Blog > Archive by category 'Machshava'

Archive for the ‘Machshava’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Machshava Insight: The Intellectual and the Common Man
Written by Rabbi Yitzchak Blau
Tuesday, 21 July 2009 01:00

Rambam’s strongly intellectual bent is well known. In this blogging forum, we have already mentioned his emphasizing cognitive achievement as central to human flourishing and his making immortality dependent upon comprehending certain truths. At times, he harshly criticizes mistaken conceptions of popular religion. Yet Rambam’s interaction with the masses reveals another side as well.

In Moreh Nevuchim 1:34, Rambam lists five reasons we do not teach abstract metaphysics to broader society. The topics themselves are quite difficult. The students have undeveloped analytical abilities, they fail to dedicate sufficient time, they lack the moral character necessary for a tranquil learning environment, and physical concerns often prove too distracting. Therefore, we restrict these topics to select individuals. This chapter drives a wedge between the scholars and the masses.

The subsequent chapter adds a different note. Following the precious chapter, a reader might conclude that we hide all metaphysical truths from the broader population. Rambam emphasizes that we must educate everybody that God lacks corporeality, that we serve Him alone, and of the absolute distinction between divinity and humanity. Apparently, these truths can be communicated to a mass audience.

Why does Rambam abandon his elitist approach regarding such truths? Perhaps these truths reflect the most significant religious knowledge about God. Moreover, Rambam conceivably thought that achieving some understanding of such concepts opens up potential immortality for the common man. Such a goal may also motivate his listing of thirteen fundamental principles of Jewish belief.

Compassionate and sympathetic aspects of Rambam’s personality emerge clearly from his letters. In correspondence, he encourages the downtrodden and praises those in need of support. A fellow named Yosef ibn Jabbar from Baghdad wrote to Rambam regarding his attempts to defend the Great Eagle from some local criticism. Ibn Jabbar describes himself as an am ha’aretz and he admits that he could not understand the Hebrew of Mishneh Torah.

Rambam writes (Shilat edition, pp. 408-418) that Ibn Jabbar is no ignoramus since he shows great dedication to the cause of learning. The letter stresses the value of Torah study in any language while encouraging Ibn Jabbar to master enough Hebrew to read Maimonides’ great halachic code. Rambam reminds him of the Talmudic sages who started their learning careers late in life and still achieved greatness. The tone reflects not the condescending intellectual but rather the caring communal leader.

The letter does make some concessions to Ibn Jabbar’s limitations. Rambam anticipates that Ibn Jabbar will have trouble imagining a non corporeal olam h’aba and he allows him to imagine it in physical terms. This fits with the plan he outlined in Moreh Nevuchim. We need not fight with the masses over every conceptual issue but we do not allow them to maintain a corporeal conception of God.

It would be foolish to deny Rambam’s cognitive emphasis and his occasional harsh depiction of popular superstitions and attitudes. At the same time, he cared deeply for the common men and tried to help them with words of encouragement and with the teaching of metaphysical truths crucial for their religious success.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 09:39
Machshava Insight: Skepticism and the Sources of Knowledge
Written by Rabbi Yitzchak Blau
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 01:00

Where does knowledge come from? R. Sa’adya Gaon (Emunot veDeot introduction) lists four potential sources: empirical evidence, basic logical truths, necessary truths, and reliable traditions. The first category includes what we perceive with our five senses. The second refers to self-evident truths such as the importance of honesty. Category three truly builds upon the first two, encompassing truths that necessarily follow from the information received via the earlier sources. In his initial presentation, R. Sa’adya only grants the fourth category brief mention but he returns to it later in the work.

Interestingly, Rambam’s letter to the sags of Montpelier rejecting belief in astrology outlines an almost identical list (see page 479 of Shilat’s Iggrot haRambam). Rambam only includes three categories since he leaves out the third, which is truly only derivative of the first two. His example of logical truths also differs. Whereas R. Sa’adya cited the importance of honesty, Rambam mentions the truths of geometry. While that difference is significant, the basic categories remain the same.

Contemporary radical skeptics deny that any of the above sources reveal how “the world really is.” Even moderns more positively inclined toward the earlier two sources of knowledge might struggle with the final category. The concept of authoritative traditions has not fared well in modernity. Yet we all function based on Rambam’s three sources of knowledge. Science could make no progress if each scientist started from scratch.

R. Sa’adya (Emunot veDeot 3:6) apparently encountered thinkers skeptical about reliable traditions. He lists a host of examples in which our functioning depends upon reports we hear from others. We make business and work decisions at least partially based on what others tell us. So too regarding avoiding certain dangers. The very possibility of societal legislation hinges upon accepting reports told about the legislative body’s decision making. Finally, a total distrust of other’s historical accounts renders the ideas of property and family impossible.

Obviously, the above does not prove the reliability of Orthodox Judaism’s account of human history. After affirming the need to rely on others, the question of whose accounts to trust remains in full force. R. Sa’adya was well aware of this point. In this context, he cites Yirmiyahu 2:10: “For pass over to the islands of the Kittites, and see, and send to Kedar, and consider diligently, and see if there has been such a thing.” At the island of the Kittites, we see directly; from Kedar, we hear reports. Only the latter includes the charge to “consider diligently.” Accepting reports requires a greater process of discernment than relying on empirical evidence.

Reports may be mistaken or willfully falsified. R. Sa’adya argues that an increased number of witnesses reduce the dangers of those possible errors. Other criteria for discerning judgment include relying on those who have proved trustworthy and wise in the past. While we can not blindly accept anything we hear, the alternative of constant skepticism blocks of any route to real achievement. Ultimately, we must find worthy sources of knowledge to base our lives.

on.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 11:11
Machshava Insight: The Goal of Humanity
Written by Rabbi Yitzchak Blau
Tuesday, 7 July 2009 01:00

Ramban’s majestic closing chapter of Moreh Nevukhim presents an intellectual portrait of humanity’s summum bonum but adds that cognitive achievement must lead to more ethical behavior. He cites Yirmiyahu 9:22-23 to buttress his presentation. R. Yosef Albo also analyzes mankind’s true purpose while offering a different interpretation of those verses.

According to R. Albo (Sefer haIkarim 3:5), actions done for the sake of heaven represent the most important human achievement. Negating an approach that sees little value in corporeal life, R. Albo notes Biblical and rabbinic sources that grant value to the pleasures of eating of Shabbat or Yom Tov. He cites a gemara (Nazir 23a) which contrasts two people who ate the paschal offering. One ate in search of a good barbecue dinner whereas the other wanted to fulfill the divine command. The gemara refers to the latter fellow as a tzaddik.

Egalitarian assumptions motivate this position. R. Albo assumes that human perfection must, at least in principle, be a live possibility for the bulk of humanity. A perfection that focuses primarily on intellectual success excludes a good deal of humankind. On the other hand, perfection dependent upon idealistically motivated action reflects a difficult but more universally applicable goal.

A novel reading of the penultimate verse in Kohelet supports this idea. “The end of the matter, all having been heard: fear God and keep his commandments ki zeh kol ha’adam” (Kohelet 12:13). JPS translates the final phrase: “for this is the whole man.” For R. Albo, the phrase refers not to the whole of individual man but to the entirety of mankind. The most important aspirations apply to the broader human species.

Thus says the Lord: Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches; But let he that glories glory in this, that he understand, and know Me, that I am the Lord who exercise mercy, justice, and righteousness, in the earth; for in these things I delight, says the Lord. (Yirmiyahu 9:22-23)

Rambam reads the first verse as a rejection of wealth, physical prowess, or ethics as the true aim of mankind. That interpretation understands “the wise man” as someone with practical moral insight. The prophet prefers someone with knowledge of God for whom authentic divine knowledge leads to imitation of God’s ethical qualities.

In contrast, R. Albo thinks that “the wise man” has cognitive brilliance. The prophet asserts that strength, riches, and intelligence are not ends in themselves but can service divine ends. Verse 23 explains how to accomplish this. The wise person can share his wisdom with others and engage in acts of “mercy.” The strong can protect the feeble and frail, thereby ensuring a society with “justice.” Finally, the wealthy can give charity and promote “righteousness.”

R. Albo, like other moderate rationalists in late medieval Spain, did not deny the importance of study and understanding. Indeed, he explicitly notes how Yirmiyahu also emphasizes understanding and knowing God. However, his ultimate emphasis remains rooted in the world of proper of action.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Sunday, 5 July 2009 03:34
Machshava Insight: Evaluating Speech
Written by Rabbi Yitzchak Blau
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 05:00

His son, Shimon, would say: All my life I have been raised among the wise, and I have found nothing better for the body than silence. The essential thing is not study, but deed. And one who speaks excessively brings on sin. (Avot 1:16)

Shimon, the son of Rabban Gamliel, conveys the perils of speech. Rambam (commentary on the mishna) takes this interpretive opportunity to outline a broad theory of verbal communication, dividing it into five categories. Human speech includes the obligatory, the prohibited, that we should distance, the recommended, and the permissible.

The commandment to study Torah provides the best example of the first category. Forbidden speech, the second class, includes tale bearing, false testimony, blasphemy and profanity. The third category consists of pointless banter such as discussing the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Hazal referred to this as siha beteila, idle chatter, and they praise those sages who avoided it (Sukka 28a). The fourth category of speech encourages good intellectual and moral qualities. Though not formally a mizva, this type of communication is obviously positive. Finally, the final group refers to the totally neutral area of conversation about livelihood and basic needs. Concerning such speech, Rambam leaves the proper amount an open question, although he does advise minimization.

Regarding the obligatory and the recommended, “if a person could talk about them all the days of his life, that would be the ultimate goal.” However, Rambam adds two caveats. A person’s talk should not surpass his deeds. Rambam worries about the dangers of hypocrisy and of using high minded conversation to cover up a rotten core. Shimon tried to counter this when he taught: “The essential thing is not study, but deed.” Secondly, we should learn to express ourselves in a concise fashion. Even when engaged in constructive discourse, long windedness contributes little to personal growth.

Rambam forcefully argues that we should evaluate songs based on their content rather than on the language of composition. He mentions the absurdity of Jews who will object to as song in Arabic even if the song praises important moral traits whereas they will applaud a song in Hebrew even if that song consists of prohibited material. “Speech is not prohibited, permissible, recommended, distanced or obligatory due to its language but due to its content.”

Interestingly, Rambam thinks it worse to sing a sensual song in Hebrew than in Arabic or Persian because the former desecrates the sanctity of the holy tongue. Here, Rambam depicts a nuanced position regarding Hebrew. Our traditional tongue has a special status that demands particular care. At the same time, the most important aspect of speech is the content of what we say rather than the language in which we say it.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 08:51
Teacher Contribution: Vessels for Torah
Written by Rabbi Avi Weinstein
Tuesday, 23 June 2009 05:00

After a short break, back from the sea, zeal renewed, strength restored, I realize what a gift teaching is. There I was, sitting outside with my laptop near Rechovot Beach, but actually next to a small bay on the other side of the ocean. It was time for my Maharal class given on the Web through webyeshiva.org. My students who appear from California to Poland on my screen through their webcams are ready for Torah from רחובות.

The Maharal opens the second chapter of Netiv Torah (The Pathway to Torah) with a Talmudic passage from the Tractate of Ta’anit (Fasting).

Why is the Torah likened to water? As it is written, ‘Let all who are thirsty come to the water.’ (Isaiah 55:1)

Just as water from a high place always seeks out a low place, so too, Torah is only maintained in one whose awareness [of self] is lowly. (Ta’anit 4a)

The Maharal explains that Torah is pure intellect and has no connection to the material world. Therefore, in order to receive Torah, one must be in a state of humility. Humility is what the modern Hasidic masters would call the Bitul Hayesh, the nullification of self. The opposite of which is Gasut Ruach (grossness of spirit, arrogance). Arrogance is the most material, and the crassest of all qualities. Why the most material? Because of its emphasis on size, on being bigger, and being the best. By definition, the arrogant are subjected to the realm of form and matter, and that is their limitation. No matter how big you are, you are only that size and no more.

The humble, however, by nullifying self as much as possible, have forfeited the realm of size, for something a tad more than nothing. Thus paradoxically, they have no limitation. Like water, the humble have transcended size by going to the low place, and therefore are capable of receiving and maintaining the Torah.

Rabbi Yehoshua Bar Chanina was speaking to the daughter of Caesar. She observed, “What magnificent wisdom contained in such an ugly container!” Rabbi Yehoshua asked, “In what kind of vessels does the Caesar keep his wine?” “In vessels of earthenware,” she replied. “People as important as you keep wine in vessels so common?” He queried. “What should we keep them in?” she asked. “In vessels of gold and silver”, he answered. She did as he suggested and the wine turned to vinegar.
The Caesar asked her, “Who told you to do this?” “Rabbi Chanina did”, she said. The Caesar asked Rabbi Chanina, “Why did you tell my daughter to do this?” Rabbi Chanina replied, “Just as she told me, so I told her (Ibid)

The Gemara wonders whether it is possible for the handsome to learn? The answer is that they can, but if those who were handsome were less good looking they would have learned more.

This story demonstrates that the most precious of liquids is only preserved in the humblest of vessels. Torah, like these liquids, require the utmost care in order to be preserved. That care requires all who wish to receive it to be self-ignored and Torah absorbed.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 08:11
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Home