Without Red Strings or Holy Water: Maimonides’ Mishne Torah 9781618110909

Citation preview

W ithout R ed S tr ings or Holy Water:

Ma imonides’ Mishneh Torah

Judaism and Jewish Life G e o f f r ey A l d e r m a n (U n ive r si t y of B u ck i ng h a m, Eng la nd) M e i r B a r - I l a n (Ba r- I la n U n ive r si t y, Isra e l) H e r b e r t B a s s e r (Q u ee n’s U n ive r si t y, Ca na d a) D o n a t e l l a E s t e r D i Ce s a r e (U n ive r si ta La Sa p i e nza, Ita ly) S i m c h a Fi s h b a n e ( To u ro Co l leg e, N ew Yo rk), Se ri e s Ed i to r A n d r e a s N a c h a m a ( To u ro Co l leg e, B e rl i n) I r a Ro b i n s o n (Co nco rd ia U n ive r si t y, M o ntrea l) N i s s a n R u b i n (Ba r- I la n U n ive r si t y, Isra e l) S u s a n St a r r S e r e d (Suf fo l k U n ive r si t y, B os to n) Re ev a S p e c t o r S i m o n ( Ye sh iva U n ive r si t y, N ew Yo rk)

Without Red Strings or Holy Water:

Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah H . Nor m a n Str ick m a n

B o s t o n | 2011

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this title is available from the Library of Congress

Copyright © 2011 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-936235-48-3 Book design by Ivan Grave

Published by Academic Studies Press in 2011 28 Montfern Avenue Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com

Dedicated to Zahava on our fiftieth wedding Anniversary. Words cannot express my thanks for a half a century of love, patience and devotion.

Table of Contents

Preface

9

Chapter One. The Mishneh Torah

12

Chapter Two. God

35

Chapter three. the commandments

56

Chapter four. magic: demons and evil spirits

74

Chapter five. Dangerous practices

93

Chapter six. astrology

101

Chapter seven. medicine

106

Chapter eight. communicating with the dead

111

Chapter nine. The messianic era

119

Chapter ten. The oral law

126

Postscript

139

Appendix. another look at the mishneh torah

148

Bibliography

158

Index

165

About the author

178

Preface

In December 1989 I delivered a lecture at the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the American Association for Jewish Studies, entitled “Judaism Without Superstition: Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah.” The talk dealt with Maimonides’ attitude to astrology, medicine, evil spirits, the evil eye, amulets, magic, theurgic practices, omens, communicating with the dead and the like. Ever since then I have delivered a variant of that lecture to assorted audiences. A number of people found the topic fascinating and liberating. They apparently were bothered by some of the issues raised or alluded to, and were gratified to learn that one of Judaism’s greatest minds apparently at some level shared some of their concerns. A number of them asked me for copies of my talk. Others requested that I publish it. I of course am not the first to discover in the Mishneh Torah a rational version of Judaism. In fact when I showed a copy of my lecture to a colleague he noted that the late Dr. Yitzchak Twerksy of Harvard had made some of the very same points. I then came across important works on this topic by Dr. Marc Shapiro of University of Scranton, Dr. Menachem Kellner of Haifa University and Rabbi Marc Angel of the Spanish and Portuguese synagogue. Nevertheless I decided to go ahead and publish this paper. The Rabbis say, en beit midrash le-lo chiddush:1 there is no study without something new. I hope that the same applies to my work and leave it to the reader to judge. Ever since Rabbi Saadiah Gaon composed his Sefer Emunot Ve-De’ot two approaches to Scripture and Rabbinic texts have been wrestling with each other in traditional Jewish literature,

1 

Chagigah 3a.

9

10

Preface

the rational and some variation of that which Rabbi Nachman of Breslav called “simple faith” (emunah peshutah). In all honesty the aforementioned is an oversimplification. One can find examples of simple faith in Rabbi Saadiah Gaon and rational interpretations of classic texts in the works of those who championed some form of emunah peshutah.2 However, the above dichotomy among Jewish thinkers is certainly true as a working hypothesis. The great medieval Jewish philosopher Rabbi Moses Maimonides was one of the greatest representatives of the rational school. Maimonides composed both philosophical and Halakhic works. There are those who would distinguish between Maimonides the Halakhist and Maimonides the philosopher.3 In fact in traditional Jewish circles it is possible to find people who know “the Rambam”4 as a great authority in Halakah but are hardly aware of “the Rambam’s” philosophic thought. It will be the purpose of this paper to show that Maimonides’ rationalistic approach to Jewish tradition was not limited to his philosophic writings but also underlay his greatest Halakhic work, the Mishneh Torah. The paper which follows will not only deal with Maimonides’ approach to theurgy, magic and the like, it will also deal with Maimonides’

2

  Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi’s Kuzari falls into this category. The latter championed simple faith over belief based on philosophic proofs. Nevertheless he maintains that Judaism does not require a Jew to believe in anything that the mind rejects.  See Kuzari 1:89. 3

  Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch believed that Maimonides the Halakhist saved Judaism while Maimonides the philosopher harmed Judaism. See The Nineteen Letters of Ben Uziel: “It is to this great man (Maimonides) alone that we owe the preservation of practical Judaism until the present day. By accomplishing this and yet, on the other hand, merely reconciling Judaism with the ideas from without, rather than developing it creatively from within, and by the way in which he effected this reconciliation, he gave rise to all the good that followed—as well as all the bad.” The World of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Nineteen Letters. Newly translated by Karin Paritzky. Revised and with a comprehensive commentary by Joseph Elias (New York, 1965), p. 265. 4

  Maimonides’ full Hebrew name and title was Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. Traditional Jews refer to him by the Hebrew acronym of his title and name—Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon-Rambam.

Preface

approach to a number of Jewish doctrines and beliefs dealt with in the Mishneh Torah. I want to express my deepest appreciation to the following people, whose encouragement and generous contribution made the publication of this volume possible. May God bestow His blessings upon them so that they can continue in their support of Torah studies. I offer my sincere thanks to: Guy & Miriam Alba; Ari & Deborah Brand; Robert Boriskin & Esther Hakalir; Shelomo & Marylin Chavez; Yossi & Amy Golshan, Reuben & Carol Greenberg; Moshe & Lori Eidlisz; Eli & Avigail Kohn; Harris & Avital Leitner; Avrohom & Hindy Norensberg; Rafael & Barbara Steiner; Aviezer & Yael Saperstein; Dovid & Elisheva Teitelbaum; Aryeh & Michelle Jacobson; Jonathan & Edna Sohnis; Yaakov & Chani Ugowitz. I want to thank Re’uvan Greenberg and Shelomo Chavez for reading my manuscript and encouraging me to have it published. I similarly offer my deepest thanks to Rafael Steiner and Guy Alba who played key roles in gathering the funds to make the publication of this work possible. I would also like to express my thanks to Ms. Sharona Veda Acquisitions Editor of the Academic Studies Press for the help she extended in preparing my manuscript for publication. H. Norman Strickman Rabbi Emeritus: Marine Park Jewish Center Prof. of Judaic Studies: Touro College

11

Ch apter O ne

The Mishneh Torah Moses Maimonides was one of the greatest personalities produced by the Jewish people in the middle ages. He was a Halakhist par excellence and a great philosopher, a political leader of his community, and a guardian of Jewish rights. He served as a spiritual guide to Jewish communities and to individual Jews all over the world, offering them direction in Halakhah, theology and politics. Moses Maimonides was born on the eve of Passover in Cordova, Spain, in 1138.1 He passed away in Fostat, Egypt, in 1204. Passover commemorates the liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage. Moses son of Amram led that liberation. Moses was not only Israel’s liberator but also its lawgiver. For many a medieval Jew, Moses ben Maimon was a duplicate of Moses ben Amram. He, like the Moses of old, was a lawgiver. He gave Israel the Mishneh Torah. Maimonides, like the Moses of old, was a liberator. He freed Israel from its religious conflicts and directed them towards the Promised Land. Scripture tells us that Moses was so named because he was drawn from the water (Ex. 2:10). Some of Maimonides’ admirers interpreted his given name Moshe to mean, the man who drew Israel out of ignorance. Others said: From Moses to Moses there was none like Moses. The philosopher Joseph Ibn Caspi (1279-1340) described Maimonides as “the holy” “the perfect” and “the light of the world.”2 Shlomo Pines, who translated the Guide For the Perplexed into English, believes that “Maimonides

1   Earlier works give 1135 as the year of Maimonides’ birth. However, the latest evidence reveals that he was born in 1138. 2

  Israel Abrahams, Hebrew Ethical Wills (Philadelphia, 1948); Part One p. 129.

12

T h e M i s h n e h To ra h

is the most influential Jewish thinker of the Middle Ages, and quite possibly of all time.”3 Maimonides was also referred to as the “Great Eagle.” Sara Stroumsa, one of his biographers, notes that “This biblical sobriquet (from Ezekiel 17:3) was meant, no doubt, to underline his regal position in the Jewish community. At the same time, the imagery of the widespread wings does justice not only to the breadth of Maimonides’ intellectual horizons, but also to the scope of his impact, which extended across the Mediterranean, and beyond to Christian Europe.”4 The great Hassidic sage Rabbi Pinchas of Koretz (1728-1709) is quoted as saying, “I thank God every day that I was not born before the Zohar was revealed, for it was the Zohar that sustained me in my faith as a Jew.”5 There are and were many who would say the same regarding the works of Moses Maimonides. Maimonides was a prolific writer. He composed a work on logic called the Sefer Ha-Higayon; a commentary on the Mishnah referred to by posterity as the Maor; a work on the commandments called Sefer Ha-Mitzvot and a ground-breaking work on Jewish philosophy called the Moreh Ha-Nevukhim6. All of the above were written in Judao-Arabic. He also produced responsa on Jewish Law and composed a variety of medical works. 7

3   S. Pines in a speech delivered in Paris at UNESCO conference on Maimonides; Dec. 1985 (Time magazine, December 23, 1985). 4   Sara Stroumsa, Maimonides in His World: Portrait of a Mediterranean Thinker (New York, 2004), p.1. 5

  Louis Jacobs, “The Influence of the Zohar,” in The Jewish Religion: A Companion

(New York, 1995). 6

  Literally, Guide of the Perplexed. Friedlander (The Guide for the Perplexed, translated from the Arabic by M. Friedlander, New York, 1904) translates it as Guide for the Perplexed. I have employed Friedlander’s rendition throughout this work. 7   For Maimonides’ work as a physician see: Suessmann Muntner, Moshe Ben Maimon: Medical Works (Hebrew); Volumes 1-4 (Jerusalem, 1965). Fred Rosner, Medicine in the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides (New York, 1984). Fred Rosner, The Medical Aphorisms of Moses Maimonides (Israel, 1989). Fred Rosner, The Medical Legacy of Moses Maimonides (New York, 1989).

13

14

Chapter One

In addition to the above, Maimonides also composed a work which he named the Mishneh Torah. The Mishneh Torah was published in 1180 and was Maimonides’ Halakhic magnum opus. The Mishneh Torah is without exaggeration the greatest code of Jewish law to be composed in the post-Talmudic era. It is unique in scope, originality and language. The Mishneh Torah was the only work which Maimonides composed in Hebrew. Its language is clear and concise. The Mishneh Torah is a model of orderly arrangement; its chapters and paragraphs follow in logical sequence. Maimonides’ code contains all the laws found in the Pentateuch and Talmud without regard to contemporary relevancy. The fourteen volumes that comprise the Mishneh Torah deal not only with laws of prayer, Sabbath and festival observances, dietary regulations, laws governing the relation between the sexes, and civil law, but also include Halakhot dealing with the sacrificial system, tithes, skin eruptions, the construction of the temple, the making of priestly garments, and laws pertaining to a Jewish monarch. Maimonides’ code differs from its predecessors and successors in that the latter were limited to those Halakhot that were currently in force. Thus in Isaac Alfasi’s eleventh-century code of Jewish Law the Halakhot was mainly based on the laws found in the Talmudic orders of Mo’ed (festivals), Nashim (women), and Nezikin (damages), plus the tractate Berakhot (blessings) from the order Zera’im (seeds) and Niddah (the menstruous women) from the order Tohorot (cleanliness). Similarly, today’s universally accepted compendium of Jewish Law, Rabbi Joseph Karo’s (14881575) Shulkhan Arukh, contains only those laws that have practical application. It mainly deals with civil law, marriage and divorce law, festivals, prayers and dietary rules. It does not concern itself with laws pertaining to the Holy Temple or laws relating to a Jewish King. The Mishneh Torah consists of fourteen books. They are: Book 1. The Book of Knowledge (sefer ha-mada). The Book of Knowledge deals with: The basic principles of the Torah; correct beliefs; the study of Torah; the prohibition of idol worship; pagan practices; repentance.

T h e M i s h n e h To ra h

Book 2. The Book of Love (sefer ahavah). The Book of Love deals with: The reading of the shema; prayer; the priestly benedictions; tefillin; mezuzah; the Torah Scroll; tzitzit; blessings; circumcision. Book 3. The Book of Seasons (sefer zemanim). The Book of Seasons deals with: The Sabbath; eruvin; Yom Kippur; work prohibited on the Festivals; chametz and matzah; the shofar; the sukkah; the lulav; The half shekel; sanctification of the new moon; fast days; the reading of the Megillah; Chanukah. Book 4. The Book of Women (sefer nashim). The Book of Women deals with: Marriage; divorce; levirate marriage (yibbum); release from levirate marriage (chalitzah); laws pertaining to a virgin maiden; laws dealing with women suspected of adultery (sotah). Book 5. The Book of Holiness (sefer kedushah). The Book of Holiness deals with: Prohibited sexual relations; forbidden foods, laws of slaughtering. Book 6. The Book of Promises (sefer hafla’ah). The Book of Promises deals with: Oaths; vows; the Nazarite; valuations; devoted property. Book 7. The Book of Seeds (sefer zera’im). The Book of Seeds deals with: The prohibition of planting different seeds together (kilayim); charity; heave offerings (terumot); tithes; the second tithe; plants of the fourth year; first fruits; gifts to be given to the kohanim outside of the sanctuary; the Sabbatical year; the year of Jubilee. Book 8. The Book of Service (sefer avodah). The Book of Service deals with: The Holy Temple; the vessels of the Sanctuary and those who serve in it; laws of entry into the Sanctuary; things forbidden on the Altar; laws of sacrificial procedures; the daily offerings; the additional offerings; sacrifices that become unfit; the Yom Kippur service; use of consecrated objects. Book 9. The Book of Sacrifices (sefer korbanot). The Book of Sacrifices deals with: The Passover sacrifice; pilgrimage festival sacrifices; laws of the First-Born; unintentional

15

16

Chapter One

sins; incomplete atonement; substitution for consecrated animals (temurah). Book 10. The Book of Purity (sefer tohorah). The Book of Purity deals with: The laws of uncleanness issuing from a dead body; the red heifer; leprosy; uncleanness with regard to a bed or seat; uncleanness of foods; laws of vessels; laws of ritual baths. Book 11. The Book of Torts (sefer nezakim). The Book of Torts deals with: Monetary damages; theft; robbery; lost property; injury to person or property; murder; preservation of life. Book 12. The Book of Acquisition (sefer kinyan). The Book of Acquisition deals with: Sales; acquisition of ownerless property; gifts; neighbors; agents; partners; slaves. Book 13. The Book of Judgments (sefer mishpatim). The Book of Judgments deals with: Hiring; borrowed and deposited items; creditors and debtors; claims and denials; inheritance. Book 14. The Book of Judges (sefer shofetim). The Book of Judges deals with: The Sanhedrin; evidence; rebellion; mourning; Kings; war; the Messiah. Maimonides gave his code the name Mishneh Torah Omit (Deuteronomy). The term Mishneh Torah is replete with meaning. It is the Talmudic term for the Book of Deuteronomy,8 which contains Moses’ repetition of the Torah and functions as Moses’ last will and testament to the Jewish people. Maimonides believed that his work was the final statement on Jewish law. The term Mishneh Torah has the connotation of Companion to the Torah, or Second to the Torah.9 In his introduction to the Mishneh Torah Maimonides writes: “When one first studies the Written Torah10 and thereafter reads the Mishneh Torah he obtains here-from a complete knowledge of the

8

  See Berakhot 21b; Megillah7a.

9

  See Gen. 41:43; 1 Sam. 23:17; 2 Chron. 28:7; Esther 10:3.

10

  The Pentateuch.

T h e M i s h n e h To ra h

Oral Torah and he has no need to read any other work between them.”11 A person in Maimonides’ view can be a Jew in deed and in creed by studying the Mishneh Torah and following its dictates. In his introduction to the Mishneh Torah Maimonides gives his reason for composing this work. He notes that God revealed both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah to Moses at Sinai. Scripture states: And I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law (Torah) and the commandment, which I have written that thou mayest teach them (Exodus 24:12). Maimonides explains that the law refers to the Written Torah and the commandment to its interpretation.12 Maimonides notes that originally the interpretation of the Written Law was passed on from generation to generation by word of mouth. The dissemination of the Oral Law in written form was strictly prohibited. However, eventually a time came when because of the calamities that befell Israel there was a danger that the Oral Torah would be forgotten. The sage Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi (second century) sensed the danger and composed a work containing the essence of the Oral Torah. He named his work the Mishnah. The Mishnah contains, “all the traditions, enactments, interpretations and expositions… of the Torah, that had either come down from Moses or had been deduced by courts in successive generations.”13 According to Maimonides, copies of the Mishnah were widely circulated and studied. The Oral Torah was thereby preserved.14 Maimonides notes that the sages in the Land of Israel and in Babylonia commented on and explained the Mishnah. Eventually these comments and additional material produced by the sages

11

  Book of Mishneh Torah, translated by Simon Glazer (New York, 1917). Introduction, with some changes. 12

  See Berakhot 5a.

13

  Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Introduction. See Isadore Twersky,  A Maimonides Reader (New York, 1972), p. 36. 14

  Ibid.

17

18

Chapter One

were set down in the Talmuds produced in the Land of Israel and Babylonia. The Talmudic tradition also preserved a number of other works of the Oral Law, such as the tosefta, the sifra and sifre.15 Maimonides emphasizes that without a thorough knowledge of Talmudic literature one cannot understand and observe the Written Torah. Maimonides writes: The sages who arose after the Talmud was composed and studied it deeply… are called the Geonim. All the Geonim who arose in the Land of Israel, the Land of Babylon, Spain, and France taught the way of the Talmud, clarified its obscurities, and explained its various topics, for its way is exceedingly profound. Furthermore, it is written in Aramaic blended with other languages: for that language had been clear to all in Babylon, at the time when it was written; but in other places as well as in Babylon in the time of the Geonim, no one understood that language, until he was taught it. Many questions were asked of each Gaon of the time by the people of various cities, to comment on difficult matters in the Talmud, and they answered according to their wisdom; those who had asked the questions collected the answers, and made them into books for study. The Geonim in every generation also wrote works to explain the Talmud: Some of them commented on a few particular laws, some of them commented on particular chapters that presented difficulties in their time, and some of them commented on Tractates or Orders. They also wrote collections of laws as to what is forbidden and permitted, liable and exempt, according to the needs of the time, so that they could be easily learned by one who is not able to fathom the depths of the Talmud. That is the work of the Lord that all the Geonim of Israel did, from the time the Talmud was written to the present day, which is 1108 years from the Destruction of the Temple (1177 C. E.).16

15

  Ibid. It is noteworthy that Maimonides omits Aggadic Midrashim.

16

  Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, introduction. Rendition based on Book of Mishnah Torah: Yod Ha-Hazakah; Volume 1; Translated by Simon Glazer (New York, 1927),

T h e M i s h n e h To ra h

Maimonides believes that another critical juncture in the transmission of the Oral Torah has now arrived. He points out that: In our times, severe troubles come one after another, and all are in distress; the wisdom of our Torah scholars has disappeared, and the understanding of our discerning men is hidden. Thus, the commentaries, the responses to questions, and the settled laws that the Geonim wrote, which had once seemed clear, have in our times become hard to understand, so that only a few properly comprehend them. One hardly needs to mention the Talmud itself—the Babylonian Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud, the Sifra, the Sifre, and the Tosefta—which all require a broad mind, a wise soul, and considerable study, before one can correctly know from them what is forbidden or permitted and the other rules of the Torah. For this reason, I, Moshe son of the Rav Maimon the Sephardi, found that the current situation is unbearable; and so, relying on the help of the Rock blessed be He, I intensely studied all these books, for I saw fit to write what can be determined from all of these works in regard to what is forbidden and permitted, and unclean and clean, and the other rules of the Torah: Everything in clear language and terse style, so that the whole Oral Law would become thoroughly known to all; without bringing problems and solutions or differences of view, but rather clear, convincing, and correct statements, in accordance with the legal rules drawn from all of these works and commentaries that have appeared from the time of Our Holy Teacher17 to the present. This is so that all the rules should be accessible to the small and to the great18 in the rules of each and every commandment and the rules of the legislations of the Torah scholars and prophets: in short, so that a person should need no other work

pp.15-16; Isadore Twersky, A Maimonides Reader (New York, 1972) p. 38-39; and Moses Hayamson, Mishneh Torah: The Book of Knowledge (Israel, 1962), p. 4a-4b. 17   Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi. 18   Hebrew, la-katan ve-la-gadol. Some (Glazer, Twersky, Hayamson) translate, young and old.

19

20

Chapter One

in the world in the rules of any of the laws of Israel; but that this work might include the entire Oral Torah, including the positive legislations, the customs, and the negative legislations enacted from the time of Moshe Our Teacher until the writing of the Talmud, as the Geonim interpreted it for us in all of the works of commentary they wrote after the Talmud. Thus, I have called this work the Mishneh Torah, for when one first studies Scripture and thereafter reads the Mishneh Torah he obtains herefrom a complete knowledge of the Oral Torah and he has no need to read any other work between them.19

One of the outstanding features of the Mishneh Torah is its omission of its sources. Earlier codes had always given the sources of the halakhot codified therein. Maimonides does not explain how he arrived at his decisions. He does not discuss other opinions. Maimonides’ code lays down the Halakhah ex cathedra. The great twelfth-century provincial sage Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posquierres (henceforth Ra’abad) severely criticized Maimonides for omitting his sources. Ra’abad writes: He abandoned the path of all authors who preceded him; they supported their contention by quoting authority, so that one derived a great benefit, as when a member of a court is about to render a decision, either to forbid or permit, supporting his contention upon one authority, if he finds a higher authority who reverses him, he still can retract; whereas, now, with this work before me, I know not why I should abandon my tradition or my supporting authority simply on account of the work of this author; if the one who reverses me is greater than I it is well, but if I am greater than he, why should I annul my opinion because of his? Moreover, there are matters concerning which the Gaonim disagree, comes this author and selects the opinion of one in preference to another; why should I rely upon his choice, when the opinion does not please me, or when the contending authority is unknown to me, even whether or not he is competent to contend aught against another? This is none else, save … a spirit of arrogance.20

19

  Glazer, pp. 17-18.

20

  Ibid., p. 18.

T h e M i s h n e h To ra h

Maimonides’ retort to Ra’abad would most probably have been: I did not compose my work only for Talmudic scholars. I also wrote the Mishneh Torah for the average literate Jew who cannot on his own master the Talmud and arrive at a Halakhic decision. There is no sense in confusing such a reader with a panoply of opinions. In fact Maimonides more or less expresses these very sentiments in a letter to Rabbi Yehonatan Ha-Kohen of Lunel. He writes: “My intention in composing this work was primarily to clear the roads and to remove the stumbling blocks from before the students so that they do not tire themselves [in the Talmudic] give and take and thus err in deciding the Halakhah.”21 Rabbi Judah Al Harizi (1170-1230), the translator of the Guide for the Perplexed and parts of Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah, praised Maimonides for precisely what Ra’abad criticized him for. Al Harizi writes that Maimonides eliminated confusion in Talmudic studies, for he removed from the Mishneh Torah the names of commentators, Halakhic and Aggadic Midrashim and novel interpretations.22 He sorted the Talmud and produced pure flour. Whereas Israel had previously sat in the dark there was now light in the home of all of Israel. 23 In the words of Al Harizi: He (Maimonides) sifted the Talmud through his wondrous brain, lifted the choice grain….the children of Israel fed on manna. No longer had they need to limp or lurch about, search in vain through the Talmud’s vast domain, for he rid his composition of the names of sage and commentator, earlier or later, of fancy , of homily, of Aggadic explication… He straightened all the Talmud’s winding ways, he turned to the exile and did his voice loud raise: Enter these gates with thanksgiving, these courts with praise. 24

21

  Letters of Maimonides, quoted by Ben Zion Dinur, Yisrael Ba-Golah (Israel in the Diaspora); Vol 2, Book 4, (Israel, 1969), p. 68 22

  The reference is probably to farfetched new interpretations. See The Book of Tahkemoni, translated by David Simha Segal (Oxford, 2002), p. 337. 23

  Tahkemoni; Chap. 46.

24

  Ibid. p. 337.

21

22

Chapter One

Today’s world is afloat with books explaining the Mishnah and Talmud both in Hebrew and the vernacular. Few such works were available to Jews in Maimonides’ era. One who wants to experience what a student of the Talmud faced in Maimonides’ era should pick up a medieval manuscript of the Talmud and try to make sense of it. He most probably will have great difficulty in deciphering it. Some of the post-Talmudic sages tried to solve these difficulties. Commentaries were written to the Talmud to help the student analyze and understand its text. One of the most famous of these was the one composed by Rashi (1040-1105). However, before the advent of printing, hand-written manuscripts were very expensive and hard to come by. Furthermore, as great, useful, and helpful as Rashi’s commentary is, it does not eliminate all difficulties. Even with the aid of Rashi’s commentary one still requires a great amount of skill to decipher many of the Talmud’s sugyot.25 Deciding the Halakhah presents further problems. A given topic is often discussed in various tractates of the Talmud. Maimonides himself notes that, It is beyond the ability of any person to know the entire Talmud by heart—and certainly not when a single law in a given Mishnah requires four or five pages of Talmudic explanation. Topic follows topic. One encounters so many arguments, questions and answers that only an individual who is an expert in Talmudic dialectics is able to choose the correct interpretation of the Mishnah under discussion. If so, what can one do with a law that is not fully explained, and for which a final decision cannot be reached without the study of two or three tractates?26

The Mishneh Torah solves the above. There are those who playfully interpret the acronym Rashi which stands for Rabbi Solomon ben Yitzchak, as standing for Rabban shel Yisrael, the teacher of Israel. That title can equally be applied to

25

  Talmudic sections.

26

  Moses Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishna, Introduction.

T h e M i s h n e h To ra h

Maimonides. In fact Rabbi Don Isaac Abarbanel refers to Maimonides as Ha-Rav Ha-Moreh, the Rabbi the teacher, or the Rabbi the Guide.27 Following in Abarbanel’s footsteps, an Israeli scholar, Meir Orayin, composed a work on Maimonides some years ago called Ha-Moreh Le-Dorot, or The Teacher (or Guide) for All Generations.28 Maimonides was a great educator. He tried to make the teachings of Judaism available to all Jews. The Mishneh Torah was an immediate success. It obviously served a great need. The Mishneh Torah quickly spread from Egypt to the Land of Israel, Syria, Babylonia, Yemen, Spain, Provence, and ultimately to France and Germany.29 Indeed, Maimonides spoke of the Mishneh Torah’s fame all over the Jewish world.30 There were places where the Mishneh Torah was studied in place of the Talmud.31 Aside from its comprehensiveness, the Mishneh Torah also differs from its predecessors in that Maimonides reworked the Talmudic material. Whereas the codes that preceded the Mishneh Torah excerpted the relevant Halakhic material from the Talmud and in some cases added notes thereto, Maimonides rewrote all of his source material in a beautiful Hebrew. He thereby often gave new meanings to his rabbinic sources. For example, the Talmud explains the significance of Chanukah as follows: The eight days of Chanukah start on the twenty-fifth of Kislev,... When the Greeks entered the Holy Temple, they defiled all the oils in it. When the Hasmonean dynasty overcame them, they conducted a search and found only one cruse of oil with the seal of the High Priest. However, it contained oil sufficient for only one day’s lighting.

27

  Ha-rav Ha-Moreh is a play on Maimonides’ work the Moreh Ha-Nevukhim (Guide for the Perplexed). 28

  Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1957.

29

  Isadore Twersky, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (New Haven, 1980),  p 518. Also see Jeffrey Woolf, Maimonides Revised: The Case of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol in The Harvard Theological Review (1997). 30   Ibid., Twersky. 31

  Ibid., 527.

23

24

Chapter One

A miracle occurred and they lit the menorah therewith for eight days. The following year these days were established as a festival with the recital of Hallel and thanksgiving.32

Maimonides rewrites the Talmudic passage as follows: During the days of the Second Temple the Greeks ruled over Israel. They issued evil decrees against the Jewish people. They prohibited their religion and did not allow them to study the Torah and to observe the command­ments. They seized their property and their daughters. They entered the Sanctuary and ravaged it. They defiled that which was pure. As a result, Israel suffered greatly and underwent great persecution. This lasted until the God of our fathers took pity on them, and saved and delivered them from the hands of the Greeks. Ultimately the Hasmonean family of high priests gained the upper hand. They slew the Greeks, and saved Israel from their hands. They crowned a king from among the priests, and restored Israel’s kingdom for a period of more than two hundred years—until the destruction of the Second Temple. The day on which the Israelites defeated their enemies and destroyed them was the twenty-fifth day of Kislev. When they entered the Temple, they found within its precincts only one jar of ritually pure oil. However, the jar had only enough oil for one day. Yet they kindled the lights of the menorah with it for eight days, until they pressed olives and produced new ritually pure oil. As a result, the sages of that time ruled that the eight days beginning with the twenty-fifth of Kislev should be days of rejoicing on which the Hallel is to be recited, and that on each one of the eight nights lamps should be lit at evening over the doors of the houses, to display and publicize the miracle.33

Aside from elaborating on the historical events of the Chanukah period Maimonides adds something that is not mentio-

32

  Sabbath 21b (Soncino translation, with some changes).

33

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Purim Ve-Chanukkah 3:1-3. Based on the translation in  A Maimonides Reader, p. 118.

T h e M i s h n e h To ra h

ned in the Talmud, namely, the restoration of Israel’s sovereignty. Thus according to Maimonides, Chanukah does not only commemorate the miracle of the oil but also commemorates Israel’s liberation from foreign domination. Chanukah thus does not only have religious significance, it also has national significance. In fact Maimonides mentions the reestablishment of Israel’s independence before he takes notes of the miracle of the jar of oil. There are those who claim that the Babylonian Talmud wanted to de-emphasize the nationalistic aspect of Chanukah.34 Hence, it stressed the miracle of the jar of oil. Others strongly disagree. Be that as it may, Maimonides connects Chanukah with the restoration of Israel’s sovereignty. The codes that were written after Maimonides tended to copy Maimonides’ formulation of the Chanukah miracle and thus the nationalistic aspect of Chanukah was given a place of prominence in the Chanukah narrative. It has remained there ever since. The Talmud speaks of olam ha-ba (the world to come). Most of the medieval Jewish sages took the reference to be to the period following the resurrection.35 However, Maimonides explained it to refer to the life of the soul following death. Thus Maimonides writes: The goodness reserved for the righteous is life in the World to Come. Such life is life without death, and goodness without evil…. The reward of the righteous is that they will receive this pleasantry and goodness, whereas the punishment of the wicked is that they will not receive this life, but are cut off and die. Anybody who does not receive this life dies without receiving an eternal afterlife, and is cut off on account of his wickedness and is lost like an animal. This is the cutting-off

34

  Gedaliah Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem, 1977),  pp. 1-17. 35

  See Sefer Ha-Emunot Ve-Ha-De’ot, Chapter 9; Ra’abad on Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Teshuvah 8:2. Also see Nahmanides’ Torat Ha-Adam in Kitve Ha-Ramban; Edited by Charles Chevel, pp. 309-311.

25

26

Chapter One

which is mentioned in the Torah, such as when it is written ... that soul shall be utterly cut off (Num. 15:31). According to tradition we learn that the words, cut off refer to being cut off from this world, and that the word utterly comes to include being cut off from the World to Come, i.e. that soul which was separated from its body in this world will not merit life in the World to Come, but is cut off from there as well.36 Life in the World to Come does not involve a body or a physical form. The World to Come is inhabited by the souls of the righteous without their bodies… Since they do not have any bodies there is no need there for eating or drinking, nor do they need to do any of the things which men’s bodies in this world need, and nor do they do any of the things which people in this world do with their bodies, such as standing, sitting, sleeping, dying, feeling pain, acting frivolously, or the like.37

Maimonides also gave new meaning to the term Talmud. The word Talmud was usually taken to refer to the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. According to Maimonides, Talmud does not only refer to the former but also includes the study of pardes,38 that is, the study of Divine science (metaphysics)39 and the physical sciences.40 Maimonides held that ”The… perfection of man consists in his becoming an actually intelligent being; i.e., he knows about the things in existence all that a person perfectly developed is capable of knowing.”41 Maimonides believed that man gains eternity by developing his soul. The latter is accomplished by the study of the natural

36   Mishneh Torah; Laws of Repentance 8:1. Translated by Immanuel O’Levy, with some changes. Maimonides Resource Page. On the Web. 37

  Ibid. 8:2.

38

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Tamud Torah 1:12.

39

  Ma’aaseh merkavah, “the work of the chariot.”

40

  Ma’aseh Be-Reshit, “the work of the beginning.” See Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Yesode Ha- Torah 4:10; 13. 41

  Guide 3:27.

T h e M i s h n e h To ra h

sciences and divine science (metaphysics).42 He writes: “He who wishes to attain to human perfection, must … first study Logic, next the various branches of Mathematics in their proper order, then Physics, and lastly Metaphysics.”43 Maimonides had already noted in his commentary on the Mishnah that the Talmudic dictum, The Holy one, blessed be He, has nothing in this world but the four cubits of Halakhah,44 is not to be interpreted as referring only to the study of the details of Jewish religious law. He writes: “One should delve discerningly into this matter, because if one examines it superficially, one would find it far from the truth, as if the four cubits of Halakhah alone represent the ultimate to be sought after and the other teachings and viewpoints (in the Torah) are secondary.”45

42

  Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra (1092-1164), who may have greatly influenced Maimonides, similarly writes: ‘Man’s soul is unique. When given by God, it is like a tablet set before a scribe. When God’s writing, which consists of the categorical knowledge of the things made out of the four elements, the knowledge of the spheres, the throne of glory, the secret of the chariot, and the knowledge of the Most High, is inscribed on the tablet, the soul cleaves to God the Glorious while it is yet in man and also afterward when its power is removed from the body which is its place here on earth.” According to Ibn Ezra, the most valuable body of knowledge is that which develops man’s soul. This knowledge comes from a study of metaphysics. Thus Ibn Ezra writes that it is only when one, “knows the natural sciences and their proofs, and learns the categories ... taught by the science of logic, and masters the science of astronomy ... and comprehends the science of geometry and the science of proportions, can one ascend to the great level of knowing the mystery of the soul, the secret of the supernal angels and the concept of the world to come as taught in the Torah, the prophets and by the sages of the Talmud. Such an individual will grasp and perceive the deep secrets … that are hidden from the eyes of most people.” See the Secret of the Torah; Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Yesod Morah Ve-Sod Ha-Torah, Translated and annotated by H. Norman Strickman (New Jersey, 1995), p. 143. 43

  Guide. 1:34. p. 46. Friedlander translation.

44

  Berakhot 8a.

45

  Moses Maimonides: Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah; translated  by Fred Rosner (New Jersey, 1995), p. 119.

27

28

Chapter One

According to Maimonides the meaning of the term Halakhah in the above-quoted Rabbinic statement is, the practice of good deeds and knowledge of philosophic truths.46 In other words “Halakhah is not merely man’s practical conduct; rather, it includes both wisdom and good deeds, both theoretical speculation and practical behavior. The ‘four cubits of the Law’ embrace the entirety of man’s life, and in them is reflected the objective of the material world.” 47 Maimonides similarly writes in his introduction to the Guide: We read in Midrash, To what were the words of the Torah to be compared before the time of Solomon? To a well the waters of which are at a great depth, and though cool and fresh, yet no man could drink of them. A clever man joined cord with cord, and rope with rope, and drew up and drank. So Solomon went from figure to figure, and from subject to subject, till he obtained the true sense of the Law.48 So far go the words of our Sages. I do not believe that any intelligent man thinks that the words of the Torah mentioned here as requiring the application of figures in order to be understood, can refer to the rules for building a sukkah, for preparing the lulav, or for the four kinds of trustees. What is really meant is the apprehension of profound and difficult subjects, [that is, pardes (metaphysics and the physical sciences)].49

Maimonides places those with philosophically developed minds above those who merely studied Talmud. In a parable of a king and his subjects, he places the former in the king’s palace and the latter outside of the palace. Maimonides describes a city surrounded by a wall wherein is located a palace in which a king dwells. Some of the king’s subjects are within the city and some of them outside the city. Some of those inside of the city are facing away from the king’s palace. Others are turned toward the palace and want to enter it and stand before the

46

  Hebrew, chokhmah.

47

  Rabbi Eli Hadad: “The Holy One Blessed Be He has nothing in this world but the

four cubits of the law.” Maimonides Heritage Center. On the Web. 48

  Shir Ha-Shirim Rabba 1:1.

49

  Guide; Friedlander translation, p. 6-7.

T h e M i s h n e h To ra h

king but have as of yet not even seen the wall of the palace. Some of those who want to enter the palace have found it. However, they can’t find its gate. Some of them have found the gate and walk about the antechambers of the palace. Others have entered the inner court of the palace. However, their entrance into the inner part of the palace does not mean that they see the King or hear His voice or speak to him. They must make additional efforts if they want to do so.50 Maimonides goes on to explain his parable. The subjects outside of the city walls are people who have no religious doctrine, or philosophic knowledge. Those who are in the city with their backs turned to the king’s palace, have religious faith and engage in philosophical studies. However, they posses wrong beliefs because of their own errors or because they have accepted someone else’s fallacious beliefs. The more these people walk, the more they distance themselves from the king’s palace. The individuals who want to come to the king’s palace and enter it but never get to see the palace, are the ignorant masses who observe the Torah. Those who reach the king’s palace and walk around it on the outside are Talmudic scholars. These scholars devote themselves to the study of the laws relating to the service of God, that is, the Halakhah. They hold true beliefs passed on to them by tradition. However, they do not engage in philosophical studies. They do not analyze the principles of the Torah and they do not bother to learn how to prove the truths that faith teaches. Only those who have thrown themselves into philosophical studies and investigate the fundamental roots of religion have entered the king’s palace. They know how to prove the truth of what religion teaches and know with a certainty those things about God that can be known.51

50

  Guide 3:51.

51

  Ibid.

29

30

Chapter One

Maimonides defines the term chakham (wise man) as a person who not only knows the Written and Oral Torah but one who is an expert in both the Torah and the sciences.52 The Talmud states, only ba’ale chokhmah (wise men) may serve on the Sanhedrin.53 Maimonides defines ba’ale chokhmah as men who are proficient in Torah learning and versed in many other branches of learning, men who possess some knowledge of the general sciences, such as medicine, mathematics and astronomy.54 According to Maimonides a chakham does not believe in superstition. The Torah calls the Israelites an am chakham, a wise people (Deut. 4:6). It thus stands to reason that Jews should not believe in nonsense. One of the main things that Maimonides seeks to impress upon the readers of the Mishneh Torah is that Jewish law and ritual are free from irrational and superstitious practices. Though Maimonides does not explicitly say the latter in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, he does so in a Responsa wherein he writes: “My intention in this entire work55 is to show that the laws are rational.”56 Maimonides held that the Judaism believed in and practiced by many pious Jews of his generation was infected by pagan notions. The Mishneh Torah aimed at cleansing Judaism from these non-Jewish practices and beliefs.57

52

  According to Jeffrey R. Woolf, “The term chokhma or wisdom is a code word in the Mishneh Torah for extra Halakhic (especially philosophic) knowledge.” See Jeffrey Woolf, “Maimonides Revised: The Case of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol” in The Harvard Theological Review 90: (1997), pp. 175-203. 53

  Menachot 65a.

54

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Sanhedrin 2:1. See Twersky, A Maimonides Reader (New York, 1972), 191. 55

  The Mishneh Torah.

56

  Letters of Maimonides, quoted by Ben Zion Dinur, Yisrael Ba-Golah (Israel in the Diaspora), Vol 2, Book 4. (Israel, 1969.) P. 68. 57

  Menachem Kellner argues that Maimonides’ “overall aim in his writings… [was to] purify a corrupted and paganized Torah.” See “Maimonides’ Critique of the Jewish

T h e M i s h n e h To ra h

The first part of the Mishneh Torah, The Book of Knowledge, is not only concerned with Jewish practice. It is concerned with belief. Many of these beliefs are based on the teachings of medieval philosophy and medieval science. No code which preceded Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah contained such material. In his introduction to the Guide for the Perplexed Maimonides explains that his motive in composing this work is his desire to reconcile Judaism and philosophy. He writes: The object of this treatise is to enlighten a religious man who has been trained to believe in the truth of our holy Torah, who conscientiously fulfils his moral and religious duties, and at the same time has been successful in his philosophical studies. Human reason has attracted him to abide within its sphere; and he finds it difficult to accept as correct the teaching based on the literal interpretation of the Torah… Hence he is lost in perplexity and anxiety. If he be guided solely by reason, and renounce his previous views which are based on those expressions, he would consider that he had rejected the fundamental principles of the Torah; even if he retains the opinions which were derived from those expressions, and if, instead of following his reason, he abandon its guidance altogether, it would still appear that his religious convictions had suffered loss and injury. For he would then be left with those errors which give rise to fear and anxiety, constant grief and great perplexity.58

The Guide deals with various issues confronting faith. It deals with proof of God’s existence, the problems posed by the Bible’s description of God in human terms, prophecy, providence, freedom of will, miracles, and other challenges to faith. Some twenty chapters59 of the Guide are devoted to a rational explanation of the Commandments.

Culture of His Day” in Menachem Kellner’s Maimonides’ Confrontation with Mysticism (London, 2006), p. 3. 58   Friedlander translation. 59   Guide; Part 111, 30-50.

31

32

Chapter One

The Mishneh Torah has a similar agenda. It is worthy of note that the ban pronounced against the Guide by the French rabbis also included the Book of Knowledge.60 Rabbi Ya’akov Emden, who was a great critic of Maimonides’ philosophy, also noticed a parallel between the Guide and the Sefer Ha-Mada. Rabbi Emden writes: “I will not deny that I spoke against the book Guide of the Perplexed, which, in my opinion, was never authored by the same Maimonides who created the book Yad Ha-Chazakah61 in which we glory…. even though in Sefer Ha-Mada there are also found some of the mistaken notions of the Guide of the Perplexed.”62 With all due respect to Rabbi Yaakov Emden, not only does the Sefer Ha-Mada contain “some of the mistaken notions of the Guide of the Perplexed” but the spirit of the Guide permeates the entire Mishneh Torah. Before going further something must be said about what qualifies as an irrational belief or practice. It can be argued that what one person considers an irrational belief or practice another might not. For example, Nahmanides considers the practice of magic to be perfectly rational. He argues that, “We cannot deny matters publicly demonstrated before the eyes of witnesses.”63 In other words Nahmanides believes that the efficacy of magic was empirically proven. Ibn Ezra and others consider astrology a valid science.64 Maimonides, on the other hand, thinks that astrology is at the very least nonsense, and at the worst idol worship.65 60

  See Chayyim Chevel, Kitve Ramban (Jerusalem, 1963), p. 338.   A later popular name for the Mishneh Torah.

61 62

  Jacob J. Schachter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden, Philosophy, and Maimonides,”  in Be’erot Yitzhak: Studies in Memory of Isadore Twersky, edited by Jay M. Harris (Cambridge, 2005). 63   Nahmanides on Deut. 18:9. See Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on  the Torah, translated by Charles Chavel (New York, 1971), p. 219. 64   See Chapter 5. 65

  See Chapter 5.

T h e M i s h n e h To ra h

Most biologists believe that non-intelligent directed evolution explains the origins of species. They consider any other explanation of the origin of species, such as the one presented by creationists, to be based on ignorance or naiveté. On the other hand, creationists argue that life could not have arisen by itself. They maintain that it takes an act of faith in a non theistic explanation for the origin of life to believe that all living things came into existence from inanimate matter when in fact there has not been any demonstrable instance of spontaneous generation. Most physicians consider alternative medicine to be nonsense. However, the practitioners of alternate medicine are convinced that their method of healing is based on sound scientific evidence. What one considers superstition is based on a person’s beliefs and assumption. If one denies the existence of God, he will probably accept evolution. If one believes in the existence of God, he will tend, at the very least, to see the point of the creationists. Thus before dealing with Maimonides’ conception of irrationalism and superstition we must first establish Maimonides’ worldview. Maimonides believes that there are three sources of knowledge: reason, sense perception and tradition.66 He writes: No man should believe anything unless attested by one of three things. First, rational proof as in arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy; secondly, the perception by one of the five senses; for instance, the detection of color by one’s eyes, taste by the tongue, touch to distinguish between hot and cold, hearing between clear and confused sounds and smell between that which is distasteful or pleasant; and thirdly, tradition derived from the prophets and the righteous. It is accordingly incumbent upon every wise person to investigate his doctrinal beliefs and classify them according to one of the three basic sources from which they are drawn, namely, tradition, sense-perception, or rational insights.”

66   Rabbi Saadiah Gaon had a similar point of view. See Sefer Ha-Emunot Ve-HaDe’ot 1:5; Rabbi Saadiah Gaon; The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, translated by Samuel Rosenblatt (New Haven, 1989), pp. 16-26.

33

34

Chapter One

One, however, who grounds his belief in any other but one of those guiding principles is referred to in Scripture with the phrase “the simple believeth every word” (Prov. 14:15). 67 When what tradition teaches seems to contradict reason, then that tradition is to be interpreted in keeping with the teachings of reason, for according to Maimonides many verses in Scripture are not to be taken literally when it is known through proofs of reason that what Scripture states cannot be so.68 The Talmud speaks of two categories of esoteric knowledge, ma’aseh be-reshit (the work of creation) and ma’aseh merkavah (the work of the chariot).69 Maimonides identifies the former with the natural sciences and the latter with metaphysics.70 Thus according to Maimonides the teachings of the natural sciences and divine science (metaphysics) are an integral part of Judaism. To sum up: According to Maimonides, our concept of reality should be based on the teachings of logic, mathematics, physics, metaphysics, sense perception and religious tradition properly understood. Anything that stands in contradiction to the aforementioned cannot be accepted by a thinking person.

67

  Letter to the Jews of Marseilles in Letters of Maimonides, translated and edited, with introductions and notes, by Leon D. Stitskin (New York, I977), p. 119. 68

  Ibid. Also see Intro. Guide for the Perplexed and Commentary to the Mishnah; Intro. to Chelek (San. Chap. 10). 69

  Chagigah 2:1.

70

  Introduction to Guide. Friedlander pp. 2, 3.

Ch apter Two

G od A literal reading of the Bible and Talmud seems to indicate that God is corporeal. Scripture tells us that man is created in the image of God.1 The book of Exodus relates that the elders of Israel ascended Mount Sinai and saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness (Ex. 24:10). Isaiah saw God sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple (Is. 6:1). Daniel visualized God as one that was ancient of days …his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool (Dan. 7:9). The heavens opened for Ezekiel and he saw the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone; and upon the likeness of the throne was a likeness as the appearance of a man upon it above. And I saw as the color of electrum, as the appearance of fire round about enclosing it, from the appearance of his loins and upward; and from the appearance of his loins and downward I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness round about him. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face… (Ezek 1: 26-28). The Book of Psalms tells us that God rode upon a cherub, and did fly; yea, He did swoop down upon the wings of the wind (Ps. 18:11). Scripture speaks of God’s eyes,2 mouth,3 ears,4 hands,5

1

  Gen. 1:27.

2

  Deut. 11:2; Ps. 34:15.

3

  Isaiah 40:5.

4

  Ps. 86:1.

5

  Ex. 15:6.

35

36

C h a p t e r Tw o

and feet.6 The Lord is pictured as sitting,7 standing,8 and riding.9 The Torah speaks of God being angry,10 compassionate,11 laughing12 and loving.13 He is portrayed as enjoying the sacrifices offered to Him.14 While there are Scriptural passages that speak of God in corporeal terms, there are others that indicate that God has no body. The Book of Deuteronomy states: Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves—for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the Lord spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire—lest ye deal corruptly, and make you a graven image, even the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female (Deut. 4:9-16). The prohibition of making an image of God implies that God has no image. If He did, why prohibit it?15 Furthermore, Scripture speaks of God as sitting on the Cherubim (1 Sam. 4:4). However, there was no corporeal form visible over the cherubim. The implication is clear. God has no image. The prophet Isaiah says To whom then will ye liken Me, that I should be equal? Or what likeness will you compare with Him? saith the Holy One (Is. 40:25). This verse, as Maimonides notes, implies that God has no image.16 The same inconsistencies are found in the Talmud. Many Talmudic passages speak of God in corporeal terms. The Talmud speaks of God being happy and sad.17 It speaks of God smi-

6

  Ex. 24:10.

7

  Is. 6:1.

8

  Amos 9:11.

9

  Is. 19:1.

10

  Gen. 18:30.

11

  Ex. 43:6.

12

  Ps. 2:4.

13

  Deut. 23:5.

14

  Gen. 8:21.

15

  Kuzari 1:99.

16

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Yesode Ha-Torah 1:8.

17

  Chagigah 15b.

God

ling.18 It speaks of God wearing tefillin.19 It speaks of God praying.20 It states that in the world to come the righteous will dance around God and point at Him and say, “this is my God.”21 The Talmud tells us that if God comes to a synagogue and does not find a quorum there, he is disappointed and declares, “Why have I come here. There is no man here? (Is. 50:2)”22 According to some Midrashim the angels mistook Adam for God and wanted to worship him. Midrash Rabba Reads: A king and a governor sat in a chariot. The people wished to call out domine before the king but did not know which of the two was the king. What did the king do? He pushed the governor out of the chariot, and so all knew which the king was. Similarly, when God created Adam, the Angels mistook him for God. What did God do? He caused sleep to fall upon him, and so all knew that he was but a man.23

The Talmud in Tractate Berakhot reports the following in the name of Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha, a Sage of the first and second centuries: Once I entered into the inner sanctum to offer incense. And I beheld Akatriel Yah Lord of Hosts sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up. And He said to me: Ishmael My son, bless me. I said to him: May it be Your will that Your compassion should overcome Your anger; that Your mercy prevail over Your other attributes; that You shall treat Your children according to the standard of mercy and that You act for their sake beyond the letter of the law. He nodded His head to me.24

18

  Bava Metzia 59a-b.

19

  Berakhot 6a.

20

  Berakhot 7a

21

  Ta’anit 31a.

22

  Berakhot 6b.

23

  Genesis Rabbah 8:12.Soncino translation.

24

  Berakhot 7a. Soncino translation.

37

38

C h a p t e r Tw o

On the other hand, the Talmud indicates that God is incorporeal, drawing a parallel between man’s soul and God that reads: Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, fills the whole world, so the soul fills the body. Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, sees but is not be seen, so the soul sees but cannot be seen. Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, feeds the whole world, so the soul feeds the whole b o d y. Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, is pure, so the soul is pure. Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, abides in the inmost precincts, so the soul abides in the inmost precincts.25

The implication of the above is that just as man’s soul is incorporeal, so is God. Elsewhere the Talmud quotes Rabbi Yossi as saying that God never came down on Mount Sinai.26 Rabbi Yossi appears to be teaching that God has no body and thus cannot be said to have physically come down on Mount Sinai. The Talmud rules that a person is obligated to prepare the Scriptural portion which is to be read in the synagogue on the coming Sabbath.27 The Talmud goes on to say that the portion is to be prepared by reading the Hebrew text twice and the Aramaic translation once. Now the Aramaic version of the Torah spoken of by the Rabbis, Targum Onkelos,28 does not take the passages that speak of God in corporeal terms literally. Thus Maimonides notes: Onkelos the Proselyte… made it his task to oppose the belief in God’s corporeality. Accordingly, any expression employed in the Pentateuch in reference to God, and in any way implying corporeality, he paraphrases in consonance with the context. All expressions denoting any mode of motion are explained by Onkelos to mean the appearance

25

  Berakhot 10a. Soncino translation.

26

  Sukkah 5a.

27

  Berakhot 8a.

28

  Megillah 3a.

God

or manifestation of a certain light that had been created for the occasion, i.e., the Shekhinah (Divine Presence), or Providence. Thus he paraphrases The Lord will come down (Ex. 19. 11), The Lord will manifest Himself. Onkelos paraphrases And God came down (ibid 16. 20), And God manifested Himself. He does not render the latter, And God came down. Onkelos paraphrases I will go down now and see (Gen.18. 21), I will manifest myself now and see. This is his rendering of the verb yarad (he went down) when used in reference to God throughout his version.29

According to the Talmud, Targum Onkelos was produced under the supervision of the Tannaim Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua.30 It would thus not be an exaggeration to say that that the picture that Targum Onkelos paints of God is in keeping with the beliefs of the sages. It should also be noted that the ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100 C.E.), a contemporary of a number of sages of the Mishnah and like them a Pharisee, did not believe that God has a human form. He writes: All arts are unartful to express the notion we ought to have of Him (God). We can neither see nor think of anything like Him, nor is it agreeable to piety to form a resemblance of Him. We see His works, the light, the heaven, the earth, the sun…These things hath God made, not with hands…but as His will resolved that they should be made.31

The belief in God’s corporeality also raises serious philosophical problems: God is omnipresent. How can a corporeal entity be omnipresent? God is eternal. Bodies are subject to birth and decay. How can a corporeal entity be eternal?

29

  Guide 1:27. Friedlander translation, with some changes.

30

  See Megillah 3a: “Onkelos the Proselyte heard his translation of the Torah from the mouth of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua.” 31

  Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 2:23; translated by William Whiston (New York, undated).

39

40

C h a p t e r Tw o

Many non-Jewish philosophers poked fun at the Bible’s supposed teachings of God’s corporeality. Christian, Moslem and Jewish heretics, especially the Karaites, did the same with the Talmud. Thus Ahmad ibn Sa‘id ibn Hazm (994-1064 CE) a Muslim Spanish theologian wrote: They say, “On the night of Yom Kippur—the tenth day of Tishri, that is, the month of October—Metatron stands up, tears out his hair, and weeps slowly, saying ‘Woe is me, for I have destroyed my house and made my sons and daughters orphans, my form is bent over, I cannot raise myself erect until I rebuild my house and bring my sons and daughters back to it.’ Then he repeats these words anew.” The word Metatron means, ‘the small God.’ God be exalted above their unbelief…32 Once I engaged one of the Jews in conversation about this. He said to me, “Metatron is one of the angels.” “But,” I answered, “How is this possible? Can an angel say, Woe is me, for I have destroyed my house and so forth? Has anyone other than God Himself done this?” If the Jews had tried to object that God delegated to this angel the execution of this task, I would have rejoined that this would be an impossible absurdity that an angel should feel remorse over that which he carries out at the instruction of God, and for having rendered obedience to God. This would have been blasphemy on the part of the angel if he had felt this at all, not to mention that such an open expression by the angel would not merit the applause given to it. All of this is nothing more than a fabrication by them, through which they persist in their stiff-necked character. The more enlightened among them are divided into two categories. One maintains that Metatron is God Himself, by which they belittle God, scorn Him, and leave Him afflicted with deficiencies. The other maintains that Metatron is another god, different from the exalted God.33

Petrus Alfonsi was a Spanish Jew who converted to Christianity in the first decade of the twelfth century. Following his apostasy, he wrote

32   Marc Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth-Century Commentary on the Aggadah (Cambridge, 1980), p. 2. 33

  Ibid.

God

a polemical work against Judaism. Part of this work is devoted to an attack on the Aggada. Alfonsi charges the Rabbis of the Talmud with asserting, “that God has body and form, and attribute to His ineffable majesty such things as are inconsistent with any manner of reason.” 34 Alfonsi asks: When God prays,35 whom does He address? Himself or another? If another, then one whom He addresses is more powerful than He. If He addresses Himself, He is either capable of that for which He prays or incapable. If incapable, He addresses Himself in vain. If capable, either He wants it or He does not want it. If He does not want it, He prays for nothing. If, however, He does want it, there is no need for Him to pray. Do you see, therefore, Moses, how far all this type of thing is from true theology? For if it is indeed true that God weeps for you, roars like a lion, beats the sky with His feet, sighs in the manner of doves, moves His head and cries ‘Woe is Me’ out of excessive grief; that He furthermore strikes His feet in His grief, claps His hands and every day prays that He may pity you—what then stands in the way of your being set free from your captivity? To believe this about God is blasphemy.36

It is worthy of note that Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi (1075-1141) put a similar criticism of Judaism into the mouth of the king of the Khazars. The latter said to the representative of Judaism: “Someone who hears your account of God speaking with your assembled multitude, and of writing tablets for them, and other such anthropomorphism, cannot be blamed for accusing you of believing that God is a physical being.”37 The representative of Judaism responds by noting that such an assumption is wrong. He says: God forbid! God forbid that that we should believe that which is not so and completely irrational and untrue. The

34

  Ibid. p. 3.   See Berakhot 7a. 36   Marc Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth-Century Commentary on the Aggadah, p. 3. 37   Judah Ha-Levi. Kuzari 1: 88. See, Book of Kuzari, translated by Hartwig Hirshfield (New York, 1946), p. 88. 35

41

42

C h a p t e r Tw o

first of the Ten Commandments bids us to believe in God; the next commandment forbids worshipping other gods, and serving other gods along with God. It also prohibits making any representation of God. It prohibits molten statues and images. In other words, we should not attribute any corporeality to God.38

Rabbi Saadiah Gaon (882-942) describes how the enemies of Judaism poked fun at believing Jews. He points out that many believing Jews had no answers with which to respond to the scoffers. In fact one of his reasons for writing his Sefer Emunot Ve-de’ot (The Book of Beliefs and Opinions) was to defend Judaism against these scoffers. Rabbi Saadiah Gaon attacks the concept of God’s corporeality. He insists that Scripture teaches that God has no body. Rabbi Saadiah Gaon argues that Judaism teaches that God is incorporeal and “does not resemble any of His works.” Rabbi Saadiah Gaon says that all anthropomorphic terms in Scripture are to be understood as being figures of speech. He writes: …You must not …be led astray or thrown into uncertainty …by such statements …as God wanted and God was pleased and God was angry and other such remarks and similar utterances that occur in the Scriptures... Do not…become confused because of some anthropomorphic attribute of God that you see in the Scriptures, or of which you find us making common use, with the result that you would lapse back again, on its account, into doubt.39

Rabbi Bachya ibn Pekuda writes: Necessity forced us to ascribe corporeal attributes to God, and to describe Him by attributes properly belonging to His creatures, so as to obtain some conception by which the thought of God ’s existence should be fixed in the minds of men. The books of the prophets expressed this in corporeal terms, which were more easily understood

38

  Ibid. 1:89.

39

  The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Rosenblatt translation (with some slight changes), p. 112.

God

by their contemporaries. Had they limited themselves to abstract terms and concepts appropriate to God, we would have understood neither the terms nor the concepts; and it would have been impossible for us to worship a Being whom we did not know, since the worship of that which is unknown is impossible. The words and ideas used had accordingly to be such as were adapted to the hearer’s mental capacity, so that the subject would first sink into his mind in the corporeal sense in which the concrete terms are understood. We will then deal discreetly with him and strive to make him understand that this presentation is only approximate and metaphorical, and that the reality is too fine, too exalted and remote for us to comprehend its subtlety. The wise thinker will endeavor to strip the husk of the terms—their materialistic meaning— from the kernel, and will raise his conception, step by step, till he will at last attain to as much knowledge of the truth as his intellect is capable of apprehending. The foolish and simple person will conceive the Creator in accordance with the literal sense of the Scriptural phrase. And if he assumes the obligation of serving his God and strives to labor for His glory, he has in his simplicity and lack of understanding, a great excuse for his erroneous conception. For man is accountable for his thoughts and deeds only according to his powers of apprehension and comprehension, physical strength and material means. Only if a man is able to acquire wisdom, and foolishly neglects to do so, will he be called to account and punished for his failure to learn. Had Scripture, when expounding this theme, employed a terminology, appropriate in its exactness but only intelligible to the profound thinker, the majority of mankind, because of their intellectual deficiency and weak perception in things spiritual, would have been left without a religion. But the word that may be understood in a material sense will not hurt the intelligent person, since he recognizes its real meaning. And it will help the simple, as its use will result in fixing in his heart and mind the conception that he has a Creator whom he is bound to serve. 40

40

  Duties of the Heart, translated by Moses Hayamson (New York, 1970), p. 105.

43

44

C h a p t e r Tw o

Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra continued the work of Rabbi Saadiah Gaon and Rabbi Bachya ibn Pekuda. He repeatedly emphasized in his Bible commentaries that God is incorporeal and has no likeness or form. Ibn Ezra held that, generally speaking, Scripture is to be taken at face value. However, he made an exception for those verses that contradict reason. He believed that all verses that refer to God in human terms are not to be taken literally.41 The Talmud uses the expression, dibberah Torah ke-lashon bene Adam, the Torah spoke in the language of man.42 However, the Talmud does not employ this expression in a philosophic sense. It employs it in a Halakhic sense, i.e. whether the use of et (the sign of the accusative) or the repetition of a word as in the phrase bashel mevushal (sodden at all with water [Ex. 12:9]) have Halakhic import.43 However, Ibn Ezra, like Rabbi Saadiah Gaon before him, does not limit the clause dibberah Torah ke-lashon bene adom to those parts of Scripture which have Halakhic significance. He also applies it to those parts of Scripture which speak of God in human terms. Thus in commenting on Gen. 1:26 Ibn Ezra writes: We know that the Torah spoke the language of man, for it was given to humans who speak and hear. Now, a human being cannot speak of things above or below him without employing human terminology. Hence Scripture uses such terms as the mouth of the earth (Num. 16:30), the hand of the Jordan (Num. 13:29), and the head of the dust of the world (Prov. 8:26).

Similarly, in commenting on for in six days God made heaven and earth but rested and was replenished on the seventh day, Ibn Ezra writes, ve-ha-Torah dibberah ke-lashon bene adam (the Torah spoke in the language of man) (Ex. 31: 17).

41

  See I.E. on Gen. 1:26.

42

  Arakhin, 11a

43

  Mekhilta De-Rabbi Yishma’el; Pischa 6. Also see Amos Funkenstein; Styles in Medieval Biblical Exegesis: An Introduction (Heb.) (Israel, 1990).

God

In his commentary on Psalms, Ibn Ezra writes: …God is not subject to human feelings or corporeal accidents. God created all matter, that is, substance. He also created the forms, that is, the accidents. [The accidents] consist of all that man makes or the images of living creatures which he can conceive. God whose name alone is exalted, is above being made out of matter. He is certainly beyond the accidents. It is only because the one who speaks is human, and likewise the one who hears, that the Torah spoke in the language of men so that the one who hears will understand.44

Maimonides followed in the footsteps of these Talmudic and post-Talmudic Jewish thinkers. He opens the Mishneh Torah by laying down a conception of God which is in keeping with a rational interpretation of the Torah. He writes: The foundation of foundations and the firmest pillar of all wisdom is to know that there is a First Being who caused all things to come into existence. Everything in the skies, on the ground and in between exists only because of His true existence. If it be supposed that He did not exist then nothing else would exist. If one were to suppose that all things aside from Him cease to exist, He alone would still exist. He would not cease to exist because of their non-existence, for all things are dependent upon Him, but He, blessed be He, does not need them nor a single one of them. Therefore, His real essence is incomparable to the essence of any of them … This being is the God of the world and Master of the Earth.45

Maimonides goes on to say that God is incorporeal.46 He feels

44   I.E. on Ps. 2:4. See Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the First Book of Psalms, translated and annotated by H. Norman Strickman (Boston 2009), p. 27. 45

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Yesode Ha-Torah 1: 1-5.

46

  Ibid. 8.

45

46

C h a p t e r Tw o

no emotion the way humans do. He does not feel love, hate anger or the like. Maimonides emphasizes that God “does not sleep or wake up, and does not experience anger, merriment, joy, sadness, silence or speech as we know them.”47 “God is exalted above all this.” Maimonides once quipped that God is angry with the one who says that God experiences anger. According to Maimonides, all Biblical references to God which picture Him like a human being are not to be taken literally. They are all figurative. They are “adapted to the mental capacity of the majority of mankind who have a clear perception of physical bodies only.”48 Scripture employs these metaphors because, “The Torah speaks in the language of men.” Biblical images of God “only appeared” in prophetic visions.49 “The Human mind does not understand and is incapable of grasping or investigating” God’s essence as it really is.50 Maimonides was not totally satisfied with his refutation of God’s corporeality in the Mishneh Torah, and felt that he had to drive additional nails into the coffin of this belief. He devoted part one of the Guide for the Perplexed, over fifty chapters, towards explaining all terms and various biblical passages which refer to God in human terms. No Jewish thinker devoted so much effort towards refuting the belief in God’s corporeality before. In fact Maimonides states that his primary object in writing the Guide “is to explain certain words occurring in the prophetic books.” Some of these words have more than one meaning “and of their several meanings the ignorant choose the wrong ones. Other terms are employed by Scripture in a figurative sense but are erroneously taken by such persons literally … This work [also] …seeks to explain certain obscure parables which occur in the Prophets, and are not distinctly characterized by Scripture as such. Ignorant and superficial readers take them in a literal, not in a figurative sense. Even well informed persons are

47

  Ibid.11.

48

  Ibid. 9. Twersky translation.

49

  Ibid.

50

  Ibid.

God

bewildered if they understand these passages literally. However, they are entirely relieved of their perplexity when we explain the figure, or merely suggest that the terms are figurative. For this reason I have called this book Guide for the Perplexed.”51 Maimonides’ method of interpreting Biblical passages describing God in human form had great influence on Jewish theology. In the thirteenth century, when the conflict regarding Maimonides’ philosophic belief tore apart segments of the Jewish community, Nahmanides defended Maimonides by pointing out that his strong stand against the belief in God’s corporeality played a major role in eliminating this belief from Judaism.52 Maimonides’ position on God’s incorporeality became—with a few exceptions, some of which will be discussed below—the stand of normative Judaism. Maimonides succeeded because his formulation was in keeping with the thinking of the majority of Jewish thinkers. Though Maimonides followed in the footsteps of his philosophic predecessors he deviated from them in one major way. The Jewish thinkers who preceded Maimonides held that those who believed in God’s corporeality were naive, immature, or at the worst fools. Thus, as noted above, Rabbi Bachya ibn Pekuda writes: The foolish and simple person will conceive the Creator in accordance with the literal sense of the Scriptural phrase. And if he assumes the obligation of serving his God and strives to labor for His glory, he has in his simplicity and lack of understanding, a great excuse for his erroneous conception. For man is accountable for his thoughts and deeds only according to his powers of apprehension and comprehension, physical strength and material means. Only if a man is able to acquire wisdom, and foolishly neglects to do so, will he be called to account and punished for his failure to learn. 53

51

  Guide; Introduction. Friedlander translation (with some slight changes).

52

  Kitve Ramban, Vol. 1; Letter 2, p. 436.

53

  Duties of the Heart, translated by Moses Hayamson (New York, 1970), p. 105.

47

48

C h a p t e r Tw o

Maimonides differs radically with the above noted approaches toward those who believed in God’s corporality. He declares that anyone who believes that God has a body is guilty of heresy. He rules: “One who admits that there is a single God but that He has a body and form” is a heretic. Maimonides declares that such individuals “have no share in the World to Come, are cut off, destroyed and excommunicated for ever on account of their very great sins and wickedness.”54 This was a very far-reaching ruling, for it declared pious and believing Jews who took Biblical and Talmudic narratives literally as heretics. Such an opinion had never been put forward before. It is thus not surprising that some great sages took issue with Maimonides. Ra’abad (Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posquierres), a thirteenth-century Talmudist and critic of Maimonides, writes: “Why does he call such a person a heretic? Many greater and better men than he (gedolim ve-tovim mi-mennu) followed this opinion according to what they saw in Scriptural passages and even more in the texts of the Aggadot which scramble the mind.”55 Ra’abad was not merely engaging in theoretical argumentation. There were great scholars who believed that God has a form. Among them was Rabbi Moshe of Taku, a Tosafist,56 and R. Shelomo Min Ha-Her.57 R. Moshe Taku holds that God is incorporeal but, when He chooses to, can appear in a physical form.

54

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:7

55

  Ra’abad on Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:7.

56

  Ketav Tamim. R. Menachem Kasher discusses Rabbi Taku’s view on God’s corporeality in Torah Shelemah vol. 16 (New York, 1955) pp. 308-319. Also see Rav Moshe Taku: Non Rationalist Judaism by Moshe Sedley (on the Web); Natan Slifkin’s “Was Rashi  a Corporealist?” in Ḥakirah 7 (Winter 2009); No, Rashi Was Not a Corporealist by Saul Zucker and Slifkin’s response to Zucker in Ḥakirah 9 (Winter 2010). 57

  See Rabbenu Avraham ben Ha-Rambam: Milchamot Ha-Shem, edited by Re’uven Margoliyot, Mosad Harav Kook, undated, pp. 57, 69-74. It should be noted that Rabbi Shelomo denied the charge (ibid. page 31). However, Rabbi Avraham maintained that Rabbi Shelomo did in fact believe in God’s corporeality (ibid. pp. 69-74).

God

Rabbi Isaiah ben Elisha of Trani (1200-1260) “testified that the Franco-German sages believed in an anthropomorphic Godhead, because they considered themselves totally bound to the literal meaning of the Bible.”58 He thus rules that believing in God’s corporeality is not heretical, for there were Talmudic sages who held this view.59 It is clear from Nahmanides’ defense of Maimonides that among those who banned the Guide and the Sefer Ha-Mada were Rabbis who believed in God’s corporeality.60 It is to be noted that Maimonides not only denied God’s corporality but also stressed that we cannot say anything positive about God’s essence. According to Maimonides attributing essential attributes to God implies a multiplicity in God. Thus Maimonides writes: “Those who believe that God is One and that He has many attributes declare the Unity [of God] with their lips and assume the plurality [of God] in their thoughts.”61 Saying that God lives, is omnipotent, is omniscient, is kind, etc., implies that God is made up of life, strength, wisdom and kindness. According to Maimonides, the positive attributes used by the Bible and Talmud to describe God are really negative attributes. Thus God lives is not a positive statement about God’s essence. It really means, God is not dead. God is kind means that God is not cruel; God is omnipotent means that God is not powerless, and so on with all the essential positive attributes of God found in Scripture. There were those who could not accept Maimonides’ conception of God. They argued that the conception of God promulgated by Maimonides and his followers placed too much of a distance between man and God and in effect severed the personal

58

  Israel Ta-Shma, Creativity and Tradition (Boston, 2006), p. 206.

59

  Sanhedre Gedolah Le-Masechet Sanhedrin 5:2 (Jerusalem, 1972). See Marc  B. Shapiro: Letter to the editor, Jewish Action: Winter 5768/2007, p. 9. 60

  Kitve Ramban; Vol. 1; Second Letter; p. 445. Edited by Charles Chavel.

61

  Guide; Chapter 50.

49

50

C h a p t e r Tw o

relationship between human beings and God. Thus Rabbi Chayyim ibn Musa (ca. 1390-1456)62 writes: In my youth I heard a preacher preach about God’s being one and one only, in a speculating manner—in the manner of philosophers…. Thereupon a man rose, one of those who ‘tremble at the word of the Lord,’ and said, ‘Misfortune came upon me and mine at the great disaster in Seville.63 I was beaten and wounded, until my persecutors desisted because they thought I was dead. All this have I suffered for my faith in Hear, 0 Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One. And here you are, dealing with the traditions of our fathers in the manner of a speculating philosopher… Saying: ‘I have greater faith in the tradition of our fathers, and I do not want to go on listening to this sermon.’ He left the house of prayer and most of the congregation went with him.64

Some modern Jewish thinkers also feel that Maimonides went too far in his war against anthropomorphizing God. Thus Joseph Elias points out that Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, “repeatedly states his opposition to the efforts of philosophers to ‘depersonalize’ God by reducing Him to a rarified idea, denying that we can make any positive statements about Him and doing away with any and all anthropomorphisms to describe God.”65 Rabbi Hirsch himself has no difficulty is speaking of God in human terms: Thus he comments as follows on So God created man in His image (Gen. 12:27): “Man’s physical frame is worthy of God and appropriate for his godly mission. Thus, the Torah teaches us to recognize and value the godlike dignity of the body. Indeed, the Torah does not come to sanctify the spirit, but first and foremost, to sanctify the body. This is the foundation of all human morality: 62

  Author of the Magen Va-Romach (The Shield and Spear). This work defended Judaism against attacks launched against it by the church. 63

  The reference is to a pogrom, which occurred in 1391.

64

  Magen Va-Romach; quoted in: In Time And Eternity: A Jewish Reader, edited by Nahum Glatzer (New York, 1977), p. 74-75. 65

  The World of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Nineteen letters. Newly translated by Karin Paritzky. Revised and with a comprehensive commentary by Joseph Elias, p. 87.

God

Man’s body, with all its urges and forces, was created in the image of God. And it falls upon man to sanctify his body in a manner commensurate with his godly mission.” 66 He comments as follows on I am the Lord (Ex. 20:1): “Anokhi (I am) proclaims the speaker as that person who is intentionally near to the one addressed.”67 Shai Held in a review of Michael Wyschogrod’s Abraham’s Promise: Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations writes: Michael Wyschogrod is Maimonides’ worst nightmare. For the medieval philosopher and legist, the unity and incorporeality of God, established incontrovertibly by philosophy, are foundations of the Jewish faith. Not surprisingly, then, The Guide of the Perplexed opens with an extended attempt to undermine the initial impression created by Scripture—that God has a physical reality and is given to a range of intense and dramatic emotions. To believe this about God—in other words, to read the Bible literally—is, for Maimonides, to be guilty not merely of wrong-headedness but also of out-and-out idolatry. Idolatry can be avoided only by reading Scripture through the lens of philosophical metaphysics. Wyschogrod will have none of this. To suggest that the God of Israel is somehow equivalent to the God of metaphysical speculation is to commit a crime against Scripture and authentic Jewish thinking. The God of Israel is a “specific person ..., [who] ... does not hesitate to assume a proper name,” and the Bible itself “does not hesitate to speak of him in personal and anthropomorphic terms.” The Bible shares none of Maimonides’ discomfort with divine corpo­ reality and mutability; only “improperly understood” can the God of Abraham be turned into some kind of “metaphysical absolute.” Maimonides is thus a kind of tragic figure for Wyschogrod, a Jewish thinker who “stakes his Judaism” on a set of philosophical concerns entirely alien to the heart of

66

  Rabbi Chaim Navon, Theological Issues In Sefer Bereishit; Lecture #4: The Image of God. Virtual Bet Midrash.On the Web. Rabbi Navon comments, “Rabbi Hirsch… seems to have gone too far in his assertion…[of] what is meant by ‘the image of God.’” 67

  Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Commentary on the Pentateuch, Exodus 20:2.

51

52

C h a p t e r Tw o

Jewish theology. All of Maimonides’ tor­tured theologizing leaves us, according to Wyschogrod, with little more than “an overly rarefied God who is so beyond all conception that he cannot be distinguished from no god at all.” The divide between the two theological projects could not be more stark. For Maimonides, to speak of God in biblical terms unrefined by philosophical reflection is to flirt with idolatry; for Wyschogrod, to dilute biblical language in the alien waters of metaphysical speculation is to come perilously close to atheism. Wyschogrod is this generation’s most eloquent and emphatic critic of Maimonides; he is at his most compelling in insisting upon the irreducible tension between scrip­tural, covenantal monotheism, on the one hand, and abstract, philo­sophical monotheism, on the other. No amount of creative (i.e., destructive) Maimonidean exegesis, Wyschogrod insists, will ever be able to bridge the unbridgeable divide between philosophy’s God and revelation’s. Thus, for example, Wyschogrod demonstrates quite con­vincingly that the Shema is not a philosophical formulation of God’s metaphysical oneness but, rather, an impassioned declaration of covenantal fidelity—“Adonai Echad” means not that ‘God is one’ in His inner nature but that ‘God alone’ is to be worshiped. If philosophical monotheism is concerned with abstract truths about a transcendent deity, its scriptural counterpart is concerned with the concrete interactions of a personal God and His people.68

Dr. Mashah Turner of Bar Ilan University similarly argues that Maimonides’ “doctrine of the negative divine attributes rules out a personal relationship with God by undermining the simplistic and traditional meanings of such concepts as prayer and the observance of the Commandments.” She argues that Maimonides’ position of the nature of God must be reconsidered if it is to have meaning for contemporary people.69

68

  Shai Held, “The Promise and Peril of Jewish Barthianism: The Theology of Michael Wyschogrod” in Modern Judaism (Volume 25, Number 3, October 2005)  pp. 316-326. 69

  Mashah Turner. The Relevance of the Guide to the Jew of Today, in Da’at (32-33, 1994), pp. 85-95.

God

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik takes issue with Maimonides’ position on the recitation of piyyutim.70 Maimonides rules that such compositions are to be avoided because they attribute human qualities to God. Maimonides writes: We cannot approve of what those foolish persons do who are extravagant in praise, fluent and prolix in the prayers they compose, and in the hymns they make in the desire to approach the Creator. They describe God in attributes, which would be an offence if applied to a human being . . . This license is frequently met with in the compositions of the singers, preachers, and others . . . Such authors write things which partly are real heresy, and partly contain such folly and absurdity that they naturally cause those who hear them to laugh, but also to feel grieved at the thought that such things can be uttered in reference to God . . . And I declare that they not only commit an ordinary sin, but unconsciously at least incur the guilt of profanity and blasphemy. This applies both to the multitude that listens to such prayers, and to the foolish person that recites them. People, however, who understand the fault of such compositions, and, nevertheless, recite them, may be classed, according to my opinion, among those to whom the following words are applied: And the children of Israel used words that were not right against the Lord their God (Kings 2: 17:9), and utter error against the Lord (Isaiah 2:6). If you are of those who regard the honor of their Creator, do not listen in any way to them, much less utter what they say, and still less compose such prayers, knowing how great is the crime of one who hurls aspersions against the Supreme Being.71

Rabbi Soloveitchik disagrees. He writes: Halakhic man never accepted the ruling of Maimonides opposing the recital of piyyutim, the liturgical poems and songs of praise. Go forth and learn what the Guide sought to do to the piyyutim of Israel… Nevertheless, on the High Holidays the com­munity of Israel, singing the hymns of

70

  Liturgical poems that are inserted in the prayer service.

71

  Guide 1:59. Friedlander translation.

53

54

C h a p t e r Tw o

unity and glory, reaches out to its Creator, and when the Divine Presence winks at us from behind the fading rays of the setting sun and its smile bears within it forgiveness and pardon, we weave a “royal crown” of praise for the Attik Yomim, the Ancient One. And in moments of divine mercy and grace, in times of spiritual ecstasy and exaltation, when our entire existence thirsts for the living God, we recite many piyyutim and hymns, and we disregard the strictures of the philosophical Midrash concerning the problem of negative attributes.

Rabbi Soloveitchik argues that piyyutim serve as praises to “divine mercy and grace...when our entire existence thirsts for the living God.”72 Despite the occasional dissatisfactions with some aspects of Maimonides’ point of view regarding God’s corporeality, Maimonides’ conception of God as incorporeal became normative in Jewish theology. The opinions of those who held contrary opinions were ignored and eventually forgotten. Maimonides’ conception of God received a sort of “official sanction” and became part of the prayer book. The ani ma’amin (I believe) doxology, which some Jews recite daily, is based on Maimonides’ formulation of the thirteen principals of the Jewish faith. The third of these principles reads: “I believe with complete faith that the Creator, Blessed is His Name, is not physical and He is not affected by any physical phenomena, and that there is no comparison whatsoever to Him.” Similarly the Yigdal hymn, which has now become standard in almost all prayer books and is recited by a large section of Jewry as part of the opening of the daily morning service states: “Exalted be the Living God and praised, He exists— unbounded by time in His existence. He is One—and there is no unity like His Oneness. Inscrutable and infinite is His Oneness. He has no semblance of a body nor is He corporeal; nor has His holiness any comparison.”

72

  Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man (Philadelphia, 1983) pp. 58-59.

God

In popular and in Rabbinic parlance a believing Jew is defined as a Jew who accepts the thirteen principles of the Jewish faith as formulated by Maimonides. These, as noted above, stress God’s incorporeality.

55

Ch apter T h r e e

The Commandments According to the Talmud, Israel was given six hundred and thirteen commandments at Sinai, two hundred and forty-eight of which are positive and three hundred and sixty-five of which are negative.1 The reasons for many of the commandments are obvious. Rabbi Saadiah Gaon referred to them as mitzvot sikhliyot, rational laws. The rational commandments include such commandments as do not commit murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, honor your father and mother, and the like. Other commandments, such as Passover, Sukkot and the Sabbath serve as reminders of historical events which Scripture believes a Jew should always be conscious of. On the other hand, Scripture contains many laws that do not seem to have any rational reason. Example of the latter are: the dietary laws; the laws pertaining to purity and impurity; the laws pertaining to sacrifices; and the prohibition of wearing a garment of linen and wool. The question arises: What is the purpose of the laws which do not appear have a rational basis? The sages of the Talmud said that these laws are to be accepted and observed without questioning their basis. In the words of the Rabbinic sage Rabbi Yochanan: “I have set down a statute, I have decreed a decree. You are not permitted to transgress my decree.”2. Despite the apparent Rabbinic injunction not to question the reason for the non-rational commandments, medieval Jewish philosophers tried to explain them. According to Ibn Ezra all

1

  Makkot 23b.

2

  Pesikta de Rav Kahana 4.7; translated by W. G. Braude and I. J. Kapstein (Philadelphia,1975), pp. 82–83.

56

The Commandments

commandments have a rational reason behind them. He writes: “Our Master Moses said: Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people for.... What great nation is there, that hath statutes and ordinances so righteous as this law (Deut. 4:6-8). Now, if there is no discernable reason for the commandments, how could the nations say that the statutes are righteous and we who observe them wise?”3 Ibn Ezra goes on to say: “The reason for some commandments is obvious, for the Torah itself explains why they are to be observed.4 Others are based on reason.5 These are the commandments which the patriarchs observed before the revelation on Sinai.6 Other commandments have some hidden meaning which only the few can fathom.”7 One explanation found in the medieval sources for commandments that entail rituals which cannot be understood is that they serve a mystical purpose. Thus Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi argues that when the proper people (Israel) perform the commandments in the proper place, in the proper time, in the proper country (the Land of Israel) then in some mystical way they cause God’s spirit to rest upon Israel.8 His contemporary, Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, argues that some rituals bring down positive powers from on high. Thus in explaining the reasons for the sacrifices he writes that the burnt offerings cause “a power from on high to rest upon man.”9 Ibn Ezra also notes “that God’s presence will return to its place if Israel does not keep the law of the burnt-offering.”10

3

  Yesod Mora 8:1; The Secret of the Torah, p. 112.

4

  Ibid.

5

  Yesod Mora 5:1; The Secret of the Torah, p. 75-76.

6

  Ibid.

7

  Yesod Mora 8:1; The Secret of the Torah, p. 112.

8

  Kuzari. Book 2.

9

  Ibn Ezra on Gen. 8:21.

10

  Ibn Ezra on Lev. 1:1.

57

58

Chapter Three

According to the Sefer Ha-Bahir, a Kabbalistic work which made its appearance around 1180 and is contemporaneous with Maimonides, God works through ten powers called sefirot. The commandments which a Jew observes have an influence on the workings of this Divine apparatus. They affect the Divine beneficence which comes down to earth via the sefirot. The kabbalistic works which came after the Sefer Ha-Bahir accepted this approach and elaborated on it. They stressed the influence of the observance of the commandments on the supernal world. The great Kabbalist Nahmanides, who was born close to a hundred years after Maimonides’ death but who quoted much earlier traditions, explains the cosmological effect of the sacrifices as follows: They said in Genesis Rabba:11 Le-ovdah u-le-shomrah (to work it and to keep it) (Gen 2:15) refers to the sacrifices, as it is said, You shall serve (ta’avdu) God (Ex. 3:12)…The meaning of this commandment is: plants and all living beings are dependent upon higher forces, from which they receive their power of growth, and that through the sacrifices, there will be a flow of blessings to the higher (forces) and from them to the plants of the garden of Eden.12

According to Nahmanides, the above is achieved by the celebrant’s concentration on “the ultimate union of the two sefirot, Malkhut and Tiferet, and, with them, the whole Atzilut, centralized in the sefirah of Tiferet, which is also called God’s unique name.”13 The basic work of the Kabbalah, the Zohar, which made its appearance after Nahmanides’ death, writes: “In the observance of every mitzvah, let your effort be directed toward uniting the Holy

11

  Genesis Rabbah 16:5.

12

  Nahmanides on Gen. 2:8. Chayyim Henoch, Nahmanides: Philosopher and Mystic (Jerusalem, 1978), p. xxiii. 13

  Ibid.

The Commandments

One, Blessed be He,14 and his Shekhinah15 through all camps above and below.”16 A kabbalistic prayer said before observing the commandments, which has entered many prayer books, reads, “I am hereby ready to do the following precept…. as the Lord our God commanded us in His holy Torah… in order to effect the union of the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Shekhinah in reverence and love… and to unite the first two letters and the last two letters of the tetragrammaton in a complete union.” Rabbi Chayyim of Volozhin (1729-1821) summarized the views of the Zohar and its interpreters on the observance of the commandments in his Nefesh Ha-Chayyim. He there writes: …The Blessed Lord created Man and gave him dominion over myriads of powers and over numberless Worlds. These were all transferred to him that he might conduct them through every detail of his movements, in deeds, words and thoughts. Man’s guidance of these powers may be either good, or… the opposite of good. For with his good deeds, words and thoughts man sustains and gives energy to numerous Powers and Holy Celestial Worlds. Man adds holiness and light to them, as it is written, And I have put My words in thy mouth ... to plant the Heavens and lay the foundations of the earth. (Isaiah 51: 16); and as the Sages have declared, “Read not ‘thy sons’17 but ‘thy builders,’”18 for it is they who arrange the upper worlds as a builder who constructs a building, giving it great strength. But on the other hand, by deeds, words or thoughts which are not good… he destroys countless and numberless powers and Holy Celestial Worlds, as it is written, Thy destroyers and thy wasters shall go forth from thee (Isaiah. 49: 17); or, at any rate, he darkens and diminishes their light and holiness, and on the other hand adds that Power to the Dwellings of Uncleanliness...

14

  The sefirah Tiferet.

15

  The tenth sefirah, Malkhut.

16

  Zohar, Shemot, Section 2, Page 119a

17

  The reference is to Is. 54:13: and great shall be the peace of thy sons.

18

  Berakhot 64a.

59

60

Chapter Three

This, then, is what is signified by the verse, And Elohim created man in His own image; in the image of Elohim created He him (Genesis 1:7). Just as His Blessed Name is Elohim, which signifies that He is master of all Powers which exist in all the Worlds, and that He arranges them and leads them at every instant according to his will; in the identical fashion His Blessed Will gave man dominion to rule over myriads of Powers and Worlds through each of his specific acts and dealings, at every instant, according to the Celestial World in which his act, word, or thought is rooted, as though he were actually master of the energy of those Worlds. The Sages expressed themselves similarly in a Midrash: “Rabbi Azariah said in the name of Rabbi Judah the son of Rabbi Simon. When Israel do the will of the Omnipresent, they add strength to the Divine Power, as it is written, ‘We shall add strength to Elohim’(Psalms 40:4); but when Israel fails do the will of the Omnipresent, they weaken, as it were, a great Power above, as it is written, Thou hast weakened the Rock that begat thee (Deut. 32: 18).” This thought recurs in the Zohar very frequently, as in the phrase, “the sins of man cause imperfections above”… For when Israel does not do the will of the Omnipresent, they fatigue, as it were, the Powers of the Holy One (blessed be He); and when they do worthy deeds they give strength and power to the Holy One (blessed be He). Therefore is it written, Give strength unto Elohim (Ps. 65:8). Wherewith? With worthy deeds. We now understand why it is here written “unto Elohim” and We shall add strength unto Elohim (ibid. 40:4) for that name19 signifies the Master of all Powers.20

Rabbi Sheneur Zalmin of Liadi (1745-1812) explains the sounding of the shofar as follows: Rosh Hashanah is known as the holiday when the new moon is covered21 and is not seen. In a spiritual context, this means that the Sefira of Malkhut (symbolized by the moon), the light

19

  Elohim.

20

  Nefesh HaHayim, translated by Raphael Ben Zion in An Anthology of Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1981). 21

  Rosh Ha-Shanah 8a.

The Commandments

that animates the worlds and created beings, is concealed and withdraws to its source. Afterwards, by means of the sounding of the shofar and by means of the prayers, a new and superior light is elicited, a light of a yet higher rank in the sphere of the Supreme Chokhma, to radiate to the Higher Land and those who dwell upon it, i.e. to all the higher and lower worlds that receive their vitality from it, i.e. from the Ein Sof-light, and from God’s Chokhma which is vested in it, i.e. in “the Higher Land”; this is as it is written, “For with You is the source of life; in Your light shall we see light” (Psalms 36:10).22

Maimonides has a totally different approach to the commandments. Maimonides did not believe that the mitzvot serve any theurgic purpose. He believed that the commandments of the Torah serve an educational purpose. According to Maimonides, “The general object of the Torah is twofold: the well-being of the soul, and the well-being of the body. “The well being of the soul is promoted by correct opinions communicated to the people according to their capacity. Some of these opinions are therefore imparted in a plain form, others allegorically: because certain opinions are in their plain form too strong for the capacity of the common people.”23 The correct opinions which the Torah wishes to communicate to Israel include the knowledge of God’s Existence, His incorporeality, His oneness, His incomparability, His eternal existence; Creation, Prophecy and the like. 24 Many religious practices reinforce the above, among them the Sabbath, teffilin and mezuzah. In addition to the above, the ritual laws remind the Israelite of God’s existence. If he observes these commandments properly he is mentally tied to God. An Israelite who observes the commandments

22   Tanya I:14, in Lessons in the Tanya of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi Vol. I, eluci-  dated by Rabbi Yosef Wineberg: translated by Rabbi Levy Wineberg (New  York, 1984). 23

  Guide 3:27; Friedlander trans. p. 312.

24

  Ibid. 3:28; Friedlander trans. p. 313.

61

62

Chapter Three

is thus with God a good portion of the day; for a person is wherever his mind is.25 The Torah teaches Israelites to reject idolatry. According to Maimonides many of the Torah’s commandments, especially those which appear to be non rational, have anti-paganism as their goal.26 Thus, according to Maimonides, the purpose of the sacrificial system was to wean Israel away from idol worship and direct their worship to the Lord.27 The prohibition to cook meat and milk28 similarly has its origin in the rejection of the pagan religious ritual that consisted in the cooking of a kid in its mother’s milk.29 Similarly the prohibitions of wearing a mixture of linen and wool (shatnez)30 and the law prohibiting the shaving of the corners of the head.31 According to Maimonides these were pagan practices, which God did not want Israel to imitate. Next comes the well-being of the body, that is, the creation of a good society. The aforementioned is established by proper interpersonal behavior. This can be attained in two ways: “first by removing all violence from our midst: that is to say, that we do not do every one as he pleases, desires, and is able to do; but every one of us does that which contributes towards the common welfare. Secondly, by teaching every one of us such good morals as must produce a good social state.” The above is achieved by such laws as the prohibition of 32 theft, murder,33 lying,34 the taking of interest,35 hating ones’

25

    27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   26

Ibid. 3:52; Friedlander trans. pp. 391-392. Ibid. 3:29; Friedlander trans. pp. 315-320. Ibid. 3:31; Friedlander trans. pp. 321-322. Ex. 23:19. Ibid. 3:48 ; Friedlander trans. p. 371. Ibid. 3:35; Friedlander trans. p. 329. Guide 3:37; Friedlander trans.335. Lev. 19:11. Ex. 20:13. Ibid. Ex. 22:24.

The Commandments

neighbor36 and laws mandating the establishment of an honest judicial system,37 lending money to the poor,38 loving one’s neighbor,39 respect of parents,40 honoring and elderly,41 and the like. Maimonides goes on to say: Of these two objects, the one, the well-being of the soul, or the communication of correct opinions, comes undoubtedly first in rank, but the other, the well-being of the body, the government of the state, and the establishment of the best possible relations among men, is anterior in nature and time. The latter object is required first: it is also treated in the Torah most carefully and most minutely, because the well-being of the soul can only be obtained after that of the body has been secured. 42

The problem that Maimonides faced was that the Talmud occasionally gives theurgic reasons for the commandments. In such cases Maimonides codified the Biblical or Talmudic law. However, he eliminated the theurgic reason given by the Talmud for the Halakhah. In cases where Maimonides believed that a Talmudic statement was non-Halakhic, but was offered as advice, and in Maimonides’ 36

    38   39   40   41   37

42

Ibid. v. 17. Deut. 16: 18-20. Ibid.14:7-8. Ibid. verse 18. Ex. 20:12. Lev. 19:32.

  Guide 3:27; Friedlander trans. p. 312. It is worthy of note that Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, a sharp critic of Maimonides’ philosophy and generally   a supporter of the interpretations of Judaism put forth by Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi and Nahmanides, accepted Maimonides’ basic approach to the mitzvot. Rabbi Hirsch emphasizes the educational purposes of the mitzvot. Although he does not necessarily offer the same explanation for them that Maimonides does, he negates giving them a supernatural meaning. Rabbi Hirsch took issue with those who looked upon some of the mitzvot, “as a mere mechanical opus operatum, or as amulet-like charms for the prevention of physical ailments or the erection of mystic supra-mundane worlds.” See The 19 Letters of Ben Uziel, translated by Bernard Drachman (New York, 1960), p. 114; 122.

63

64

Chapter Three

opinion was based on non-scientific thinking, Maimonides did not quote the dictum at all. Maimonides’s justification for eliminating the theurgic reasons given by the Talmud for certain commandments was based on his approach to Aggada. In his commentary on the Mishnah Maimonides notes that there are three approaches to Aggadic statements. a. To take all Aggadic statements, no matter how irrational, literally. b. To take all Aggadic statements literally and then to ridicule the sages for believing in and propagating non-rational beliefs. c. To realize that not all Aggadic statements are to be taken literally. Many are poetic or have an esoteric meaning.43 Maimonides believed that theurgic explanations for the mitzvot fall into the latter category. He therefore usually omitted the theurgic reasons given by the Rabbis for various Halakhot. However, in keeping with his belief that Aggadic statements are poetic or have an esoteric meaning, he, whenever pertinent, offers his version of the reason that the Rabbis give for the Halakhah being codified. A number of examples follow. A. The four kinds The Torah states: “And you shall take on the first day [of Sukkot] the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm- trees, and boughs of thick-trees, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days (Lev. 23:40).” The Mishnah notes that these four plants are to be waved during the recitation of the Hallel.44 The Talmud adds that the plants are to be waved in the direction of the four compass points plus up and down. It then offers two interpretations for this ritual.

43   Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, Introduction to Chapter 10 of Sanhedrin. 44

  Sukkah 37b.

The Commandments

A. “He waves the lulav to and fro in honor of Him to Whom the four directions belong, and up and down in acknowledgment of Him to Whom are Heaven and Earth.”45 B. “He waves the lulav to and fro in order to restrain harmful winds; up and down, in order to restrain harmful dews.”46 Rashi cites only the second opinion in his comments on an earlier Mishnah which mentions the waving of the lulav, where he explains that the lulav is waved to and fro to restrain harmful winds and up and down to restrain harmful dews.47 The great codifiers of Jewish law Rabbi Isaac Alfasi and Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel quote both opinions in their works.48 Maimonides does not. He writes: “He waves the lulav three times in each and every direction. How does he do the latter? He extends the lulav and waves its top three times. He brings the lulav back and waves its top three times. He raises the lulav and does the same. He lowers the lulav and does the same.”49

Maimonides omits the opinion that maintains that the lulav is waved “to and fro in order to restrain harmful winds” and “up and down, in order to restrain harmful dews” from the Mishneh Torah because he does not believe that the waving of the lulav has any supernatural effect. The other reason for the waving of the lulav which the Talmud offers, namely that the lulav is waved “to and fro in honor of Him to Whom the four directions belong, and up and down in acknowledgment of Him to Whom are Heaven and Earth” is apparently alluded to in the following formulation of the Halakhah relating to the waving of the lulav.

45

  Ibid. Soncino Translation.

46

  Ibid.

47

  Rashi on Mishnah, Sukkah 29b.

48

  For Alfasi see Halakhot: Sukkah 18b; For Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel see Hilkhot HaRosh: Sukkah 3:26. 49

  Mishneh Torah: Hilkhot Shofar Ve-Sukkah Ve-Lulav 7:9.

65

66

Chapter Three

“When does he extend the lulav and bring it back? He does this when the Hallel is recited at… the first and second reading of the words Give thanks to God, for He is good (Psalm 118:1).”50

B. Sounding of the shofar According to Rabbinic tradition, Scripture mandates that a shofar be sounded on the festival of Rosh Ha-Shanah. The tradition was to sound the shofar before and during the Musaf prayer. The Talmud asks: “Why do we sound the shofar twice? Once before Musaf and once during Musaf?” The Talmud answers: “We do so to confound Satan.”51 Many authorities accepted the Talmudic explanation literally. Some sources suggest that the coming of the new month of Tishri is not publicly proclaimed on the Sabbath preceding Rosh HaShanah to prevent Satan from knowing when the New Year falls.52 Six Scriptural verses are read before sounding the shofar. When the first letter of each verse is placed next to each other they spell kera satan (tear or destroy Satan). It is customary for the Cantor to recite a prayer beginning with the word hineni (here I am) before the Musaf prayer on Rosh Ha-Shanah. The prayer is said with deep emotion and trepidation. One of the lines of this prayer reads, May You denounce Satan that he not impede me. Maimonides does not believe that Satan as such, that is as a personality, exists. He believes that the term symbolizes man’s evil inclination. Maimonides believes that the word Satan stems from a root meaning “to turn away”; that is, to turn away from God.53 Maimonides quotes the dictum of the Talmud, “Rabbi Simon ben

50

  Ibid.

51

  Rosh Ha-Shanah 16b.

52

  Levush, 582:1; Shulkhan Arukh Ha-Rav; Orach Chayyim 5911.

53

  Guide; 3:22.

The Commandments

Lakish said: Satan, the evil inclination, and the angel of death are one and the same,”54 in support of his position.55 When Maimonides codifies the laws of the shofar he omits the Talmudic comment regarding Satan. However, he does not ignore it. He rather interprets the Talmudic statement as referring to man’s evil inclination Maimonides explains the reason for sounding the shofar as follows: Although the sounding of the shofar is a Scriptural decree, it contains a hint. It, as it were, alludes to the following: Awake you that sleep from your sleep, and you that slumber awake from your slumber, scrutinize your deeds, return in repentance and remember your Creator. Those of you who forget the truth because of the follies of the times, and go astray all the year with vanity and emptiness that neither help nor save; look out for your souls, and improve your ways and deeds; let everyone of you abandon his evil course and his thought which is not good.56

For Maimonides when the Talmud says that we sound the shofar to confound Satan it means that we sound the shofar to call Israel to repentance. The shofar has nothing to do with Satan as a personality, but rather to Satan as a symbol of man’s disposition to forget his creator and do evil. C. Mezuzah The Torah commands that a mezuzah be placed on the doorposts of the Jewish home.57 A number of Rabbis held that the mezuzah was placed on the doorposts to protect the inhabitants of the house from evil spirits.58 Thus the Mekhilta states: “If the blood that was put on

54

  Bava Batra 16a.

55

  Guide; 3:22.

56

  Mishneh Torah: Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:7.

57

  See Deut. 6:9.

58

  See Tal. Yerushalmi: Peah. Chap. 1.

67

68

Chapter Three

one’s doorpost in Egypt had the power to keep the destroyer out of the house,59 how much more so is the power of the mezuzah which has the name of God mentioned in it ten times.”60 The Jerusalem Talmud relates that a person called Artaben61 sent Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi a very precious stone. Artaben requested that Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi send him back something of equal value. Rabbi Judah Hanasi responded by sending him a mezuzah. When Artaben received the mezuzah he replied, “I sent you something of great value, and you reciprocate with something that can be purchased with a small coin.”62 Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi responded, “You sent me something which I have to protect, whereas I sent you something that will protect you when you sleep.” 63 A medieval source records a tradition that a shed (demon) eventually entered into the daughter of Artaben. According to this source nothing but the mezuzah could get the shed to leave the afflicted girl.64 The Zohar reads: Come and see that a person is required to inscribe the Holy Name upon the doorpost of his home. For this is the basic belief. Every place that the Holy Name is found— the evil spirits cannot be found, and they are unable to act upon a person. When a person puts a mezuzah on his door, and the Holy Name is inscribed within its letters, then the person is crowned with the Crown of his Master, and the evil spirits are unable to get close and therefore cannot be found there.65

Many commentaries took the above at face value. 59

  See Ex. 12:23.   Mekhilta Bo. 61   A certain wealthy Jew (Pene Moshe). The reference might also be to a Per-  sian king. 62   Pene Moshe. 60

63

  Yerushalmi: Peah. Chap. 1.

64

  She’iltot: Ekev 145

65

  Zohar; Devorim, 265. Soncino Translation.

The Commandments

The Divine name Shaddai that is written on the outer side of the mezuzah is taken to stand for shomer daltot yisra’el; He guards the gates of Israel. The Kabbalist Rabbi Menachem Recanati66 writes: “The mezuzah affixed to the doorpost of a home serves as a protection against the messengers of evil. When confronted by the name of God, which is on the exterior of the mezuzah, these messengers of harm realize that God is watching over this domicile and they will refrain from entering. The word mezuzot67 is a combination of the words ‘zaz’ and ‘mavet’ which mean, Death: Remove thyself.”68

The protective power of the mezuzah is believed to lie in the words of Scripture that are inscribed on it. Any defect in the text of the mezuzah weakens its power. When tragedy strikes, the mezuzah must be inspected. Rabbi Chaim Vital (1543-1620)69 reports that the Ari (15341572)70 once sent him to aid a woman whose home was haunted by a spirit. Rabbi Chaim discovered that the home had a defective mezuzah. He immediately ordered that a proper mezuzah be placed upon the door and the spirit never reappeared.71 There are those who maintain that the mezuzah not only protects the house but also protects the inhabitants of the home even when they are not within its walls. Following the hijacking of an Air France plane in 1976 and the taking of its Israeli and Jewish passengers as hostages, a flyer appeared in Israel that was

66

  An Italian Kabbalist who flourished at the close of the thirteenth century and in the early part of the fourteenth century. 67

  The plural of mezuzah. Mezuzot is the term used by Scripture. See Deut.6:9.

68

  Translated by Alexander Polterak in The Protective Power of Mezuzah. On the Web.

69

  Kabbalist and student of the Ari.

70

  The great Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac Ben Solomon Luria. Ari stands for Ha-Elohi Rabbi Yitzhak. 71

  Shivche Ha-Ari. Cited by David Kahanah in Toledot Ha-Mekubbalim, Ha-Shabbata’im, Ve-Ha-Chasidim (Tel Aviv, 1925), p. 25.

69

70

Chapter Three

distributed by a student branch of Chabad. Among other things, the flyer stated: A kosher mezuzah on your door posts not only makes your house kosher for Godliness, but it also increases your security measure even after you have left the home for the day. And since all Jews are one large body, it increases the security of the entire Jewish nation. Due to the fact that most of the mezuzot in the homes of hostages, upon examination, were found to be defective, improperly placed or not on every door post, all Jews should check their mezuzot immediately.

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman of Chabad writes: As every homeowner knows, it’s not those little gadgets with the flashing lights that protect your home. It’s the police station. You just need to make sure those gadgets are connected. A mezuzah on your doorpost works the same way—only that it’s connected to a Higher Protection Agency. Much higher. In fact, that’s how every mitzvah works—tefillin, Shabbat candles, Torah study, acts of kindness. Think of them as dedicated connections putting you online with the Infinite Server of All Things. Mezuzos, however, have a special quality: They connect directly to the protection function. As the sages of the Talmud taught, put a mezuzah on your door and you’re protected in your house and away. Now that’s something no earthbound service offers.72

Many anecdotes are related among religious Jews regarding the ill fortune that befell homes that were not protected by a kosher mezuzah. The following two are typical: Little Yossi was a sweet and cute-looking infant. Yet, when more than two years had passed and the child still hadn’t learned how to talk, the parents decided to take him to their pediatrician. After a thorough checkup, the doctor could not

72

  Tzvi Freeman, “Home Security Device,” http://www.chabad.org/library/article_ cdo/aid/142438/jewish/Home-Security-Device.htm. Accessed September 7, 2011.

The Commandments

find anything wrong and assured the parents that the child would soon begin to speak. As more than another year passed, and still there was no progress, they became very concerned and decided to consult a specialist. After a complete checkup and many tests, the specialist was also unable to find the cause of the problem. Six more months passed, yet the child didn’t utter a single word. All day his mother would hold him in her arms, smile at him, and make all sorts of sounds, in the hope that he would thereby imitate her. Yet not a sound came out of his mouth. The parents were panicking and becoming more desperate from day to day. One night, the father went to his Rebbe and poured out his heart. It was filled with fear and worry. The Rebbe advised him to have his mezuzos checked at once. The very next day he took off all his mezuzos and brought them to an expert sofer. The scribe discovered that the mezuzah on the door to Yossi’s room was defective. Yossi’s father immediately ran to buy a good mezuzah and put it on the door. Imagine his great joy, when two days later his son began to talk.73 Young Moishe would wake up every night and run into his parent’s room. He kept having nightmares and was afraid to go to sleep. This continued for more than three years. In desperation, the parents took Moishe to a psychologist, but it didn’t do any good. In fact, the nightmares were getting worse, and it was affecting the child’s health. He wasn’t able to concentrate on his studies and began showing signs of great nervousness. The parents even brought him to a psychiatrist who gave him some medication that proved useless. A friend of theirs suggested that they have their mezuzos checked out. ”But we already have,” said the father, “and they’re all okay.” It was months later that the father decided to have them checked again. They were shocked by what they found. A new mezuzah was put on, and Moishe hasn’t had a single nightmare since. This story left the parents in total shock, and to this very day they are grateful to the sofer for having found the mistake.74

73

  Rabbi Eli Teitelbaum, Mezuzah Website. On the Web.

74

  Ibid.

71

72

Chapter Three

Not everyone in the contemporary Jewish community is happy with this approach to the commandment of mezuzah. Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler, a prominent contemporary authority on Jewish law, is very critical of those who view the mezuzah as an amulet. He writes: Many Jews today believe that checking the mezuzah will explain an illness. They believe that because rain seeped into a mezuzah and erased a letter on the parchment, a woman became ill with cancer. Why are we willing to believe such a thing? Because the mind doesn’t function anymore. Because we gave up Hashem Elokim. Sure you should check the mezuzos. Check your tefillin, check your tongue, check your business records, make sure you do things better next time so that God will have mercy on you. But to think that there’s a cause and effect relationship? Nonsense.75

Rabbi Tendler was merely restating the position of Maimonides, who took issue with those who held that the mezuzah was placed on the doorposts to protect the inhabitants of the house. He held that the purpose of the mezuzah was to remind the occupants to be aware of God and to adhere to laws of the Torah. He writes: A person should pay heed to the precept of the mezuzah; for it is an obligation perpetually binding upon all. Whenever one enters or leaves a home with the mezuzah on the doorpost, he will be confronted with the declaration of God’s unity, blessed be His holy name; and will remember the love due to God, and will be aroused from his slumbers and his foolish absorption in temporal vanities. He should realize that nothing endures to all eternity save knowledge of the Maker of the universe. This thought will immediately restore him to his right senses and he will walk in the paths of righteousness. Our ancient teachers said: He who has tefillin on his head and arm, tzitzits on his garment, and a mezuzah on his door may be presumed not to sin, for he has many monitors— angels that save him from sinning, as it is said, The angel of

75

  “On the interface: Immutable Torah, Unchanging Laws of Nature, Ever-Changing Understanding of these laws”, in B’Or Ha-Torah, Vol. 14 (Israel, 2004).

The Commandments

the Lord encamps round bout them that fear Him and delivers them (Ps. 34:5).76 It is a universal custom to write the word Shaddai (almighty) on the outside of the mezuzah, opposite the blank space between the two sections. As this word is written on the outside, the practice is unobjectionable. They, however, who write names of angels, holy names, a Biblical text, are among those who have no portion in the world to come. For these fools not only fail to fulfill the commandment but they treat an important precept that expresses unity of God, the love of Him, and His worship, as if it were an amulet to promote their own personal interests; for, according to their foolish minds, the mezuzah is something that will secure for them advantage in the vanities of the world.77

76

  Mishneh Torah; Laws of Mezuzah 6:13.Twersky translation, p. 95.

77

  Mishneh Torah; Laws of Mezuzah 5:4. Twersky translation, p. 94.

73

Ch apter Fou r

Magic, Demons and Evil Spirits Belief in the efficacy of magic and the existence of demons was widespread in the ancient and medieval worlds. In fact it is quite likely that a majority of people the world over still believe in the power of magic and in the existence of demons. Jews are no exception. Some time ago a Jewish New York radio station reported that a fish spoke in Monsey, New York. It seems unbelievable but quite a number of people gave the story credence.1 About a year later an Israeli newspaper reported that a Rabbi known for his ability to intervene with the supernatural was called to a military base where four workers were killed in a six-month period in labor-related accidents. There was a feeling at the base that a curse was at work. According to the newspaper, the Rabbi plus a colleague with similar powers and 200 officers and soldiers blew 100 shofars in order to remove the “curse.”2 The website Matzav3 recently gave a vivid description of an attempt at exorcism performed by a well known Kabbalist. It seems that a young man living in Brazil was possessed by a dybbuk.4 The possession was confirmed by a noted Rabbi. An exorcism was attempted from Jerusalem via the internet. However, it failed. The young man was brought to Jerusalem and Rabbi Batzri, a recognized

1

  See: The Jewish Press (March 12, 2003): “Lessons in Emunah” (“Mazal ... Adar ... Dagim”); The Forward (March 14, 2003): “Fishy Story Tests Chasidic Town’s Beliefs;” The New York Times (March 15, 2003): “Fish Talks, Town Buzzes.” 2

  Yediot Acharonot, March 31, 04.

3

  Matzav describes itself as, The Online Voice of Torah Jewry.

4

  A spirit that attaches itself to a person and disturbs him.

74

Magic, Demons and Evil Spirits

Kabbalist, attempted to oust the spirit that was believed to have entered the body of the young man. What follows is a description of the Rabbi’s attempted exorcism: Last night, in the ezras noshim of Yeshivat Hashalom in Yerushalayim, Rav Batzri met with the Brazilian man to attempt to banish the dybbuk. Literally thousands of people gathered in and around the yeshiva to watch. “Get out immediately! Go out from the small toe on his foot!” Rav Batzri told the dybbuk. “I turn to you now and tell you: If you leave now, I assure you that we will make a tikkun5 for you,” said Rav Batzri.6 “Go! Go! Go!” yelled the crowd upon the direction of the rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Hamekubalim. But the dybbuk wouldn’t leave the body of the Brazilian avreich,7 who was shaking like a leaf. Thousands watched as Rav Batzri attempted for hours to chase away the dybbuk, which refused to leave. For a long time, Rav Batzri begged the dybbuk to reveal its name, but it refused. Exhaustion was written all over Rav Batzri’s face. With numerous sifrei kabbalah opened before him, shofars were blown and tears formed in his eyes as he exerted much effort to finally get rid of the dybbuk trapped inside the Brazilian’s body. The voice coming out of the body didn’t say much and would not cooperate with Rav Batzri. One of the few times when the dybbuk’s voice was clear, it said that when he “was alive, he once killed a couple and took their son for avodah zarah.”8 Rav Batzri proposed to perform a tikkun neshama9 for the dybbuk, but it refused the offer while remaining within the body of the avreich.

5

  A fixing or repair.

6

  To repair or cure the dybbuk

7

  Young man.

8

  Idol worship.

9

  A ritual to repair the soul.

75

76

Chapter Four

Rav Batzri arranged for the recital of a special tikkun, accompanied by the blowing of shofaros and the recital of the Yud Gimmel Middos.10 When chatzos11 arrived, Rav Batzri asked everyone assembled to be mekabel ol malchus Shomayim,12 and the thousands who had gathered responded and recited Krias Shema13 together. Among those present, there were those who claimed that during the communal recital of Krias Shema, the dybbuk was heard reciting the Shema was well. Witnesses said that at that point, they heard two voices from the Brazilian yungerman— his own and that of the dybbuk. Throughout the evening, the avreich’s family stood close by, offering him chizuk.14 The man himself was shivering and his face was pale. Many who came just to see what was going on found themselves shaking from what they observed. They watched this otherwise healthy man, pale and trembling, as a voice emerged from him, answering Rav Batzri’s questions. Unfortunately all efforts to expel the dybbuk failed. The dybbuk remains entrenched in the body of the Brazilian avreich and, as of this writing, has refused to leave despite the efforts of Rav Batzri, who spared no effort in trying to free the dybbuk from the frightened young man.15

A pamphlet advocating the purchase of a wonder-working ring was recently mailed to members of the Jewish community. The ring is supposed to aid those afflicted with cancer, Parkinson’s, high blood pressure, diabetes and the evil eye. It also helps in earning a living and finding a proper match. The pamphlet came with the approbation of Chassidic Rabbinic authorities attesting to its curative and other properties.16

10

  The thirteen attributes of mercy. See Ex. 34:6-7.

11

  Midnight.

12

  Accept the kingdom of heaven.

13

  Deut. 6:4-9.

14

  Encouragement.

15

  Matzav. Jan. 7, 2010

16

  “Beste Investment.” Oiseh Nifluos Gedolos (Monroe, New, York). No date given.

Magic, Demons and Evil Spirits

Maimonides insisted that all magical practices are, “false and deceptive, and were means employed by the ancient idolaters to deceive the peoples of various countries and induce them to become their followers.”17 He held that, “it is not proper for Israelites who are highly intelligent to allow themselves to be deluded by such inanities or to imagine that there is anything in them, as it is said, For there is no enchantment with Jacob, neither is there any divination with Israel (Num. 23:23); and further, the nations that thou art to dispossess hearken unto soothsayers and unto diviners: but as for thee, the Lord, thy God, hath not suffered thee so to do (Deut. 18:14).” He also stated that, “Whoever believes in these and similar things in his heart, holds them to be true and scientific and only forbidden by the Torah, is nothing but a fool, deficient in understanding.”18 Maimonides insisted that, “Sensible people...who possess sound mental faculties, know by clear proofs that all these practices which the Torah prohibited have no scientific basis but are chimerical and inane; and that only those deficient in knowledge are attracted by these follies, and for their sake leave the ways of truth. The Torah, therefore, in forbidding all these follies, exhorts us; Thou shall be whole-hearted with the Lord, thy God (Deut. 18:13).”19 The book of Genesis records that Abraham sent his servant to Aram Naharayim to bring back a wife for his son Isaac. Scripture records that the servant prayed to God and asked him to select a young lady for Isaac. The Torah further tells us that the servant gave himself a sign by which he would determine the will of God. He said: Let the maiden to whom I say, ‘Please, lower your jar that I may drink,’ and who replies, ‘Drink and I will also water your camels’— let her be the one whom You have decreed for Your servant Isaac. Thereby shall I know that you have dealt graciously with my master (Gen. 24:14).

17

  Mishneh Torah; Laws of Idolatry, 11:16, Hayamson translation.

18

  Ibid.

19

  Ibid.

77

78

Chapter Four

Scripture does not condemn what the servant did; it seems to approve of it, for the sign was efficacious. Some, as will soon be noted, believed that Abraham’s servant acted properly. Not so Maimonides. According to Maimonides the practice of Abraham’s servant falls into the class of divination forbidden by the Torah. He writes: One must not practice divination the way idolaters do, as it is said: You shall not practice divination (Lev. 19:26). What is meant by divination? Like those who say: since my bread fell from my mouth, or since my staff fell from my hand, I shall not go to such and such a place today, for if I go, my wish will not be done... he who sets a sign for himself: if such and such happens to me, I will do so and so, and if it does not happen to me, I shall not do so, like Abraham’s servant Eliezer… [Such a person] is to be flogged.20

Maimonides’ position vis a vis Abraham’s servant was not accepted by all decisors of Jewish law. Rabbi Abraham Ben David of Posquierres took issue with Maimonides. He ruled that Jewish law permits certain types of divination. Rabbi Abraham wrote: This is a gross mistake, for such a thing is indeed permitted. How could he think such righteous men as Abraham’s servant Eliezer and Saul’s son Jonathan,21 who also used a sign in his

20

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 11. 4. Glazer Translation.

21

  The son of Israel’s first king. The book of I Samuel relates that before Jonathan attacked a garrison of Philistines he said to his arms bearer: “Come and let us go over unto the garrison of these uncircumcised; it may be that the Lord will work for us; for there is no restraint to the Lord to save by many or by few... Behold, we will pass over unto the men, and we will disclose ourselves unto them. If they say thus unto us: Tarry until we come to you; then we will stand still in our place, and will not go up unto them. But if they say thus: “Come up unto us; then we will go up”; for the Lord hath delivered them into our hand; and this shall be the sign unto us.”… And the men of the garrison spoke to Jonathan and his armor-bearer, and said: “Come up to us, and we will show you a thing.” And Jonathan said unto his armorbearer: “Come up after me; for the Lord hath delivered them into the hand of Israel.” See I Sam. 14:6-10.

Magic, Demons and Evil Spirits

war with the Philistines, used divination and transgressed the biblical injunction: You shall not practice divination? As for the words of the Sages—Any divination which is not like that of Abraham’s servant Eliezer or like that of Saul’s son Jonathan is not considered divination22—this was not said by way of prohibition, but to indicate that one should not rely on other divinations where the condition is not stipulated beforehand as in the case of Eliezer and Jonathan...23

Rabbi Abraham concludes by saying that if Eliezer and Jonathan were alive today, they would whip Maimonides with “fiery lashes.” 24 Food to be Eaten on Rosh Ha-Shanah Eve The Talmudic sage Abaye taught that certain foods eaten on the first night of Rosh Ha-shanah have a positive influence on a person’s fortune in the coming year. He taught, “A man should make a regular habit of eating, at the beginning of the year, pumpkin, fenugreek, leek, beet and dates.”25 Abaye’s advice was taken very seriously. His dictum has become part and parcel of Rosh Ha-Shanah festivities and is quoted in the post-Talmudic codes. It is quoted in the Shulkhan Arukh26 and other works on Jewish ritual. The abridged code of Jewish Law writes: At the evening meal (of Rosh Ha-Shanah), it is customary to perform symbols as omens for a good year; we dip in honey a portion of the challah over which we have said the ha-motzi, and after eating a piece the size of an olive, we say: May it be Thy will to renew for us a happy and pleasant year; after this we

22

  Chullin 95b.

23

  Ra’abad, loc. sit. Glazer translation, pp. 361-362.

24

  Ibid.

25

  Horiyot 12a.

26

  Orach Chayyim 593.

79

80

Chapter Four

dip a piece of sweet apple in honey and say the benediction bore peri ha-etz and after eating it we again say: May it be Thy will to renew for us a happy and pleasant year.27

Abaye’s advice as to what should be eaten on Rosh Ha-Shanah eve raised some eyebrows. It appears to advocate the practice of magic (nichush), a practice outlawed by the Torah. The issue was first raised in Geonic times28 and was dealt with by commentators long after. The general opinion was that since the practice is sanctioned by the Talmud it does not violate the Biblical law prohibiting the practice of magic.29 Rabbi Solomon Edels argues that the law prohibiting magic only applies to practices that bring harm. It does not apply to acts that bring about good.30 Rabbi Judah Loew, The Maharal of Prague (1525-1609), emphasizes that there is no connection between what Abaye advocated and the forbidden practice of magic. Rabbi Loew bases himself on the teaching of Nahmanides “to whom alone the secrets of the Torah were revealed.” Nahmanides teaches that according to the Torah any heavenly decree followed by an act that is similar to the decree (po’el dimyon) confirms the latter and assures that it will come to pass. Nahmanides noted that this is the reason that the prophets often perform some symbolic act relating to their prophecies.31 Rabbi Loew believes that the foods eaten on Rosh Ha-Shanah confirm the positive decrees which they represent and assure that they will come to pass.32 Rabbi Abraham Danzig, the author of the popular Halakhic compendium the Chayye Adam, offers a similar interpretation for Abaye’s advice.33

27

  Code of Jewish Law: Kittzur Shulkhan Arukh, translated by Hyman E. Goldman (New, York 1961), 129:9. 28

  Mordecai: Yoma; note 5723.

29

  Ibid.

30

  Maharsha; Horiyot 12b.

31

  Nahmanides on Gen. 12:6.

32

  Be’er Ha-Golah; Be’er Sheni.

33

  Chayye Adam; 139:6.

Magic, Demons and Evil Spirits

Maimonides omits Abaye’s advice from the Mishneh Torah. He probably did so because while it is possible to interpret Abaye’s dictum as a symbolic gesture he feared it might be interpreted, as indeed it was, as having theurgic implication and might be taken as giving sanction to magical practices. Hence he did not mention this practice in the Mishneh Torah. Many great rabbis took issue with Maimonides regarding the efficacy of Magic. Nahmanides writes: Now many scholars [i.e. Maimonides] dispose themselves to be enlightened with regard to… enchantments by saying that there is no truth in them whatsoever… But we cannot deny matters publicly demonstrated before the eyes of witnesses. Our Rabbis also, acknowledged their existence, as they have said in Midrash Rabbah: For a bird of the air shall carry the voice (Ecc.10:2)—this refers to the raven and the craft of ti’arin. Birds in Arabic are called ti’ar and those versed in the divination of birds are called ti’arin.34

Nahmanides claims that King Solomon was an expert in magic. In his introduction to the Torah he writes, “Scripture likewise relates concerning Solomon, And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east (1 Kings 4:30), that is to say, he was better versed than they in divination and enchanting, for this was their wisdom, as it is said, For they are replenished from the east, and with soothsayers like the Philistines (Isaiah 2:6).”35 Evil Spirits Human beings have a need to understand the world around them. One of the mysteries ancient man faced was illness. A person goes to bed apparently perfectly healthy and wakes up sick, or worse, does not wake up at all. How do we explain this phenomenon? Today we have scientific explanation for these unfortunate events. We

34

  Ramban’s commentary on the Torah; Deut. 18:9. Chavel Translation p. 219.

35

  Ibid. Intro. to Genesis. p. 13.

81

82

Chapter Four

attribute it to germs, heart attacks, aneurisms or some other medical condition. These explanations were not available to ancient men. They quite logically attributed these incidents to demons (shedim) or evil spirits (ruchot ra’ot) that entered the body of a healthy person and made it ill or killed it. It is thus not surprising that Talmudic literature speaks of evil spirits and demons. According to one passage in the Talmud, human beings are surrounded by demons. “If the eye had the power of seeing the demons (mazikim), no creature could endure them… The demons are more numerous than human beings and they surround us like a ridge round a field… Every person has a thousand of them on his left hand and then a thousand on his right hand.”36 According to the Mishnah in tractate Avot the demons (mazikim) came into existence before dark on the eve of the first Sabbath of creation.37 Midrash Rabbah similarly reads, “Rabbi Hama ben Rabbi Hoshaya said: In speaking of souls Scripture enumerates four, but in speaking of bodies only three!38 Rabbi said: This extra soul refers to the demons (shedim) whose soul the Holy One, blessed is He, created, but when He came to create their bodies the sanctity of the Sabbath commenced and He could not create them.”39 Other opinions report that Adam sired demons, spirits and Liliths40 while separated from Eve for 130 years after eating from

36

  Berakhot 6a. Soncino Translation (with some changes).

37

  Avot 5:6.

38

  “Gen. I:24 says: Let the earth bring forth the soul of a living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and the beast of the earth: thus living creature (chayyah), cattle, creeping thing, and beast of the earth are enumerated—four in all. Whereas 1:25, referring to the actual animals (‘bodies’) states: And God made the beast of the earth... and the cattle... and everything that creepeth-only three being enumerated.” Soncino, Midrash Rabbah, Gen. 7:7, with some slight changes. 39   Midrash Rabbah; Gen. 7:7 . Soncino translation. 40   Female demons.

Magic, Demons and Evil Spirits

the tree of knowledge.41 Some sources claim that some of the people that were scattered after the building of the tower of Babel were transformed into various types of demons.42 The Rabbis of the Talmud taught that demons (shedim) are similar to ministering angels in three ways and are like human beings in three ways. They are like angels in that they have wings; they fly from one end of the world to the other end of the world and they are aware of what will occur in the future. They resemble human beings in that they eat and drink; they procreate; and they die.43 Maimonides did not believe in the “classic” type of demon or evil spirit; that is, he did not believe in demons or evil spirits as supernatural beings. He believed that demons or evil spirits44 refer to abnormal mental conditions or to a natural agent45 that may be the cause of harm.46 The Mishnah in Eruvin 41b reads:“He whom gentiles, or an evil spirit, have taken outside of the permitted Sabbath limits has no more than four cubits in which to move.”47 A plain reading of the Mishnah would seem to imply that the evil spirit spoken of in the above-quoted text is similar to a gentile, in other words a being. However, this is not how Maimonides interpreted the Mishnah. According to Maimonides, the evil spirit spoken of in the Mishnah

41

  Eruvim18b.   Sanhedrin 109a. 43   Chagigah 16a. 42

44   In the Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides indentifies demons with evil spirits. See Guide 1:7. 45

  Poison or the like.

46

  It is worthy of note that in the Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides suggests that the term “demons” may be applied to people who are not morally developed and thus pose a great danger. See Guide 1:7. 47

  Eruvin 41b. Soncino translation. According to the Talmud, one may not walk more than two thousand cubits beyond the last house of a town on the Sabbath. If he does so, then he may only move within four cubits.

83

84

Chapter Four

refers to a mental state. It refers to “a lack in a person’s ability to reason, be its source whatever it is.”48 Maimonides makes a similar point in his commentary on the Mishnah in Tractate Sabbath which reads: “If a person puts out a lamp [on Sabbath eve] because he fears gentiles, or thieves or an evil spirit... he is not culpable [for desecrating the Sabbath].”49 Maimonides notes that the “evil spirit” spoken of in the Mishnah refers to a type of illness which falls upon those who suffer from black bile. “This illness only falls upon a person when he sits in the dark and is alone.”50 The Mishnah in Gittin reads, “If a man was cast into a pit and said, ‘Let him that hears my voice write out a bill of divorce for my wife,’ they should write it out and deliver it.”51 The Talmud asks: How do we know that the voice coming from the pit was made by a human being. Perhaps it was made by a demon? The Talmud answers that our Mishnah deals in an instance where it is clear that the voice coming from the pit was made by a human being. 52 Maimonides quotes the above Mishnah in the Mishneh Torah. However, he omits the Talmudic requirement that we must ascertain that the voice coming from the pit did not come from a demon. The reason is obvious. Maimonides did not believe in demons.53 The Talmud advises one not to enter a ruin, for there is a danger that it may collapse and fall upon the one who enters therein. It

48

  Commentary on the Mishnah; Erubin 4:1; Kapach edition. The standard translations are based on an incorrect reading. 49

  Sabbath 2:5.

50

  Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah; Sabbath 2:5.

51

  Gittin 6:6; The Mishnah, translated by Herbert Danby (London, 1938),  p. 315. 52

  Gittin 66a.

53

  Kesef Mishhneh, Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Gerushin 2:13 interprets a bit differently. However, see Joseph Kapach, Al Darko U-Mishnato Shel Ha-Rambam in Techumin 8  (Israel, 1987), p. 514.

Magic, Demons and Evil Spirits

offers another reason, that one might be attacked by demons (mazikin).54 Maimonides codifies the Talmudic advice in the Mishneh Torah. However, he omits the danger posed by demons. Maimonides notes that one should not walk under a wall that appears to be collapsing, cross a bridge that is in danger in falling, or enter a ruin. 55 It is clear that according to Maimonides the danger in entering a ruin is similar to the one posed by a collapsing wall or an insecure bridge. In other words, the danger in entering a ruin is not due to an attack by a demon but is similar to the danger of walking under a collapsing wall; that is, the ruin might fall upon him. According to Jewish law a court cannot impose capital punishment upon an individual unless that person has been warned that what he is about to do is contrary to Torah law and of the punishment that awaits him should he follow through and violate the law.56 The Talmud quotes the sage Rava as saying, if a demon (shed) warns a person that what he is about to do is contrary to Jewish law and spells out the consequences of his act, the person is considered warned.57 Maimonides rules like Rava. However, he rewrites Rava’s dictum. Maimonides rules: “If a person heard a voice warning him that what he is about to do is contrary to Torah law but he does not see the one who is warning him, he is considered warned.”58 In Maimonides’ formulation of the Halakhah the voice of the demon becomes an unidentified voice. The reason, again, is obvious: Maimonides did not believe in demons, and this outlook is reflected in his formulation of the Halakhah.

54

  Berakhot 3a. Demons were believed to dwell in ruins.

55

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Rotze’ach 12:5.

56

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Sanhedrin 12:3;4.

57

  Makkot 6a.

58

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Sanhedrin 12:4.

85

86

Chapter Four

Washing of the Hands The Rabbis of the Talmud caution a person to wash his hands three times every morning to remove the evil spirits which rests upon them. The Talmud reads: It was taught, R. Nathan said: It (a spirit which is upon the unwashed hand)59 is a free agent, and insists on remaining on the hands until one washes his hands three times.60 [R. Muna] used to say:61 If the unwashed62 hand is put63 in the morning to the eye, let it be cut off; the hand to the nose, let it be cut off: the hand to the mouth, let it be cut off; the hand to the ear, let it be cut off; the hand to the vein opened for bloodletting, let it be cut off; the hand to the penis, let it be cut off; the hand to the anus, let it be cut off; the hand to the vat, let it be cut off: because the unwashed hand leads to blindness, the unwashed hand leads to deafness, the unwashed hand causes a polypus.64

The idea that an evil spirit rests on one’s hand at night is quoted in the post-Talmudic Halakhic codes. The Tur65 rules, “One should wash one’s hands upon awakening in the morning in order to purify them…he should be careful to pour water upon them three times because an evil spirit rests upon the hands before they are washed. The evil spirit is not removed until water is poured upon them three times.”66

59

  Rashi; Sabbath 109a.

60

  Sabbath 109a. Soncino translation.

61

  Sabbath 108b. Soncino translation.

62

  Rashi; Sabbath 108b.

63

  Ibid.

64

  A morbid growth in the nose. Soncino, Sabbath 109a.

65

  A code of Jewish law composed by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (1270—1343), in Toledo, Spain. 66

  Tur; Orakh Chayyim 4:4.

Magic, Demons and Evil Spirits

The Shulkhan Arukh67 similarly rules, “One should wash one’s hands upon awakening in the morning… He should take care to pour water upon them three times in order to remove the evil spirit which rests upon them.”68 The Zohar and other Kabbalistic writings connected the impurity that befalls the hands of a sleeping person to the impurity which befalls a corpse. There is certain logic to this. A Talmudic source states that sleep is 1/60th of death.69 A dead body is a source of ritual impurity. It thus follows that a sleeping body is to some extent a source of impurity. The Zohar states: ”Whilst a man is asleep his soul departs from him and an impure spirit comes forth and settles on his hands and defiles them: hence one may not pronounce a blessing without first washing them.”70

The great Kabbalist Rabbi Moshe Cardovero writes: When man sleeps on his bed, the ruling force is Night…. Sleep is like death and the tree of death rules. What should he do? … He should rise at midnight, wash his hands from the Shell (klippah) which has dominion over them, remove the evil from his flesh, and recite the benediction. He should then make a Tikkun for the Shekhinah by studying the Torah, concerning which it is written: When thou liest down it shall watch over thee (Prov. 6:22)—from the Outside Ones—and when thou awakest it shall talk with thee (ibid.)—and he will be bound to Her and She to him. The form of his soul will ascend to the Garden of Eden with the Shekhinah who enters there to delight with the righteous and with him in their company, for they all hearken to his voice. So that he actually journeys with her from death and sleep to the secret of Supernal Life and he is bound there, according to the secret of the Garden of Eden,

67

  The code of Jewish law composed by Rabbi Joseph Karo (1488—1575).

68

  Orakh Chayyim 4:1-2.

69

  Berakhot.

70

  Zohar 1:10b. Soncino translation.

87

88

Chapter Four

and the light of Beauty which shines upon the righteous in the Garden of Eden begins to shine upon him.71

Some sources go as far as saying that one who walks four cubits in the morning without washing his hands incurs the death penalty which heaven imposes.72 Maimonides, in keeping with his belief that Talmudic references to evil spirits are not to be taken literally, omitted all references to evil spirits when he codified the law of washing one’s hands in the Mishneh Torah. Maimonides rules that one is not permitted to pray if one’s hands are not clean.73 He then goes on to say that one recites a blessing over the washing of one’s hands upon rising in the morning.74 The fact that Maimonides codifies the law of washing one’s hands in the Laws of Prayer indicates that the hands are washed so that a person will have clean hands when offering his prayers. According to Maimonides, the washing of the hands in the morning has nothing to do with the removal of an evil spirit that rests on one’s hand during sleep.75 The Evil Eye The belief that some people have the power to project their evil intentions by the glance of their eyes was widespread in the ancient world. The ancient Romans referred to this alleged phenomenon by the term oculus malus. The Talmud referred to it as the ayin ha-ra, the evil eye. 71

  Tomer Devorah; 10. See The Palm Tree of Deborah, translated by Louis Jacobs (London 1960), p. 122-123. 72

  Be’er ha-Golah; Orach Chayyim 4:5-12.

73

  Mishneh Torah; Hillkhot Tefillah 4:1.

74

  Mishneh Torah; Hillkhot Tefillah 7:4; Hilkhot Berakhot 6:2.

75

  Lechem Mishneh, a commentary on the Mishneh Torah, notes that in the Rambam’s opinion, there is no ru’ach ra’a in contemporary times. See Lechem Mishneh; Hilkhot Shevitat Asor 3:2.

Magic, Demons and Evil Spirits

The thirteenth-century sage Rabbenu Yonah Gerondi (died 1263) explains that jealous thoughts create an evil vapor in the mind. This vapor is then projected upon the object that the evil eye alights on.76 The Zohar teaches: A man possessed of an evil eye carries with him the eye of the destroying angel; hence he is called destroyer of the world, and people should be on their guard against him and not come near him, so that they should not be injured by him.77 For every kind of action there are men specially fitted. There are some men specially fitted for the transmission of blessings, as, for instance, a man of “good eye.” There are others, again, who are specially fitted for the transmission of curses, and curses light wherever they cast their eyes. … In Syria there was a man whose look always brought ill hap, even though he meant it for good. One day a man was walking in the street with a beaming countenance when this man looked at him and his eye was knocked out.78

The Talmud tells us that, “Rab went up to a cemetery… and then said: Ninety-nine have died through an evil eye, and one through natural causes.”79 The Rabbis taught: He who trades in cane and jars will never see a sign of blessing. What is the reason? Since their bulk is large, the evil eye has power over them. Traders in market-stands and those who breed small cattle, and those who cut down beautiful trees, and those who cast their eyes at the better portion will never see a sign of blessing. What is the reason? Because people gaze at them.80

76

  Rabbenu Yonah; Commentary to Avot 2:11.

77

  Zohar; 1, 68b; Soncino translation.

78

  Zohar; 3, 63b, Soncino translation.

79

  Bava Metzia 107b. Soncino translation.

80

  Pesachim 50b. Soncino translation.

89

90

Chapter Four

Scripture states: The Lord will take away from thee all sickness (Deut. 7:15). The Talmudic sage Rab explains this as referring to the Evil Eye.81 The power to project harm via the eye was attributed to Rabbis. We thus read: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said: Wherever the Rabbis direct their eyes82 there is either death or poverty.”83 The Talmud relates that when Rabbi Simeon bar Yochai left a cave after thirteen years of study he encountered men working a field. The Rabbi was incensed that they preferred to work the land rather than study Torah. He directed his gaze at them and they were consumed.84 The Talmud notes that Rabbi Judah once saw “two men using bread wastefully and he exclaimed: it seems that there is plenty in the world! He gave an angry look and a famine arose.” 85 The Talmud tells us that Rabbi Yochanan turned a student who questioned his assertion that God “will in time to come bring precious stones and pearls which are thirty cubits by thirty and will cut out from them openings ten cubits by twenty, and set them up in the gates of Jerusalem,” into a heap of bones with his gaze.86 The Talmud did not limit the danger of the ayin ha-ra to Aggadic statements. The evil eye has Halakhic ramifications as well. The Talmud states, “Rabbi Abuhu said in the name of Rav Hunah in Rab’s name; one may not stand over his neighbor’s field when its crop is full grown.”87

81

  Bava Metzia 107b.

82

  In suspicion or in anger. Cf. Ber. 38a, Shab. 34b. Soncino note.

83

  Chaggigah 5b. Soncino translation.

84

  Shabbat 33b.

85

  Ta’anit 24b. Soncino translation.

86

  Bava Batra 75a. Soncino translation.

87

  Bava Metzia 107a.

Magic, Demons and Evil Spirits

Rashi explained the reason for the above-quoted dictum as being due to the fear of the evil eye, that is, a person gazing upon the field of his neighbor when its grain is ripe might harm the crop by staring at it with evil intentions.88 Rabbi Isaac Alfasi explains Rabbi Abuhu’s statement similarly. He codifies Rabbi Abuhu’s dictum in the halakhot as follows: “Rabbi Abuhu said in the name of Rav Hunah in Rab’s name; one may not stand over his neighbor’s field when its crop is full grown because of the evil eye.”89 The Shulkhan Arukh rules accordingly. It states that it is prohibited to stand over one’s neighbor’s field when its crop is full grown because of the evil eye.90 Maimonides rejected the belief that a glance can bring disaster. In fact nowhere in the Mishneh Torah does he quote a law relating to damages caused by the evil eye. Thus he omitted Rabbi Abuhu’s dictum from his code. Maimonides explained his decision to exclude Rabbi Abuhu’s dictum from the Mishneh Torah in response to a question put to him by the wise men of Lunel.91 Maimonides explained that the Talmudic statement to the effect that “one may not stand over his neighbor’s field when its crop is full grown because of the evil eye,” is not a Halakhic injunction. It deals with etiquette. What the statement says is: it is unseemly92 to stare upon a neighbor’s field with a jealous eye. The implication is clear: the “evil eye” does not emit dangerous rays. Nevertheless, it is improper to gaze with a jealous stare.93

88

  Rashi; commentary to Bava Metzia 107a.

89

  Halakhot; Bava Metzia 64a. It is not clear as to whether “because of the evil eye” is Rabbi Alfasi’s explanation of Rabbi Abuhu’s statement or whether it represents Rabbi Alfasi’s reading of Bava Metzia 107a. 90

  Shulkhan Arukh; Chosehen Mishpat; 368:5.

91

  Migdal Oz; Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Shekhenim 2:16.

92

  Maimonides calls this a middat chasidut. According to Maimonides it is a middat chasidut not to stare upon one’s neighbor’s field with a jealous eye. 93

  Ibid.

91

92

Chapter Four

The Mishnah in Avot quotes Rabbi Joshua as saying “an evil eye…puts a man out of this world.”94 Most commentators assume that the Mishnah speaks of a person who has the power to harm with his glance. Maimonides disagrees. According to Maimonides the Mishnah in Avot teaches that excessive jealousy (the evil eye) leads to a person fleeing from society and dying a lonely death.95 It should be noted that the Talmud itself employs the term evil eye when speaking of jealousy and niggardliness. We thus read: This is the amount of terumah:96 the benevolent eye gives a fortieth; Bet Shammai says, one thirtieth, the average man one fiftieth and the evil eye one sixtieth.97 There are four types of character in respect of almsgiving. He who desires that he himself should give, but that others should not give: his eye is evil towards that which appertains to others; he who desires that others should give, but that he himself should not give: his eye is evil towards that which is his own; he who desires that he himself should give, and that others should give: he is a pious man; he who desires that he himself should not give and that others too should not give: he is a wicked man.98

However, in the majority of cases, the Talmud employs the evil eye in the sense of a malicious gaze. In contrast to the aforementioned, for Maimonides the evil eye is a metaphor for jealousy. It does not refer to an actual danger posed by a gaze.

94

  Avot 2:11.

95

  Maimonides; Commentary on the Mishnah, 2:11.

96

  The heave-offerings given to the kohen. See Num. 18:28.

97

  Terumot 4:3.

98

  Avot 5:13. Soncino translation, with some minor changes.

Ch apter F ive

Dangerous Practices Scripture states: Take heed to thyself and take care of your lives (Deut. 4:9). According to the Talmud the above teaches that one is prohibited from doing anything that puts one’s health in danger.1 Furthermore, one must do everything possible to preserve one’s health. The Midrash relates the following anecdote concerning the sage Hillel. Hillel the Elder once, when he concluded his studies with his disciples, walked along with them. His disciples asked him: “Master, whither are you bound?” He answered them: “To perform a religious duty.” “What,” they asked, “is this religious duty?” He said to them: “To wash in the bath-house.” Said they: “Is this a religious duty?” “Yes,” he replied; “if the statues of kings, which are erected in theatres and circuses, are scoured and washed by the man who is appointed to look after them, and who thereby obtains his maintenance through them—nay more, he is exalted in the company of the great of the kingdom—how much more I, who have been created in the Image and Likeness; as it is written, For in the image of God made He man (Gen. 9: 6).”2

The Talmud discusses practices which were considered harmful and thus prohibited. The Talmud rules that something dangerous is to be treated with greater stringency than something that is prohibited.3

1

  Berakhot 32b.

2

  Leviticus Rabbah; 34:3. Soncino translation.

3

  Chulin 10a. Also see Rema; Shulkhan Arukh; Yoreh De’ah 116.

93

94

Chapter Five

The problem that Maimonides faced was that he was convinced that some of the practices which the Talmud considered harmful were in actuality not so.4 Maimonides dealt with this difficulty as follows: A. When these “dangerous” practices had moral or Halakhic import Maimonides codified the rabbinic dictum but omitted or reinterpreted the reason for it. B. Maimonides ignored these “dangerous” practices when they had had no moral or Halakhic implications. A number of examples follow. Sexual Intercourse by Light The Talmud prohibits one from engaging in sexual intercourse in an illuminated room. It considers this practice to be immodest. However, it also goes a step further. It believes that intercourse by light presents a danger to a child so conceived. The Talmud states: “He who cohabits by the light of a lamp will have epileptic children.”5

In codifying the laws dealing with sexual relations Maimonides notes that it is prohibited to have intercourse by lamplight. He, however, omits the alleged effects that having intercourse by candlelight is supposed to have. He writes: It is prohibited for a person to indulge in intercourse by the light of a candle…it is similarly prohibited for an Israelite to indulge in intercourse in daylight, for this is impudent. However, if he was a scholar, who will not become habituated to act so, then it is permitted for him to engage in intercourse

4

  Tosafot deals with this issue by declaring that nature has changed since Talmudic times. Hence some things that were once harmful are no longer so. See Tosafot; Mo’ed Katan 11a. 5

  Pesachim 112b.

Dangerous Practices

provided that he darkens the room with his cloak. However, the latter is only done in case of great need.6

Maimonides obviously did not believe that having intercourse by candlelight results in unhealthy children. Placing Food Under a Bed The Jerusalem Talmud states: “It is prohibited to place food beneath a bed.”7 Ra’abad points out that most commentaries explain the above noted prohibition as being due to an unclean spirit (ru’ach ra’ah) that rests on the food.8 Indeed, the Babylonian Talmud states: “If food and drink are kept under the bed, even if they are covered in iron vessels, an evil spirit rests upon them.”9 Maimonides codified the above rabbinic dictums as follows: “A person should not place food beneath a bed even though he is busy eating, for something dangerous might fall into it without being seen.”10

Drinking Four Cups of Wine on Passover The Mishnah states that a person is obligated to drink four cups of wine at the Seder on the eve of Passover. According to ancient belief, things done in pairs were considered to be extremely dangerous. The demon Ashmedai was believed to be the overseer of all even numbers.11 The Amoraim living in Babylon accepted this belief. Hence the Halakhah that requires

6

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Isure Bi’ah 21:10.

7

  Jerusalem Talmud; Avodah Zara 2:3

8

  Ra’abad; Hasagot. Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Rotze’ach 12:5.

9

  Pesachim 112a.

10

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Rotze’ach 12:5.

11

  Pesachim 110a.

95

96

Chapter Five

a person to drink four cups of wine on Passover eve and thereby expose oneself to danger presented a problem.12 The Talmud asks: “How could our Rabbis enact a practice whereby one is led into danger? Surely, it was taught: a man must not eat in pairs, nor drink in pairs, nor cleanse himself twice nor perform his requirements twice?”13 A number of answers are offered by the Amoraim: a) “Rabbi Nachman says: Scripture states, it14 is a night of guarding unto the Lord (Ex. 12:42): it is a night that is guarded for all time from harmful spirits.”15 In other words, evil spirits are impotent on Pesach eve. b) “Raba said: The cup of Grace after meals combines with the others for good, but does not combine for evil.”16 The cup of grace is strictly speaking not part of the Passover ritual since it follows all meals. Raba maintains that this cup stands by itself and does not combine with the other three cups that are part of the Seder ritual to form two pairs. c) “Rabina answered: Our Rabbis instituted four cups as symbolizing liberty: each one is a separate obligation.”17 Hence they do not combine to form two pairs. The entire Talmudic passage dealing with the danger of “pairs” is quoted in Alfasi’s code,18 a compendium which, as has already been noted, served as one of Maimonides’ sources for his own codification of Jewish law. However, Maimonides omitted it from the Mishneh Torah. Maimonides merely notes that one is obligated to drink four cups of wine at the Seder. He does not mention the issue

12

  Pesachim 110a.

13

  Ibid. Soncino translation.

14

  Passover eve.

15

  Ibid.

16

  Ibid.

17

  Ibid.

18

  Halakhot; Pesachim 23b; 24a.

Dangerous Practices

of “pairs.” It is clear that Maimonides did not believe that “pairs” present any danger. Discarding Cut Fingernails According to the Talmud, a person should not cast his cut fingernails on the ground, because they present a danger to pregnant women. We read: “Three things were said in reference to nails: One who buries them is righteous; one who burns them is pious and one who throws them away is a villain! What is the reason? Lest a pregnant woman should step over them and miscarry.”19 Alfasi codified this text in his Halakhot.20 However, Maimonides omitted it from his Mishneh Torah. Maimonides obviously felt that cut fingernails do not present any danger. Eating Fish with Meat According to the Amora Mar bar Rav Ashi, one is prohibited from eating fish that was roasted together with meat. The reason given for the aforementioned is that such a dish presents a danger to health.21 Rashi explains that Mar bar Rav Ashi believes that one who eats fish that was roasted together with meat risks being struck with the disease of tzara’at (leprosy). The Shulkhan Arukh codified Mar bar Rav Ashi’s dictum. It reads: “One should take heed and not eat fish and meat together because it makes one susceptible to tzara’at.”22 Rabbi Moses Isserles comments,23 “Some Rabbis ruled that the law which states that non-kosher food is nullified in a mixture

19

  Mo’ed Katan18a.

20

  Halakhot; Mo’ed Katon 10a.

21

  Pesachim 76b.

22

  Shulkhan Arukh; Yoreh Deah 116.

23

  Ibid.

97

98

Chapter Five

where there is sixty times as much kosher food as non-kosher food does not apply to a mixture of meat and fish, for we have to be more strict with regards to a danger to health than with a prohibition.”24 In contrast to the above, Maimonides does not mention Mar bar Rav Ashi’s dictum. Experience or his medical knowledge apparently taught him that people who eat fish that has been roasted with meat are not exposed to any disease. Maimonides elsewhere writes, “Do not ask me to reconcile everything that the sages stated about astronomy with the actual reality, for the science of those days was deficient, and they did not speak out of traditions from the prophets regarding these matters.”25 What Maimonides writes regarding astronomy was also his position regarding the danger of eating fish with meat. His point of view was anticipated by some of the Geonim: Rabbi Sherira Gaon [or possibly his son, Rav Hai Gaon] wrote the following regarding the medical cures suggested in the Talmud: Our sages were not doctors and said what they did based on experience with the diseases of their time. Therefore, there is no commandment to listen to the sages [regarding medical advice] because they only spoke from their opinion based on what they saw in their day.26

Changing One’s Fate The Talmud states:27 “Four things cause an evil decree against a person to be torn up. They are: charity, prayer, the changing of one’s name and the changing of one’s deeds.

24

  Sakkaneta chamira me-issura.

25

  Guide 3:14.

26

  Teshuvot HaGeonim—Harkaby, no. 394. Quoted by Gil Student in Halachic Responses To Scientific Developments; Aish Das. On the Web. 27

  Rosh Ha-Shanah 16b.

Dangerous Practices

The Talmud then offers proof texts to the above. It reads: Charity, as it is written: Charity delivereth from death (Prov. 10:2). Prayer, as it is written: They cry unto the Lord when they are in distress, and he saveth them out of their afflictions (Ps. 97:19). Change of name, as it is written: As for Sarai, thy wife, thou shalt not call, her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be; and the text continues saying: Then will I bless her, and give thee a son also (Gen. 17:15). Change of conduct, as it is written: And God saw their works that they had turned from their evil ways; and immediately following: And God bethought himself of the evil He said He would do unto them, and He did it not (Jonah 3:10).

It is clear that the above passage attributes some supernatural effect to the changing of one’s name, for Sarai who was childless conceived after the Lord changed her name to Sarah. Thus Rabbi Judah He-Chasid (13th cent.) notes: “If one is dangerously sick his name should be changed, for the change of name may reverse the decree.”28 Rabbi Joseph Karo quotes the sage Rabbi Peretz as saying that the custom to change the name of an ill person is based on a Geonic enactment.29 Rabbi Moses Isserles (1520-1572) writes: “It is customary to recite a blessing for the sick in the Synagogue and to give them a new name. For the changing of the name annuls the evil decree.”30 Maimonides quoted the Talmudic passage under discussion in the Mishneh Torah. However, he gives it an interpretation that eliminates all theurgic implications. Maimonides writes, “Among the ways of repentance are, for the penitent to continue to cry out in tearful supplication before the Lord, to give charity according to his means, and to distance himself exceedingly from the thing wherein he sinned and to change his

28

  Sefer Chasidim, 245.

29

  Bet Yosef, Tur Even ha-Ezer, 129.

30

  Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 465:10.

99

100

Chapter Five

name as if to say, ‘I am now another person, and not that person who perpetrated those misdeeds.’”31 Thus according to Maimonides the changing of a person’s name has no supernatural import. It symbolizes a person’s changed status and is limited to a penitent. It has nothing to do with changing the fate of a sick person.

31

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Teshuvah 2:4.

Ch apter Si x

Astrology Many Talmudic sages believed that astrology was a bona fide science. The Talmud in Shabbat 146a states: “Every person has a particular star as a guardian spirit with which his fate is closely interwoven.” Megillah 3a reports the following: “Rabina said: If a man is seized with fright though he sees nothing, the reason is that his star sees.” The sage Eliezer ben Pedut felt that his state of poverty was due to having been born in an unlucky hour.1 The Talmud states that the following was recorded in Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s notebook:2 A person born on the first day of the week is fated to be completely righteous or completely wicked;3one born on the second day of the week is destined to be bad-tempered;4 a person born on the third day of the week is predestined to be wealthy and promiscuous; 5 an individual born on the fourth day of the week is designed to be wise;6one born on the fifth day of the week will be generous;7 a person born on the sixth day of the week is ordained to be a seeker after good deeds; an individual born on the Sabbath will die on the Sabbath.8

1

  Ta’anit 25a.

2

  Sabbath 156a.

3

  Light and darkness came into being on the first day.

4

  The waters were divided on this day. A bad temper produces division. Rashi.

5

  The earth brought forth herbs on the third day. Herbs reproduce very quickly. They also continually intermingle with other herbs. 6

  The lights were created on Wednesday.

7

  The waters brought forth fish and birds on this day. Birds and fish are fed by God’s loving kindness. 8

  For the Sabbath was desecrated because of him

101

102

Chapter Six

Rabbi Hanina on the other hand said: “Not the constellation of the day but that of the hour is the determining influence.”9 He maintained: He who is born under the constellation of the sun will be a distinguished man; under Venus will be wealthy and promiscuous; under Mercury will be wise; under the Moon will be a man to suffer evil, under Saturn will be a man whose plans will be frustrated; under Jupiter (tzedek) will be a righteous person (tzaddik).10 Rabbi Nachman ben Isaac asserted: “He who is born under Mars will be a shedder of blood. Rabbi Ashi observed: Either a surgeon, a thief, a slaughterer, or a mohel.”11 Rabbi Hanina taught: “The planetary influence gives wisdom, the planetary influence gives wealth, and Israel stands under planetary influence. Rabbi Yochanan maintained: Israel is immune from planetary influence.”12 The Rabbis taught, “When the sun is in eclipse it is a bad omen for idolaters; when the moon is in eclipse, it is a bad omen for Israel, since Israel reckons by the moon and idolaters by the sun.”13

Most of the medieval authorities accepted the Talmudic outlook. In fact almost all medieval scientists believed that astrology was a true science. The great Medieval Bible commentator Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra was not only a student of astrology but also a practitioner of its arts. He cast astrological charts and served as an astrological consultant. Ibn Ezra authored a number of works dealing with this science, some of which were translated into Latin. He played a major role in spreading this lore in his travels.14

9

  Sabbath 156a.

10

  Sabbath 156a. Based on Soncino translation.

11

  Ibid.

12

  Sabbath 156a. Soncino translation, with some changes.

13

  Sukkah 29a. Soncino translation, with some slight changes.

14

  See Shlomo Sela, Astrology and Biblical Exegesis in Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Thought (Israel, 1999).

Astrology

Ibn Ezra maintains that many commandments in the Torah can be explained by the teachings of astrology.15 He believes that the vestments of the High Priest and the Ark of the Covenant have astrological significance.16 Many of the secrets which Ibn Ezra hints at in his commentary on the Torah allude to the science of astrology. According to Ibn Ezra the fate of individuals and nations are determined by the arrangement of the heavenly bodies. “All things that were created and exist upon the earth are dependent on the arrangement of the heavenly bodies.”17 “One who knows the ways of the spheres knows the mind of the most high.”18 “A human being’s rational faculty can comprehend the truth which the heavens declare and the firmament shows. It can accomplish the aforementioned by employing the vision of the corporeal eye and the perception of the eye of the inner soul.”19 Ibn Ezra believes that men can avert the fate that the stars have in store for them by studying the laws of astrology. He writes, “God granted wisdom to man and implanted in his heart the intelligence to receive power from on high to add to his good or to diminish his evil.”20 Though Nahmanides often takes very sharp issue with Ibn Ezra on questions of biblical exegesis he agrees with him on the scientific status of astrology. Nahmanides writes, “When the Creator, blessed be He, created everything from nothing; He made the higher powers guides for those below them. He placed the earth and all things that are thereon in the power of the stars and

15

  See Ibn Ezra on Ex. 20:14. Also see Chapter 9 of the Yesod Mora.

16

  See Ibn Ezra on Ex. 25:40; 28:5.

17

  Ibn Ezra on Ps. 33:3.

18

  Ibn Ezra on Ps. 19:1.

19

  Ibid.

20

  Ibn Ezra on Ex. 7:3.

103

104

Chapter Six

constellations, depending on their rotation and position as proven by the study of astrology.”21 David Horwitz writes, “No less radical a thinker than R. Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag), who had no qualms about deviating from the normative Jewish theological position on a number of issues, was a firm believer in the effect of the stars upon human life,22 and based his position on empirical evidence.”23 The belief in astrology is reflected in a number of Jewish practices. Rabbi Joseph Karo rules: “It is customary…to marry only when the moon is full.”24 Rabbi Moses Isserles (1520—1572) notes: “Some say that the wedding canopy should be erected under the open sky as a good sign, so that their seed will be as numerous as the stars.”25 One of the prayers recited after the benediction over the new moon reads: “May a good omen and a good star26 be upon us and all of Israel.”27 Rabbi Abraham Gombiner (1633- 1683), a major commentator on the Shulchan Arukh, notes that some avoid reciting Kiddush between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. Friday eve. The reason for this custom is based on the belief that Mars and Samael (Satan) are then dominant and they would acquire strength from the Kiddush.28 Rema rules: “A person should not do anything which he knows is contrary to the evil influence of a star (or planet), for we do not rely on miracles.”29

21

  Nahmanides on Deut. 18:9. Chavel translation, with some changes.

22

  Milchamot Ha-Shem 2:2.

23

  David Horwitz in Torah U-Mada Journal, Vol 3, 1991-92, pp. 52-64.

24

  Shulkhan Arukh; Yoreh De’ah 179: 2. Literally: “It is customary to marry wives at no time except when the moon is full.” 25

  Rama; Even Ha-Ezer 61:1.

26

  Or planet.

27

  The service for the Benediction over the new moon is found in Tractate Soferim 20:1-2. There the reading is: “A good sign, a good sign for all of Israel.” . 28

  Magen Avraham; Orach Chayyim 271:1 Also see Arukh Ha-Shulchan 271:11.

29

  Shulkhan Arukh; Yoreh De’ah 179: 2.

Astrology

In contrast to the above, Maimonides considers astrology to be a superstition and contrary to Jewish law. The Pentateuch prohibits a Jew to “observe times.”30 Maimonides explains: Who is an observer of times? They that point at times, saying astrologically: That day is a good one, that day is a bad one: that day is fit to do that particular work, but that year, or that month, is bad for that particular thing...He who does aught because of the signs of astrology, and times to do his work or goes on his mission on the very time, set by the heaven-gazers, is flogged. For is it not said, Nor observe times.31

Maimonides elaborated on his attitude towards astrology in a letter to the Jews of Marseilles. He writes: With abiding conviction we can only affirm the principle validated by men of science that all the assumptions of the astrologers are false. I am aware that it is possible to find some individual opinions of our sages in the Talmud, the Mishnah and Midrashim supporting astrological assumptions about the potency of the stars at a man’s nativity. This should not be disturbing to you in as much as we must never abandon practical Halakhah for the sake of upholding dialectical arguments. Moreover, it is not feasible to surrender demonstrative rational knowledge and embrace the opinion of one individual sage who might have missed a crucial point at that time or he may have proffered an allegorical remark not to be taken literally or that his statement was meant as a temporary measure referring to a specific incident. For is it not apparent that many statements of the Torah cannot be taken literally but, as is clear from scientific evidence, require interpretation that will make them acceptable to rational thought? Our eyes are set in the front and not in the back. One should therefore look ahead of him and not behind him. I have thus revealed to you with these words my whole heart.32

30

  Lev. 19:26.   Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 11:9; Glazer Translation. 32   “Letter to the Jews of Marseilles” in: Letters of Maimonides, translated and edi-  ted, with introductions and notes, by Leon D. Stitskin (New York, 1977). 31

105

Ch apter S e ven

Medicine The Talmud is ambivalent on the practice of medicine. On one hand it prohibits a person from living in a city that has no physician.1 On the other hand it praises King Hezekiah for removing the “Book of Remedies” from circulation.2 According to the Talmud King Hezekiah had the latter in mind when he prayed to God saying: I have done that which is good in Your eyes (Isaiah 38:3).3 There is a statement in the Talmud to the effect that the best of physicians are destined for Gehenna.4 The same ambivalence is found in the Bible. The book of Exodus writes: And if men contend, and one smite the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keep his bed; if he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit; only he shall pay for the loss of his time and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed (Ex. 21:18-19). The above implies that human intervention is acceptable in treating illness. In fact the Rabbis say that the above verse gives physicians permission to heal.5 The prophet Isaiah refers to the treatment of wounds and bruises. He speaks of pressing the wound, softening it with oil and bandaging it.6 He does not seem to be bothered by human intrusion in their healing.

1

  Sanhedrin 17b.

2

  Pesachim 4:9.

3

  Berakhot 10b.

4

  Kiddushin 82a.

5

  Berakhot 60a; Bava Kamma 85a.

6

  Isaiah 1:6.

106

Medicine

On the other hand, Scripture criticizes King Asa for making use of physicians when ill, rather than turning to the Lord. We thus read: Yet in his disease he (Asa) sought not to the Lord, but to physicians (2 Chron. 16:12). It is clear from the latter that the Bible considers King Asa’s action as sinful. Ibn Ezra tries to reconcile the biblical passages by differentiating between outside wounds and internal wounds. He explains that a physician may heal a wound on the outside of the body. However, he is prohibited from doing so to an internal wound.7 Ibn Ezra writes: The great gift that God granted Israel was that they would not have any need of physicians alongside God if they observed the Torah. They would not have any reason to act like King Asa who was criticized by Scripture for seeking the help of physicians.”8 “Permission has been granted to physicians to heal blows and wounds that are visible on the surface. However, it is God’s in hand to heal any illness, which strikes inside of the body. It is thus written, For He maketh sore, and bondeth up (Job 5:18).9

Nahmanides accepts Ibn Ezra’s approach. He argues that turning to physicians in case of illness is basically wrong. Ideally, a sick person should seek the counsel of a prophet and put his faith in God. According to Nahmanides, this was the practice of Israel during the Biblical period. However, people eventually started consulting with physicians. God then let nature take its course. Nahmanides writes: When Israel is at peace with God … their affairs are not conducted at all by the natural order of things… for God blesses their bread and their water, and removes sickness from their midst, so that they do not need a physician and

7

  Ibn Ezra on Ex. 21:19.

8

  Yesod Mora 7:6; Secret of the Torah, p.98.

9

  I.E. on Ex. 21:19.

107

108

Chapter Seven

they do not have to protect themselves by following the rules of medicine, just as He said, for I am the Lord that healeth thee (Ex.15: 26). This is how the righteous acted when prophecy existed. If they sinned and were punished by sickness, they did not turn to the physicians, but only to the prophets, as was the case with Hezekiah when he was sick …had people not accustomed themselves to take medications, they would become sick according to the degree of punishment corresponding to their sin, and would be healed by the will of God. However, since people accustomed themselves to medications, God has left them to natural happenings.10

The Rabbis say that ‘And he shall cause him to be thoroughly healed (Ex. 21:19) teaches that “permission has been given to the physician to heal.”11 Nahmanides maintains that the Rabbis “did not say that ‘permission was given to the sick to be healed’ by the physician, but rather that the physician should heal a sick person who comes to him be healed; for the latter has accustomed himself to seeking medical help and is not of the congregation of the Lord …”12 Maimonides disagrees with the above notion. He believes that a person should consult physicians in time of illness.13 In fact he believes that the Torah requires those trained in medicine to heal the sick. He states: “The Torah requires the physician to heal Jews. This is part of what they said in the Talmud when they explained that the verse “you shall surely restore it to him”14 includes the obligation to heal the sick. For if you see someone being harmed and you can save him, you are to save him with your body, with your property, or with your knowledge.”15 10

  Ramban, Va-Yikra 26:11.

11

  Berakhot 60a.

12

  See Num. 27:3.

13

  Introduction to Avot (Shemonah Perakim), Chapter 3.

14

  Deut. 22:2.

15

  Commentary on Mishnah; Nedarim 4:4.

Medicine

The Mishneh Torah states: “Whosoever is able to save another and does not save him transgresses the commandment Neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor (Lev. 19:16).16 The above clearly implies that a physician who fails to respond to aid a sick person is in violation of a Biblical commandment. This is the way Rabbi Joseph Karo understood Maimonides. The former writes: “The Torah gave permission to the physician to heal; moreover, this is a religious precept and it is included in the category of saving life; and if he withholds his services, it is considered as shedding blood.”17 Maimonides devotes an entire section of the Mishneh Torah to medical advice.18 It is thus clear that according to Maimonides the teachings of medicine are part of the Halakhic system. As noted above, the Talmud praises King Hezekiah for removing a “Book of Remedies” from circulation. Rashi explains that Hezekiah did the aforementioned so that people would pray to God when ill.19 Those who were opposed to the employment of physicians relied on this rabbinic text. However, Maimonides argued that the “Book of Remedies” was a tome consisting of quack medicine rather than to a scientifically based work.20 According to Maimonides, King Hezekiah suppressed the “Book of Remedies” “because it …pretended to cure diseases by means of astrological spells, talismans, and other vain and superstitious means, which might lead the people to ignorance and idolatry.”21 He vehemently rejects the idea that Hezekiah banned the book of remedies because he did not want people to use medicine when they were ill. He calls such a notion vanity, folly and idiocy. He argues that according to people who hold such a belief, a person who is hungry and eats

16

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Rotze’ach 1:14.

17

  Shulchan Arukh; Yoreh Deah 336.

18

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot De‘ot.

19

  Rashi, Berakhot 10b.

20

  Guide 3:37.

21

  Ibid. Friedlander translation.

109

110

Chapter Seven

bread to alleviate his hunger pains is showing a lack of faith in God. Just as a person thanks God for providing him with bread when he is hungry, so should a person thank God for providing him with medicine to use when he is sick.22 It should be noted that Maimonides composed his own “Books of Remedies.” Among his compositions are works on asthma, hemorrhoids, hypochondria, antidotes to poisons, hygiene, and impotence.23

22

  Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah; Pesachim 4:10.

23

  See Rambam; Kitve Refu’ah, 4 Volumes, edited by Z. Munter (Israel, 1987); Ros-  ner, F., Medicine in the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides (New York, 1984); Medical Legacy of Moses Maimonides (New Jersey, 1989).

Ch apter E ig ht

Communicating with the Dead Ancient men believed that the dead are conscious and interested in what happens here on earth. They also believed that it is possible for the living to communicate with the deceased. The Jews were no exception. There are many Talmudic and Midrashic texts that, if taken literally, indicate that the dead are conscious and are concerned with what happens on earth. Three such texts follow: 1) The Talmud relates that the father of the third-century Babylonian sage Samuel was entrusted with an estate’s money.1 He passed away and Samuel did not know where his father had put the funds. Samuel then went to the cemetery where his father was buried to ask him where he had placed the money. Samuel noticed that his father was crying and smiling. Samuel asked his father: Why are you weeping? His father answered: You are soon to join us. Samuel asked his father: Why are you smiling? His father answered: Because you are highly regarded in this world. Samuel then asked his father where he had put the money. Samuel’s father replied: “Go and take it out of the case of the millstones. The money at the top and bottom belongs to us, and what is in the middle belongs to the estate.” Samuel asked his father: “Why did you do it that way?” His father answered: “If thieves come, they will steal ours. If the earth rots the money, it will rot ours.”2 2) A similar account is recorded in the Talmud regarding the sage Ze’iri. It is reported that “Ze’iri deposited some money with his landlady, and while he was away… she died. So he went… to the cemetery and said to her, ‘Where is my money?’ She replied to him: Go and take it from under the ground, in the

1

  Berakhot 18b.

2

  Ibid. Soncinio translation.

111

112

Chapter Eight

hole of the doorpost, in such and such a place, and tell my mother to send me my comb and my tube of eye-paint by the hand of so-and-so who is coming here tomorrow.”3 3) The Talmud in tractate Berakhot relates that a pious individual once gave charity to a poor man on the eve of Rosh Ha-Shanah in a year of drought.4 His act of charity did not find favor in the eyes of his wife. She berated him, and he left his house and passed the night in a graveyard. While in the cemetery he heard two spirits talking to each other. One spirit said to the other: “My dear, come and let us wander about the world and let us hear from behind the curtain5 what suffering is coming on the world.”6 Her companion replied: “I am not able, because I am buried in a matting of reeds. But do you go, and whatever you hear tell me.”7 The spirit went, wandered about and returned. The spirit that stayed behind asked her: “My dear, what have you heard from behind the curtain?” She replied: “I heard that whoever sows after the first rainfall will have his crop smitten by hail.”8 The pious man did not sow till after the second rainfall. Everyone else’s crop was smitten by hail but his was not. He did the same the next year and heard the same conversation. However, this time the spirit that left the cemetery and then returned brought back slightly different information. She reported: “I heard that whoever sows after the later rain will have his crop smitten with blight.” The man then went “and sowed after the first rain with the result that everyone else’s crop was blighted and his was not blighted.”9 The man’s wife could not understand her husband’s good luck. She said to him: “How is it that last year everyone else’s crop was smitten and yours was not smitten, and this year everyone else’s crop is blighted and yours is not blighted?”10

3

  Ibid.

4

  Berakhot 18b.

5

  Screening the Divine Presence (Soncino note).

6

  Ibid. Soncino translation.

7

  Ibid.

8

  Ibid.

9

  Ibid.

10

  Ibid.

Communicating with the Dead

He related the source of his information to her. The Talmud reports that shortly after, a quarrel broke out between the wife of the pious man and the mother of the deceased who was buried in a mat of reeds. The wife of the pious man said to the subject of her anger: “Come and I will show you your daughter buried in a matting of reeds.” The story concludes: “The next year the man again went and spent the night in the cemetery and heard those conversing together. One said: “My dear, come and let us wander about the world and hear from behind the curtain what suffering is coming upon the world.” Said the other: “My dear, leave me alone; our conversation has already been heard among the living.”11

On the other hand, there are texts in the Talmud which indicate that some of the sages believed that the dead are unconscious: Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Jonathan were once walking about in a cemetery, and the blue fringe of Rabbi Jonathan was trailing on the ground. Said R. Hiyya to him: Lift it up, so that they the dead should not say: Tomorrow they are coming to join us and now they are insulting us! He said to him: Do they know so much? Is it not written, But the dead know not anything? (Ecc. 9:5). He replied to him: If you have read once, you have not repeated; if you have repeated, you have not gone over a third time; if you have gone over a third time, you have not had it explained to you. For the living know that they shall die (ibid.) these are the righteous who in their death are called living… But the dead know not anything these are the wicked who while alive are called dead.12

Maimonides accepted the opinion of Rabbi Jonathan. Maimonides believed that the souls of the righteous have a share in the world to come and the souls of the wicked are ultimately destroyed. According to Maimonides the part of the soul that survives death consist of the intellectual and metaphysical

11

  Ibid.

12

  Berakhot 18a. Soncino translation.

113

114

Chapter Eight

truths that the soul acquires in this world. He notes that, “In the World-to-Come, our souls will attain the knowledge of the Creator similar to or even more than the heavenly bodies.”13 Maimonides teaches that “Life in the World To Come (olam ha-ba) does not involve a body or a physical form. The World To Come is inhabited by the souls of the righteous without their bodies… Since they do not have any bodies there is no need there for eating or drinking, nor do they need to do any of the things which men’s bodies in this world need, and nor do they do any of the things which people in this world do with their bodies, such as standing, sitting, sleeping, dying, feeling pain, acting frivolously, or the like.”14 Contemplating God has nothing to do with earthly existence. Hence Maimonides did not believe that souls have any connection to this world. Furthermore, if the souls are in olam ha-ba, then they do not hover over their graves and cannot be contacted by anyone visiting their graves. The Torah prohibits necromancy. Maimonides notes that Scripture did not prohibit consulting the dead because it was possible to do so. He maintains that the Torah prohibited necromancy because it was irrational. Maimonides writes: Who is a necromancer? He who starves himself and then proceeds to sleep in a graveyard, so as to bring up a dead person in a dream so that he will answer whatever he asks of him. There are others who put on special clothes, utter certain words, burn incense and sleep alone in a graveyard, so that a specific dead person will appear to them and speak to them in a dream. 15 All these things (enchantment, divination and necromancy) are false and deceitful… It is not fitting for Israelites, who are very wise, to be attracted by such nonsense, or even to think that they are of consequence, for it is written, Surely there is no enchantment in Jacob, or divination in Israel (Num. 23:23), and it is also written, For these nations, that thou art to

13

  Introduction to Chelek (Chap. 10); Sanhedrin. Literally, upper bodies.   Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Teshuvah 8 :1. 15   Ibid. Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 11:13. Glazer trans. with some changes. 14

Communicating with the Dead

dispossess, hearken unto soothsayers, and unto diviners; but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do (Deut. 18:14). Anyone who believes in these matters or their like and thinks that there is wisdom and truth in them, but that the Torah prohibited them, is to be classified among the foolish and ignorant and is in the category of women and children, whose mind is not fully developed. But wise and sound minded people know that all these things that the Torah prohibited are not matters of wisdom, but vanity and nonsense followed by senseless people… Because of this, when warning us against these vanities the Torah says, Thou shalt be whole-hearted with the Lord thy God (Deut. 18:13).16

Maimonides believes that making a request of the dead is a form of idol worship, for according to the fifth of Maimonides’ thirteen principles of Judaism prayers are to be directed only to God. Thus Maimonides writes: God, blessed be He, is worthy that we serve Him, to glorify Him, to make known His greatness, and to do His commands, but not to do this to those that are below Him in the creation. Not to the angels or to the stars or the planets or anything else, for they are all created things in nature and in their functioning, there is no choice or judgment except by God Himself. Also it is not fitting to serve them as intermediaries to God. Only to God should you incline your thoughts and your actions. This is the fifth principle upon which Judaism is based and it warns against idolatry and most of the Torah speaks out against this.17

We read in the Talmud: “Wherefore do we go out to cemeteries on fast days? Rabbi Levi bar Chama and Rabbi Chanina differ with regard to this. One said: We do so as if to say: We regard ourselves before You as dead men. The other said: So that the dead may seek mercy for us.” 18

16

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 11:16.   Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah; Introduction to Chapter 10 of Sanhedrin. See The 13 Foundations of Judaism, translated by Marc Mermelstein. On the Web. 18   Ta’anit 16a. 17

115

116

Chapter Eight

It is possible to interpret the above differences of opinion as revolving around the question as to whether the dead are conscious. The opinion which maintains that the dead are conscious believes that we visit the cemetery on fast days so that the dead will seek mercy for us. The opinion that maintains that we visit the cemetery on fast days because we regard ourselves as dead men believes that the dead are not conscious. Maimonides accepted the first opinion of the Talmud. He writes: “After prayers19 all the people go to the cemetery. They there cry and beg for mercy. The import of this is: You are like the dead if you do not turn from your evil ways.”20

Maimonides’ codification of the Halakhah left no doubt that the purpose of visiting the cemetery on fast days was symbolic and educational. It had nothing to do with the dead being aware of our problems and interceding for us. Maimonides ruled that one should not visit graves.21 It is quite possible that this ruling is based on a fear that visiting graves might lead to prayers offered to the dead and requests made of them. It is one of the ironies of life that Maimonides’ grave in Israel is a place of pilgrimage. Maimonides not only was opposed to asking the dead to intervene for the living, he apparently was opposed to asking the living to intervene for the living. The Talmud reads: “Rabbi Pinechas son of Chama expounded: Whoever has a sick person in his house should go to a sage who will seek mercy for him as it is said, The wrath of a king is as messengers of death; but a wise man will pacify it (Prov . 16:16).”22

19

  On fast days.

20

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Ta’anit 4:18.

21

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Evel 4:4.

22

  Baba Batra 115a.

Communicating with the Dead

Rabbi Yosef Chavivah comments: “It is the custom in France for anyone who has a sick person [at home] to ask a Rabbi who has a yeshiva to pray for him.”23 The same opinion is expressed by Rabbi Moses Isserles, who writes in his commentary on the Shulkhan Arukh : “ Some say that one who has a sick person in his house should go to a wise man… so that the latter may seek mercy for him.”24 Maimonides omitted Rabbi Pinechas’ dictum from the Mishneh Torah. He probably did so because he ruled that it was idolatrous to pray to anyone but the Lord and that while asking a sage to pray for a sick person did not entail praying to an intermediary, it could lead to it, for what is the difference between asking a live sage to intervene on ones’ behalf to asking a dead sage to intervene on behalf of the sick? Maimonides denied that one could communicate with the dead, because he believed that dead bodies are unconscious. This is clear from his dealing with the question as to whether one may wear tefillin in a cemetery. The Talmud quotes the following Beraita: “A man should not walk in a cemetery with tefillin25 on his head or a Torah scroll in his arm, and recite the Shema, and if he does so, he comes under the heading of He that mocketh the poor blasphemeth his Maker (Prov. 17:5).”26 The import of the above is that the dead are aware of any insults hurled at them, for their feelings are hurt when they see the living wearing tefillin and studying Torah, something which they cannot do. That the above is the implication of the Beraita is clear from the earlier cited incident of Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Jonathan (p. 113) which the Talmud quotes in the discussion that follows the above quoted text. 23

    25   26   24

Nemuke Yosef on Alfasi’s Halakhot; Baba Batra 52a. Yoreh De’ah 535:9. Aside from fast days. Berakhot 18a. Soncino Translation, with some changes.

117

118

Chapter Eight

In codifying the law mentioned in the Beraita Maimonides rules: “One who enters a bath house… and a place where people are standing naked removes his tefillin.… One should not walk in a cemetery with tefillin on his head, or wear them within four cubits of a corpse or within four cubits a grave… One should not don tefillin until he has covered his nakedness and put on his garments. 27 Maimonides omits the reason given by the Talmud for the prohibition of walking in a graveyard while wearing tefillin, namely, that the dead should not say: “Tomorrow they are coming to join us and now they are insulting us.” He omitted this reason because he did not believe that dead bodies are conscious. Maimonides codified the law prohibiting one from walking in a cemetery while wearing tefillin in a chapter requiring one to show respect for the tefillin.28 According to Maimonides one should not wear tefillin in a cemetery out of respect for the tefillin, not out of concern for the feelings of the dead.

27

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Tefillin 4:22-23.

28

  According to Y.S. Lichtenstein, this is the opinion of the Jer. Talmud. See chap-  ter 3 of Yechezkiel Shraga Lichtenstein’s Mi-tume’ah Li-kedushah (Israel, 2007). Maimonides rules like the Jer. Talmud rather than the Babylonian Talmud because he  did not believe that the dead are conscious.

Ch apter Ni ne

The Messianic Era Judaism looks forward to the coming of the Messiah: According to Maimonides, the belief in the coming of the Messiah is one of the thirteen principles of Judaism.1 The Bible and the Talmud often speak of the messianic era in supernatural terms. Isaiah describes the messianic era as an age wherein, The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk’s den (Is. 11:6-8). Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the rugged shall be made level, and the rough places a plain (Is. 40:4). …I will set thy stones in fair colors, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy pinnacles of rubies, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy border of precious stones (Is. 54:11-12).

The prophet Zechariah declares that in the messianic age God Himself will wage war against Israel’s enemies. He prophesies: Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when He fighteth in the day of battle. “And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount

1

  Commentary on the Mishnah: Sanhedrin; Introduction to chapter 10.

119

120

Chapter Nine

of Olives shall cleft in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, so that there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south (Zechariah 14:3).

Malachi describes the messianic era in these words: For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts. (Mal. 3:19-21).

Many of the sages of the Talmud speak of the messianic era in similar terms. The Talmud quotes opinions to the effect that in the messianic era the Third Temple will descend from heaven;2 “the Land of Israel will bring forth silk garments and baked cakes of the purest quality”;3 “wheat will rise as high as a palm-tree”;4 “a grain of wheat will be as large as the two kidneys of a big bull”;5 “trees will yield fruit every day”;6 and women will conceive and give birth on the same day.7 The great Medieval Jewish philosopher Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, though a rationalist, took many of the Biblical and Rabbinic descriptions of the messianic era more or less literally. He described the messianic era in the following way:

2

  Shemos Rabbah 15:1; Tanchuma, Ki Tissa 13. Also see Rashi, Sukkah 41a, Rosh Ha-Shanah 30a. See also Tosafot, Sukkah, loc. cit. 3

  Ketubot 11b.

4

  Ibid.

5

  Ibid.

6

  Shabbat 30b.

7

  Ibid.

The Messianic Era

The wealthy of the nations shall transport the Israelites on horses and mules and in litters and on dromedaries… The poor among the nations shall carry the Israelites on their shoulders and their children in their bosoms… Those Israelites who live … on Islands shall be transported by the nations on boats accompanied by silver and gold.… Those who happen to be in Ethiopia will be transported by them in boats made out of bulrushes … Any Israelites who will remain in the wilderness or will have no one of the nations to bring him to Jerusalem, will be quickly brought to Jerusalem as though a cloud had lifted him up and carried him.8 When the Jews are gathered in Israel the dead will be resurrected and God will restore His sanctuary. All illness, plague, pestilence, and infirmity, sadness, and sorrow will disappear. The world will be “replete with joy and gladness, so that it will seem to them though their heaven and their earth has been renewed for them.9

Rabbi Saadiah Gaon then goes on to say that some time after the coming of the Messiah this world shall be transformed into olam ha-ba (the world to come), the world of ultimate reward. The present Heaven and earth will give way to a new heaven and earth. Human bodies will similarly undergo a transformation. This changed world and the bliss awarded to the righteous in it shall last forever. Man will become an eternal being and the righteous will enjoy eternal bliss and the wicked eternal torment. In contrast to Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, Maimonides minimizes the supernatural aspects of the messianic era, giving a more natural interpretation to the messianic era. Maimonides did not believe in a transformed world. He, as earlier noted, does not connect the resurrection of the dead to the messianic era. He does not believe that the messianic era is a prelude to the world to come.

8   The Book of Beliefs and Opinions 8:6. Rosenblatt translation (New Haven, 1948) ,  pp. 308-309. 9

  Ibid. p. 311.

121

122

Chapter Nine

According to Maimonides the world to come is a spiritual world that follows death. It has nothing to do with the coming of the Messiah. In the world to come, there is nothing corporeal, and no material substance; there are only souls of the righteous without bodies—like the ministering angels... The righteous attain to a knowledge and realization of truth concerning God to which they had not attained while they were in the murky and lowly body. 10

The key passages of Maimonides’ conception of the Messianic era read: The Messiah will arise at some future time and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will rebuild the Holy Temple and gather in the dispersed remnant of Israel. In his days, all the statutes will be reinstituted as in former times. We will offer sacrifices and observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee years according to all their details, which are set forth in the Torah.11 One should not entertain the notion that the Messiah must perform miracles and wonders, bring about new phenomena within the world, resurrect the dead, or do similar deeds. This is not the case.12 If a king will arise from the House of David who delves deeply into the study of the Torah and, like his ancestor David, observes its commandments as commanded in the Written Torah and the Oral Torah; if he will compel all of Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and repair the breaches in its observance; and if he will fight the wars of God; -we may, with assurance, consider him the Messiah.13 One should not entertain the notion that any element of the natural order will be nullified in the messianic era or that

10

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Teshuvah 8. Hayamson translation.

11

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Melakhim 11:1. Maimonides Resource Page; Chabad Translation (with changes). On the Web. 12

  Ibid. 11:2.

13

  Ibid. 11:4.

The Messianic Era

there will be any innovation in the work of creation in it. Rather, the world will continue according to its pattern. Although Isaiah states, The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat (Is.11: 6), these words are an allegory and a riddle. They mean that Israel will dwell securely together with the wicked gentiles who are likened to wolves and leopards… In this era, all nations will return to the true faith and no longer plunder or destroy. Instead, at peace with Israel, they will eat that which is permitted, as it is written, the lion shall eat straw like the ox (Is.11: 7). Other prophecies of this nature concerning the Messiah are similarly metaphors. In the messianic era, everyone will realize what was implied by these metaphors and allusions.14 Our Sages taught: “There will be no difference between the current age and the messianic era except for our liberation from our being subject to the gentile kingdoms.”15

Maimonides goes on to say that “one should not occupy himself at length with the Aggadot and Midrashim that deal with these …matters, nor should he deem them of prime importance, for they bring one to neither the awe nor the love of God.”16 Maimonides’s conception of the messianic era is to a great extent naturalistic. Maimonides points out that Rabbi Akiba and other sages thought that Bar Kokhba was the Messiah.17 Bar Kokhba was a man of this world. He was a warrior. He was a great general who drove the Romans from the land of Israel. The Bar Kokhba letters discovered near the Dead Sea portray him as a religious person but do not picture him as a great spiritual leader.18 Yet this was the man that Rabbi Akiba thought might be the Messiah. Maimonides writes:

14

  Ibid. 12:1.

15

  Ibid. 12: 2; Berakhot 34b.

16

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Melakhim 11:2.

17

  Ibid. 11:3.

18

  Yigal Yadin, “More on the Letters of Bar Kochba” in The Biblical Archaeologist,  Vol. 24, No. 3 (Sept., 1961), pp. 86-95.

123

124

Chapter Nine

Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest Sages of the Mishnah, was one of the supporters of King Ben Koziba, and would describe him as the Messiah. He and all the Sages of his generation considered him to be the Messiah until he was killed because of his sins. Once he was killed, they realized that he was not the Messiah. The Sages did not ask him for any signs or wonders.19

The Bar Kokhba rebellion failed. If it would have succeeded, what would Bar Kokhba have accomplished? He would have established Judean independence. The Jews would have been a free and independent people. The Temple would have been rebuilt. All Jews living in Judea would have had to follow the laws of the Torah. The Jews, who desired to do so, would have come back to Judea. The age of the Messiah would have arrived. As wonderful as the above is, it is a far cry from the description of the messianic age as described by various Biblical and Midrashic passages. Aside from the Talmudic report that Rabbi Akiba considered Bar Kokhba as the Messiah there is another Talmudic source that offers support for Maimonides’ concept of the messianic era. There is an opinion in the Talmud, to the effect that Israel has already enjoyed the messianic era. A third century Amora named Hillel who lived in the Land of Israel says that King Hezekiah was the Messiah and that the age of Hezekiah age was the messianic age.20 Now the Talmud vehemently rejects this opinion. The Talmud prays that Hillel be forgiven for uttering it.21 While the Talmud is upset at Hillel’s statement it is not opposed to the age of Hezekiah being a model of the messianic era. In fact the Talmud says that God wanted to make Hezekiah the Messiah but that the people of his age were unworthy of living in the messianic

19

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Melakhim 11:3.

20

  “There shall be no Messiah for Israel because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah.” Sanhedrin 99a. 21

  Ibid.

The Messianic Era

age.22 What made Hezekiah a model for the Messiah was that he freed Israel from Assyrian domination23 and saw to it that all of Israel meticulously studied and observed the Torah.24 It should be noted that whereas Rabbi Saadiah Gaon connects the rebuilding of the Temple with the coming of the Messiah and the Midrash and some medieval Jewish authorities believe that the next Temple will descend from heaven,25 Maimonides indicates the Jewish people are obligated to build the Temple whenever conditions permit.26

22

  See Sanhedrin 94a: “The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to appoint Hezekiah as the Messiah, and Sennacherib as Gog and Magog.” Soncino translation. 23

  2 Kings 36; 37.

24

  2 Chron. 29-31. Also see Sanhedrin 94b.

25

  Rashi, Sukkah 41a, Rosh Ha-Shanah 30a. See also Tosafot, Sukkah, loc. cit. Others who agree with Rashi’s opinion include Tosafot (Sukkah 41a; Shevuot 15b; Sukkah 41a), Ritva (Sukkah 41a), and Rabbenu Avrahom Min Ha-Har (Sukkah 41a). 26

  This is the way Rabbi Aaron Halevi the Author of the Sefer Ha-Chinukh understood Maimonides. See Sefer Ha-Chinukh; end of mitzvah 95. Also see Mishneh Torah; Hillkhot Bet Ha-Bechirah 1:1.

125

Ch apter Ten

The Oral Law According to the Talmud, God revealed two laws to Moses on Mt. Sinai, a Written Torah and an Oral Torah. The Torah States: “Come up to me into the mountain, and be there: and I will give thee tablets of stone, and a law, and the commandment1 which I have written.” (Ex. 24:12). The Talmudic sage R. Levi bar Chama interprets this verse as follows: “The tables of stone—These are the Decalogue. The law—This is Scripture. The commandment—This is the Mishnah. Which I have written—These are the Prophets and the Writings. That thou mayest teach them—This is the Talmud. This teaches that all these things were given to Moses on Sinai.”2 Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer reports that during the forty days that Moses spent on Sinai he studied Scripture during the day and Mishnah at night.3 Another source reports, “From the days of Moses our teacher until Hillel the Elder, there were six hundred orders of the Mishnah just as God gave them to Moses at Sinai. However, from the time of Hillel the world become impoverished, and the glory of the Law was diminished, so that beginning with Hillel and Shammai, they arranged only six orders.”4

1

  Translated literally.

2

  Berakhot 5a.

3

  Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer 46.

4

  This text is found in a responsa ascribed to Rabbi Hai Gaon. However, some modern scholars question whether Rabbi Hai Gaon is truly the author of this responsa. It is also quoted in Seder Tannaim Ve-Amoraim (Breslau, 1871); Sefer Ha-Kanah  (p. 81b) and other works. See Rabbinic Essays by Jacob Z. Lauterbach (Cincinnati, 1951),  pp. 168-169.

126

The Oral Law

Many of the Geonim took the above Rabbinic homilies literally. Thus Rabbi Saadiah Gaon argues that all of the Halakhot contained in the Mishnah were revealed to Moses at Sinai. He maintains that these laws were transmitted orally generation by generation. They were put into literal form only when forced to do so by external pressure. Rabbi Saadiah Gaon writes, “When our forefathers saw that the multitude was dispersed throughout the land and feared lest the Speech5 be forgotten, they gathered every word which had been transmitted from ancient times…and called them Mishnah.”6 Rabbi Saadiah Gaon continues, ‘There remained things which they hoped would be preserved with their occupation of the land of Israel…7 However, we continued to go astray and deviate and were exiled again…and they feared lest they be forgotten and gathered them as well and called them Talmud, five hundred years after the first time.”8 According to a Talmudic statement, “Both the words of the school of Hillel and of the school of Shammai are the words of the living God.”9 Some traditional authorities take the above literally. They argue that all the opinions recorded in the Talmud, even those that are in opposition to each other, were revealed to Moses at Sinai. These authorities maintain that the Rabbis in the Talmud only differ as to which opinion should be followed in practice. Thus Rabbi Samson of Senz (1150-1230), one of the Tosafists, maintains that “all of the Torah was given to Moses in a two sided manner, that is, the same object was declared both clean and unclean. Israel said to Moses when will we clarify the issue? Moses said to them: You

5

  The formulation of the Oral Law.

6

  Sefer Ha-Galuy. Quoted by Robert Brody in The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Culture (New Haven, 1998), p. 246. 7

  The interpretation of the Mishnah.

8

  Ibid. According to Brody this passages indicates that Rabbi Saadiah Gaon believed that every word in the Talmud was given at Sinai. 9

  Eruvin 13b.

127

128

C h a p t e r Te n

shall follow the majority, for both opinions are the words of the living God.”10 Rabbi Yom Tov ben Abraham (1250-1330) of Seville similarly writes: The French Rabbis of blessed memory asked: How is it possible for both opinions to be the words of the living God when one opinion declares something prohibited and the other opinion declares the same thing permitted. They answered: When Moses ascended Mount Sinai to receive the Torah, he was shown forty-nine ways to prohibit something and forty nine ways to permit the very same thing. Moses asked the Holy One Blessed be He: How can this be? The Holy One Blessed be He told Moses that this matter is handed to the wise men of Israel in each and every generation. The Halakhah will be as they determine.11

Rabbi Nissim Gerondi (fourteenth century) has a similar opinion. He writes: It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral, was transmitted to Moses, as it says in tractate Megillah, R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yochanan: The verse: ...and on them was written according to all the words… teaches that the Holy One blessed be He showed Moses the details prescribed by the Torah and the details prescribed by the Sages, including the innovations that the sages would later enact. And what are those?12 the reading of Megillah. The details prescribed by the Sages are Halakhic disputes and conflicting views held by the sages of Israel. Moses learned them all by divine word with no resolution of every controversy in detail. Yet [God] also gave him a rule by which the truth (the Halakhah) would be known, i.e., Favor the majority opinion (Ex. 23:2) and similarly You shall not deviate from what they tell you (Deut. 17:11).13

10

  See Tosafot Shantz; Eduyot 1,5.

11

  Ritva; Eruvin 13:2.

12

  The innovations enacted by the sages.

13

  Derashot Ha-Ran, Chapter 7, edited by A.L. Feldman (Jerusalem, 5763), pp. 252253. Translation with some changes based on Moshe Halbertal’s rendition in The History

The Oral Law

There is a very telling comment by Rabbi Ovadyah Bartenurah to the first Mishnah in Avot, a tractate devoted to Rabbinic aphorisms and homilies. Rabbi Bartenura explains that the first Mishnah of Avot opens with “Moses received the Torah on Sinai” to teach us that unlike the wise men of all nations who made up aphorisms on their own, all the aphorisms and parables in Avot were given at Sinai.”14 Maimonides had a totally different opinion. He saw the Oral Law as a combination of what was revealed at Sinai and a much larger part that had its origin in human interpretation and legislation. He writes: The great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem is the root of the Oral Law. The members thereof are the pillars of instruction; out of them go forth statutes and judgments to all Israel. Scripture bids us to place our confidence in them, as it is said: According to the law which they shall teach you (Deut. 1 7 : 1 1 ) . This is a positive command. Whoever believes in Moses our Teacher and his Torah is bound to follow their guidance in the practice of religion and to rely upon them.15 Whether the direction given by them is with regard to matters that they learned by tradition; interpreted rulings which they approved, measures devised by them to serve as a fence about the Torah; measures designed to meet the needs of the times, comprising decrees, ordinances, and customs; with regard to any of these three categories, obedience to the direction given by them is a positive command. Whoever disregards any of these, transgresses a negative command. For Scripture says: According to the law which they shall teach you (ibid.); this refers to the ordinances, decrees, and customs, which they promulgate… in order to strengthen religion and stabilize the social order. And according to the judg­ment which they shall tell you’ (ibid.); this refers to the rulings derived by means of any of the exegetical principles by which the Scripture is expounded. From the sentence which

of Halakhah, Views from Within: Three Medieval Approaches to Tradition and Controversy (Boston, 1997). On the Web. 14

  Bartenurah; Avot; 1:1.

15

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Mamrim 1:1. Twersky translation, with some changes.

129

130

C h a p t e r Te n

they shall declare to you (ibid.); this refers to traditional matters, transmitted to them by preceding generations in unbroken succession.16

Maimonides held that in instances where two sages differ with regard to a Halakhah then the interpretations put forward for the law originated with the sages and were not based on tradition. He writes: So far as traditional laws are concerned, there never was any controversy. If there was any, we may be sure that the tradition does not date back to Moses our Teacher. As for rules derived by means of hermeneutical principles, if they received the sanction of all the members of the Great Sanhedrin, they were binding. If there was a difference of opinion among them, the Great Sanhedrin followed the majority, and decided the law in accordance with their opinion.17

It is worthy of note that Maimonides did not count among the six hundred and thirteen commandments any laws which the Rabbis derived by employing one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles which the sages used in deriving laws from the Torah. Thus Maimonides writes in the Sefer Ha-Mitzvot: We have already explained in the beginning of our work Commentary to the Mishnah, that the greater part of the laws of the Torah are derived from Scripture by the Thirteen Principles by which the Torah is expounded, and that a law derived by these principles is sometimes subject to a difference of opinion. We have also explained that there are laws which are traditional interpretations received from Moses our teacher, and subject to no differences of opinion, yet the Sages offer evidence based upon one of these Thirteen Principles by which the Torah is expounded in proof of such laws… This being the case, it follows that not every law we find to have been derived by the Sages by one of the Thirteen

16

  Ibid. 1:2.

17

  Ibid. 1:3.

The Oral Law

Principles by which the Torah is expounded we should conclude from that very fact that it was declared to Moses on Sinai; at the same time, we are not to come to a decision that because the Sages in the Talmud find support for a certain law in one of the Thirteen Principles by which the Torah is expounded, that it is of Rabbinic authority, since it is possible that a particular law be an interpretation received by Moses on Sinai. The substance of the matter is thus as follows: whatever is not explicitly stated in the Torah, and you find the Talmud deriving it by one of the Thirteen Principles by which the Torah is expounded—then, if the Sages themselves clearly affirm that ‘it is of the essence of Torah’ or that ‘it is of Scriptural authority,’ it is proper to count that particular law among the Commandments, since those who received the Tradition explicitly stated that it is of Scriptural authority. But if they have not clearly explained it or stated it to be so, then it is of Rabbinic authority, since there is no verse directly indicating that law.18 Not everything derived by the Rabbis by analogy or from an argument based on reasoning from a minor to a major premise…or from one of the thirteen principles by which the Torah is interpreted is a Torah law unless the sages explicitly say that it is so…Nothing is considered to be prescribed by the Torah unless it is explicitly stated in the Torah such as a mixture of linen and wool, diverse seeds, Sabbath, and the proscribed sexual partners or something that the sages say comes from the Torah as they do with regard to three or four things alone.19

It should also be noted that when Maimonides gave reasons for the commandments he only did so in keeping with the plain meaning of the Biblical text. He did not take Rabbinic interpretations into consideration.20

18

  Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, Root 2. The Commandments, translated by Charles Chavel (London,1967), Vol. 2, page 373-374 ( with some changes). 19

  Ibid.

20

  Guide 3:41.

131

132

C h a p t e r Te n

The upshot of the aforementioned is that most of the Halakhic material found in the Talmud is Rabbinic. Some are uncomfortable with Maimonides’ position because it might be used in support of an attack on the Oral Law made by those who question the authority of the Talmud. In fact Nahmanides takes strong issue with Maimonides. He accuses Maimonides of uprooting the bases of Talmudic legislation. According to Nahmanides, all laws which the Rabbis derive from the Torah are to be considered as if written in the Torah itself unless otherwise so indicated by the Rabbis.21 The Oral Law was attacked in the ancient world by the Sadducees and later by the Karaites. In modern times the Oral Law was attacked by the early leaders of Reform Judaism, and by various maskilim. Furthermore, there is a fear that Maimonides’ position on the Oral Law might serve as a basis for those who might want to make changes—warranted or unwarranted; acceptable or not acceptable; necessary or unnecessary, harmful or helpful—in Jewish law. There is a very understandable tendency among those who fear the above to circle the wagons and totally negate any point of view which might be used to support the position they oppose. If the Karaites maintain that the entire Oral Law is manmade then the natural polemical reaction is to maintain that every jot and dot in the Oral Law was given at Sinai. A number of years ago a method of teaching Talmud that included pointing out to students that the Mishnah and the Talmud are composed of various layers was introduced into a number of religious Zionist schools in Israel. This method, called “Revadim,” was and is still strongly opposed by a number of Rabbis, for it implies that a human element played a role in the composition of the Talmud. One of the opponents of the “Revadim” method of teaching Talmud writes, “The entire Talmud, the Babylonian and the Jerusalem, which is in our hands was given at Sinai….It is

21

  Hasagot to Sefer Ha-Mizvot, Shoresh 2.

The Oral Law

prohibited to employ this method…Whoever guards his soul, will distance himself from it.”22 One who rationally studies the sources knows that Maimonides’ approach is historically true. The fact that a great portion of Jewish law is Rabbinic in origin does not mean that it can be abrogated at will. The fact of the matter is that those who abrogate Rabbinic law also abrogate Biblical law. The issue thus is loyalty to Halakhah. The latter takes in both Biblical and Rabbinic law. It should be noted that Maimonides’s position was not unique among Medieval Jewish thinkers. Some of its aspects were anticipated by Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi and Abraham Ibn Ezra. Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi wrote a work called the Kuzari to defend Judaism against the attacks of non-Jews and Jewish sectarians. The Jewish sectarians that Judah Ha-Levi had in mind were the Karaites, who claimed that the Oral Law was a creation of the Rabbis. Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi admitted that some interpretations of Scripture found in the Oral Law cannot be traced to Sinai. However, he argued they too are from heaven; for they were offered by prophets and Sages who were divinely inspired. The Divine origin of the Oral Law can be ascertained by studying the Mishnah. No one except one under the influence of the Holy Spirit could produce a work like it.23 When the Karaites argued that the Rabbis added laws to the Torah in contradiction to Scripture’s statement Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it (Deut. 13:1), Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi responded by saying: [Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it]…was only said to the masses, that they should not conjecture and theorize, and contrive laws according to their own conception, as the Karaites do. They were recommended to listen to the

22

  Rabbi Asher Zelig Weiss in Mi-Toratekha Lo Natiti (Jerusalem, 5768). Pamphlet.

23

  Ibid. 3:67. It should be noted that Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi limited his words to the Mishnah.

133

134

C h a p t e r Te n

post-Mosaic prophets, the priests and judges, as it is written: A prophet will the Lord thy God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken … and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him (Deut. 18:15;18). With regard to the priests and judges it is said that their decisions are binding. The words: Thou shall not add… refer to that which I command you through Moses and any prophet from among thy brethren who fulfils the conditions of a prophet. They further refer to regulations laid down by priests and judges from the place which thy Lord shall choose24 for they have divine assistance, and would never, on account of their large number, concur in anything, which contradicts the Law. Much less was there of erroneous views, because they had inherited vast learning, for the reception of which they were naturally endowed.”25

Ibn Ezra had a similar, though not an identical view, to that of Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi. His study of the Biblical text convinced him that many of the Rabbinic interpretations appear not to be in keeping with the literal meaning of the Biblical text. According to Ibn Ezra’s reading of Scripture, a non-Jew residing in the land of Israel is prohibited from working on the Sabbath (Ex. 20:8). He is also enjoined from eating the flesh of an animal that dies of itself (Lev. 17:14) and must fast and abstain from work on Yom Kippur (Lev. 17:29).26 According to the Talmud, the above are permitted to a non-Jew living in the land of Israel. According to Ibn Ezra’s reading of Scripture, the same sexual partners that are prohibited to a Jew are also prohibited to nonJewish residents of the Land of Israel.27 According to Rabbinic interpretation only seven of the fifteen sexual partners that are prohibited to Israelites are proscribed to a non-Jew.

24

  See Deut. 17:10.

25

  Ibid. 3:4. The Book of Kuzari, translated by H. Hirschfeld (New York, 1946), p 153.

26

  See I.E. on Lev. 17:29; reading therein ve-nakhrichennu in place of ve-lo nakhrichennu. See Filwarg, Bene Reshef. 27

  I.E. on Lev. 7:25.

The Oral Law

Leviticus states, “For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men present an offering made by fire unto the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people (Lev. 7:25).” According to the Rabbis the meaning of the fat of the beast, which men present an offering is the fat of any kind of beast which men may present as an offering on the altar. In other words, the verse teaches that the fat of all animals that are permitted to be offered as a sacrifice is prohibited. According to Ibn Ezra, Lev. 7:25 only prohibits the fat of an animal that was actually offered on the altar. In other words the Torah permits the fat of animals slaughtered for meat. Ibn Ezra makes his point in a controversy he had with a Karaite. According to the Rabbis, the fat tail of a sheep is permitted. However, The Karaites prohibited the fat tail. They accused the Rabbinates of violating the Biblical law prohibiting the eating of fat. Ibn Ezra countered that if we follow the plain reading of Scripture then we may eat not only the fat tail but also all fat, for the Torah only prohibits the fat of an animal that was actually sacrificed to God. Ibn Ezra writes, “A Sadducee once came to me and asked me if the Torah prohibits the fat tail. I answered and said; it is true that the fat tail is called “fat” (chelev), for the Torah states the fat thereof, the fat tail entire (Lev. 3:9). However, our ancients prohibited all fat but permitted the fat tail.”28 Now, the prohibition of eating fat was so inbred in Karaite practice that no “orthodox” Karaite would eat it. The Karaite had no choice but to admit that the Rabbinic tradition must be followed if the law concerning the prohibition to eat fat was to be maintained. In the words of Ibn Ezra, “The Sadducee then opened his eyes and uttered an oath with his lips to the effect that he will never rely on his opinion when it comes to explaining the commandments. He will rely only on the tradition transmitted by the Pharisees.”29

28

  I.E. on Lev. 7:20.

29

  Ibid.

135

136

C h a p t e r Te n

Ibn Ezra’s response to the Karaite incensed Nahmanides, for it contradicted Rabbinic tradition. According to Rabbinic law, eating fat entails the punishment of karet.30 Furthermore, if a person inadvertently eats fat then he or she is obligated to bring a sin offering. It is thus clearly a Biblical law. However, according to Ibn Ezra, eating fat from a non-sacrificial beast is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Nahmanides believes that in asserting that ordinary fat is Biblically permitted Ibn Ezra was straying further from tradition than the Karaites, for the latter at least admitted that fat was Biblically prohibited. Nahmanides argues that the Rabbinic interpretation of Lev. 7:25 is in reality the plain meaning of the verse. Some commentaries believe that Ibn Ezra did not really believe that fat is Biblically permitted. He was playing the devil’s advocate. He tried to show that if one does not accept the Rabbinic tradition then there is no Biblical basis for prohibiting the eating of fat.31 If this was the only place where Ibn Ezra’s interpretation was contrary to the Halakhah then perhaps the above interpretation of Ibn Ezra’s would be acceptable. However, Ibn Ezra makes a similar point in Exodus with regard to the law prohibiting boiling a kid in its mother’s milk. According to Ibn Ezra Scripture only prohibits boiling a kid in its mother’s meat. All other prohibitions regarding the boiling and eating of meat and milk are of Rabbinic origin (Ex. 23:19). According to the Talmud, the prohibition of boiling and eating meat in milk is Biblical. Ibn Ezra was not debating the Karaites when he commented on Ex. 23:19. He was merely interpreting Scripture. Furthermore, Ibn Ezra notes that if we pursue the plain meaning of Scripture without the tradition of the Rabbis then fish, even those with fins and scales, that are found in ponds (agammim) are prohibited to be ingested, for Scripture specifies that only fish that are found the seas and the rivers may be eaten. 32

30

  Keritot 1:1.

31

  See J. Filwarg, Benei Reshef (Petrokov, 1900) on Lev. 7:25.

32

  Ibn Ezra on Lev. 11:9

The Oral Law

The Rabbis rule that the verse “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28) is a command to have children.33 According to Ibn Ezra, the rabbinic interpretation of the aforementioned verse is not in keeping with its plain meaning. He believes that according to the plain meaning of the text Be fruitful and multiply is a blessing and not a command. Ibn Ezra goes on to say that there is indeed a command to have children. However, it is not derived from Gen. 1:28 but is a law known from tradition. The Rabbis merely used Gen. 1:28 as a means to transmit their tradition.34 However, it should be noted that Ibn Ezra elsewhere implies that the precept “attached” to “Be fruitful and multiply” is not a command but an option. Thus in his Yesod Morah Ibn Ezra notes: “There are benedictions that we are required to recite before performing obligatory precepts” and there are benedictions that we are required to recite over optional acts. Ibn Ezra then goes on to note that the blessings recited under the marriage canopy fall into this category.35 It would thus seem that either Ibn Ezra changed his mind or that he really believed that whenever Rabbinic Halakhic interpretations are not in keeping with the literal meaning of the text, then the laws that they “derive” from or attach to the text are Rabbinic in origin. One might add that Rabbi Kook also saw a human element in the Oral Law. He writes: We receive the Written Torah through the most elevated and inclusive conception within our souls. From the midst of our souls, we sense the blaze and beauty of that living, encompassing light of all existence. It makes us soar higher than all logic and intellect. We sense a supernal Godly spirit hovering upon us, touching yet not touching, flying next to our lives and above them, gilding them with its light. This light blazes, sparkles and penetrates everything. It permeates whatever is under the heavens. This great light was not

33

  Yevamot 6:6.

34

  Ibn Ezra on Gen. 1:26.

35

  Yesod Mora, p. 53-54. Strickman translation.

137

138

C h a p t e r Te n

created by the spirit of the Jewish people. Rather, it was created by the spirit of God, the Creator of all. This living Torah is the foundation of the creation of all universes. With the Oral Torah, we descend to life. We feel that we are receiving the supernal light in the second conduit within our soul: the conduit that advances toward the life of action. We sense that the spirit of the nation, bound like the flame to the coal with the light of the true Torah, has, with its unique character, fashioned the unique form of the Oral Torah. Without a doubt, this Torah of man is encompassed within the Torah of God. It too is the Torah of God. It cannot be that this flow of life through all portals could be hidden from the keen eye of [Moses, who received this Torah,] who gazed through the clear lens, who was trusted in all the house of God. As the sages stated, whatever a thoughtful student will one day conceive of was told to Moses on Sinai. These two lights make one complete world, in which heaven and earth are nourished.36

The issue is not the part that the Rabbis and others played in the development of certain elements of the Oral Law, but our subservience to it. To again quote Rabbi Kook: The sanctity of the basic measures of the Torah is the same, whether these units were transmitted to Moses at Sinai or decrees of a court of law, because it is the nation’s acceptance that is significant, and it is due to their commitment that we fulfill in purity even matters that are only decrees of later generations, such as the decrees of R. Gershom. Likewise there should be no difference in our wholehearted loyalty to the Oral Law, whether it was completed earlier or later.37

36

  Orot Ha-Tora 1:1, translated by Yaacov David Shulman in The Wisdom of Rabbi Kook; Torah Part 1. On the Web. 37

  Iggerot Ha-Re’iyah I, 194. Quoted in: Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah, edited by Shalom Carmy (New Jersey, 1996), p. 163.

Postscript

Maimonides as a Halakhic authority has been universally lauded. All observant Jews take his Halakhic decisions very seriously, and his Halakhic opinions permeate the Shulkhan Arukh. In fact he is one of the three authorities upon whom Rabbi Joseph Karo based his Shulkhan Arukh. His formulation of the thirteen principles of Judaism have been accepted as the definition of what a traditional Jew must ascribe to1—indeed, they have become part of the morning prayers. Similarly, his classification of the six hundred and thirteen commandments has been accepted as the standard list of the commandments. However, there is a very important area of Jewish law where his influence is relatively negligible: his opposition to superstition and illogical practices and beliefs. Dr. Marc Shapiro notes: “Not only did superstition-related Halakhot not disappear from Halakhic writings, but on the contrary, as time went on they greatly increased… it is astounding that the most prominent post-Talmudic Halakhist should have had so little impact in this area.”2 Maimonides’ limited influence in the above areas is probably due to two reasons. Many of Maimonides’ contemporaries and those who came after him did not share his world outlook. Medieval men believed in the existence of spirits and the power of the stars. This was their science. Maimonides had to convince his contemporaries that their world outlook was incorrect, and was unable to do so.

1

  However, see Mark Shapiro’s The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised (Oxford, 2003) and Menachem Kellner’s Must a Jew Believe Anything? (Oxford, 2006). 2   Marc B. Shapiro. Maimonidean Halakhah and Superstition in Maimonidean Studies, edited by A. Hyman (New York, 2000), p.105.

139

140

Postscript

Furthermore, in many instances the world outlook of the Rabbis of the Talmud was that of Maimonides’ contemporaries. Maimonides thus had to convince his contemporaries that not only was their world outlook wrong but in some cases that of the Rabbis was as well. Most religious leaders and laymen felt that this idea was heretical. Maimonides was aware of this difficulty: in his introduction to the Guide he wrote that he would rather satisfy one intelligent person than kowtow to ten thousand fools. It wasn’t only many of Maimonides’ contemporaries who did not share his outlook. Neither did the majority of the generations that followed. As late as the eighteenth century the Gaon of Vilna sharply criticized Maimonides for denying magic, the existence of demons and the efficacy of amulets.3 The recent controversies regarding the writings of Rabbi Nathan Slifkin are a slight example of what Maimonides faced and those who would emulate him still face. Rabbi Slifkin, known as the “Zoo Rabbi,” has written a number of works trying to reconcile the teachings of biology with the Torah. He has been viciously attacked and slandered by some elements in the orthodox community for his efforts. His books have been banned. Respected Rabbis in Israel have been duped into or have knowingly signed their names to letters attacking him. The individuals attacking Rabbi Slifkin believe that every rabbinic statement regarding science and the workings of nature should be taken literally. Anyone who disagrees is a heretic. There is a fear among some Orthodox Jews, and it may be a very valid fear, that if a person believes that the sages of the Talmud could possibly err in any area of life then that person is on a very slippery slope and has taken a step towards heresy. There are those who argue that if you deny the existence of demons you may end up denying the existence of God. There are a number of anecdotes that support the aforementioned. An article in the Israeli daily Ha-aretz on the poet

3

  Yoreh De’ah 179:13. See Jacob I. Dienstag, The Relation of R. Elijah Gaon to the Philosophy of Maimonides in Talpioth (Vol. 4, 1949), pp. 253-268.

Postscript

Asher Reich is an example. Reich, who grew up in the Meah She’arim section of Jerusalem, reports that when he lost his father, he was not permitted to go to the funeral. Reich claims that he was told that if he went to his father’s funeral he might be killed by demons, “For when a person emits semen in vain, the demons that are released at the time of the emission of the seed, (come to the funeral) and try to kill the firstborn.”4 The article implies that once Reich stopped believing in demons, he eventually stopped believing in the rest of Judaism. Rabbi Nachman of Breslav taught: It is written, a fool believes all things (Proverbs 15:15). It is good to be such a fool. If you believe even that which is false and foolish, you will also believe the truth. You are better off than he who is sophisticated and skeptical of everything. One can begin by ridiculing foolishness and falsehood. Eventually he will ridicule everything and end up denying even the truth. As one of our greatest sages once said, It is better that I be called a fool all my life and not be wicked even one moment before God (Eidiyot 5:6).5

Rabbi Nachman’s sentiments were echoed in an address, delivered in “Yinglish” by Rabbi Uren Reich, a prominent head of a Yeshiva in Lakewood, New Jersey, at the 82nd National Convention of the Agudat Israel of America in 1985: …If the Gemara tells us a metziyus,6 it’s emes veyatziv.7 There’s nothing to think about. Anything we see with our eyes is less of a reality than something we see in the Gemara. That’s the emunah8 that a yid has to have. Unfortunately, I don’t know where or why this is, but recently there’s been a spate of all kinds of publications—I don’t know where they’ve come

4

  Ha’aretz, 9-28-07.

5

  Rabbi Nachman’s Wisdom by Nathan of Nermirov, translated by Aryeh Kaplan (New York, 1984), p. 235. 6

  A fact.

7

  Literally, true and established, that is, it is true beyond any doubt.

8

  Faith.

141

142

Postscript

from—questioning things that have been mekubel midor dor,9 that every child learns, together with his mother’s milk, al titosh Toras imecha,10 we learn that every word of Torah is emes,11 every word of Chazal hakedoshim12 is emes. We’re coming to hear new kinds of concepts, that we have to figure out a way to make Torah compatible with modern-day science—it’s an emunah mezuyefes!13 There’s a tremendous emunah that these people have for scientists in the outside world—everything they say is kodesh kadoshim!14 And then we have to figure out according to what they say, how to fit in the Gemara with this newfangled discoveries that the scientists have taught us?! These same scientists who tell you with such clarity what happened sixty-five million years ago—ask them what the weather will be like in New York in two weeks’ time! “Possibly, probably, it could be, maybe”—ain itam hadavar, they don’t know. They know everything that happened 65 million years ago, but from their madda,15 and their wissenschaft,16 we have to be mispoel!17 Chazal HaKedoshim18—hakatan shebetalmidei Rabbeinu haKadosh mechayeh meisim19! If the Gaon (1720-1790)20 says that he could bring down kol galgal hachamah21 on this table and show it to Aristo22—do we have a safek23 that what

9

  Accepted by all preceding generations.

10

  Do not forsake the Torah of your Mother (Prov. 1:8).

11

  True.

12

  The holy sages.

13

  False belief.

14

  Is most holy.

15

  Science.

16

  Knowledge.

17

  We to stand in awe.

18

  The holy sages.

19

  The smallest student of the Holy teacher, Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi was able to resurrect the dead. 20   The Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Elijah ben Shelomo Zalman, the leader of non-hasidic Torah study oriented Judaism. 21

  The solar sphere.

22

  Aristotle.

23

  A doubt.

Postscript

Chazal HaKedoshim said is emes? Ra’u mi’sof haolam ve’ad sofo24— ain leharher achar divrei haGemara.25 Our emunah has to be, and will continue to be, that every word of Chazal haKedoshim is emes le’amitoh!26 Ve’ain leharher achar divrei haGemara. And that’s the emunah that we were mekabel midor dor,27 and with this kind of emunah… we’ll be mekarev kerovim,28 and we’ll be zocheh29 to the ohr ha-emes30 when Mashiach31 comes…”32

It is worthy of note that Rabbi Kook believes that the major problem in the spiritual life of the Jewish people during the First Temple period was a surfeit of belief. The Israelites had such a great amount of faith that they believed everything. They of course believed in God. However, they also believed in Baal, in Astarte and in all sorts of other gods. According to Rabbi Kook, the sin of the Jews in the First Temple period was that they did not distinguish between faith in that which is true and faith in that which is false.33 According to Rabbi Kook, atheism has a positive aspect. It teaches us to doubt. However, we must not misuse this ability to doubt. We have to use this doubt in a positive manner. We should not deny that which is real. We must deny that which is false.34

24

  They saw from one end of the world to another.

25

  We shouldn’t question anything in the Gemara.

26

  Absolute truth.

27

  Which was handed down from generation to generation.

28

  Draw close those who are far, bring people to Judaism.

29

  Worthy.

30

  The true light.

31

  The Messiah.

32

  Rav Uren Reich Rosh Ha-Yeshiva of Yeshiva of Woodlake Village in Lakewood. Extract from address at the Melava Malka of Agudath Israel of America’s 82nd National Convention. Quoted by Zoo Torah. On the Web/ 33

  The Road to renewal in B. Bokser: Abraham Isaac Kook: The Lights of Penitence, The Moral Principles, Lights of Holiness, Essays, Letters, and Poems (New York, 1978),  pp. 287-302. 34

  Ibid. The Pangs of Cleansing, pp. 261-269.

143

144

Postscript

There are those who feel that a world devoid of supernaturalism is a world devoid of God. There are people for whom a Judaism minus such things as opening the ark so that one’s wife will have an easy delivery, not saying anything dangerous so as not to tempt Satan, avoiding paying a compliment without saying beli ayin hara, or being certain to say la-beri’ut when somebody sneezes is simply not Judaism. One who so believes writes: There are people who don’t like superstitions. As they see it, beliefs in amulets, demons, angels, segulos, saints and the power of the spoken word to affect reality detracts from God’s omnipotence. After all, He is the Almighty, and allowing other beings or phenomena to share in His power partakes of idolatry. Yet superstitions are hard to extricate from religion. In every religious system, such beliefs are closely associated with piety and with true and persistent religious spirit. Maimonidean-like philosophical frameworks that set a transcendent Being in opposition to a lowly world, do not only not succeed in conveying a living religion to the masses, they often have an unintended effect of impoverishing the spirit and vitiating the commitment of the elite. It is of course an over-generalization to say that Maimonideans tend to be over-cerebral, dismissive of expressions of religiosity, and unaware of the great stores of religious feeling and sensibility that others possess. However, at least sometimes… they are cynical, distant and secretly racked by doubts... at the same time as they espouse a religious vision of grandeur and beauty. Why is it so? What can we learn from it? I think that it is important to realize that superstition and its relatives present a vision of a world suffused with spirituality. It is not just God and the universe out there, it is a world filled with unending gradations of supernatural. The spiritual is just at hand, ready for taking. In a world like this, the spiritual is very, very close, part and parcel of existence. In fact, in such a world leading a purely physical existence is distinctly abnormal. For the affordable price of credulity, folk religion acquires an abiding closeness to God in all His manifestations, right here, all around us. The difference between popular sensibility and Maimonidean rationality is like that of a luscious rain forest and the driest of deserts. The

Postscript

former surrounds its dwellers with life-giving moisture from all ends. The latter deprives them of life-sustaining water, leaving them to be nourished by trust that it exists somewhere else and with measured, limited, barely sufficient cupfuls in their canteens.35

However, there are many people who cannot accept this approach. There are many observant Jews who cannot affirm what their minds and hearts tell them cannot be true. There are religious people who, to paraphrase Maimonides, have been trained to believe in the truth of the Torah… and at the same time have engaged in philosophical and scientific studies. Human reason has attracted them to abide within its sphere; and they find it difficult to accept as correct teachings that contradict what they know to be true. Hence they are lost in perplexity and anxiety. If they be guided solely by reason, they would consider that they had rejected the fundamental principles of the Torah. However, if they retain their loyalty to the Torah and reject the teachings of reason their religious convictions would suffer loss and injury; for they would be left in fear and anxiety, constant grief and great perplexity.36 One of them, David Guttman, writes: I spent time at Slabodka in Bnei Brak and Beth Medrosh Elyon in Monsey during the Sixties. Although I have to thank the Yeshivos for giving me the basic tools to learn and think, I have found that they have not prepared me to be a thoughtful and practicing Jew. Once I was confronted with reality… I had to turn back to Rambam. There I found the Mesora that leads back to Sinai and explains from a religious perspective the existential issues we are confronted with daily. So for the last fifteen years or so, with the help of great Chaverim,37 Rambam

35   Avakesh; On the Web, Oct, 07. Avakesh identifies himself as a “sincere seeker” who “studied under several gedolim of the last generation,” and has published several sefarim. 36

  Guide; preface; page 2. Friedlander translation.

37

  Friends.

145

146

Postscript

has become my focus both in Machashavah38 and Halakhah — and what a trip it is.39

Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah did not take the place of the Talmud. It could not; for the Talmud is a basic text of Judaism. Furthermore, normative Judaism never accepted the viewpoint of one Rabbi as the only authoritative opinion. It preferred to weigh many differing opinions before deciding which one to follow. It took the dictum of the sages, “these and these are the words of the living God”40 very seriously. Even if a ruling was not accepted in practice, that opinion was quoted and analyzed and remained part of Torah. Additionally, having many opinions to choose from adds a certain flexibility to Jewish law. Many decisors of Jewish law rule that a minority opinion, one that is not generally followed, may be relied upon in an emergency. 41 Furthermore, the Mishnah Torah is based on Sephardic tradition. Other Jewish communities had their own traditions. Ashkenazic Jewry could not accept all the decisions of Maimonides, for they often contradicted Ashkenazic traditions.

38

  Thought.

39

  David Guttmann in his blog, Believing is Knowing. On the Web.

40

  Eruvin 13b.

41

  “As a general matter, it should be noted… that even though there is the principle that Given an individual view and a majority view, the halakhah is in accord with the majority, [nevertheless], When the individual’s reasoning makes sense, we rule in accordance with his view.” (Rabbi Kook introduction to Shabbat ha-Aretz (Jerusalem, 1985), p. 42: )…” “Given an individual view and a majority view, the Halakhah is in accord with the majority, but, in time of need, he may rely on the individual. (R. Hayyim Hezekiah Medini, Sedei Hemed, principles with the letter yod, principle 32)” Both of the above are quoted in an excellent note by Daniel Sperber; in Congregational Dignity and Human Dignity: Women and Public Torah Reading in The Edah Journal, Elul 2002; note 26. Sperber concludes his note with the following comment: “The issue requires considerable probing, but we see in any event that there are views holding that isolated opinions should not be disregarded and that, in some circumstances, they may  be relied on. “

Postscript

Moreover, there were great Rabbis who ruled that one should not render a decision from any code without knowing the Talmudic background behind the decision. 42 Lastly, Maimonides’ scientific conceptions are dated.43 Few of us believe that the study of metaphysics is the way to attain eternal life. Nevertheless, the Mishneh Torah remains a magnificent code . It presents a vision of a Judaism that is rational. A Judaism devoid of superstition. A Judaism without the evil eye, demons, astrological practices, magic and theurgic practices. A Judaism that attempts to rationally interpret the doctrines and belief’s of Judaism. While Maimonides did not answer all of our questions, he pointed us in the right direction. For many of us he was and still remains the Guide for the Perplexed.

42

  See, Shlomo Brody; Against the Shulchan Aruch: The Critique of the Maharshal; Tradition July, 2010. 43

  See Herbert A. Davidson; Maimonides the Man and his Works (New York,  2005), p. 352.

147

Appendix

Another Look at the Mishneh Torah Some have taken Maimonides’ statement that “when one first studies Scripture and thereafter reads the Mishneh Torah he obtains here-from a complete knowledge of the Oral Torah and he has no need to read any other work between them” to indicate that Maimonides intended the Mishneh Torah to serve as an alternate to Talmudic study. 1 It has been suggested that the Mishneh Torah was eventually2 given the name Yad3 Ha-Chazaka, (the Mighty Hand) to indicate that it should not be considered as a work which is second to God’s Torah (Mishneh Torah).4 In other words, the Mishneh Torah is a great Halakhic work, a Mighty Hand but no more. One must study Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud, and other Halakhic works. One should not limit himself to Scripture and the Mishneh Torah. Prior to composing the Mishneh Torah Maimonides wrote a commentary to the Mishnah. The latter was written in JudaoArabic and like the Mishneh Torah was designed for all literate Jews. Its aim was to help an intelligent person understand the Mishnah. Additionally, Maimonides believed that his commentary would be of use to the Talmudic scholar, for it would help him retain the

1   Rabbi Pinchas the Dayyan of Alexandria made this charge in a letter to Maimonides. Also see Stroumsa, Sarah. Maimonides Hs World Portrait of A Mediterranean Thinker (Princeton, 2009), p 63. 2   Long after Maimonides’ death. 3   A play on: and in all the mighty hand (yad)… which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel (Deut. 34:12). Yad is numerically equivalent to 14. The Mishneh Torah is made up of fourteen Books. 4   See Rabbi M. Gifter; Talpiyot; Year 1; 1945, p. 187.

148

Appendix

information he had garnered from his Talmudic studies. Maimonides hoped that whatever a student of the Talmud “has studied will be fixed in his mind, and what he studied in the Mishnah and the Talmud will be orderly in his mouth.”5 Maimonides could have given a similar reason for composing the Mishneh Torah. He could have said that the Mishneh Torah would aid the Talmudic student in retaining the information that he had gleaned from his Talmudic studies. However, he did not say this. In fact when a Rabbi argued that one can not truly comprehend the Mishneh Torah without first studying the Talmud and that therefore one should not decide the Halakhah from the Mishneh Torah without also consulting the Talmud, Maimonides responded, “If one needed the Talmud along with this composition (the Mishneh Torah) then we (I) would not have composed this composition (the Mishneh Torah).”6 Maimonides directed his disciple Rabbi Joseph ben Judah,7 who was about to open a Yeshiva, that the Mishneh Torah and the Halakhot of Alfasi should be the focus of study in his school.8 The two were to be compared. Whenever they contradicted each other, they were to turn to the Talmud for a final decision. However, in view of the fact that Maimonides believes that one can take issue with Alfasi in only about ten instances,9 the need to turn to the Talmud would obviously be limited. In any case Maimonides tells Joseph to follow his advice and not to “spend and waste his time in explaining the Talmud’s give and take.”10

5   Maimonides; Introduction to the Mishnah. See F. Rosner, Moses Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah (New York, 1975), p . 137. 6   Iggerot Ha-Rambam; Edited by J. Kapach ( Jerusalem, 1972), p. 136. 7   Maimonides dedicated the Guide to this disciple. 8   Rabbi Isaac Alfasi’s (1013-1103) Halakhot summarized each Tractate of the Talmud which had Halakhic relevance. It eliminated material much of the Talmud’s give and take and those elements which were not relevant to the Halakhah.. Maimonides based much of the Mishneh Torah on Alfasi’s code. 9   Maimonides, Introduction to Mishneh Torah. 10   Hebrew (translated from the Arabic): ve-lo te-khalleh u-te-abbed zemannekha befirush u-ve-massa u-mattan shel gemara. Kovetz, Teshuvot Ha-Rambam (Leipzig, 1839), p. 31. Kapach translates a bit differently. However, the essence is the same. See Kapach, Iggerot Ha-Rambam p. 13.

149

150

Appendix

He notes that it is a waste of time to study that which he omitted from the Mishneh Torah. 11 In another letter to this student he writes: I have already warned you not to neglect your studies,12 until you know the entire Mishneh Torah, and you have made the book your own, and you have studied it in its entirety, so that you appreciate its utility. The basic goal of all that is gathered in the Talmud and outside of it has been included and fulfilled in it. The aim of the sages of our time is to waste time in the discussions found in the Talmud as if the goal and intention of Talmudic study is to become adept in arguing different points of view, and nothing else.13 This is not the primary purpose of the Talmud. On the contrary the discussions and arguments in the Talmud came about by accident. It occurred because some things were not clear. They could be interpreted in two ways. One sage explained a certain way. His colleague came and interpreted it in an opposite way. Each one of them saw a need to produce arguments to prove his point. The main intention of the Talmud was only to teach a person what he must do, and what he must refrain from doing. This should be clear to someone like you. We therefore emphasized this primary intention of the Talmud in the Mishneh Torah. We did so in a manner in which it will be easy to remember it.14 Furthermore, so that it will be known, 15 for it was lost amidst all the disputes.16 We (I) left all that is not pure Halakhah to those who want to train themselves in it.17

11   Hebrew: ve-otam ha-devarim she-kvar hinachti me-hem ibbud ha-zeman u-me’at ha-to’elet. Kovetz, Teshuvot Ha-Rambam, p. 31. Kapach translates a bit differently. However, the essence is the same. See Kapach p. 131. 12   The reference is to Torah studies. 13   Hebrew: u-mattarat ha-lomedim avud ha-zeman be-massa u-mattan she-betalmud. Ke-ilu ha-mattarah ve-ha-tachlit hi ha-hakhsharah be-vikukhim ve-lo yoter. 14   The Halakhah. 15   The Halakhah. 16   It is hard to determine the Halakhah from the Talmud because of the many opinions, arguments and counter arguments that are found in it. One can lose sight of the “trees” for the forest. 17   Letter to Joseph ben Judah. J. Kapach Iggerot Ha-Rambam; p. 136. By We (I) left all that is not pure Halakhah to those who want to train themselves in it, Maimonides probably meant: We (I) left all that is not pure Halakhah to all those who want to become

Appendix

Maimonides then goes on to say: that he also eliminated the Talmudic give and take from the Mishnah Torah because there are those who train themselves in Talmudic dialectics so that they will become known as great Talmudic scholars. In other words, Maimonides indicates that one of the reasons for eliminating the Talmudic give and takes was to show that the main object of Talmudic study is knowledge of the Halakhah and not expertise in Talmudic dialectics. 18 The advice given by Maimonides to Joseph ben Judah seems to have fallen on other ears as well. Thus Rabbi Shem Tov ibn Falaquera (ca. 1225—1295), a philosopher and poet, writes: “One should first study the Written Torah and then study the Oral Torah which explains the Written Torah. Today it is sufficient for a person to study the Halakhot of Rabbi Alfasi of blessed memory. He should read along with them the books of Rabbi Moshe of blessed memory that are known as the Mishneh Torah for they are correct; also the commentary on the Mishnah is very helpful. Whoever, wants to know the final Halakhic decision will find what Maimonides wrote sufficient.”19 A close reading of Maimonides’ formulation of the Laws regarding the setting aside of time for Torah study is enlightening. The Talmud quotes Rabbi Safra as saying in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah that a person should divide the time that he studies Torah in three, “spending a third studying Scripture, a third studying Mishnah, and a third studying Talmud.”20 Maimonides codifies the above as follows: One is… obligated to divide one’s time of study into three: a third for learning the Written Torah, a third for learning the Oral Torah and a third in reflection, deducing conclusions from premises, developing implications of statements,

adept in it; to all those who want to study it; to all those who want to devote their time to it or the like. 18   Letter to Joseph ben Judah. Kapach, p. 136.. 19   Sefer Ha-Mevekesh quoted by Dinur, p. 85. 20   Kiddushin 30a.

151

152

Appendix

comparing dicta, studying the hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is interpreted, till one knows the essence of these principles, and how to deduce what is permitted and what one has learned traditionally. This is termed Talmud. 21

The above passage speaks of the Oral Law but does not explicitly mention the Mishnah. It speaks of Talmud but does not clearly say that the reference is to the work edited by Revina and Rav Ashi. One can make a case that by leaving out the Mishnah and defining Talmud as “deducing conclusions from premises, developing implications of statements, comparing dicta, studying the hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is interpreted, till one knows the essence of these principles, and how to deduce what is permitted and what one has learned traditionally,” Maimonides is hinting that one need not study the Oral Law from the Talmudic texts per se but that the study of the Mishneh Torah, which Maimonides believes contains all of the Oral Law, suffices. On the other hand one can argue, and this is the accepted interpretation of the above by the traditional commentaries on the Mishneh Torah, that by the “Oral Law” Maimonides meant the Mishnah and by Talmud he meant the work edited by Revina and Rav Ashi.22 There are those who claim that Maimonides composed the Mishneh Torah not only so that “small and great” could master all of Jewish law, but also so that he who was philosophically inclined could become an expert in Jewish law while bypassing the long hours necessary for Talmudic study. Such an individual could more quickly go on to study logic, mathematics, physics, and metaphysics.23

21   Mishneh Torah; Laws of Torah Study 1:11. Immanuel O’Levy translation (with slight changes). 22

  Lechem Mishneh; Kesef Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Talmud Torah 1:11.

23

  See Israel Yovel: Moshe Redivivus: Ha-Ramabm Ke-Ozer La-Melekh Ha-Mashiach in Tzion 5767, pp.180 181. Also see Moses Halbertal, People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority (Cambridge, 1997), pp124-125.

Appendix

Thus Maimonides writes: I say, no one should stroll through the “Pardes”24 unless his belly is filled with bread and meat. I mean by bread and meat knowledge of what is prohibited and permitted and similar issues among the other commandments.25 Now, even though the sages called these matters ‘minor things’26—for the sages said that Ma’aseh Merkavah27 is a great matter and the discussions of Abaye and Rava28 are minor matters- it is still appropriate to master the latter first, since they provide basic tranquility to an individual’s mind. They29 are God’s precious gift to promote social well-being on earth so that people may inherit the world to come. The knowledge of them is possible for all, young and old, man and women;30 those of great minds and those of small minds.31

This interpretation is supported by the above-quoted letter of Maimonides to his student Rabbi Joseph. It will be recalled that Maimonides opens this letter by saying: “I have already warned you not to neglect your studies, until you know the entire Mishneh Torah, and you have made the book your own, and you have studied it in its entirety, so that you appreciate its utility. The basic goal of all that is gathered in the Talmud and outside of it has been included and fulfilled in it.” Maimonides seems to be saying that Joseph

24

  The study of Divine Science (metaphysics), literally, the garden. Maimonides summarizes elements of this area of knowledge in the first four chapters of Hilkhot Yesodot Ha-Torah. He treats them more fully in the Guide for the Perplexed. 25

  That is the details regarding the observance of the other commandments.

26

  Sukkah 28a.

27

  An especially delicate area of metaphysical studies. Literally, “The Account of the Chariot.” See Ezekiel. 1. 28   Abaye and Rava were fourth century Babylonian sages. Some consider them to be the first redactors of the Babylonian Talmud. In any case the phrase “discussions of Abaye and Rava” stand for Talmudic studies as a whole. 29   “What is prohibited and permitted and similar issues among the other commandments.” 30   It should be noted that Maimonides clearly implies that women should master, “What is prohibited and permitted and similar issues among the other commandments.” 31

  Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Yesodei Ha-Torah, end of chapter 4.

153

154

Appendix

should not throw himself into the study of the natural sciences and metaphysics before he has mastered the Mishneh Torah. It is not surprising that Maimonides was accused of wanting to have the study of the Mishneh Torah supplant the study of the Talmud. Rabbi Pinechas, a Dayyan (judge) in Alexandria, wrote to Maimonides and asked him to openly proclaim that people should continue to study the Talmud. He went on to say that he knows Maimonides’ true intention in composition the Mishneh Torah, i.e. that the study of the Mishneh Torah take the place of the study of the Talmud.32 He admits that Maimonides did not exactly say so. However, he maintains that Maimonides hinted at it33 and that he and by implication others picked up the hint. Maimonides reply to Rabbi Pinechas was very defensive. He was clearly deeply affected by the latter’s charge. Maimonides insisted that he never said that that the Mishneh Torah should take the place of the Talmud. In fact he noted that he taught Talmud to a number of people who asked him to do so. He noted that there are two types of works: commentaries and codes.34 His intention was to write a code, not a commentary, for many people find the Talmud too difficult and therefore remain ignorant of the Halakhah.35 If, as some maintain, one of Maimonides’ goals in composing the Mishneh Torah36 was that it would serve as a substitute or at least an alternative for the study of the Talmud, then it ultimately failed. True, there were places where the study of the Mishneh Torah replaced the study of the Talmud. 37 However, normative Judaism emphasized the study of the Talmud as a goal in itself. The study of

32

  Ra’uy le-hadratekha le-horot le-olam she-lo yanichu ha-gemra mi-litassek bah. Rabbi Pinchas as quoted by Maimonides. See Kovetz Teshuvat Ha-Rambam Ve-Iggerotav (Lipsia, 1859) part 1; page 25. 33

  She-kevar hevanti devarim she-belibbekh, she-lo pirashta otam ela be-rimizah (ibid). 34

  The term used by Maimonides is chibbur, composition

35

  Ibid.

36

  Ibid.

37

  Isadore Twersky; Introduction to the Code of Maimonides p 527.

Appendix

philosophy, when tolerated, was permitted only as a “dessert to the main meal,” which consisted of Talmudic study. A great Rabbi has been quoted as saying that the only question that will be asked of him in the world to come is, “How many pages of the Gemara do you know?” The Tosafists, the great Talmudic scholars of France and Germany contemporary with Maimonides, personified this point of view. The Tosafists, who were the intellectual giants of FrancoGeman Jewry, focused on Talmudic study. They looked at every Talmud passage from various points of view. “The Tosafists resorted to the same techniques as had been used by the Amoraim… thus they were, so to speak, continuing—after a gap of several centuries— the ancient tradition of Amoraic study. They invested the old… term chiddush (innovation) with new, dynamic meaning, converting it into the peak of accomplishment and major goal of every Torah student.”38 Theirs was “ a collective achievement involving dozens, if not hundreds of scholars coming from many Yeshivot, great and small, studying together and writing their novel interpretations”39 of the Talmud. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, one of the greatest Talmudists and Jewish thinkers of the twentieth century, speaks for this tradition. He stresses that the ideal Talmudic scholar, whom he refers to as Halakhic man, represents the apex of Judaism. Rabbi Soloveitchik stresses that Halakhic man delights in the intellectual analysis of a Talmudic passage much more than in the final Halakhic decision. “The theoretical Halakhah, not the practical decision, represent the longing of Halakhic man.”40 Thus Rabbi Soloveitchik writes: The foundation of foundations and the pillar of Halakhic thought41 is not the practical ruling but the determination

38

  Israel Ta-Shma, Creativity and Tradition, p. 87.

39

  Ibid. p. 33.

40

  Halakhic Man p. 24.

41

  A takeoff on Mishneh Torah;Sefer Ha-Mada: 1:1.

155

156

Appendix

of the theoretical Halakhah. Therefore, many of the greatest Halakhic men avoided and still avoid serving in rabbinical posts. They rather join themselves to the group of those who are reluctant to render practical decisions. And if necessity— which is not to be decried—compels them to disregard their preference and to render practical decisions, this is only a small insignificant responsibility, which does not stand at the center of their concerns.42

Normative Judaism eventually developed two tracks of Talmudic studies, the study of the Talmud per se and the study of Halakhic codes. Theoretically, the ideal way to decide a Halakhic issue is to study the Talmud, then see what the codes and their commentaries say on a specific topic and then come to a conclusion. However, practically speaking, when it comes to deciding a Halakhic issue only the Shulkhan Arukh, its commentaries and the responsa are consulted. Maimonides’ opinion, as paraphrased in the Shulkahn Arukh, is only one of a number that are taken into consideration. In effect the Shulkhan Arukh plays the role that Maimonides hoped his Mishneh Torah would. It is a very different code than Maimonides envisioned. However, it is the authoritative code of Halakahic Jews. There are those who have tried to revive the study of the Mishneh Torah as a focus of study. In 1984 the late Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the head of Chabad, initiated a campaign for the daily study of the Mishneh Torah. Literature sent out to publicize the campaign noted, “While many people had been turning to the fourteen-volume work (i.e. Mishneh Torah) to supplement their study of the Talmud or Jewish law, it was not being studied as a text on its own… Every individual is commanded to study the entire Torah, a goal not within reach for most people. However, it is possible to study the whole Torah as compiled by Maimonides.”43 Rabbi Schneerson suggested that the Mishneh Torah should be studied straight through, from beginning to end. He suggested

42

  Halakhic Man p. 24.

43

  Rabbi Dovid Zaklikowski; “Daily Study of Maimonides’ Works.” On the Web.

Appendix

“a three chapter per day schedule which completes the Mishneh Torah in slightly less than one year.” “For those who lack the time to study three chapters a day, the Rebbe suggested a one chapter per day program that lasts close to three years.” There has been no visible response to the Rabbi Schneerson’s call outside of Chabad. An effort similar to that of Chabad is being made by an organization in Jerusalem called Mifal Mishnah Torah. They too propagate the daily study of the Mishneh Torah. Here again there has been a very limited response to their efforts. The Talmud remains the major text of the Oral Law. In fact, there are now more students of the Talmud then there ever were before.

157

Bibliography

Abraham son of Moses Maimonides, Rabbenu Avraham ben Ha-Rambam: Milchamot Ha-Shem, edited by Re’uven Margoliyot. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, Undated (Hebrew). Abrahams, Israel. Hebrew Ethical Wills, Part One. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1948. Al-Harizi, Judah. The Book of Tahkemoni, translated by David Simha Segal. Oregon: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilizations, 2003. Alon, Gedalyahu. Jews, Judaism and the Classical World. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977. Angel, Marc. Maimonides, Spinoza and Us: Toward an Intellectually Vibrant Judaism. Vermont: Jewish Lights Publishing, 2009. The Babylonian Talmud, edited by Isadore Epstein. London: Soncino Press Ltd., 1952. “Beste Investment:” Oiseh Nifluos Gedolos. Monroe, New York. No publisher, undated. Pamphlet. Bokser, Ben Zion. Abraham Isaac Kook: The Lights of Penitence, The Moral Principles, Lights of Holiness, Essays, Letters, and Poems. New York: Paulist Press , 1978 Brody, Robert. The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Culture. New Jersey: Yale University Press, 1998. Brody, Shlomo. “Against the Shulchan Aruch: The Critique of the Maharshal, Text and Texture.” On the Web: http://text.rcarabbis. org/against-the-shulchan-aruch-the-critique-of-the-maharshal-byshlomo-brody/ Carmy, Shalom. Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah. New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1996. Chayyim of Volozzhin. Nefesh HaHayim, translated by Raphael Ben Zion in An Anthology of Jewish Mysticism. New York: The Judaica Press, 1981. Chavel, Chayyim (Charles). Kitve Ramban. Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1963. 158

Bibliography

____. The Commandments: Sefer Ha-Mitvot. Translated by Charles B. Chavel. London: The Soncino Press, 1967. ____. Ramban: Commentary on the Torah. New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1971. Cordovero, Moshe. Tomer Devorah: The Palm Tree of Deborah. Translated by Louis Jacobs. London: Vallentine, Mitchell & Co., Ltd, 1960. Code of Jewish Law : Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, by Rabbi Solomon Ganzfried, translated by Hyman E. Goldin. New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1987. Davidson, Herbert A. Moses Maimonides: The Man and His Works. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Dienstag, Jacob I. “The Relation of R. Elijah Gaon to the Philosophy of Maimonides.” Talpioth vol IV. (1949) (Hebrew). Dinur, Benzion. Yisrael Ba-Golah Vol 2, Book 4. Jerusalem: Dvir Co. Ltd. and the Bialik Institute, 1969 (Hebrew). Epstein, Yechiel Mikhal. Arukh Ha-Shulkhan. New York: Jonathan Publishing Company, 1961. Filwarg, J. Benei Reshef. Petrokov: No publisher, 1900. Freeman, Tzvi. “Home Security Device.” On the Web: http://www.chabad. org/library/article_cdo/aid/142438/jewish/Home-Security-Device. htm aDa8il Funkenstein, Amos. Styles in Medieval Biblical Exegesis: An Introduction. Israel: Ministry of Defence, 1990 (Hebrew). Gifter, Mordecai. “Ha-Rambam Ve-Ha-Mekhilta De-Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai.” Talpiyot vol. 1:1 (1943). Glatzer, Nahum. A Jewish Reader: In Time and Eternity. New York: Schocken Books, 1956. Gordon, Martin L. “Mezuzah: Protective Amulet or Religious Symbol?” Tradition vol. 16:4 (1977). ____. “Netilat Yadayim: Ritual of Crisis or Dedication?” Gesher vol. 8 (1981). Goshen-Gottstein, A.: “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature.” Harvard Theological Review, vol. 87:2 (1994). Hadad, Eli. “The Holy One Blessed Be He Has Nothing In This World But The Four Cubits Of The Law.” Maimonides Heritage Center. On the Web: http://www.mhcny.org/pdf/LL%20-%20Eli%20Hadad/3.pdf

159

160

Bibliography

Halbertal, Moses. People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. ____. The History of Halakhah, Views from Within: Three Medieval Approaches to Tradition and Controversy. Cambridge: Harvard Law School, 1997. Ha-Levi, Judah. The Kuzari: In Defense Of The Despised Faith, translated by Daniel Korrobkin. New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1998. ____. The Book of Kuzari, translated by H. Hirschfeld. New York: Pardes Publishing House, 1946. ____. Kuzari: The Book of Proof and Argument, translated by Isaak Heinemann. Oxford: Phaidon Press Ltd., 1946 Held, Shai. “The Promise and Peril of Jewish Barthianism: The Theology of Michael Wyschogrod.” Modern Judaism, vol. 25: 3 (2005). Henoch, Chayyim. Nachmanides: Philosopher and Mystic. Jerusalem: The Harry Fischel Institute for Research in Jewish Law, 1978 (Hebrew). Hirsch, Samson Raphael, Rabbi. The Nineteen Letters on Judaism, translated by Bernard Drachman. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, 2009. ____. The World of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch: The Nineteen Letters, translated by Karin Paritzky. Revised and with a comprehensive commentary by Joseph Elias. New York/Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, 1994. Ibn Ezra, Abraham. “Yesod Mora.” In Yalkut Ibn Ezra, edited by Israel Levin. Israel: Israel Matz Hebrew Classics and I. Edward Kiev Library Foundation, 1985. ____. The Secret of the Torah: A Translation and Annotation of Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Yesod Mora Ve-Sod Ha-Torah, translated and annotated by H. Norman Strickman. New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1995. ------. Yesod Mora Ve-Sod Torah, edited and annotated by Joseph Cohen & Uriel Simon. Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002 ------. Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch (Genesis), translated & annotated by H. Norman Strickman & Arthur Silver. New York: Menorah Press, 1988.Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch (Exodus) ), translated & annotated by H. Norman Strickman & Arthur Silver. New York: Menorah Press, 1996. ------. Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch (Leviticus), translated & annotated by H. Norman Strickman & Arthur Silver. New York: Menorah Press, 2004.

Bibliography

------. Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch (Numbers) , translated & annotated by H. Norman Strickman & Arthur Silver. New York: Menorah Press, 1999. ------. Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch (Deuteronomy), translated & annotated by H. Norman Strickman & Arthur Silver. New York: Menorah Press, 2001. ------. Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the First Book of Psalms, translated & annotated by H. Norman Strickman. Boston, Mass: Academic Studies Press, 2009. ------. Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Second Book of Psalms, translated & annotated by H. Norman Strickman. Boston, Mass: Academic Studies Press, 2009. Ibn Pekuda, Bachya. Duties of the Heart, translated by Moses Hayamson. New York/Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, 1970. Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion 2:23; translated by William Whiston. New York: A.L. Burt Company, undated. Kahanah, David. Toledot Ha-Mekubbalim, Ha-Shabbeta’im, Ve-Ha-Chasidim. Tel Aviv: Devir, 1925. Kapach,. J., Rabbi. Letters of Maimonides. Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1972. ____. “Al Darko U-Mishnato Shel Ha-Rambam.” Techumim vol. 8 (1987). Kasher, Menachem M. Torah Shelemah, Volume 16. Jeruselem: Bet Torah Shelemah, 1992. Kellner, Menachem. Maimonides’ Confrontation with Mysticism. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2006. ____. Must a Jew Believe Anything. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1999. Lauterbach, Jacob Z. Rabbinic Essays. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1951. Lichtenstein, Yechezkiel Shraga. Mi-tume’ah Li-kedushah. Israel: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House Ltd., 2007. Maimonides, Moses. Commentary on the Mishnah, edited by J. Kapach. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1965. ____. Kovetz Teshuvot Ha-Rambam. Leipzig: No publisher given, 1839. ____. Mishneh Torah. Various Editions.

161

162

Bibliography

____. Mishneh Torah; Hilkhot Yesodei Ha-Torah; Hilkhot De’ot, Hilkhot Talmud Torah, Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim, Hilkhot Teshuvah, translated by Immanuel O’Levy. Maimonides Resource Page. On the Web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/rambam.html ____. Mishneh Torah: The Book of Knowledge, translated by Moses Hayamson. Jerusalem: Boys Town Jerusalem Publishers, 1962. ____. Rambam Le-Am. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1960. ____. Mishneh Torah: Book 1, translated by Simon Glazer. New York: Maimonides Publishing Company, 1927. ____. Responsa, edited by Jehoshua Blau. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Meketze Nirdamim,1958. ____. Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, ed. J. Kapach. Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1971. ____. The Commandments, translated by Charles Chavel. London: Soncino Press,1984. ____. The Guide for the Perplexed, translated by M. Friedlander. New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1956. ____. The Guide of the Perplexed, translated by Shlomo Pines, with an extensive introductory essay by Leo Strauss. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. ____. Maimonides’ Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah, translated by Fred Rosner. New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1995. Muntner, S. Moshe ben Maimon: Medical Works, volumes 1-4. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook. 1965 (Hebrew). Nathan of Nermirov. Rabbi Nachman’s Wisdom, translated by Aryeh Kaplan. New York: Breslov Research Institute, 1984. Navon, Chaim. “Theological Issues In Sefer Bereishit. Lecture #4: The Image of God.” Virtual Bet Midrash. On the Web: http://vbm-torah. org/archive/bereishit/04bereishit.htm Oryan, Meir. Ha-Moreh Le-dorot: Rabbenu Moshe ben Maimon. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1956. Nissim ben Reuven Gerundi, Rabbi. Derashot Ha-Ran, edited by A .L. Feldman. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 2003 ____. Pesikta de Rav Kahana, translated by W. G. Braude and I. J. Kapstein. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1975. Pirkê de Rabbi Eliezer, translated by Gerald Friedlander. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2009.

Bibliography

Poltorak, Alexander. “The Protective Power of Mezuzah.” On the Web: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/310889/jewish/TheProtective-Power-of-Mezuzah.htm Rosner, Fred. Medicine in the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides. New Jersey: Ktav Publishing House, 1984. ____. The Medical Aphorisms of Moses Maimonides. New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1973. ____. Medical Legacy of Moses Maimonides. New Jersey: Ktav Publishing House, 1997. Saadiah Gaon. The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, translated by Samuel Rosenblatt. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948. Saperstein, Marc. Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth–Century Commentary on the Aggada. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980. Schacter, Jacob J. “Rabbi Jacob Emden, Philosophy, and Maimonides.” In Be’erot Yitzhak: Studies in Memory of Isadore Twersky, edited by Jay M. Harris. Cambridge: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, 2005. Sedley, David. “Rav Moshe Taku: Non Rationaist Judaism.” On the Web: http://www.hashkafacircle.com/journal/R3_DS_Taku.pdf Seeskin, Kenneth. Maimonides: A Guide for Today’s Perplexed. New York: Behrman House Publishing, 1991. Sela, Shlomo. Astrology and Biblical Exegesis in Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Thought. Israel: Bar Illan University Press, 1999. Shapiro, Marc B. “Maimonidean Halakhah and Superstition.” In Maimonidean Studies, vol. 4, edited by A. Hyman. New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2000. ____. The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised. Oregon: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2003. Shulkhan Arukh. Various Editions. Soloveitchik, Joseph B. Halakhic Man, translated by Lawrence Kaplan. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1983. Shulman,Yaacov David. “The Wisdom of Rabbi Kook; Torah Part 1.” On the Web: http://ravkook.net/ Sperber, Daniel. “Congregational Dignity and Human Dignity: Women and Public Torah Reading.” The Edah Journal Vol. 2, Number 3 (1902).

163

164

Bibliography

Stitskin, Leon D. Letters of Maimonides, Translated and Edited, with Introductions and Notes. New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1977. Stroumsa, Sara. Maimonides in His World: Portrait of a Mediterranean Thinker. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2009. Student, Gil. “Halachic Responses To Scientific Developments.” On the Web: http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/science.html Talmud. Various Editions. Tanya I: Lessons in the Tanya of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Elucidated by Rabbi Yosef Wineberg; translated by Rabbi Levy Wineberg. New York: Kehot Publishing Society, 1984. Taku, Moshe. “Ketav Tamim.” In Otzer Nechamad, edited by Ignaz Blumenfeld. Vienna: 1860. Ta-Shma, Israel. Creativity and Tradition. Cambridge: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, 2007. Teitelbaum, Eli. “A Mezuzah’s Great Powers.” On the Web: http://www. divineinformation.com/other-articles/a-mezuzah%E2%80%99sgreat-powers-by-rabbi-eli-teitelbaum/ Tendler, David. “On the Interface: Immutable Torah, Unchanging Laws of Nature, Ever-Changing Understanding of these Laws.” B’or HaTorah vol. 14 (2004). Turner, Masha. “The Relevance of the Guide to the Jew of Today.” Da’at vol. 32/33 (1994). Twersky, Isodore. A Maimonides Reader. New Jersey: Behrman House Inc., 1972. ____. Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah). New Jersey: Yale University Press, 1980. Weiss, Asher Zelig . Mi-Toratekha Lo Natiti. Jerusalem, 5768. Pamphlet. Woolf, Jeffrey, “Maimonides Revised: The Case of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol.” The Harvard Theological Review vol. 90 (1997). Yovel, Israel: “Moshe Redivivus: Ha-Ramabm Ke-Ozer La-Melekh HaMashiach.” Tzion (2007). Yadin, Yigal. “More on the Letters of Bar Kochba.” The Biblical Archaeologist vol. 24:2 (1961). Zaklikowski, Dovid. “Daily Study of Maimonides’ Works.” On the Web: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/900030/jewish/ Daily-Study-of-Maimonides-Works. Zohar, Translated by Maurice Simon. London: Soncino Press Ltd., 1984.

Index

Index of subjects Abraham’s Promise: Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations by Michael Wyschogrod 51 am chakham (wise nation) 30 Aggadic Midrashim 41, 48, 64, 123

omission of from Mishneh Torah 18n15, 21 alternative medicine see medicine amulets 9, 63n42, 140, 144 mezuzah as 72-3 ani ma’amin doxology see thirteen principles of Jewish faith anthropomorphic language  41-2, 49-51 astrology 9, 32, 101-5, 109, 115, 139, 147

atheism see non-Jewish beliefs and practices ayin ha-ra see evil eye ba’ale chokhmah (wise men) see chakham Babylon/ian 17-9, 23, 95, 111 Bar Kokhba letters 123 rebellion 124 Bet (school of) Hillel 126-7 Bet (school of) Shammai 92, 126-7 blasphemy see heresy Book of Knowledge see Sefer HaMada

“Book of Remedies,” removal of 106, 109 chakham (wise man) and ba’ale chokhma (wise men), definitions of 30 Chayye Adam 80 Chanukah 15 significance of 23-5 charity 15, 92, 98-9, 112 commandments 19, 31, 42, 52, 56-73, 98, 109, 122, 126, 137 purpose 61 rational and nonrational related to the supernatural 103 positive and negative prohibitions 56, 62, 129, 135, 153

classification 56 130, 139 consulting the dead 9, 111-9 creationism 33 dangerous practices 84-5, 93-100 Davidic dynasty 122 demons 68, 74, 82-5, 140-1, 144 Ashmedai 95 dybbuk 74-6 also see evil spirits, Liliths divination 77-9, 81, 114-5 doubt and perplexity 31, 42, 142, 144-5 positive aspect of 143 dybbuk see demon 165

166

Index

emunah, emunah peshutah see faith eternity 26 also see olam ha-ba evil eye 9, 76, 88-92, 147 evil spirits see also demons, dybbuk washing hands to remove  86-88 evolution 33 exorcism see dybbuk faith emunah peshutah 10 fate 98-101, 103, 106 also see astrology free will 31 four kinds, the see Sukkot Geonim see Talmudic sages God 17, 24, 27n42, 29, 31, 33, 57-60, 72, 77, 99, 107, 110, 115, 119, 124, 126, 134, 137

corporeality, arguments against 36-55 emotions 36-7, 40-42, 46, 51 eternal nature of 39, 61 existence 31, 33, 42, 45, 61, 140 omnipotence 49, 144 omnipresence 39, 41, 49 oneness 49-52, 54, 61, 72-3 mercy 37, 54, 72 graves, visiting see consulting the dead Guide For the Perplexed (Moreh Ha-Nevukhim) 12-13, 21, 28, 29n50, 31-2, 39n29, 46-7, 51, 140, 153n24 dissents against 49, 53 Halakhot, codified by R. Isaac Alfasi 97, 149, 151 health 71, 81-2

eating fish with meat 97 fingernails, discarding 97 food storage 95 heresy/blasphemy 40-1, 48, 53, 117

disagreement with Talmudic sages as 140 High Holidays 53-4 see also Passover, Rosh Hashanah, Sukkot, Yom Kippur idolatry see non-Jewish beliefs and practices impurity 56, 87 Israel, land of 17-8, 23, 57, 69, 74, 116, 120-1, 124, 127, 132, 134, 140

Kabbalah 58, 69, 74-5, 87 also see sefirot, Sefer Ha-Bahir, Zohar Khazars 41 klippah (shell) 87 knowledge, sources of: see three sources of knowledge Kuzari, The 10n2, 133 languages: Arabic 81 Aramaic  18, 38 Hebrew 14, 23, 38 Judao-Arabic 13, 148 Latin 102 law, Jewish see Halakha Liliths (female demons) 82 also see demons Lunel, wise men of 91

167

Index

ma’aseh be-reishit (the work of creation) 34 ma’aseh merkavah (the work of the chariot) 34, 26n39 magic 9-10, 32, 74, 77, 80-1, 140, 147

based on Sephardic traditions 146 monotheism 52 also see God Moreh Ha-Nevukhim see Guide For the Perplexed

92, 123

names 12, 73 changing 98-100 of God 58, 68-9 of the Mishneh Torah 16, 148 natural order, the 107, 122 necromancy see consulting the dead Nefesh Ha-Chayyim 59 non-Jewish beliefs and practices 30, 40, atheism 52, 143 paganism 14, 30, 62 idolatry 14, 32, 51-2, 62, 75n8, 77-8, 102, 109, 115, 117, 143-4 Islamic arguments 40 Christian sources 40-1

majority opinion on Halakha 128, 130, 146n41 Mashiach see Messiah Marseilles, letter to the Jews of 34n67, 105 Maor, The ‘Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah 13 mazikim (demons) see demons medicine 9, 13, 20, 82, 98, 106-10 alternative 33 also see physicians Megillah 15, 128 men (mankind), language of see metaphorical language Messiah 16, 119-125, 143 metaphorical language 43, 46, “language of man” 44-6 metaphysics 26-8, 34, 51, 147, 152, 153n24, 154 Metatron 40 Mezuzah 15, 61, 67-73 Mifal Mishnah Torah 157 miracles 31, 76, 104, 122, 124 of Chanukah 24-5 Mishnah 13, 22, 27, 64-5, 83-4, 92, 95, 105, 126-7, 129-33, 1489, 151-2 development of 17 Mishneh Torah 9-34, 45, 146-57 order of 14-16 called Omit (Deuteronomy) 16 also called Yad Ha-Chazakah 32

olam ha-ba (world to come) 25-6, 27n42, 37, 48, 73, 113-4, 121-2, 153, 155

omens 9, 79, 102, 104 Oral Torah, attacks on 132 also see Mishnah, Talmud paganism see non-Jewish beliefs and practices pardes (metaphysics) 26, 28, 153 also see metaphysics Passover 12, 56, 95-6 Maimonides born on 12 perfection of man 26-7 perplexity see doubt

168

Index

Pharisees 39, 135 physicians 33, 106-9 Maimonides as 13n7, 110 Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer 126 piyyutim 53-4 philosophy 10, 12-3, 28-31, 39, 47, 50, 51-2, 144-5, 152, 155 also see rationalism possession by dark forces see evil spirits, demons, dybbuk prayer 14-5, 52-4, 59, 61, 66, 77, 98-9, 104, 106, 109, 115-7, 139 God praying 37, 41 washing hands before 88 prohibitions see commandments Rashi (commentary) 22 rationality/ism 9-10, 30, 33, 56-7, 62, 103, 105, 120, 144, 147

repentance 14, 67, 99-100 resurrection of the dead 25, 121-2, 142n19 “Revadim” method of teaching Talmud 132 revelation see Sinai reward: of the righteous 121 and punishment 25 Rosh Ha-Shanah 60, 66, 79-80, 112,

special foods on 80 ruchot ra’ot (evil spirits) see evil spirits Sabbath 14-5, 38, 56, 61, 66, 824, 101, 104, 131, 134 sacrificial system 14-15, 36, 56-8, 62, 122, 135-6 Sadducees 132, 136 Sanhedrin 16, 30, 129-30 Satan 66-7, 104, 144

sciences: physical and

metaphysical 26-8, 30, 34, 154

medieval 31, 102-3, 139 acknowledged by Talmudic sages 98, 101, 140-2 also see metaphysics Sefer Emunot Ve-De’ot 9 Sefer Ha-Bahir 58 Sefer Ha-Higayon 13 Sefer Ha-Mitzvot 13, 130 sefirot 58-60 shedim (demons) see demons, evil spirits Shekhinah also see God Shema 15, 52, 76, 117 also see God’s oneness Shofar 15, 60-1, 66-7, 74-6 Shulkhan Arukh 14, 79-80, 81, 91, 97, 99n30, 104n24n29, 117, 139, 156

Sifra and Sifre 18-9 Sinai, revelation at 17, 35, 38, 57, 126-33, 138, 145 sleep, compared to death 87-8 soothsayers see divination souls 25-6, 27n42, 61, 63, 82, 87, 113-4, 135, as compared to God 38 sources, omission of in Mishneh Torah 20 sovereignty of Israel see Israel spirits see demons Sukkot 28, 56 the four species 64-6 superstition 30, 33, 105, 109, 139, 144, 147

Talmud 18-22, 28, 30, 34, 36, arguments of 150-1 definition and purpose 150 Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds 18-9, 26,

169

Index

studying Mishneh Torah instead of 149 Mishneh Torah as a replacement for 154 including study of metaphysics 26 Talmudic sages 18-20, 98, 127, 140

Amoraim 95-6, 155 tefillin 15, 37, 70, 72 Temple, Holy 14-5, 120, 122, 124-5, 143 destruction of 18, 23-4 thirteen attributes of mercy see Yud Gimmel Midos thirteen principles of Jewish faith 54-5, 115, 119, 139 thirteen principles by which Torah is expounded 130-1 three sources of knowledge, the 33

Tosafists 115 Tosefta 18-9 tzara’at (leprosy) see health: eating fish with meat tzitzit 15, 72 washing hands see evil spirits wise man see chakham wonder-working see miracles world to come see olam ha-ba Yad Ha-Chazakah see Mishneh Torah Yesod Morah 27n42, 57n3, 103n15, 107n8, 137, Yigdal 54 Yom Kippur 15, 40, 134 Yud Gimmel Midos 76 Zohar 13, 58-9, 60, 68, 87, 89

INDEX OF NAMES Abaye 79-81, 153n28 Abarbanel, R. Don Isaac 23 Abraham (biblical) 77 Abraham b. David of Posquierres see Ra’abad Abraham Ibn Ezra, R. see Ibn Ezra, R. Abraham Abuhu, R. 90-1 Adam (biblical) 37, 82 Ahmad ibn Sa’id ibn Hazm 40 Akiba, R. 123-4 Alfasi, R. Isaac 14, 65, 91, 96-7, 149

Alfonsi, Petrus 40-1 Angel, R. Marc 9 Aristotle 142 Artaben 68 Asa, King 107 Asher b. Yechiel, R. 65 Ashi, R. 102, 152 Azariah, R. 60 Bachya ibn Pekuda, R. 42, 44, 47 Bar Kokhba (King Ben Koziba) 123-4 Bartenurah, R. Ovadyah 129 Batzri, R. 74-6 Chanina, R. 115 Chavivah, R. Yosef 117 Chayyim ibn Musa, R. 50 Chayyim of Volozhin, R. 59 Danzig, R. Abraham 80 Edels, R. Solomon 80 Elias, Joseph 50 Eliezer (biblical) 78-9 Eliezer, R. 39

170

Index

Eliezer b. Pedut 101 Elijah b. Shelomo Zalman see Vilna Gaon Gerondi, R. Nissim 128 Gerondi, Rabbenu Yonah 89 Gershom, R. 138 Gombiner, R. Abraham 104 Guttman, David 145-6 Hai Gaon, R. 98, 126n4 Hanina, R. 102 Held, Shai 51-2 Hezekiah, King 106, 108-9, 124-5 Hillel the Elder 93, 126 Hillel, third-century Amora 124 Hirsch, R. Samson Raphael 10n3, 50-1, 63n42 Hiyya, R. 113, 117 Hiyya bar Abba, R. 128 Horwitz, David 104 Hunah, Rav 90-1 Ibn Caspi, Joseph 12 Ibn Ezra, R. Abraham 27n42, 32, 44-5, 56-7, 102-4, 107, 133-7 Isaac (biblical) 77 Ishmael b. Elisha, R. 37 Isaiah (prophet) 35-6, 106, 119, 123

Isaiah b. Elisha of Trani, R. 49 Isserles, R. Moses 97, 99, 104, 117

Jonathan, R. 113, 117 Jonathan son of Saul 78-9 Joseph b. Judah, R. 149, 151, 153 Josephus, Flavius 39 Joshua, R. 39, 92 Joshua b. Hananiah, R. 151 Joshua b. Levi, R. 101

Judah, R. 90 Judah Al Harizi, R. 21 Judah b. R. Simeon, R. 60 Judah Ha-Levi 10, 41, 57, 63n42, 133-4 Judah Ha-Nasi, R. 17, 19n17, 68 Judah He-Chasid 99 Karo, R. Joseph 14, 87n67, 99, 104, 109, 139

Kellner, Menachem 9 Kook, R. 137-8, 143 Levi bar Chama, R. 115, 126 Levi b. Gershom see Ralbag Loew, R. Judah (Maharal of Prague) 80 Maharal of Prague, The see Loew, R. Judah Maimonides, R. Moses (Rambam)  10, 58, 139, 145, 147

authority in Halakah 10 biography 12-3 comparison to biblical Moses 12-3, 16 worldview 33, 34,  Mishneh Torah 14, 16-20, 23-6, 30-2, 36, 45, 48, 49, 65, 67, 72, 73, 77, 78, 81, 85, 91, 94-7, 99, 100, 105, 109, 110, 113-8, 1215, 129, 130, 146, 148-157  Guide for the Perplexed 21, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38, 39, 49, 53, 66, 83, 98, 131, 140

 Commentary on the Mishnah 21, 22, 27, 64, 84, 92, 108, 119

And Wyschogrod 51, 52 Conception of God 53-5 And commandments 61-4 And Oral Law 132, 133

Index

Mar bar Rav Ashi 97-8 Moshe ben Maimon, R. see Maimonides Moshe of Taku, R. 148 Moses (biblical) 12, 16-7, 57, 126-31, 134, 138 Muna, R. 86 Nachman, R. 96 Nachman b. Isaac, R. 102 Nachman of Breslav, R. 10, 141 Nahmanides, R. Moses 32, 47, 49, 58, 63n42, 80-1, 103, 107-8, 132, 136

Nathan, R. 86 Onkelos 38-9 Orayin, Meir 23 Pinchas of Koretz, R. 13 Pinechas, R., of Alexandria 154 Pinechas b. Chama, R. 116-7 Peretz, R. 99 Pines, Shlomo 12-3 Ra’abad (R. Abraham b. David of Posquierres) 10, 20-1, 48, 78, 79n23, 95 Rab 89, 90 Raba 96 Rabina 96, 101 Ralbag (R. Levi b. Gershom) 104 Rambam see Maimonides, R. Moses Ramban see Nahmanides, R. Moses Rashi 22, 65, 91, 97, 109 Rava 85, 153n28 Recanati, R. Menachem 69 Reich, Asher 141 Reich, Uren 141-3 Rema 104

Revina 152 Saadiah Gaon, R. 9-10, 33n66, 42, 44, 56, 120-1, 125, 127 Safra, R. 151 Samson of Senz 127 Samuel, Talmudic sage 111 Schneerson, R. Menachem Mendel 156-7 Shammai 126 Shapiro, Dr. Marc 9, 139 Shelomo Min Ha-Her, R. 48 Shem Tov ibn Falaquera 151 Sherira Gaon, R. 98 Simeon b. Gamaliel, R. 90 Simon b. Lakis, 128h, R. 66-7 Simeon bar Yochai, R. 90 Slifkin, R. Nathan 140 Solomon b. Yitzchak, R. see Rashi Solomon, King 28, 81 Soloveitchik, R. Joseph B. 53-4, 155 Tendler, Dr. Moshe 72 Tur, The 86 Turner, Dr. Mashah 52 Twersky, Dr. Yitzchak 9 Vilna Gaon, The 140, 142 Vital, R. Chaim 69 Wyschogrod, Michael 51-2 Yehonatan Ha-Kohen of Lunel, R. 21 Yochanan, R. 56, 90, 102, 128 Yom Tov b. Abraham, R. 128 Yossi, R. 38 Zechariah 119 Ze’iri, Talmudic sage 111-2

171

172

Index

INDEX OF BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES Pentateuch Genesis 1:7 1:24 1:26 1:27 1:28 2:15 8:21 9:6 12:27 17:15 18:21 18:30 24:14 41:43

60 82n38 44 35n1 137 58 36n14 93 50 99 39 36n10 77 16n9

Exodus 2:10 3:12 3:35 3:48 7:3 9:11 12:9 12:23 12:42 13:17 15:6 15:26 20:1 20:2 20:8 20:12 20:13 20:14

21:18 21:19 22:17 22:24 23:2 23:19 24:10 24:12 25:40 28:5 31:17 34:6-7 43:6

35, 36n6 17, 126 103n16 103n16 44 76n10 36n11

Leviticus 3:9 7:25 17:14 17:25 17:29 19:11 19:16 19:26

12 58 62n30 62n29 103n20 39 44 68n59 96 44 35n5 108 51 51n67 134 63n40 62n33-4 103n15

106 106, 107n7n9, 108 63n36 62n35 128 26, 62n28, 136

19:32 23:40

135 135-6 134 135 134 62n32 109 105n30, 78m 105n30 63n41 64

Numbers 13:29 15:31 16:30 18:28 23:23 27:3

44 26 44 92n96 77, 114 108n12

Deuteronomy 1:8-13 4:6 4:7-8 4:9

77 30, 57 57 36, 93

173

Index

4:10-6 6:4-9 6:9 7:15 11:2 13:1 14:7-8 14:18 16:18-20 17:10 17:11 18:9 18:13 18:14 18:15 & 18 22:2 23:5 32:18 34:12

36 76n13 67n57, 69n67 90 35n2 133 63n38 63n38 63n37 134n24 128-9 32, 81, 104n21 115 77, 115 134 108n14 36n13 60 148n3

I Kings 4:30

81

53 125n23 125n23

107 16n9 125n24

119 36n9 106 35n3, 119 35n3 36 59 37 59 119 59n17

Zechariah 14:3

3:19-21

1 17:3 1:26-28

120

120

78n21 16

153 13 35

Esther 10:3

16n9

Daniel 7:9

I Samuel 14:6-10 23:17

106n6 53, 81 35, 36n7 119, 123

Ezekiel

II Chronicles 16:12 28:7 29-31

1:6 2:6 6:1 11:6-7 11:8 19:1 38:3 40:4 40:5 40:25 49n17 50:2 51:16 54:11-12 54:13

Malachi

II Kings 17:9 36 37

Isaiah

35

Proverbs 1:8

142

174

Index

6:22 8:26 10:2 14:15 15:15 16:16 17:5

87 44 99 34 141 116 117

Ecclesiastes 9:5 10:2

113 81

Amos 36n8

Job

Chagigah 2:1

34n67

Gittin 6:6

84n51

Shabbat 84n49

Terumot 4:3

5:18

107

Jonah

92n97

Talmud Arakhin

3:10

99

Psalms

11a

44n42

Avodah Zara (Yerushalmi) 36n12 35 73 35n5 61 60 60 35n5 99 66

Mishna Avot 2:11

82n37 90n98

2:5

9:11

2:4 18:11 34:5 34:15 36:10 40:4 65:8 86:1 97:19 118:1

5:6 5:13

2:3

95n7

Bava Batra 16a 75a 115a

67n54 90n86 116n22

Bava Kamma 85a

106n5

Bava Metzia 92n94

59a-b

37n18

175

Index

64a 107a 107b

91n89 90n87, 91n89 89n79



21b 32b 34b 38a 60a 64a

17n12, 126n2 37n19 37n22 37n19n24, 41n35 27n44, 38n27 38n25 106n3 113n12, 117n26 111n1-2, 112n3-10, 113n11 16n8 93n1 123n15 90n82 106n5, 108n11 59n18

Chagigah 5b 16a

36n17, 90n83 18n43

Chullin 10a 95b

93n3 79n22

136n30

120n3-5

Kiddushin 30a 82a

151n20 106n4

Kodashim: Arakhin 11a

44n2

Makkot 6a 23b

57n85 56n1

Megillah 3a 7a

38n28, 39n30 168

Menakhot 30n53

Mo’ed Katan 18a 97n19 Peah (Yerushalmi)

127n9, 146n40 83n41

Chap. 1

83n47

Pesachim

84n51

4:9 23b 24a

Gittin 66a

11b

65a

Eruvin 13b 18b 41b

1:1 Ketubot

Berakhot 5a 6a 6b 7a 8a 10a 10b 18a 18b

Keritot

68n63

106n2 96n18 96n18

176

Index

50b 110a 112a 112b

89n80 95n11, 96n12-17 95n9 94n5

Yevamot 6:6

Mishneh Torah

Rosh Ha-Shanah 8a 16b 30a

60n21 66n51, 98n16b 120n2

Sanhedrin 17b 94a 94b 99a 109na

106n1 125n22 125n24 124n20n21 83n42

21b 30b 33b 34b 108b 109a 146a 156a

24n32 120n6n7 90n84 90n82 86n61 86n60n64 101 101n2, 102n9-12

Sukkah 5a 28a 29a 37b 41a

11:4 11:13 11:16

78n20 114n15 77n17-9, 115n16

Hilkhot Berakhot 6:2

88n74

Hilkhot Evel 116n21

Hilkhot Isure Bi’ah 21:10

95n6

Hilkhot Mamrim 1:1 1:2 1:3

129n15 130n16 130n17

Hilkhot Melakhim 38n26 153n26 102n13 64n44, 65n45-6 120n2

Ta’anit 16a 24b 25a 31a

Hilkhot Avodah Zara

4:4

Shabbat

137n33

115n18 90n85 101n1 37n21

11:1 11:2 11:3 11:4 12:1 12:2

122n11 122n12, 123n16 123n17, 124n19 122n13 123n14 123n15

Hilkhot Mezuzah 6:13 5:4

73n76 73n77

177

Index

Hilkhot Purim Ve-Chanukkah

Hilkhot Talmud Torah

3:1-3

1:12

24n33

26b38

Hilkhot Rotze’ach

Hilkhot Yesode Ha-Torah

1:4 12:5

1:1-2 4:10;13 8 9 11

109n16 85n55, 95n8n10

Hilkhot Sanhedrin 2:1 12:3,4

30n54 85n56

Hilkhot Shekhenim 2:16

7:9

65n49, 66n50

Hilkhot Ta’anit 14n18

116n20

Hilkhot Talmud Torah 1:11 1:12

152n21n22 26n38

Hilkhot Tefillah 4:1 4:22-3 7:4

88n73 118n27 88n74

Hilkhot Teshuva 2:4 3:7 8 8:1 8:2

Horiyot 21a

91n91

Hilkhot Shofar Ve-Sukkah Ve-Lulav

100n31 48n54 122n10 26n36, 114n14 26n37

45n45 26n40 45n46 46n48-50 46n47

79n25

Guide For the Perplexed preface 145n36 introduction 28, 47n51 1:7 83n44n46 1:27 39n29 1:34 27n43 1:59 53n71 3:14 98n25 3:22 66n53, 67n55 3:27 26n41, 61n23, 63n42, 3:28 61n24 3:29 62n26 3:30-50 31 3:31 62n27 3:37 62n31, 109n20 3:41 131n20 3:51 29n50n51 3:52 62n25 Kuzari 1:88 1:89 1:99

41n37 42n37 36n15

About the Author

H. Norman S trickman is Rabbi emeritus of the Marine Park Jewish Center in Brooklyn and is a Professor of Jewish Studies at Touro College in New York City. Dr. Strickman received his B.A. and M.H.L. degrees from Yeshiva University, and his Ph.D. from Dropsie University. He was ordained by the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. Dr. Strickman’s writings have appeared in the Jewish Quarterly Review, Mid-stream, Bitzaron, Ha-Darom, and Hakira. Dr. Strickman is the recipient of the Histadrut Ha-Ivrit prize in Hebrew Literature and was awarded a grant from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture. Rabbi Strickman has served as president of the Rabbinic Board of Flatbush. He has published a translation and annotation of Ibn Ezra’s. Commentary on the Pentateuch and on the first two Books of Psalms. Rabbi Strickman has also authored an English translation and annotation of Ibn Ezra’s Yesod Morah.