And The Likeness of God He Beholds - The Limitations of Human Knowledge.

In the previous two posts, I explained, based on my reading of Rambam, the two terms, Peh el Peh – Mouth to Mouth – and Panim el Panim – Face to Face – he uses to explain Moshe Rabbeinu’s unique type of prophecy. Mouth to mouth describes the end result of an advanced level of a certain kind of metaphysical speculation which is referred to metaphorically as face to face. When Moshe attained an advanced level of understanding which I refer to as Negative knowledge, a full appreciation of God’s unknowability, he was able to bypass his imaginative faculty and deliver prophecies verbatim as he received them, without his own personal interpretation. That level of prophecy was unique to him based on his unique apprehension of the divine. Rambam offers a third prooftext for Moshe’s prophecy –

 יא  

כל הנביאים, על ידי מלאך; לפיכך רואין מה שהן רואין במשל וחידה.  ומשה רבנו, לא על ידי מלאך, שנאמר "פה אל פה אדבר בו" (

ונאמר "ודיבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים

ונאמר "ותמונת ה', יביט"

כלומר שאין שם משל, אלא רואה הדבר על בורייו בלא חידה בלא משל; הוא שהתורה

מעידה עליו, "ומראה ולא בחידות" (שם), שאינו מתנבא בחידה אלא במראה, שרואה

הדבר על בורייו

And it says “and the likeness of God he beholds”, namely that there are no metaphors. He sees the matter as it is without a riddle, without a metaphor. That is what the torah testifies about him, “and vision and not in riddles”. [Meaning] that he did not prophesize in a riddle but in a vision, seeing the matter as it is.

What does the likeness [Temunah] of God he beholds mean?

“As for the term figure [Temunah] it is used equivocally in three different senses. It is used to designate the form of a thing outside the mind that is apprehended by the senses; I mean the shape and configuration of the thing. … It is also used to designate the imaginary form of an individual object existing in the imagination after the object of which it is the form is no longer manifest to the senses. … The term is also used to designate the true notion grasped by the intellect. It is with a view to this third meaning that the word figure is used with reference to God. Thus, it says and the figure [likeness] of God he beholds. The meaning and interpretation of this verse are: he grasps the truth of God.” (MN 1:3)

Clearly, Rambam is forewarning us that in this context Temunah – figure - does not mean a physical entity as in the first meaning, or even a physical representation as in the second but an intellectual abstract concept. When I say abstract concept I am talking about a notion that is totally removed from our experience. Being that Panim el Panim – face to face – describes a kind of apprehension based on negating any connection or comparison with the physical, how is to “grasp the truth of God” different? Rambam in MN 1:5 explains that before allowing himself to engage in metaphysical speculation, a person must prepare himself by learning the “sciences and the different kinds of knowledge”, truly improve his character “having extinguished the desires and cravings engendered in him by his imagination.”

“When doing this [metaphysical speculation] he should not make categorical affirmations in favor of the first opinion that occurs to him and should not from the outset strain and impel his thoughts toward the apprehension of the deity. He should rather feel awe and refrain and hold back until he gradually elevates himself. It is in that sense that it is said, “And Moshe hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.” …  And God let overflow upon him so much of His bounty and goodness that it became necessary to say of him: “And the figure of God shall he look upon”. The Sages have stated that this is a reward for his having at first hidden his face so as not to look upon God.”

When one engages in metaphysical speculation trying to “grasp the truth of God”, one must come to it with a cautious attitude and an awareness of one’s limits. As Moshe had his first experience with prophecy at the episode of the Sneh – the Burning Bush – his caution and reticence to jump to conclusions was evident. The Rabbis tell us that it is this trait that predicted that he would eventually reach the advanced level of “beholding the likeness of God”.

What we have here is a contradictory [dialectic] approach. On the one hand, the prophet wants to grasp God’s likeness but at the same time, he knows that he cannot. Should he think he did grasp it, he knows that he is on the wrong path. But it is not enough to accept that it cannot be grasped, the great prophet knows *why* he cannot grasp God’s likeness. The more he understands why he cannot grasp God’s likeness, the closer he is to God and the greater is his appreciation and feeling of awe towards the Great unknown.

“For this reason a man sometimes labors for many years in order to understand a certain science and to gain true knowledge of its premises so that he should have certainty with regard to this science. The only conclusion from this science in its entirety consists in our negating with reference to God some notion of which it has been learnt by means of a demonstration that it cannot possibly be ascribed to God. To someone else who falls short in his knowledge of speculation, this speculation will not be clear; and he will consider it doubtful whether or not this notion exists with reference to God.” (MN1:59)

Rambam explains that the difference between different levels of advancement in metaphysical speculation is dependent on how well one understands *why* God cannot be described in a way that confuses Him and physicality. Sciences no matter how abstract depict our physical world while God is completely removed from it. The awareness of the human limits in speculation, understanding those limits denotes the greatness of the thinker. Moshe Rabbeinu was able to attain the highest level of this apprehension, a level no one else has ever nor will ever achieve, thus his prophetic uniqueness. At the episode of Nikrat Hatzur during the Golden Calf episode, Moshe asked for clarification -

“One request consisted in his asking Him to let him know His essence and true reality…. The answer the two requests that He gave him consisted in His promising him to let him know all His attributes, making it known to him that they are His actions, and teaching him that His essence cannot be grasped as it really is. Yet He drew his attention to a subject of speculation through which he can apprehend to the furthest that is possible for man. For what has been apprehended by Moshe has not been apprehended by anyone before him nor will it be apprehended by anyone after him.” (MN 1:54)

The limit of human knowledge is at the center of Jewish theology as explained by Rambam. That knowledge brings about humility and awe. Moshe who had reached the highest possible level of apprehension knowing that after all he could still not grasp God’s essence but only His “likeness” – Temunah – what He is not – was the humblest of man.

ב  וכשמחשב בדברים האלו עצמן, מיד הוא נרתע לאחוריו, ויירא ויפחד

ויידע שהוא בריה קטנה שפלה אפלה, עומד בדעת קלה מעוטה לפני תמים דעות, כמו

שאמר דויד "כי אראה שמיך . . . מה אנוש, כי תזכרנו

As he speculates about these matters [metaphysics] he immediately staggers backwards, [is overcome by] fear and terror, knowing that he is a lowly, small and dark entity, that stands in front of the Perfect Intellect with minimal knowledge as David says ‘when I see your heavens … what is man that You should notice him?” (Yesodei Hatorah 2:2)

The fear and terror is inspired not by contemplating the greatness of creation [Ma’aseh Breishit] but by contemplating the vast chasm between what we know and what we cannot know [Ma’aseh Merkavah] – the lowly creature in front of the Perfect Intellect which he cannot even grasp. (The prooftext here is fascinating and I will address it separately at another opportunity).

Moshe came to metaphysical speculation with an attitude of caution and humility accepting his own human limitations. He was therefore able to understand that the “likeness of God” true reality is incomprehensible. That understanding led him to an apprehension of Panim el Panim, where he understood clearly not only that we humans cannot apprehend God but also why that is impossible. That understanding led him to the ability to transmit prophecies as received – verbatim – without the interpretation necessary when the prophecy passes through the imaginative faculty.

From a practical sense, this whole discussion about Moshe seems to be academic. We are so far removed from Moshe’s state that we cannot fathom his greatness never mind understand it. Not only are we removed but so too are all prophets besides Moshe; none ever got close to his level of prophecy. So why does Rambam expend so much on this topic. This brings us back to the issue of Ta’amei Hamitzvot which we were talking about a few posts back. The Torah is the fruit of that superior prophecy of Moshe, it came verbatim from God as we know it, and will forever remain, as it is, unchanged. That is so because there can never be another Moshe who could reach the levels of prophecy that allow for verbatim transmission. How can the word of God as transmitted be changed by divine messages that require human interpretation?

 

Face To Face - Panim El Panim - An Introduction To Negative Knowledge.

In the previous post, I explained that Peh el Peh is a metaphor for a type of prophecy that does not involve the imaginative faculty and therefore can be transmitted verbatim without the prophet’s personal interpretation. I will continue translating Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah chapter 7 where he describes the differences between the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu and that of other prophets.

כל הנביאים, על ידי מלאך; לפיכך רואין מה שהן רואין במשל וחידה. ומשה רבנו, לא על ידי מלאך,

שנאמר "פה אל פה אדבר בו"

ונאמר "ודיבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים

And it says, and God spoke to Moshe face to face.

As an additional prooftext that Moshe’s prophecy did not involve the imaginative, Rambam brings this verse located towards the end of the story of the golden calf (Shemot 33) which describes the dialogue between God and Moshe as being “face to face”. In discussing the term Panim “face”, Rambam in MN1:37 writes –

“It is also a term denoting the presence and station of an individual…. In this sense it is said: And the lord spoke unto Moshe face to face – which means, as a presence to another presence without an intermediary, as is said: Come let us look one another in the face.”

Lest we think that “presence” in this case would denote that there was some kind of tangible entity that Moshe experienced as facing him, Rambam continues:

“Thus Scripture says: The lord spoke to you face to face. In another passage, it explains, saying: You heard the voice of words but you saw no figure, only a voice. Hence, this kind of speaking and hearing are described as being face to face.”

Clearly the “presence” that was apprehended in this face off between God and the people was just a sense of an entity, the source of the “voice”. In other words, there is a kind of apprehension during a prophetic experience that changes the perception of the prophet. Rambam explains the uniqueness of this apprehension as being –

“Similarly the words, And the Lord spoke to Moshe face to face, describe His speaking as being in the form of an address [to Moshe]. Accordingly, it is said: Then he heard the voice speaking to him. It has accordingly been made clear to you that the hearing of a speech without the intermediary of an angel is described as being face to face.”

When the prophet experiences the prophecy as coming directly from the source without the intermediary of an angel, when it requires no interpretation of the hearer, it is called “face to face”. And again lest we think that the prophet perceives the source as coming from an entity that speaks with a sound, like all human speech, Rambam again forewarns us –

“In this sense it is also said: But my face shall not be seen, meaning that the true reality of My existence as it veritably is cannot be grasped.”

I read here Rambam as telling us that for a prophecy to not require the intermediary of the imaginative faculty, the prophet must understand that the reality of God’s existence cannot be grasped. When one can accept the truth that God exists but that all we say about Him including existence is only a linguistic necessity, that the reality is that we humans cannot grasp His essence, only then can the intellect alone operate when speculating about God. The apprehension that includes attributes and cannot completely divest God from the physical, requires the imaginative to distill the information and transmit it to the intellect for rational analysis and interpretation.

To elaborate a little further and attempt to put this into practical terms, I am suggesting that there are two levels of speculation about God. As human beings, we have to start looking for God through nature. If we accept that God has willed this existence, we see Him in that same existence. We analyze His actions and their result and extrapolate from that what God had in mind in creation. It requires a small step to conclude erroneously that God is in nature as His will is in it from our perspective. Our imaginative faculty which is experience based takes us to that thinking as that is our experience with our physical existence. We see the life force in all living things and we assume that God the ultimate life force of everything as another though necessary component of existence. But our intellectual understanding of God is that He is the only unique non-contingent entity and thus totally removed from the physical. He therefore cannot be that ultimate life force in the sense that we experience these things and the picture we have in our mind as a result of this speculation is only that – a picture.

Knowing God through nature was the level of understanding of the divine until Moshe came. He introduced the idea that we can only know what God is “not”. He is not anything that can be defined by humans. In human terms when we say that something “exists”, we are really saying that it “came” into existence from not existing. In other words, “existence” is a relative term. We therefore cannot use the term “existent” when talking about God who existed always and was never non-existent. We just use it for lack of another word to indicate that singularity - eternal existence. So when we say that God exists from eternity to eternity, we are really saying that he is NOT existent in the sense that we know existence to be. The same would apply to every attribute that we use about Him. Explaining the meaning of God telling Moshe in response to his question of how to explain to the people about God that sent him to take them out of Egypt, Rambam in MN 1:63 writes –

“Accordingly God made known to Moshe the knowledge that he was to convey to them and through which they would acquire a true notion of the existence of God, this knowledge being: I am that I am (Shemot 3:14)…. Accordingly, Scripture makes, as it were, a clear statement that the subject [I am] is identical with the predicate [I am]. This makes it clear that He is existent not through existence. This notion may be summarized and interpreted in the following way: the existent that is the existent, or the necessarily existent. That is what demonstration necessarily leads to: namely, to the view that there is a necessarily existent thing that has never been, or ever will be, nonexistent.”

Coming back to where this post started, Panim el Panim – face to face – connotes a kind of sophisticated apprehension of the divine which perceives a “presence” that in reality is a non-presence in our definition of “presence”. It is that apprehension that results in a prophecy that is described as Peh el Peh where the prophet repeats the prophecy word for word – verbatim – without his own interpretation. In his presentation of Moshe’s prophecy Rambam first brings the text peh el peh which is the end result followed by Panim el Panim which describes the process of apprehension that resulted in this prophecy.

Next post will address the third prooftext in this Halacha - ונאמר "ותמונת ה', יביט .

Moshe's Prophecy - the metaphor "Mouth to Mouth" - Peh El Peh.

In a private exchange with Rabbi Yoni Sacks, we touched on the subject of Moshe Rabbeinu’s prophecy. When talking about his prophecy, the Torah refers to it with two different expressions - peh el peh and panim el panim.

וְדִבֶּר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה פָּנִים אֶל-פָּנִים, כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר אִישׁ אֶל-רֵעֵהוּ

And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend. (Shemot 33:11)

And

ח  פֶּה אֶל-פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר-בּוֹ, וּמַרְאֶה וְלֹא

 בְחִידֹת, וּתְמֻנַת יְהוָה, יַבִּיט;.

8 Mouth to mouth do I speak with him, and vision and not in riddles, and the likeness of the Lord he beholds … (Bamidbar 12:8)

Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 7 explains the features of Moshe’s prophecy as compared to that of the other prophets. Among a list of differences he points to these two verses –

  

כל הנביאים, על ידי מלאך; לפיכך רואין מה שהן רואין במשל וחידה.  ומשה רבנו, לא על ידי מלאך,

שנאמר "פה אל פה אדבר בו"

ונאמר "ודיבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים

ונאמר "ותמונת ה', יביט

כלומר שאין שם משל, אלא רואה הדבר על בורייו בלא חידה בלא משל; הוא שהתורה

מעידה עליו, "ומראה ולא בחידות", שאינו מתנבא בחידה אלא במראה, שרואה

הדבר על בורייו

.

יכל הנביאים, יראין ונבהלין ומתמוגגים.  ומשה רבנו, אינו כן; הוא שהכתוב אומר "כאשר ידבר איש אל ריעהו"

כמו שאין אדם נבהל לשמוע דברי חברו, כך היה כוח בדעתו של משה רבנו להבין דברי הנבואה; והוא עומד על עומדו שלם.

I will translate and comment as I go along.

“All prophets prophesize via an angel, which causes them to see that which they see, in parables and riddles while Moshe Rabbeinu [does not prophesize] via an angel.”

What exactly is an angel? Rambam in MN 2:6 explains that it is a very broad term that indicates a messenger or intermediary in all its meanings. It is used in Tanach as a description for the fulfillment of God’s will whether it is through natural events such as winds or fires or singularities. In the context of prophecy, Rambam is explicit –

“Accordingly Midrash Kohelet has the following text: When man sleeps, his soul speaks to the angel, and the angel to the cherub. Thereby they have stated plainly to him who understands and cognizes intellectually that the imaginative faculty is likewise called an angel and that the intellect is called a cherub. How beautiful must this appear to him who knows, and how distasteful to the ignorant!”

One of the most common forms of prophecy is through dreams. The way those prophetic dreams work, is by stimulating the imaginative faculty [angel] which apprehends abstract matters in their physical forms which are then deciphered by the intellect [cherub] as to their true meaning. The way the prophecy is then transmitted by the prophet to others, is subject to the prophet’s own interpretation and thus is dependent on his level of intellectual perfection. A prominent example of this in Tanach is the short cryptic description of the divinity by Yeshayahu and the more expansive one by Yechezkel. The Rabbis (Hagigah 13b) comment that Yeshayahu was as a Ben Krach – a city dweller – while Yechezkel was a Ben Kfar – a village dweller – a metaphor for their respective level of perfected apprehension which resulted in the different depiction of the same vision. On the other hand, Moshe apprehended the prophecy with his intellect thus the prophecy did not require interpretation by him. He was able to transmit it verbatim without his personal input. This is the kind of prophecy that was needed to transmit laws, whose presentation need to be precise.   

“After we have spoken of the essence of prophecy, have made known its true reality, and have made clear that the prophecy of Moshe our master is different from that of the others, we shall say that the call to the Law followed necessarily from that apprehension alone” (MN2:39)

Rambam goes on to explain that the uniqueness of Moshe Rabbeinu’s prophecy is necessary for the immutability of the Torah. In other words, the repeated insistence by the Torah of the uniqueness of his prophecy is to make that point that the Torah cannot ever be changed by any subsequent prophet including Elyahu or Mashiach.

Rambam offers the following textual support for Moshe’s unique prophecy -

1. “Mouth to mouth do I speak with him”

Rambam in MN2:45 explains this term cryptically.

“You will perhaps ask this question: among the different degrees of prophecy there is one in which prophets, e.g., Isaiah, Micah, appear to hear God addressing them. How can this be reconciled with the principle that all prophets are prophetically addressed through an angel, except Moses our Teacher, in reference to whom Scripture says, "Mouth to mouth I speak to him" (Num. xii. 8)? I answer, this is really the case, the medium here being the imaginative faculty that hears in a prophetic dream God speaking; but Moses heard the voice addressing him "from above the covering of the ark from between the two cherubim" (Exod. xxv. 22) without the medium of the imaginative faculty.”

Mouth to mouth is identical to hearing the voice from “between the two cherubim”. We saw earlier that Cherub is a metaphor for the intellect. The two cherubim are thus the two intellects, men’s and the source of prophecy, the Active Intellect which in Medieval Philosophy stood for knowledge at its source. A prophet may imagine that God is speaking to him and delivering a message which needed deciphering while Moshe “knew” with his intellect that God was speaking to him. The message that Moshe apprehended needed no further interpretation and could be transmitted further in the form he “heard” it.

If we were to categorize Peh el Peh, we would say that it describes the process of transmission/reception of prophecy – it goes directly from the mouth of the Giver so to say, to the mouth of the prophet without the prophet’s interpretation.

As an aside, it is worthwhile to consider that a metaphor for mouth to mouth is kissing. When we say that Moshe, Aharon and Miriam died through kissing, Mitat Neshikah, we are saying that their physical end came about in the ecstasy of this highest level of prophecy and apprehension where there was no interference of the imaginative.

2. And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face.

Another description of Moshe’s prophecy is the metaphor “face to face”. I will address this aspect of Moshe’s prophecy in the next post as I continue with the translation/comment of this Halacha.

Note: this series of posts, though at first blush seem to be a detour in my discussion of Ta’amei Hamitzvot, are really part of that same discussion. The connection will become clearer as I continue.

Are Mitzvot Arbitrary Rituals?

In my last post, I showed that the underlying reason for Mitzvot is to foster an awareness of God in our daily life. As the Mitzvot involve us almost constantly, we are always connected to God in our thinking. Whether doing  things such as prayer, blessings, Tefillin, Tzitzit, mezuzah and the time-sensitive Mitzvot such as Shabbat and Yom Tov or refraining from things such as eating forbidden foods or when dealings with others we do so with honesty and ethical behavior, we are always brought back to God who commanded us to act this way by doing these Mitzvot. Of course this only works if we accept and understand that Mitzvot are not just some kind of mystical ritual but a tool for our own betterment. Having such an overarching reason one may argue that there is no further need to find reasons for each particular Mitzvah.

Rambam begins his discussion of Ta’amei Hamitzvot with a fascinating introduction in MN 3:26 -  

 “Just as men of speculation among the adherents of the Law are divided on the question whether the actions of God are the result of His wisdom or only of His will without being intended for any purpose whatever, they are also divided as regards the object of the commandments which God gave us. Some of them hold that the commandments have no object at all; and are only dictated by the will of God. Others are of opinion that all commandments and prohibitions are dictated by His wisdom and serve a certain aim; consequently, there is a reason for each one of the precepts: they are enjoined because they are useful.”

The comparison is surprising because unlike Mitzvot where Rambam holds there is an overarching reason for them, when it comes to why there is existence in general, Rambam argues that the question is moot and has no answer except that God so wanted.

“After this explanation you will understand that there is no occasion to seek the final cause of the whole Universe, neither according to our theory of the Creation, nor according to the theory of Aristotle, who assumes the Eternity of the Universe…" (MN3:13).

This chapter is the introductory chapter to Rambam’s exposition of Providence. Before he can discuss Providence, Rambam must establish whether there is an end goal for existence. His conclusion is that there really is no way for us to know other than accept that God willed existence. However, as he continues with the discussion he shows that we can discern from the world we live in, a certain pattern from which we can develop an understanding of how God wants to run the world and allows us to partake in His wishes. Although we cannot fathom the goals of the whole of existence, we see that the goal of man’s existence is to develop this understanding of God’s actions using the mind that he has and the freedom of will that he enjoys and act emulating those actions. Rambam rejects the popular arguments given by other thinkers such as Ramban and later Ramchal that God wanted people that worship Him so that He can bestow good upon them and bring into actuality His goodness. Or others who claim that humanity are the reason for existence. However, once we are here we humans have a role to play, though what that role is, is for us to find out.

On the other hand, when it comes to finding a reason for Mitzvot, the overarching reason is keeping the awareness of God’s presence in the forefront of our thinking according to Rambam. We are not talking about an existential issue but about the whys of commandments. The question that confronts us is whether the acts dictated by these commandments are arbitrary. After all any directed action or inaction would serve the purpose of reminding us of God as the One commanding us, even if it were an irrational or arbitrary act. In fact, maybe a counterintuitive commandment would attain the goal of making us aware more efficiently. How then can Rambam link these two subjects, the whole of existence and Mitzvot, and suggest that the same logic goes for both of them?

If we really think about Rambam’s proposal that Mitzvot are to keep God present in our awareness, the question that comes to mind is what concept of God are we striving to be aware of?  Unless we develop our understanding of what God is, what is the point of thinking and being aware of an imaginary entity that exists only in our fantasy? Rambam makes a strikingly strong statement on this issue in MN3:51 -

“Those, however, who think of God, and frequently mention His name, without any correct notion of Him, but merely following some imagination, or some theory received from another person, are, in my opinion, like those who remain outside the palace and distant from it. They do not mention the name of God in truth, nor do they reflect on it. That which they imagine and mention does not correspond to any being in existence: it is a thing invented by their imagination, as has been shown by us in our discussion on the Divine Attributes (Part I. chap. 1.). The true worship of God is only possible when correct notions of Him have previously been conceived.”

How does one develop correct notions about God? As followers on this blog must know by now, we cannot conceptualize God at all. We can only know Him through His actions. By contemplating the universe we are in and the way it works, learning about physics, chemistry, biology and all the other sciences that explain its workings, we can try to decipher God’s mind and will so to say. But how does knowing the sciences in general teach us about God? Is God really involved in all this? Maybe God is what is referred to as the God of the philosophers, an entity that has no involvement in the physical but only the first and only non-contingent entity? Does God really have will? Is He really responsible for existence or is He just a necessary being, a singularity that explains the existence of a chain of cause and effect? These questions cannot be answered by scientific investigation. There is a limit to human knowledge and it stops at the beginning of physical existence. We can investigate how the universe works but we will never be able to definitely answer how it came into being, what triggered that singular event. We can have theories, and there are new ones developed by scientist on a daily basis. We are pushing back the envelope of what can be known, but there always will be a place that human knowledge will not be able to reach. Rambam puts this into words using the medieval scientific language of his time where Aristotelian science was considered the limit of human knowledge.

“What I said before I will repeat now, namely, that the theory of Aristotle, in explaining the phenomena in the sublunary world, is in accordance with logical inference: here we know the causal relation between one phenomenon and another; we see how far science can investigate them, and the management of nature is clear and intelligible. But of the things in the heavens man knows nothing except a few mathematical calculations, and you see how far these go. … This is in reality the truth. For the facts which we require in proving the existence of heavenly beings are withheld from us: the heavens are too far from us, and too exalted in place and rank. Man's faculties are too deficient to comprehend even the general proof the heavens contain for the existence of Him who sets them in motion. It is in fact ignorance or a kind of madness to weary our minds with finding out things which are beyond our reach, without having the means of approaching them. We must content ourselves with that which is within our reach, and that which cannot be approached by logical inference let us leave to him who has been endowed with that great and divine influence, expressed in the words: "Mouth to mouth do I speak with Him" (Num. xii. 8).” (MN 2:24)

Of course, as I said earlier, since that time humankind has pushed back the envelope of knowledge and the heavens are much better understood. There are many things we still do not understand and many of them will be explained as science advances. There is however a point that we will never go beyond and that is before existence began, how it began, how the creation event was triggered and by whom or what. It is in that area of speculation that theology has a role and by definition is based on subjective judgments and what is referred to as revelation – Nevuah – “to him who has been endowed with that great and divine influence, expressed in the words: "Mouth to mouth do I speak with Him".” The singularity that was the coming into being of existence can be attributed to a natural phenomenon, negating will to God or as something willed by God, which accepts that God wills and acts. Will we ever be able to definitely prove one possibility over the other? Probably not but which perspective we chose to accept will definitely have a great impact on our behavior and sense of right and wrong.  Our personal biases and natural inclinations, our built in need for self-satisfaction and self-indulgence will influence on how we chose.

Although the overall concept of Mitzvot is to make us think about God, they also have a role in helping us decide what we believe about God. Do we believe in a transcendental unknowable God for whom we have an insatiable yearning to get to know or do we believe in an emotional god who is there to serve us? Do we believe in a god who takes sides and defends those who supplicate the most or do we believe in God who in His great wisdom has put us in a world were our success or failure is consequent on how we act? It is this role of Mitzvot that Rambam addresses in the comparison to existence. By training us in thinking beyond the self, teaching us how to think when we study the minutia of how these Mitzvot are implemented, the Havayot of Abaye and Rava, we become better equipped to deal with these subjective questions with the proper perspective. Although we do not know why God willed existence, we know that He has a role for us in that existence, a role that we have to discover for ourselves. So too He commanded us the Mitzvot so that we perfect ourselves and get closer to Him by knowing Him and believing in Him, as He really is - unknowable. How the Mitzvot accomplish that is the subject of following posts.

Hakirah 10 Is On Its Way to Subscribers

Hakirah 10 has just arrived at the distributor and is being mailed. This issue is full of exciting and intersting articles:
JEWISH LAW

Entering the Temple Mount—in Halacha and Jewish
History
Gedalia Meyer and Henoch Messner

Drafting a Halakhic Will
A. Yehuda Warburg

JEWISH THOUGHT

A Righteous Judgment on a Righteous People:
Rav Yitzhak Hutner’s Implicit Theology of the Holocaust
Lawrence Kaplan

Daily Prayer: Seeking Clarity and a Call for Action
David Guttmann

Israel’s Inheritance: Olam Haba
Asher Benzion Buchman

Jewish Thought in Dialogue
Heshey Zelcer

 CUSTOM

Wine from Havdalah, Women and Beards
Ari Z. Zivotofsky

Reciting Al Tira After Aleinu
Zvi Ron

COMMUNITY

Divorce: It’s Not About You, It’s About the Children
David Mandel

Leib Glantz: The Man Who Spoke to God
Daniel B. Schwartz

HISTORY OF HALAKHAH

 A Letter to Almeda: Shadal’s Guide for the Perplexed
Daniel A. Klein

Two Controversies Involving
R’ Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook
Chaim Landerer



Cumulative Index of English Articles in
Hakirah Volumes 1 through 10

הלכה
רבנו משה אמת ותורתו אמת והם בדאים – חלק שני
יצחק גאלד

בענין גילוח בחול המועד (ועל דרך הפוסק בפסיקתו):
תשובה מהגאון רבי מנחם מענדל כשר
הובאה לדפוס ע"י מלך שפירא


שיר בראשית

 יעקב בלזם

מפתח
מפתח קומולטיבי של המאמרים בעברית 10 - בחקירה כרכים 1

A Rationale For Mitzvot - Feeling The Presence Of God.

I have been planning for some time to write about the reason for Mitzvot and have procrastinated. The subject is very complicated, probably the most complicated subject discussed in MN and one of the most misunderstood.

Rambam starts the discussion of the reason for Mitzvot systematically in MN 3:26 and it is the lengthiest discussion of a subject as it continues until the final three chapters of the book. It is placed at the end of MN as if it were the culmination and end goal of the whole Moreh, which in truth it is. In fact, the way I read them, and I will expand on this later in the series, the last three chapters are still part of that discussion though at a much more advanced level.

What is the overall purpose of Mitzvot? What are they trying to accomplish? Rambam in MN 3:52 -

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

If we can train ourselves to, at all times, be cognizant of being in the presence of God, we will act responsibly. As I have shown many times, that cognizance and acting according to it, is referred to as living under Divine Providence or Hashgacha. When we say that God watches over us we are really saying that we are acting in a way that fulfills our purpose in existence, our role as part of God’s universe and its continuity. We are not just a component of that universe that acts randomly, but the only one that has the freedom of choice to act with a specific purpose. How do we develop that cognizance?

“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 my attain human perfection. They will be filled with dread and awe of God and know who it is that is with them and as a result act subsequently as they ought to.”


The overarching reason that we have Mitzvot is to help us develop this constant cognizance of God’s presence and the responsibility this awareness brings with it. Whether we perform a commandment or refrain from indulging ourselves with a prohibition, we perforce ask ourselves why we are submitting to this rule realizing that it is God who commanded us and we are following His edict. This heightens our awareness of god’s existence and leads us to feel His presence.
“The king that cleaves to us and embraces us is the Intellect that influences us, and forms the link between us and God.”


When we say that we ought to be aware of God’s presence, we are saying that our mind is thinking about and connecting with God. In medieval philosophic parlance, that connection is understood to be through the Active Intellect which in contemporary modern language I like to call the Divine concept underlying existence. This understanding of the end goal of Mitzvot as a tool to make us aware of God’s presence transforms a physical act into a catalyst for transcendental awareness. The physical act now is deemed holy.
This is the overall reason for commandments, but is there a rationale for the kind of commandments chosen as tools for this purpose? Is there a rational reason for how they are performed? Those questions, indeed, whether such question can even be posed, will be addressed in follow up posts.

Humanitarian Crisis In Gaza - A Blockade Like Never Before

When was it ever in history that a country attacked for decades by its neighbor who openly wants it destroyed, imposed a blockade with these results.

Some Thoughts About Religion, Science and Theology.

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

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

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

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

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









[1]והעניינות הנקראין פרדס, בכלל התלמוד.

And in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 4:13 we read

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

And in 4:10

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

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

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

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

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

Similar statements are spread throughout Rambam’s writings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

True Knowledge - וישיגו דעת בוראם כפי כוח האדם,

S. on his superb Blog, pointed to an article by Rav Herzog eulogizing the great R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk. In the article, Rav Herzog refers to a comment RMS makes on Rambam Hilchot Melachim that during the Messianic era people will be able to discern where science ends and religion begins. Since to me this is a very important point that I always make about Rambam’s approach as opposed to the Mekubalim, I would like to elaborate a little.
Rambam in Hilchot Melachim Umilchamotehem 12:8 writes:
　

ולא יהיה עסק כל העולם, אלא לדעת את ה' בלבד ולפיכך יהיו חכמים גדולים, ויודעים דברים הסתומים העמוקים; וישיגו דעת בוראם כפי כוח האדם, שנאמר "כי מלאה הארץ, דעה את ה', כמים, לים מכסים

… [During messianic times] the whole world will be focused on one thing only: to get to know God. There will therefore be great sages who know those deep hidden matters and they will apprehend the mind of their Creator, as far as humanly possible…

RMS picks up on this statement in his Ohr Sameach and explains,

אור שמח הלכות מלכים פרק יב
וכתב עוד רבינו וישיגו דעת בוראם כפי כח האדם, שנאמר כי מלאה הארץ דעה את ה' כמים לים מכסים, וכוון בזה, שבעת אשר ההשגות שבכח המורכב מחומר ונפש להשיג אינן מבוררין, אז עלול לצאת גם לחקור אף במה שנמנע מהשגת האנושי להשיג, אבל בהשיגו מה שבכח האדם להשיג על אמיתתו בלא שבושים וספיקות אז יבין מה שאינו יכול להשיג, ולא יתפרץ מגבולו לחקור במה דמופלא ממין האנושי, וכמו שאמרו (חגיגה י"ד ע"ב) בד' שנכנסו לפרדס, שמפני שצפייתו היתה בהטעה לכן יצא מגבול ההשגה לבקש מה שא"א להשיג רק בהתפרד הנפש מהחומר, וזה שאמר הכתוב ומלאה הארץ דעה, שהדעת יהיה על בוריו, בלא שום סכסוך וספק, ויהיה כמים לים מכסים, שממלאים את הים ואינם מתפרצים חוץ לגבולם, שע"ז הפליגו בכתובים ובמדרשים שאינם יוצאים מגבולם, וחוק שם לים ויסך אותו בדלתים (איוב ל"ח, ח'), כן יהיה מעלת האדם אז, שלא יתפרצו מגבולם, לסיבת ידיעתם מה שבכח האדם באמת, וזה ומלאה הארץ דעה את ה' כו', ודוק:

Rambam writes further; and they will apprehend the mind of their Creator, as far as humanly possible. Rambam is teaching that while the intellectual capacity of someone composed of matter and form [lit: soul] to apprehend are not well developed [lit: defined], he is liable to attempt to apprehend things that are beyond human comprehension. But once a person understands the true human limitations without error and doubt, he then realizes what cannot be apprehended and he will not step outside the limits and attempt to apprehend things that a human cannot grasp. That is the meaning of the Gemara in Hagigah (14b) “Four entered the vineyard… [Ben Azai peeked and died…]. [Death means that] he looked [apprehended] erroneously, going beyond the capacity of human comprehension seeking such matters that one can only apprehend once the soul separates from the body. [IOW, the death of Ben Azai alludes to the type of apprehension he was seeking, which was beyond human capacity]. That is how Rambam interprets the verse, “and the earth will be filled with knowledge of God”, namely [knowledge of]the mind [of human beings] will be perfected, without any doubts or disagreements, just like water that cover the seas, it fills the sea without going beyond its borders… So too will be the perfected man at that time, who because of their knowing all that a human being can truly apprehend, will not overstep their boundaries. That is the meaning “the land will be filled with knowledge of God…”

Real knowledge is to understand human limitation. We humans, whose only experience is the physical world we inhabit, cannot hope to know anything but the physical. Any knowledge beyond that belongs to the realm of metaphysics and religion. It can only be known through conjecture or revelation. Conjecture is the product of a fertile imagination and has nothing to do with reality or truth. Revelation is limited to what we have in our authentic sources and texts being that oral transmissions in those areas were lost to us. We are much better off admitting that we do not know how the metaphysical works rather than using imaginary concepts that eventually will be debunked and shown to be no more than the fruits of an overactive imagination. True knowledge is knowing one's limitations.

Oral Law With Equal Authority of a Written Law - Torah Sheba'al Peh as Revelation Based Explanation of Torah Shebiktav.

Rambam in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 2:1 rules that one who eats from a non-permissible animal transgresses a negative commandment that is derived from a positive one-לאו הבא מכלל עשה. This is a special category of prohibition that are presented in the positive - one may eat from ruminating animals who also have split hooves – which leads to the logical conclusion that it is prohibited to eat from those that lack these characteristics.

מכלל שנאמר וכל בהמה מפרסת פרסה ושוסעת שסע שתי פרסות מעלת גרה שומע אני שכל שאינה מעלת גרה ומפרסת פרסה אסורה. ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה הוא.

Normally, if someone transgresses a negative commandment he becomes liable for corporeal punishment if certain conditions are met. However, contravening a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment generally does not merit any corporeal punishment. However, the Torah also specifically prohibits animals that have only one characteristic (Siman), which again leads to the logical conclusion that those that have neither are of course prohibited. Since this prohibition is given in the negative form, eating all prohibited animals, whether those who lack both Simanim or only one Siman, makes one liable for corporeal punishment.

ובגמל ובחזיר ובארנבת ובשפן נאמר את זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה וגו' הרי למדת שהן בלא תעשה ואע"פ שיש בהן סימן אחד. וכל שכן שאר בהמה טמאה וחיה טמאה שאין בה סימן כלל שאיסור אכילתם בלא תעשה יתר על עשה הבא מכלל אותה תאכלו:
לפיכך כל האוכל מבשר בהמה וחיה טמאה כזית לוקה מן התורה.

The problem is that there is a general rule in Halacha that אין מזהירין מדין ק"ו, a prohibition that is derived through an extrapolation from a minor premise to a major one, (Kal Vechomer), which is the case here, does not warrant corporeal punishment. For a liability for corporeal punishment to take effect, the prohibition must be clearly stated in the negative. As the prohibition to eat animals lacking both Simanim is derived through a Kal Vechomer, there should be no corporeal punishment for transgressing. Why is this case different?

Rambam addresses this in his Sefer Hamitzvot Negative Commandment 172 by referring us to Negative Commandment 336 where he promises to explain it. He also comments that just like in that later case, the negative commandment is only a clarification.

אלא שקל וחמר זה לגלויי מלתא בעלמא הוא, כדרך שאמרו בבתו", כמו שנבאר במקומו

The Torah prohibits sexual relations with one’s granddaughter whether she is the daughter of a son or of a daughter. Nowhere does it expressly forbid relations with one’s own daughter whether she was born through marriage or out of wedlock. That prohibition itself is derived logically through a Kal Vechomer (according To Rambam – Rashi disagrees) while the corporeal punishment is derived through another hermeneutical process, a Gezeirah Shava. (I do not want to get into the particulars of this Derasha here and leave to the interested reader to look it up in sefer Hamitzvot ). Here the Halacha goes even a step further; the Kal Vechomer creates a separate negative commandment. After explaining the process, Rambam makes an interesting statement.

ולשון גמרא כריתות:
"אל תהי גזרה שווה קלה בעיניך, שהרי 'בתו' אחד מגופי תורה,
ולא למדה הכתוב אלא בגזרה שווה: אתיא הנה הנה אתיא זמה זמה".
והתבונן באמרם: לא למדה הכתוב, ולא אמרו לא למדנוה, לפי שכל הדברים האלה קבלה מפי השליח והוא פירוש מקובל, כמו שביארנו בהקדמת חיבורנו בפירוש המשנה, ולא שתק הכתוב מלהזכירה אלא מפני שאפשר ללמדה בגזרה שווה.
וזהו עניין אמרם:
"לא למדה הכתוב אלא בגזרה שווה".
ומספיק אמרם "גוף תורה".

Rambam notes that the Gemara refers to this prohibition as a גוף תורה – part of the body of Torah – in other words an integral commandment within Torah, which though not explicit it has the same status as an explicitly written commandment allowing for corporeal punishment. However, he notes that the hermeneutical derivation, the Gezeirah Shava, is not the basis for the separate commandment. That hermeneutical process, though it could have made the act a Torah prohibition (more on this later), would not have it counted as a separate commandment nor would it have allowed corporeal punishment. The basis for it being a separate commandment is that it is Pirush Mekubal, a revelation based explanation of the text that Moshe received directly from God. That gives this law the same authority as an explicitly written law. Rambam consequently offers an original interpretation of the Gemara statement "לא למדה הכתוב אלא בגזרה שווה. Traditionally it is explained that the Gemara is pointing out that a Gezeirah Shava is authoritative because it teaches a Guf Torah, a commandment. IOW it defines the authority of a Gezeirah Shava. Rambam notes that if that were the meaning the Gemara should have read -לא למדנוה - we, the Rabbis, do not know it except by using a GS. The Gemara reads - לא למדה – the Torah did not teach it. The Gemara is telling us that the Torah did not find it necessary to specifically teach this prohibition because it was taught orally and it relied on the GS as a mnemonic and/or as support, which is generally referred to as Assmachta. Rambam legislates it in Hil. Issurei Biah 2:6

הבא על אשה דרך זנות והוליד ממנה בת אותה הבת ערוה עליו משום בתו ואע"פ שלא נאמר בתורה ערות בתך לא תגלה מאחר שאסר בת הבת שתק מן הבת ואיסורה מן התורה. ואינו מדברי סופרים.

The last words, ואינו מדברי סופרים – they are not of rabbinical origin – means that the derivation is not hermeneutical. It could be a Torah law and still be considered Divrei Soferim. IOW the Rabbis may derive a law logically through a Kal Vechomer and that law would have the authority of a Torah law, a De’oraita, but it would not be counted as a separate commandment nor would it make the transgressor liable for corporeal punishment. This law, because it is a revelation-based law, is not considered Divrei Soferim but Guf Torah and warrants to be counted separately. The hermeneutics, as Rambam explained in his introduction to Pirush Hamishna, is only for support.

שכולן פירושים מקובלים מפי משה. ועליהם ועל דומיהם אמרו, כל התורה נאמרו כללותיה ופרטותיה ודקדוקיה מסיני.
אבל אע"פ שהן מקובלים ואין מחלוקת בהם מחכמת התורה הנתונה לנו, נוכל להוציא ממנה אלו הפירושים בדרך מדרכי הסברות והאסמכתות והראיות והרמזים המצויים במקרא
　

Coming back to our original Halacha about prohibited animals,

אלא שקל וחמר זה לגלויי מלתא בעלמא הוא, כדרך שאמרו בבתו",

We now understand that לגלויי מלתא בעלמא הוא, means it is a Pirush Hamekubal that found support through hermeneutics. Both the prohibition to eat forbidden animals and the prohibition of sexual relationship with a daughter are in that category of Torah Sheba’al Peh and have the same authority as a written commandment.


We gained several insights working through this comment of Rambam. We have a clear case here of a category – Pirush Hamekubal – that Rambam defines in his introduction to Pirush Hamishna and is central to his understanding of what Torah Sheba’al Peh – the oral Torah is. It has the exact same authority as a written law including to be counted separately and also allows for corporeal punishment if transgressed.


We also learned that Divrei Soferim is not necessarily a rabbinic law, a Derabanan, but could have the authority of Torah law if it is derived logically or hermeneutically. It however cannot be counted as separate but rather as an extension of an existing law ( see Shoresh 2 in SHM) and has implications on the punishment a transgressor is liable.

The sugya of the prohibition of sexual relationship with a daughter is very complicated and I have just focused on one aspect of it according to Rambam. Rashi and other Rishonim understand it differently. I have followed Rambam here and his approach points to some very important basic concepts of what TSBP is.

The Chilul Hashem of Chumrot: Parasites in Salmon

Hearing the latest controversy about the Kashrut of Salmon reminded me of a comment Rambam makes in a letter to his pupil regarding the controversies that broke out about the Mishne Torah after its publication. Apparently it threatened the authority of the then Gaon in Baghdad, Rabbi Shmuel Ben Eli and other rabbinical leaders so they went on the attack against many of the MT Halachik rulings as well as theological positions. The controversy turned nasty and Rambam’s pupil Rabbi Yosef ben Yehudah corresponded with him about it. In a lengthy letter (or as some claim a series of letters gathered into one), Rambam advises his pupil, amongst other quite fascinating comments, to refrain from getting caught up in the dispute and restrain himself from responding.

“And about your being upset because he (R. Shmuel Ben Eli) attacked you in a public document – do not let this bother you because no person would remain quiet when hurt by another one. You must realize that you hurt him very much. You destroyed his reputation and blunted his arrows. Without you, the Rosh Hagalut (apparently the title of the leader of the community in Aleppo where Rav Yosef lived) would have been like a dove in the talons of a kite (bird of prey) as he would have shamed him in the matter of the Get and other such matters, destroying him. (Apparently Rav Yosef defended the Rosh Hagalut against an attack by RSBE on a ruling he made and RY defended him). You cannot expect that someone you caused harm to should love you and praise you! There is also no point in your asking where his Fear of Heaven is? For this man (RSBE) and others like him, even those who are greater than he is, even those that preceded him, see Yra’at Shamayim (fear of heaven) to be punctiliousness in Chumrot just as it is in the perception of the masses. However, the obligations that pertain to developing good character traits are not considered by these people to be a part of Yra’at Shamayim. They also are not careful with their speech, like those who have perfected their Yire’ah are. Furthermore, all the people of religion, especially those that have positions of authority, once a matter threatens their authority, their Yire’ah (fear of heaven) disappears!” (Translated from Iggerot Harambam by Rav Sheilat page 308).

The insistence of these technocrats of Halacha in how to ensure that every technical detail of a Halacha even to its illogical conclusion is foisted on their followers and public is done without any regard or thought to the underlying theology of the Mitzvah. If they did not put up this great barrier between thought and technical detail, if they did not dismiss theology as unnecessary, and questioned a little the whys and wherefores, we might end up with less Chumrot and more Yire’ah. Furthermore, by continuing this nonsense, they erode the authority of Halacha in the eyes of people and create a great Chilul Hashem. They are trying to assert themselves and impose their control at the detriment of the truth, without any regard to the consequences that their actions have on the Klal. In fact they are eroding legitimate Halachik authority and the influence of authentic rulings.

This is just from a religious perspective. From a practical Halachik perspective, there is plenty of discussion already in the press and online. Here is a synopsis in one article.

The Mitzvat Asseh To Establish Criteria for the Forbidden and the Permitted.

Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot begin with an interesting statement.

מצוות עשה הן הסימנין שמבדילין בהן בין בהמה וחיה ועוף ודג וחגב שמותר לאוכלן, ובין שאין מותר לאוכלן--שנאמר "והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהורה, לטמאה, ובין העוף הטמא, לטהור"
ובין החיה, הנאכלת, ובין החיה, אשר לא תיאכל"

“The features that differentiate between animals, beasts, birds, fish and locust that one may eat and those that one may not eat are a Mitzvat Asseh (positive command). [We know this] from the verse, “and you shall differentiate between the clean and unclean animal, between the unclean bird and the clean one, between the edible beast and the inedible one”.”

The Rav Kafieh edition reads as above מצוות עשה הן which at first blush is hard to understand. What does it mean that the features are the mitzvah? Of course, as is common with Rambam, whenever his concepts seemed alien to their readers, especially when hand copying was in vogue, emendations and clarifications were common. These emendations eventually found their way into the text. In the Frankel Edition, we read מצות עשה לידע הסימנין שמבדילין where the Mitzvah is to know these features. Much has been written about this language and most commentators build their explanation on this version. Besides Rav Kafieh, I have not found any that refer us back to Rambam who explains what he means quite succinctly and that in fact confirms the version of the Kafieh edition. In Sefer Hamitzvot Asseh 152, after listing the Mitzvot Asseh that pertain to animals, beasts and locusts, he lists the one pertaining to fish. He then makes the following comment,

והעניין באומרנו שהיא מצוות עשה הוא כמו שהזכרתי לך, שאנו נצטווינו לדון בסימנים אלו ונאמר: זה מותר לאוכלו וזה אינו מותר, כמו שבאר הכתוב ואמר: "והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהרה לטמאה וגו'" (שם כ, כה) ולא תהא הבדלה אלא בסימנים

“When we said that it is a Mitzvat Asseh it means, as I mentioned, that we were commanded to deliberate in these features and say: This [specific feature found in an animal – DG] one may eat and this one may not [IOW makes it permissible or forbidden – DG]. That is the meaning of the verse “and you shall differentiate between the clean and unclean animal”. The only possible way to differentiate is with features.”

The Mitzvah is the deliberation itself to arrive at a conclusion on the features that help us differentiate between the permissible and the forbidden. Defining and establishing the features, is the Mitzvah. Hence, Rav Kafieh version must be the original one, eliminating many conjectures of the meaning.

The idea that defining the rule itself is so important and the significance of that is emphasized in another related Halacha. In Mitzvat Asseh 150 regarding birds, we read,

הציווי שנצטווינו בסמני העוף,
והוא שרק כמה מינים ממנו יהיו
מותרים. וסימני העוף לא נאמרו מן התורה אלא הושגו בחקירה, כי כאשר אנו מתבוננים בכל
המינים שנתבאר איסורם אחד אחד, מוצאים אנו בהם דברים הכוללים אותם, והם סמני עוף
טמא

“The command that we were commanded regarding the features of birds is that only few categories are permitted. The features of birds were not given in the Torah but were attained through inquiry. For as we contemplate all the categories that were forbidden, one by one, we find the common features that apply to all of them. Those are the features of unclean birds.”

While the other groups, animals, beasts, fish and locusts the Torah specifies the features that make them permissible, a limited list of forbidden birds are listed without any explanation. Extrapolation from this limited list is done through inquiry by establishing their common features, using that as a basis to permit or forbid other birds.

I am not sure why establishing criteria and refining those already stated is important. In MN 3:48, Rambam states “The characteristics given in the Law (Lev. xi. and Deut. xiv.) of the permitted animals, viz., chewing the cud and divided hoofs for cattle, and fins and scales for fish, are in themselves neither the cause of the permission when they are present, nor of the prohibition when they are absent; but merely signs by which the recommended species of animals can be discerned from those that are forbidden.” IOW there is nothing intrinsic about these features; they are just tools that we use to identify the permitted and the forbidden. In general, Rambam sees these laws as a way of developing restraint and self-control. That is the thinking behind the negative commandment, the Lo Ta’asseh of “you shall not eat…” What does the positive commandment of “you shall eat…” mean? If restraint is the underlying concept, why is there a commandment to eat? Eating itself cannot be the Mitzvah. Developing the criteria, applying these to specific species is a way of using the restraint in a positive way by immersing oneself in God and His laws. Ascetic behavior alone does no good without replacing the void created with a positive action. Restraint is for the purpose of allowing intellectual growth. Without that, it is incomplete and misses its intended goal.

May One Doubt? Faith On the Way to Knowledge.

Last Shabbat we were discussing in our learning group whether it is permitted to question Ikkarei Emunah. The problem becomes extremely important as Rambam demands that one arrive rationally at the conviction that God exists and counts this obligation as a Mitzvat Asseh

לידע שיש שם אלוה.

הלכות יסודי התורה פרק א
א יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות, לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון.

“The Foundation of all foundations and the supporting beam of all knowledge is to KNOW that there is, out there, a Prime Existent.”

Clearly the choice of word to KNOW as opposed to BELIEVE demands an in depth analysis of the issue. How can one do that without analyzing contrary opinions? As we know and I discussed on this blog many times, the reality is that it is a lifelong goal to arrive at that conclusion rationally and it also is the ultimate goal of every human being. In fact, it is the reason for the torah and Mitzvot. They all are here to help one arrive, through proper speculation, and full rational conviction to that conclusion. How can one do it without doubting during the process? One who is working on the problem honestly, is it not inevitable that he is going to doubt along the way? Is doubt not definitional until one is convinced of the conclusion?

Similarly, Rambam tells us in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 7:1

מיסודי הדת, לידע שהאל מנבא את בני האדם

“One of the foundations of the law is to KNOW that God prophesizes people.”

Indeed, at the beginning of Yesodei Hatorah Rambam counts the Mitzvat Asseh to listen to a prophet -לשמוע מן הנביא המדבר בשמו which is a natural outcome of this foundation. Again, we see Rambam using the word, לידע - to know as opposed to believe. This requires rational conviction rather than Faith. How is one to do it without at some point analyzing opposing possibilities without ever doubting? The problem seems even more acute when we read the following Halachot in Hilchot Avodah Zara chapter 2.

ג [ב] ספרים רבים חיברו עובדי עבודה זרה בעבודתה, היאך עיקר עבודתה ומה משפטה ומעשיה. ציוונו הקדוש ברוך הוא, שלא לקרות באותן הספרים כלל, ולא נהרהר בה, ולא בדבר מדבריה. ואפילו להסתכל בדמות הצורה--אסור, שנאמר "אל תפנו, אל האלילים" (ויקרא יט,ד). ובעניין זה נאמר "ופן תדרוש לאלוהיהם לאמור, איכה יעבדו" (דברים יב,ל)--שלא תשאל על דרך עבודתה היאך היא, ואף על פי שאין אתה עובד: שדבר זה גורם לך להיפנות אחריה ולעשות כמו שהן עושין, שנאמר "ואעשה כן, גם אני" (שם). [ג] וכל הלאוין הללו בעניין אחד הן, והוא שלא ייפנה אחר עבודה זרה; וכל הנפנה אחריה בדרך שהוא עושה בו מעשה, הרי זה לוקה
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.
ו ועל עניין זה הזהירה תורה, ונאמר בה "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם, ואחרי עיניכם, אשר אתם זונים, אחריהם" (במדבר טו,לט)--כלומר לא יימשך כל אחד מכם אחר דעתו הקצרה, וידמה שמחשבתו משגת האמת. כך אמרו חכמים, "אחרי לבבכם", זו מינות; "ואחרי עיניכם", זו זנות. ולאו זה, אף על פי שהוא גורם לאדם לטורדו מן העולם הבא, אין בו מלקות.

The first Halacha above tells us that idol worshippers have written many books about idol worship and the modalities of that worship. God forbids us to read these books or to think about these issues for fear of us being attracted by the idolaters, their idols and their methods of worship. Considering Rambam’s understanding of Avodah Zara, idol worship as falsehood and nonsense, the source and cause of the dark ages that humanity periodically went through throughout history, there is no surprise there. (For a thorough analysis of this issue, see my article in Hakirah available online here ).

However, the next Halacha seems to be quite problematic at first blush. Rambam tells us that not only AZ but also any thought that might seed doubts about any of the Ikarim is prohibited. Does that not include reading philosophical texts? After all, Aristotle did not believe in God as Creator - one of the Ikkarim - and still Rambam recommends reading him in a letter to Ibn Tibon. Rambam himself quotes Aristotle at length and praises him over and over as the greatest of thinkers. What about reading later philosophers? May one read Kant? But even more problematic is the issue I started this post with, how is one to honestly become convinced rationally that God exists, to KNOW rather than BELIEVE that he does, or that God prophesizes humankind, without questioning the premise along the way? At the same time, it is a Mitzvat Asseh to work towards knowing God rationally as well as to listen to the prophet’s revelation. How is one to understand these conflicting Halachot?

A careful reading of these Halachot however, solves the problem and clarifies how one has to go about the Mitzvot that require Yediah, to KNOW rather than just believe. When discussing AZ in the earlier Halacha, Rambam forbids reading their books for fear that will lead to possible acceptance of idol worship, a total falsehood and lie. In the next Halacha however, Rambam changes the theme and does not talk about reading books anymore but forbids any random thought that may lead to the negation of an Ikar.

ולא נסיח דעתנו לכך ונחשוב ונימשך אחר הרהורי הלב – we may not turn our mind to that (forbidden thoughts), thinking and letting ourselves follow the cogitations of our mind.

מפני שדעתו של אדם קצרה, ולא כל הדעות יכולות להשיג האמת על בורייו – for a person’s mind is limited and not all minds can apprehend the Truth in its entirety.

ואם יימשך כל אדם אחר מחשבות ליבו, נמצא מחריב את העולם לפי קוצר דעתו
And if every person were to follow his mind’s cogitations, he would destroy the world because of his mind’s limitations.

In other words, one may not just contemplate in a vacuum, letting one’s mind go and speculate without any further preparations. One may not speculate, without having first studied all the necessary sciences. One must be well versed in logic and the sciences to know where scientific knowledge ends and where metaphysical speculation begins. Lacking that -

ואינו יודע המידות שידון בהן עד שיידע האמת על בורייו
“He is unaware of the proper methods of logical and rational thought that lead to truth.”

It is only when a person can differentiate between empiric proofs and matters that cannot be proven empirically, and never will be, that he can undertake this speculation. Those matters that deal with questions like whether the world was created in time from nothingness must be approached from a completely different perspective than regular scientific knowledge. One must first make sure that the question cannot be answered scientifically and only then must one turn to tradition and revelation for the answer. To be convinced of the veracity of the answers furnished by tradition one must be convinced that it does not contradict scientific reality. Only then, can one rely on tradition with conviction. The methods used in this process are different from those used in a purely scientific investigation. Without realizing that, the person is going to come up with false and erroneous conclusions. At times, the person will wander after AZ –
יתור אחר עבודה זרה at others, ופעמים יחשוב בייחוד הבורא, שמא הוא שמא אינו He will question God’s unity

Rambam lists a series of subjects that such a person will touch upon in this process of speculation. The speculation itself is not the problem. The problem is when he is doing it without the proper parameters needed for such a speculation - ואינו יודע המידות שידון בהן. This will inevitably lead to wrong conclusions. On the other hand, when one approaches metaphysical speculation systematically, first getting a good understanding of the sciences and at the same time assimilating the Torah and its tradition and revelation, he is following the proper path to knowledge – Yediah.Hil Yesodei Hatorah at the end of the fourth chapter -

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 even using this approach, not everyone may conclude the process and that includes great people.

ואף על פי שגדולי ישראל היו וחכמים גדולים היו, לא כולם היה בהן כוח לידע ולהשיג כל הדברים על בוריין

In MN 1:34 (which can be read in full here - a poor translation but the only English version available online) Rambam dedicates a whole chapter explaining the importance of preparatory study and listing many of the subjects needed before speculating about metaphysical questions.

“There are also many subjects of speculation, which, though not preparing the way for metaphysics, help to train the reasoning power, enabling it to understand the nature of a proof, and to test truth by characteristics essential to it. They remove the confusion arising in the minds of most thinkers, who confound accidental with essential properties, and likewise the wrong opinions resulting from that. We may add that although they do not form the basis for metaphysical research, they assist in forming a correct notion of these things, and are certainly useful in many other things connected with that discipline. Consequently, he who wishes to attain to human perfection must therefore first study Logic, next the various branches of Mathematics in their proper order, then Physics, and lastly Metaphysics.”

It is clear from all the above that all the sciences and philosophy are not only not forbidden, but are a required study necessary to properly fulfill the Mitzvot that require knowledge – לידע –. There is no question that at some point in the process doubts and questions may arise and one may possibly never conclude the process. One is however obligated to try their best and do the work that leads to knowledge. The last Halacha highlights the problem.

ועל עניין זה הזהירה תורה, ונאמר בה "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם, ואחרי עיניכם, אשר אתם זונים, אחריהם" --כלומר לא יימשך כל אחד מכם אחר דעתו הקצרה, וידמה שמחשבתו משגת האמת

“This is what the Torah warned against saying “you should not wander after your hearts and eyes, after which you are currently straying”, meaning that you should not follow, each one of you his own limited mind, thinking that he has attained the Truth.”

Ignorance and hubris are forbidden. Knowledge and humility are mandated. Doubt is permitted and is natural in the process of honest speculation. Conclusions that negate tradition and revelations on matters that cannot be resolved through scientific methods and do not contradict reality, are forbidden. Faith is very much part of Judaism. It is however, faith based on knowledge and on the way to knowledge.

ד הִנֵּה עֻפְּלָה, לֹא-יָשְׁרָה נַפְשׁוֹ בּוֹ; וְצַדִּיק, בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה.

Behold, his spirit within him is puffed up, it is not upright; but the righteous man is rewarded with life for his fidelity. {S} (Habakkuk 2:4)