of holiness, is found in Yeshayahu 35:8, in the context of not being impure but at the same time even fools have a place in it; they will not stray on that path.

ח וְהָיָה-שָׁם מַסְלוּל וָדֶרֶךְ, וְדֶרֶךְ הַקֹּדֶשׁ יִקָּרֵא לָהּ--לֹא-יַעַבְרֶנּוּ טָמֵא, וְהוּא-לָמוֹ; הֹלֵךְ דֶּרֶךְ וֶאֱוִילִים, לֹא יִתְעוּ.

8 And a highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called the way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those; the wayfaring men, yea fools, shall not stray therein.

The next term is found in Tehilim 92:14. All these terms seem to be referring to a level of Olam Haba that is attained through ethical and moral behavior.

The next grouping of three is found in Tehilim 27:4.

ד אַחַת, שָׁאַלְתִּי מֵאֵת-יְהוָה-- אוֹתָהּ אֲבַקֵּשׁ:
שִׁבְתִּי בְּבֵית-יְהוָה, כָּל-יְמֵי חַיַּי;
לַחֲזוֹת בְּנֹעַם-יְהוָה, וּלְבַקֵּר בְּהֵיכָלוֹ.

4 One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the graciousness of the LORD, and to visit early in His temple.

Here theological excellence seems to be the theme. It would take many posts to analyze thoroughly each term and its uses in Tanach and seeing how consistent they are when the same term is used in more than one place. But I think this will suffice to establish that the terms relate to different kinds and levels of apprehension.

Reading the famous parable Rambam uses in MN 3:51 to describe the different levels of apprehension and knowledge that are needed in the search for God, I was struck how similar the parable is to this Halacha. Here is the parable with my interpolations from the above Halacha in parentheses. Note that I am just suggesting the comparisons and have not done so with a rigorous analysis.

“A king is in his palace, and all his subjects are partly in the city, and partly outside the city [הר ה', מקום קדשו]. Of the former, some have their backs turned towards the ruler’s habitation, and their faces in another direction. And some are desirous and zealous to reach the ruler’s habitation,[היכל ה'] seeking "to inquire in his temple," [ וּלְבַקֵּר בְּהֵיכָלו ] and to minister before him, but have not yet seen the wall of the habitation. Of those that desire to go to the palace, some reach it, and go round about in search of the entrance gate [שער ה']. Others have passed through the gate, and walk about in the antechamber [אוהל ה']; and others have succeeded in entering into the inner part of the palace, and being in the same room with the king [בית ה'] in the royal palace. But even the latter do not immediately on entering the palace see the king, or speak to him; for, after having entered the inner part of the palace, another effort is required before they can stand before the king--at a distance, or close by--hear his words, or speak to him [נועם ה' ]. I will now explain the simile which I have made. The people who are abroad are all those that have no religion, neither one based on speculation nor one received by tradition… Those who desire to arrive at the palace and to enter it, but have never seen it [דרך הקודש] are the mass of religious people, the multitudes that observe the divine commandments but are ignorant. Those who arrive at the palace, but go round about it, [חצרות ה'] are those who devote themselves exclusively to the study of the practical law. They believe traditionally in true principles of faith, and learn the practical worship of God, but are not trained in philosophical treatment of the principles of the Law, and do not endeavor to establish the truth of their faith by proof. Those who undertake to investigate the principles of religion have come into the antechamber [אוהל ה]; and there is no doubt that these can also be divided into different grades. But those who have succeeded in finding a proof for everything that can be proved, who have a true knowledge of God, so far as a true knowledge can be attained, and are near the truth, wherever an approach to the truth is possible, they have reached the goal, and are in the palace in which the king lives.
My son, so long as you are engaged in studying the Mathematical Sciences and Logic, you belong to those who go round about the palace [חצרות ה'] in search of the gate[שער ה'] . Thus, our Sages figuratively use the phrase: "Ben-Zoma is still outside." When you understand Physics, you have entered the hall; and when, after completing the study of Natural Philosophy, you master Metaphysics, you have entered the innermost court, and are with the king in the same palace. You have attained the degree of the wise men, which include men of different grades of perfection.”

Clearly, a person committed to the search for God, though not yet in the innermost chambers, partakes in some form of Olam Haba. Once a person points himself in the right direction, he is on the path towards developing his inborn Sechel in potentia. A small step in that direction immediately creates a nefesh that can remain forever. The search for HKBH must be focused on His ways, the only real trace of Hashem that we humans can apprehend, and emulating those ways. Torah and Mitzvot are some of those ways of HKBH given to us through tradition as a marker on the way to a deeper and personal understanding.

True that Rambam bases his understanding of the soul on Aristotelian thought, he however invests it with the Torah thinking where the wish alone to purify oneself starts the process of Olam Haba. The key to understanding Rambam’s Olam Haba I believe is the same as his explanation of creation ab nihilo. There are things that the Torah and Neviim tell us that scientific investigation cannot ever prove. These traditions have to be evaluated in light of the scientific reality we know and only accept them if they do not violate or contradict that reality. Whether the world is eternal or created from nothingness will never be proven by science. Nevuah teaches that it was created at the will of God. It does not contradict scientific facts. It must therefore be accepted. Olam Haba cannot be proven scientifically. The body-mind connection conundrum cannot be solved by science. Abstract knowledge has no physical existence but affects greatly the physical world we live in. That knowledge however exists and can be made personal when discovered and understood. What happens to that personal knowledge after the person’s passing is a matter of speculation which will never be resolved by science. The Neviim tell us that it remains. We will never understand what that means while in this physical existence.

הטובה הגדולה שתהיה בה הנפש בעולם הבא, אין שם דרך בעולם הזה להשיגה ולידע אותה, שאין אנו יודעין בעולם הזה אלא טובת הגוף, ולה אנו מתאווין

It is impossible to apprehend and know the great good that the nefesh will experience in Olam Haba, while we are in this world. For in this world we know only material good and it is what we crave. (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:11)

These last Halachot in the chapter that discusses Olam Haba are I believe the key to how Rambam understands it. See them here .

Before I end this series I want to expand a little on this last point in future posts.

My Father In Law A"H and Deveikut.

Rambam explains that a person is born with a שכל בכוח – a mind in-potentia – and the lifetime goal is to develop oneself so that one has a שכל בפועל – an in-actu mind. It is that developed mind that makes a person into what he is, it is the essence of a man and that is what differentiates man from all other living creatures. The manifestation of that mind in-actu is the ability to comprehend the מושכלות – abstract thought and knowledge and the highest and most advanced level of that type of knowledge is the apprehension of God.

When a person acquires knowledge, that knowledge becomes one with him. The brain, the physical entity that gives man the ability to think, absorbs that knowledge and in that process, it becomes a part of the person. It is through knowledge that the knower and the subject that is known become one. In the same sense, when one apprehends God, at whatever level of sophistication that apprehension is achieved, that apprehension becomes part of the person. That state is metaphorically referred to as Deveikut – attachment or bonding with HKBH.

The problem with human beings is that their need to take care of their physical and material needs clouds their thinking and distracts them from their goal. This is metaphorically referred to as the dividing curtain – Massach Hamavdil. The goal of Torah and Mitzvot is to help a man overcome that weakness and train him to keep these material needs in their proper perspective, dealing with them only as needed. However, the human condition is such, that even the greatest of men, Moshe Rabbeinu, could only achieve the ultimate apprehension at the time of death. For as life ebbs, material needs slowly diminish. It is only at those times that a clear apprehension of the non-material can be accomplished. Rambam explains that that type of death is referred to as Al Pi Hashem, or as the Rabbis call it metaphorically Mitat Neshikah – death by a kiss.

I had the privilege to attend to my father in law ע"ה during the last ten days of his life. He came back to my brother in law’s house from the death trap that is Maimonides Hospital in Brooklyn, (more on that in a separate post), in terrible shape. Because of the mistreatment in the hospital, he had developed a fungal infection that had flayed his entire lower back. In addition to his body being riddled with cancer, he also had a pathological fracture in his arm. He had to be moved every few hours notwithstanding the excruciating pain every small movement elicited. Washing and cleaning up in the morning was pure torture. It was a testament to the fine gentleman he was that after suffering excruciating pain to the point of crying during the process he would not fail to thank the aide and everyone that helped move him or clean him. As he was crying out from pain, I held his hand and told him that we were cleaning him up so that he could daven. Hearing that, he would temporarily become stoic. One touching moment was when after one of these painful episodes he spontaneously made a Bracha with Shem and Malchut –

ברוך אתה ה"א מלך העולם שהכל ברא לכבודו

On another occasion, after another painful episode, he suddenly insisted on immediately making a mitzvah. As he had difficulty consuming the Ensure that was his nourishment, I suggested he have some and make a Bracha. He did so with alacrity and began eating.

But the most touching was when I davened with him after the cleanup. I would ask him whether he was ready to wash his hands and start davening. At that stage, he had difficulty talking and would nod his head in acquiescence. I held his hand and said Birkat Hatorah starting with Al Netilat Yadayim and Asher Yatzar, at which point he squeezed my hand and you could see his complete concentration. We then said Birchot Kryat Shema and the Shemona Esreh holding hands. He kept on nodding off because of the painkillers and arousing himself to continue davening. While Davening you could see his face light up, and I felt how he was connecting with HKBH. I have never before experienced such an intense davening. He was so thankful that I gave him this opportunity to serve HKBH that he started kissing my hand. There are no words to describe the emotions that I experienced. As he had lost his appetite, I told him after davening that to continue serve HKBH, one has to stay alive which requires eating. He immediately forced himself to take in nourishment.

The last day of his life, when his breathing was already quite labored and he had lost the ability to communicate verbally, I still had the great Zchut to daven with him. He kept up with the davening crunching his eyes and squeezing my hand at the appropriate parts of the Shema and Tefilah. He passed away surrounded by his family, children, grandchildren and great grand children, after partaking in Mincha and Ma’ariv Betzibur. I learned in these few days more about Deveikut and what it means to become attached to HKBH than in my whole life. I think about these ten days as my personal Asseret Yemei Teshuvah.

One does not arrive at this level of Deveikut without a lifetime of preparation. My father in law was a person that did not waste a minute. Though he was a businessperson all his life, he never missed a day that he would not be in the Beit Hamidrash way before dawn. He would give Shiurim in Gemara and Ohr Hachaim and would prepare for them intensely. I never attended a shiur but I heard from participants that he was very clear and his Shiurim were well attended. After retirement, the last 14 years of life were spent in the Beit Hamidrash from before dawn to night, learning with Chaverim and preparing and giving Shiurim.

He was a great medakdek in Mitzvot all his life. He was very attached to the Mitzvah of Tzedakah. He would not turn away a poor man and treated everyone with dignity. He considered himself as the secretary to his wife, my mother in law Tibadel Lechaym, who is the president and one of the founders of the Satmar Bikur Cholim. He was also involved in the founding of Tomchei Shabbat in Boro Park.

During his last days, he made sure to show how much he loved all his children and grandchildren. His face would light up when one of them would visit. Although he was an authoritarian figure when healthy, all that melted away at the end and all that was left was love and affection. We will all miss him very much.

יהי זכרו ברוך.

אָבַד חָסִיד מִן הָאָרֶץ, וְיָשָׁר בָּאָדָם אָיִן

My Father in Law

הרב החסיד יוסף שלום בן הרב שמחה יעקב הלוי מארקוויטש זכרונו לברכה

was niftar yesterday, the 9th of Kislev.

Be Exceedingly, Exceedingly Humble - An Insight In The Torah's Understanding Of Human Nature.

In a private communication with Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, we touched on Rambam in Hilchot De’ot that deals with Anavah, the virtue of humbleness or humility. I decided to interrupt the current discussion to address this, as it is very important and also is relevant to the subject that I am dealing with.

Rambam in Hilchot De’ot 1:10-11 –

ט כל אדם שדעותיו כולן דעות בינונייות ממוצעות, נקרא חכם; [ה] ומי שהוא מדקדק על עצמו ביותר ויתרחק מדעה בינונית מעט לצד זה או לצד זה, נקרא חסיד.
י כיצד: מי שיתרחק מגובה הלב עד הקצה האחרון, ויהיה שפל רוח ביותר--נקרא חסיד; וזו היא מידת חסידות. ואם נתרחק עד האמצע בלבד, ויהיה עניו--נקרא חכם; וזו היא מידת חכמה. ועל דרך זו, שאר כל הדעות.

Whoever observes in his disposition the mean is termed wise. Whoever is particularly scrupulous and deviates somewhat from the exact mean in disposition, in one direction or the other is called a Chassid. For example, if one avoids haughtiness to the utmost extent and is exceedingly humble, he is termed a Chassid, and this is the standard of Chassidus. If one only departs from haughtiness as far as the mean, and is humble, he is called wise, and this is the standard of wisdom. And so it is with all other dispositions. (Translation, courtesy of A Maimonides Reader by Isadore Twersky).

Rambam explains that a Chassid is one who is working on himself to improve his Midot [disposition] while a Chacham is one who has perfected himself to the point that he can be exactly on the mean and needs no further improvement. The Chacham is therefore the paradigm of perfection.

ומצווין אנו ללכת בדרכים אלו הבינוניים, והם הדרכים הטובים והישרים, שנאמר "והלכת, בדרכיו

“We are commanded to follow these middle paths as they are good and correct [and also the paths of God] as it says “and you should walk in His paths”.

As an example of a Chassid Rambam portrays someone who “is exceedingly humble” and a Chacham as “one who only departs from haughtiness as far as the mean, and is humble”. The clear implication is that humility is the preferred disposition and “exceedingly humble” is perfection in the making.However, in the second chapter of Hilchot De’ot Rambam presents a different picture.

ויש דעות שאסור לו לאדם לנהוג בהן בבינונית, אלא יתרחק עד הקצה האחר--והוא גובה הלב, שאין הדרך הטובה שיהיה האדם עניו בלבד, אלא שיהיה שפל רוח, ותהיה רוחו נמוכה למאוד. ולפיכך נאמר במשה רבנו "עניו מאוד" (במדבר יב,ג), ולא נאמר עניו בלבד. ולפיכך ציוו חכמים, מאוד מאוד הוי שפל רוח.

“There are some dispositions in regard to which it is forbidden merely to keep to the middle path. They must be shunned to the extreme. Such a disposition is pride. The right way in this regard is not merely to be meek, but to be humble-minded and lowly of the spirit to the utmost. And therefore, it is said of Moshe that he was “exceedingly humble”. Hence our sages exhorted us, “Be exceedingly, exceedingly lowly of spirit”.” (Translation as above)

The contradiction is glaring and it is obvious that Rambam is not in the habit of contradicting himself. However, as usual, Rambam is very subtle and one has to read thoroughly all his discussions on a subject in its various contexts. In his introduction to Avot, the Eight Chapters, Rambam has a lengthy discussion about perfecting one’s disposition. In the fourth chapter, he discusses the idea of how to go about changing an inborn disposition. While he summarized in Hilchot De’ot, he expands this discussion in the Eight Chapters. In chapter 4 he describes the process of changing the natural disposition of individuals by moving away from the mean in the opposite direction of one’s natural disposition. For example, one whose natural disposition tends towards haughtiness should be scrupulous and be extremely humble for a while until he can slowly move back to the mean of humility. The same goes for all dispositions. At the end of a lengthy discussion, Rambam then makes a few revealing statements.

וזאת התורה השלמה המשלמת אותנו, כמו שהעיד עליה יודעה:
תורת ה' תמימה, משיבת נפש,
עדות ה' נאמנה מחכימת פתי (תהלים י"ט, ח')
לא ציוותה דבר מעין זה. ואין כונתה אלא שיהיה האדם טבעי, הולך בדרך האמצעי:
יאכל מה שיש לו לאכול בשווי,
וישתה מה שיש לו לשתות בשווי.
ויישב המדינות ביושר ובאמונה.
לא שישכון במערות ובהרים,
ולא שילבש השער והצמר,
ולא שיטריח גופו ויענה אותו.

“And this perfect Torah whose mission is to perfect us as one who knew her [David] testified,” God’s Torah is whole, it soothes the soul, God’s testament is reliable, it enlightens a fool”, did not command any of this [self-flagellation]. Its mission is for a person to be natural and follow the mean path; eat and drink a balanced diet and inhabit lands with correctness and honesty. Not that he should in mountainous caves or wear hair shirts or punish his body.”

In other words, the Torah’s goal is to develop people so that they become perfect and follow the middle path. That is however a utopian goal. The human condition will not allow such perfection. As the Torah deals with real human beings and is the tool that will bring people as close to perfection as possible, its laws are NOT the mean. They are always a little to one side or the other depending on the disposition.

וזה, שהתורה
לא אסרה מה שאסרה, ולא צוותה מה שצוותה, אלא מפני הסיבה הזאת. רצוני לומר: כדי
שנתרחק מן הצד האחד יותר על דרך ההרגל. שכן איסור "המאכלות האסורים" כולם, ואיסור
הביאות האסורות, והאזהרה מן הקדשה, וחיוב כתובה וקידושין, ועם כל זה לא תהיה מותרת תמיד, אלא תיאסר בעתות הנידה והלידה, ועם זה סייגו חכמינו למעט התשמיש, והזהירו מזה ביום, כמו שבארנו בסנהדרין - הנה לא צווה אלוהים אלא כדי שנתרחק מקצה "רוב התאווה" ריחוק רב, ונצא מעט מן המיצוע אל צד "העדר הרגשת ההנאה", עד שתתיישב בנפשותינו תכונת הזהירות

“The law did not lay down its prohibitions or enjoin its commandments except for just this purpose, namely, that by its disciplinary effects we may persistently maintain the proper distance from either extreme. For the restriction regarding all the forbidden foods, the prohibitions of illicit intercourse, the forewarning against prostitution, the duty of performing the legal marriage rites – which nevertheless does not permit intercourse at all times, as, for instance, during the period of menstruation and after childbirth, besides its being otherwise restricted by our sages and entirely interdicted during the daytime, as we have explained in the tractate of Sanhedrin- all of these God commanded in order that we should keep entirely distant from the extreme of inordinate indulgence of the passions, and, even departing from the exact medium, should incline somewhat toward self-denial, so that there may be firmly rooted in our souls the disposition for moderation.”

The Torah is not for the perfect utopian individual but rather for the human being who is working his way towards perfection. It is realistic about human frailties and allows for them setting the rules with that in mind. These rules are a little off the mean, tending a little to one or the other side depending on the type of disposition and the tendency of the majority of humanity towards that disposition. In the case of haughtiness, even a perfected person such as Moshe Rabbeinu cannot feel safe and must be exceedingly humble to counteract the human tendency to self-aggrandizement. A similar disposition is anger where too the human disposition tends towards it and that tendency has to be counterbalanced. Rambam in the first chapter of Hilchot De’ot describes the utopian perfected human being the Torah’s has as a goal to develop. In Chapter 2, he explains the method the Torah uses and points out that certain human traits can never be completely overcome. Haughtiness and anger are two such traits where even the most perfected person must be wary about recidivism.

It is important to note that to Rambam, a person that follows the Torah and does the Mitzvot is embarked on the path to perfection; he is on the right track in his quest for the perfect disposition, a necessary and integral ingredient in the search for God and His ways.
　

Does a Non-philosophical Person Gain Rights to the World To Come (Olam Haba)? Ethics and Morality in Judaism (Part 4 in a series)

Ethics and Morality are accepted norms in civilized societies. Much has been written about ethics all the way back to the Greek Philosophers and it is still a much-discussed topic in philosophy. For an excellent overview, see here . Rambam has what I believe to be a unique understanding of ethics from a Torah perspective. In MN 3:27, one of the introductory chapters to his discussion of Ta’amei Hamitzvot, he addresses what the goal of Mitzvot is.

“The Law as a whole aims at two things: the welfare of the soul and the welfare of the body. As to the welfare of the soul, it consists in the multitude’s acquiring correct opinions corresponding to their respective capacity… As for the welfare of the body, it comes about by the improvement of their ways of living one with another. This is achieved through two things. One of them is their abolition of wronging each other. This is tantamount to every individual among the people not being permitted to act according to his will and up to the limit of his power, but being forced to do what is useful to the whole. The second thing consists in the acquisition by every human individual of moral qualities that are useful for life in society so that the affairs of the city may be ordered.” (MN3:27)

Focusing first on the second aim, the welfare of the body, the description seems to be of a utilitarian system which promotes a healthy and well-ordered society. In this presentation, ethics and morality are seen as self-serving quid pro quo systems thus resulting in every member of that society living in peace with each other. In other words, ethics are ultimately self-serving. By being good to your neighbor, you can expect reciprocity. But Rambam does not stop there. The goal of an ordered society has a much loftier purpose than mere egotistical interest. It is to allow for the flourishing within it of perfect people, those who are concerned with the welfare of their soul.

“His [man’s] ultimate perfection is to become rational in actu, I mean to have an intellect in-actu; this would consist in him knowing everything concerning all the beings that it is within the capacity of man to know in accordance with his ultimate perfection. It is clear that to this ultimate perfection, there do not belong either actions or moral qualities and that it consists only of opinions toward which speculation has led and that investigation has rendered compulsory. It is also clear that this noble and ultimate perfection can only be achieved after the first perfection [ethics] has been achieved. For a man cannot represent to himself an intelligible even when taught to understand and all the more cannot become aware of it of his own accord, if he is in pain or is very hungry or is thirsty or is hot or is very cold. But once the first perfection has been achieved it is possible to achieve the ultimate, which is indubitably nobler and is the only cause of permanent preservation [after death – Olam Haba – DG].” (MN3:27)

Rambam’s ethics, though at first directed towards developing a well-ordered society, have as their ultimate goal to allow for the development of the perfect human being. That is a knowledgeable person who can focus on his own self-improvement, the acquisition of knowledge and thus get to know all creation and through it God. Once a person gets to know all he can about God and His ways, he understands and wants to emulate Him by partaking in His actions.

“The object of the above passage 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.” (MN 3:54)

The ethics of the perfected man take on a completely new aspect. They no longer are self-serving, insuring a well-ordered society so that he can dedicate himself to contemplation, but rather understanding God’s ways, emulating Him and partaking in His work. Thus the same ethical act, the same Mitzvah, is performed in different contexts by different people, depending on their level of sophistication. We will return to this important point later in the discussion, but what is important now is to understand that Rambam’s ethics have an ultimate goal that goes beyond the egotistical. Giving alms to a pauper will have different meaning to different people. Some will do it because they see themselves in the same spot and want to be treated similarly hoping that others will emulate them should they be in need, while others do it because it makes them feel good to help another. Some feel guilty having so much while another lacks everything. Others do it because their religion promises good things in exchange. Rambam’s Jew does it because it is part of the process that is necessary to allow for the development of a person that knows God, who will then do the same act with the understanding and deep knowledge that giving this Tzedakah IS emulating Him. In Rambam’s Judaism, everything we do is with that goal in mind.

“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 know who it is that is with them, and as a result act subsequently as they ought to. He [God] has explained that the end of the actions prescribed by the whole Law is to bring about the passion of which it is correct to be brought about, as we have demonstrated in this chapter for the benefit of those who know the true realities. I refer to the fear of Him and the awe before his commands.” (MN 3:52)

As this last quote indicates, all Mitzvot have the same objective. I have focused first on ethical Mitzvot because they are easier to contrast with general ethics but the same goal is for all Mitzvot. All have the ultimate objective to bring us to know God to the best of each one’s ability. I think that we can start getting a glimpse of why Mitzvot are Truth and doing them is doing Truth. I will however flesh these concepts out further in upcoming posts.

I would like to end this post by pointing out that in the first quote from MN3:27, indeed in that whole chapter Rambam omits any mention of personal self-improvement other than in a societal context. Anyone who reads Rambam knows that one of the important traits needed for a correct understanding of God and His ways, is perfected Midot. Someone who is steeped in material needs and urges cannot acquire true knowledge according to Rambam. He makes that clear right in the second chapter of the Moreh.

“You appear to have studied the matter superficially, and nevertheless you imagine that you can understand a book which has been the guide of past and present generations, when you for a moment withdraw from your lusts and appetites, and glance over its contents as if you were reading a historical work or some poetical composition.” (MN1:2)

What happened to that whole segment of Mitzvot that deal with self-improvement to allow for apprehending correct notions?

Does a Non-philosophical Person Gain Rights to the World To Come (Olam Haba)? (Part 3 in a series)

At the end of the first four chapters in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah where Rambam give a concise summary of Physics and Metaphysics from a Jewish theological perspective, he legislates –

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

And I say that one should not promenade in the Pardes only once one has filled his stomach with meat and bread. Meat and bread is a metaphor for knowing the clarification of what is forbidden and permissible and other such matters about the other [in addition to the five discussed here earlier] Mitzvot. Although the sages refer to these matters as a small thing, for the sages said “great matter is the workings of the chariot” and a small matter is the discussion of Abaye and Rava, they still should come first. They settle a persons mind and additionally they are the great good that HKBH bestowed to the inhabitants of this world, for them to inherit Olam Haba. All, adult and child, man and woman [note: woman too], a person with a broad mind or one with a limited one, can know it.

I have discussed this Halacha in the context of the preceding ones here . In the context of the current discussion, I would like to focus in on Rambam’s ontological explanation of “what is forbidden and permissible and other such matters about the other Mitzvot”. From a human perspective, they are “meat and bread” but from an ontological one they are “the great good that HKBH bestowed to the inhabitants of this world, for them to inherit Olam Haba.” The placement of this Halacha is quite interesting too, at the end of the first chapters of MT that deal with Mitzvot that are intellectual rather than practical and presents as an introduction and transition to the practical Mitzvot that follow in the rest of MT. It says that knowing how to do the Mitzvot well [clarification of what is forbidden and permissible] (and I assume doing them), can be accomplished by all [adult and child, man and woman] thus, they all will inherit Olam Haba. Again, we see Rambam clearly telling us that Olam Haba is not dependent on intellectual apprehensions but rather a result of keeping the practical Mitzvot. There is however a caveat, not here but in Hilchot Teshuvah, where Rambam conditions proper actions on correct ideas. In Chapter 3 he discusses the process of divine judgment, Halachot that I find very difficult to understand though I hope to one day, and after a lengthy detailed exposition, he ends as follows: (Translation courtesy of Jonathan Baker. The translation is not ideal but will have to do for my purpose here).

שכל ישראל יש להן חלק לעולם הבא, אף על פי שחטאו--שנאמר "ועמך כולם צדיקים, לעולם יירשו ארץ" (ישעיהו ס,כא); ארץ זו משל--כלומר ארץ החיים, והוא העולם הבא. וכן חסידי אומות העולם, יש להן חלק לעולם הבא.

For every Jew has a share in the World to Come even if he sinned, for it is written, "Your people also shall be righteous; they shall inherit the land for ever". The word `land' here refers to the Land Of Life, namely the World to Come. Similarly, pious gentiles also have a share in the World to Come.

Thus, even those that divine justice found guilty and therefore do not expect longevity in this physical world, do retain a part in Olam Haba as long as they are not one of those enumerated in the next Halacha.

יד [ו] ואלו שאין להן חלק לעולם הבא, אלא נכרתין ואובדין, ונידונין על גודל רשעם וחטאתם, לעולם ולעולמי עולמים: המינים, והאפיקורוסים, והכופרים בתורה, והכופרים בתחיית המתים, והכופרים בביאת הגואל, והמשומדים, ומחטיאי הרבים, והפורשים מדרכי ציבור, והעושה עבירות ביד רמה בפרהסיה כיהויקים, והמוסרים, ומטילי אימה על הציבור שלא לשם שמיים, ושופכי דמים, ובעלי לשון הרע, והמושך עורלתו.

The following types of people have no share in the World to Come, and are cut off, destroyed and excommunicated for ever on account of their very great sins and wickedness. An infidel; a heretic; one who denies the Torah; one who denies that there will be a Resurrection; one who denies that there will be a Redemption; one who converts from Judaism; one who causes a lot of people to sin; one who withdraws from communal ways; one who publicly sins in a defiant way like Yehoyakim did; an informer [against Jews]; one who instills fear in the congregation but not in the Name of God; a murderer; one who relates lashon Harah; and one who pulls back his foreskin [in order to cover his brit Mila].

It would be interesting to analyze in detail the commonality, if there is one, of those listed as forfeiting their Olam Haba. However looking at the list we get a clear sense that they relate to incorrect ideas about either God, society or the Jewish people. The striking thing however is the presentation. Rambam, basing himself mainly on the Mishna in Sanhedrin, does not say that one who believes in x, y and z will attain Olam Haba. The presentation takes a negative stance. One who has incorrect ideas whose actions under regular circumstances would be seen as righteous in the eyes of the divine judgment, is now found wanting. That again confirms that the Mitzvah act itself, as long is it is not based on an incorrect notion, is enough to warrant Olam Haba.

To understand the relationship of doing a Mitzvah with Olam Haba, we must first discuss the different categories of Mitzvot and their goal, how and why ethical and moral Mitzvot are different from general ethics and morality and finally the relationship of Olam Haba and our own physical existence. As you can see, this subject is far from exhausted and I plan to develop these ideas.

Does a Non-philosophical Person Gain Rights to the World To Come (Olam Haba)? Obsessive Love (Part 2 in a series)

I ended the previous and first post in this series asking what worshipping for the sake of love means. Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot Asseh 3 lists a specific Mitzvah, a commandment, to love God. How can one be commanded to love? Love is a natural emotion? How can love be induced?

המצווה השלישית
היא הציווי שנצטווינו על אהבתו יתעלה
שנתבונן ונסתכל במצוותיו ופעולתיו, כדי שנשיגהו ונתענג בהשגתו תכלית התענוג - וזוהי האהבה המצווה [עלינו].

The third Mitzvah is that we were commanded to love Him. [Meaning] that we should contemplate and look into His commandments and His actions so that we apprehend Him, thus experiencing [lit: enjoying] the ultimate enjoyment through that apprehension of him. That is the love that we were commanded.

And to clarify, Rambam, after citing a series of verses, continues,
　
הנה ביארנו לך, שבהשתכלות תבוא לידי השגה, וימצא לך תענוג ותבוא האהבה בהכרח.

We have thus clarified to you that apprehension comes through contemplation which in turn affords pleasure which brings about love inevitably.

This Mitzvah requires a systematic process, starting with contemplating God’s commandments and his actions. The apprehension that results from that first step gives one so much pleasure that it inevitably triggers a feeling of love for the source of that pleasure. Once a person experiences the pleasure brought about by the quest for and apprehension of that knowledge, he wants to repeat the experience constantly and becomes obsessed with the quest. This addictive quality of a human being is thus used in a positive way. That resulting obsessive love is described at the end of Hilchot Teshuvah 10:3

ה [ג] וכיצד היא האהבה הראויה: הוא שיאהב את ה' אהבה גדולה יתרה רבה, עזה עד מאוד, עד שתהא נפשו קשורה באהבת ה', ונמצא שוגה בה תמיד--כאלו חולי האהבה, שאין דעתם פנויה מאהבת אותה אישה שהוא שוגה בה תמיד, בין בשוכבו בין בקומו, בין בשעה שהוא אוכל ושותה

And what is the proper love? One should love God with such a very great and extremely intense love to the point that his mind [soul] is bound with the love of God becoming immersed in it at all times. It is like one of those who are lovesick, whose mind cannot free itself from the love of the woman he is immersed in at all times, while at rest and awake, while eating and drinking.

The emotional feeling of love in this process is triggered by a rational experience. The experience of learning and apprehending a difficult and elusive matter produces such intense pleasure that the person wants to continuously experience it and therefore cannot stop thinking about God and the quest for Him. That knowledge however is elusive in our physical existence and becomes a constant quest. At its extreme level, the level of Moshe Rabbeinu, that obsessive quest reaches a point where the mind [soul] wants to free itself from its physical shackles. The Rabbis metaphorically describe this state as “death by kissing” based on Shir Hashirim 1:2, which [Shir Hashirim] is seen as a metaphor for this intense obsessive love of God.

ב יִשָּׁקֵנִי מִנְּשִׁיקוֹת פִּיהוּ, כִּי-טוֹבִים דֹּדֶיךָ מִיָּיִן. 2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth--for thy love is better than wine.

Rambam in MN 3:51 describes this experience by Moshe, Aharon and Miriam.

“The more the forces of his body are weakened, and the fire of passion quenched, in the same measure does man's intellect increase in strength and light; his knowledge becomes purer, and he is happy with his knowledge. When this perfect man is stricken in age and is near death, his knowledge mightily increases, his joy in that knowledge grows greater, and his love for the object of his knowledge more intense, and it is in this great delight that the soul separates from the body…. The meaning of this saying is that these three died in the midst of the pleasure derived from the knowledge of God and their great love for Him. When our Sages figuratively call the knowledge of God united with intense love for Him a kiss, they follow the well-known poetical diction, "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth" (Song 1:2). This kind of death, which in truth is deliverance from death, has been ascribed by our Sages to none but to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. The other prophets and pious men are beneath that degree: but their knowledge of God is strengthened when death approaches.”

The same pleasure that was so necessary while the person is in his physical state to trigger this obsessive love becomes eternal at death. Of course, we cannot fathom what that experience means, just as we cannot apprehend anything about God’s essence while in this physical existence. This pleasurable experience therefore has two components to it. While in physical existence, it is a necessary tool to help induce this intense and obsessive love of God and the quest for Him. As that experience of intense pleasure becomes eternal at death, it is now no longer a tool but an eternal reward.

In a comment on the earlier post, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks questioned my understanding of what it means to perform a Mitzvah in a “proper and satisfactory” manner. Our goal in our physical existence is to apprehend to the best of our ability as much as we can in our quest for God and His ways. That can only be accomplished through the systematic approach described above which includes the pleasurable experience that comes with apprehension. Our addictive attachment to that pleasurable experience is a necessary step in developing the obsessive love for God and the quest for Him. That same pleasurable experience, once it becomes eternal, is no longer a tool but a resulting reward. Worship that has that eternal pleasurable experience as a goal is not “proper and satisfactory”. That I believe is how one must understand Rambam quoted earlier which is to me, the essence of Judaism.

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
A person that worships [God] for the sake of love, is not involved in Torah and Mitzvot nor following the paths of wisdom, because of anything else in the world, not fear of bad things happening nor to gain good things. The only reason he does Truth is that it is Truth. The good things will generally come at the end.

In upcoming posts, I would like to explore the meaning of Mitzvot as Truth.