Rambam-Yisodei HaTorah-Perek 8 Halacha 1: The Basis For Jewish Belief

משה רבינו לא האמינו בו ישראל מפני האותות שעשה. שהמאמין על פי האותות יש בלבו דופי שאפשר שיעשה האות בלט וכשוף. אלא כל האותות שעשה משה במדבר לפי הצורך עשאם. לא להביא ראיה על הנבואה. היה צריך להשקיע את המצריים קרע את הים והצלילן בתוכו. צרכנו למזון הוריד לנו את המן. צמאו בקע להן את האבן. כפרו בו עדת קרח בלעה אותן הארץ. וכן שאר כל האותות. ובמה האמינו בו במעמד הר סיני שעינינו ראו ולא זר ואזנינו שמעו ולא אחר האש והקולות והלפידים והוא נגש אל הערפל והקול מדבר אליו ואנו שומעים משה משה לך אמור להן כך וכך. וכן הוא אומר פנים בפנים דבר ה' עמכם. ונאמר לא את אבותינו כרת ה' את הברית הזאת. ומנין שמעמד הר סיני לבדו היא הראיה לנבואתו שהיא אמת שאין בו דופי שנאמר הנה אנכי בא אליך בעב הענן בעבור ישמע העם בדברי עמך וגם בך יאמינו לעולם. מכלל שקודם דבר זה לא האמינו בו נאמנות שהיא עומדת לעולם אלא נאמנות שיש אחריה הרהור ומחשבה:

The Jews did not believe in Moshe, our teacher, because of the signs he performed. For one who believes [in anything] because of signs has a blemish in his heart since it is possible that a sign was done through trickery and magic (and this person's faith is reliant on a fallacy). Rather, all the signs that Moshe performed in the desert were done out of necessity. [They were] not done to bring proof [as to the validity] of his prophecy. It was necessary to drown the Egyptians, so the sea was split and they were dunked in it. We (the Jews) needed sustenance so the manna was brought down [from the sky] for us. They (the Jews) were thirsty so the stone was split [and water came forth] for them. The congregation of Korach rebelled against [Moshe] so the earth swallowed them. And so too by all the other signs (miracles). 

What is the reason we believe in [Moshe's prophecies? Because of] the events at Mt. Sinai that our eyes saw them and not a strangers [eyes] and our ears heard them and not another's [ears. These events were] the fire, the sounds (thunder, voices?), the lightning, and then [Moshe] approached the fog and the voice [of G-D] spoke to him and we heard "Moshe, Moshe, go and say to them such and such." And so he said, "Face to face G-D spoke with you." And so it says (devarim 5:3), "G-D did not make this covenant with our fathers."

From where [do we know] that the events at Mt. Sinai, in and of themselves, are a proof to [Moshe's] prophecy that [we should believe] it has no faults? For it says (Exodus 19:9), "Behold, I am coming to you in the thick cloud in order that the nation will hear when I speak to you and also that they will believe in you forever." This implies that before this [event, the Jewish people] did not have a belief in [Moshe] that would last forever, rather it was a belief that was speculation and apprehension.             

This idea that the Rambam brings down is of critical importance. Signs, wonders and miracles are completely WORTHLESS when it comes to having a belief in anything. Jesus stood on water, the Baal Shem Tov flew across the world, and so on. These "miracles" have nothing to do with a JEWISH belief in G-D. The ONLY reason a Jew should believe in G-D is because of eyewitness proof. Just like I know my parents exist because I am an eyewitness, or I know president Obama exists because other people have told me he does and I see him on television. This is the Jewish belief in G-D, it is not some she said he said confusion, it is based on actually witnessed events. 

This is the basis for the Rambam's belief in G-D, that this event at Mt. Sinai actually happened. It isn't something that occurred in a dream or was verified through "miracles," it was based on an event in reality that can be substantiated. 

Forced Religion In Israel

I have always been against forcing anyone to follow the Jewish religion. I think it is counterproductive and leads to enmity for the religion. Obviously, I think that Israel should be a Jewish state run by Jews and represent Jewish values, but I am opposed to forcing the religion on anyone in any way. The food should be kosher, the day off should be shabbos, but we should not force people to keep shabbos, or to keep kosher. That is not only pointless, but it is dangerous.

This attitude, of forcing religion on irreligious people is why there is such a divide between the religious and the secular people in Israel. The Rabbinate tries to control the marriages and the life styles of the secular people in certain ways (at least this is how the secularists see it). Also, they appear to force the secularists (to some extent) to pay for their Yeshivot and their religious lifestyle. Many refuse to serve in the army and this leads to contempt for the religious by the secularists. I don't think the secularists treat the religious any better, but they don't force their way of life on the religious. ( I could be wrong about the extent of the actual push to force religion on the secularists by the Rabbinate, but from what I read in the newspapers and hear from my secular relatives, this seems to be what is going on. Also, see this article http://www.itim.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/AdamFerziger-ReligionfortheSecular.pdf)

This is, surprisingly, not just my opinion, but the opinion of a very great man, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. From the book "Thinking Aloud" (Pg. 141-143)
"I am the one who opposes fully- I have said this at conventions- the whole business of legislating religion in Eretz Yisroel. To me it is ridiculous, it will obtain the reverse effect. You cannot make a Jew pious or observant by having a police force. You can ask many questions, I know. Many questions. It is not here the time, in general, to discuss halachic sanctions. Halacha knows of sanctions, and I have a theory about it, but it is not my job to discuss it now. But, to me, Mizrachi is committing the most terrible historical mistake. We should instead devote all our energies to an educational campaign, to display the beauty of yahadus (Judaism), to show people that we have a comprehensive philosophy, and make them come out of their free will to the fold. Legislating through parliament-- I cannot see it. It will never be as effective as an attempt to educate people.

I cannot see a rabbanut (Rabbinate) which is part of government. A few months ago they approached me about Chief Rabbinate, and I said 'No gentlemenn, I cannot become a part of the government.' A rabbi is sometimes opposed to government. If the rabbi's authority is constituted by legislation, the whole rabbinic dignity is gone."

There is not much else to say. The Jewish religion should not be forced upon anyone. Any type of force from the religion detracts from it more than it serves it. It hurts the credibility and the draw of the religion. Hopeful people will realize this and instead of rioting about parking lots being open on shabbos and instead of yelling about anyone who believes evolution to be true is a kofer, maybe we should be focusing on more important things. Maybe the great minds of the generation should lift their heads up from the Gemara and think real hard about why the vast majority of Jews are not religious and how we can influence them to want to become religious.

Observance of the Jewish religion, at least before the Moshiach comes, must be from love and free will. No one can compell anyone else to observe the commandments. In the notes on page 142 of "Thinking Aloud" Rabbi Holzer says, "The only time halacha seems to set up real coercion is in cases of social services and care for the community. For instance, Beis Din (Religious courts) would be kofeh (force) to collect charity (see Rambam Matanos aniyim 7:10)... The few attempts of certain kings and leaders to coercively uphold morality, as in the time of Yoshiyahu, seem to have been completely ineffective. Yoshiyahu was in fact killed because the nation was not reformed as he believed them to be."

Do We Really Think Judaism Has Always Been Like This?

Over at Rationalist Judaism, Rabbi Slifkin mentioned something that I have been thinking about for a while. He talks about how his six year old came home with a picture of Adam in a kapata (long jacket) with a beard and payos (long sideburns and side hair). Basically, he was dressed like a man from 18th century Poland. This brings up many memories of people drawing Moshe, Aharon, Dovid, etc in 18th century Polish garb. The question here is why would anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of history think this to be true?

In truth, I can understand why teachers would have their six year old students draw these people this way. They are drawing the picture of a man from the Torah, obviously they relate Torah with Judaism and Judaism with black hat and payos. That makes sense for six year old children. The problem I have is when these kids grow up, do they view Moshe, Dovid, Adam, and Avraham in the same way or do they realize that this was not how people dressed 3000+ years ago. I am not saying that it bothers me that these children might view our forefathers in these clothes, but it does bother me if they think this is how they observed Judaism and conducted their overall way of life. What I mean by this is that I think a simple understanding of the evolution of Judaism is necessary for all Jews to understand on some level. Judaism did not exist the way it is now in the times of King David. Anyone who thinks that is completely obtuse.

Why do I think it is important to understand the evolution of Judaism? If one does not understand the original form of Judaism, then they can not understand why and how Judaism exists today, except for the basic answer of G-D. However, I think that answering this question by saying G-D is like someone asking how an airplane can fly and then someone answers G-D. Well, obviously G-D is the ultimate reason, for someone who believes in Judaism, but you can also explain the dynamics and the physics of how an airplane flies. So too by Judaism, one can say that Judaism exists the way it does today because it was G-D's plan, or they can actually understand the evolution.

Why does not knowing the evolution of Judaism matter? I am so glad you asked! Someone who does not understand the evolution can not dictate or even presume to set rules for the Jewish religion. In my opinion, a Rabbi that poskins on societal issues, like what is appropriate dress, can only do so if they understand what the Torah expects from every person and how those expectations have been modified throughout the generations. If the Rabbi does not understand the history of the halacha then he can do one of two things, make up his own halacha based on nothing of substance, or a previous Rabbi that said something, but only verbatim. IN all honesty, this is a completely worthless Rabbi. I can make up halacha just as well as him and I can read previous Rabbis just as well, so why do I need you to tell me what the GRA said or to make up my own halacha?

What Rabbi is valuable? A Rabbi that understands how Judaism has evolved from the times of Har Sinai until recent days. He tells us that the reason why Jews in Poland wore kapatas and shtrimels were because those were what nobles wore and it was cold there. A Jew is a representative of the entire nation so they must always look appropriate, therefore people in Poland wore kapatas and shtriemels. This is a Rabbi that already understands the reason behind the minhag (custom) of wearing specific clothing. In Rome, the Jewish people most probably dressed in the Toga, especially when they had an audience with the senate or Caesar.

I thought good Rabbis were just people who knew a lot of Gemorah, Rishonim and Achronim, why do they need to know about history? Well, if I haven't made it clear through my allusions to this answer I will try to be more blunt. It is very nice for a Rabbi to know Gemorah, Rishonim and Achronim by heart, however, what makes a Rabbi valuable is his ability to understand a halachic question based on the circumstances and then navigate through halacha, custom and things that are completely worthless. Without knowing the history of halacha, the Rabbi would have no idea of the basis for the halacha and any ruling given would have to be verbatim from a previous Rabbi who did understand the history. The problem is, halacha would no longer be adaptable to the ever changing world. The point is this, how did the Rabbis of yesteryear deal with electricity? There were no previous rules. Some Rabbis who actually understood the laws of shabbos at their core made halachic rulings, others just made wild assumptions. With the advances in medicine, some Rabbis understand medicine and the halachas involved, others just forbid everything because they know nothing of either.

The point I am trying to make is that we must realize our rich and fruitful history. In certain time periods certain laws or customs were enacted for specific reasons. Chazal even tell us that if a custom was instituted for specific reasons and those reasons no longer apply, then we have no reason to follow that custom (See Aruch Hashulchan 303:21 and 22 and Shulchan Orech 303:19 with the Rema for an example of this idea). I am not saying that specific things should be thrown out or not, all I am saying is that a competent Rav should be able to realize what things are important and which things are not. To assume that Judaism has always been like this is to deny truth. We should admit that things have constantly been changing, that does not make Judaism less valid. Everything changed within parameters that were set forth by the Torah. If Judaism was not an adaptable religion then it would be worthless!

The most disheartening of all things involved here is when certain Rabbis who are called Gedolim treat the religion like they are the Pope. What I mean by this is that back in the days of when we first discovered heliocentricity (Sun is the center) the church put anyone in jail that would say this. Nowadays also, people think if you say that world is older than 5770, you are a kofer. I would love for someone to show me where the Torah says that. It would be enlightening. I know a lot of Rishonim that say against that, but they must be daas yachidim (single opinions). Then I guess they must have been kofers also. I am unsure why this is something that can not be told to the masses, it is not a basic tenant of faith in any way, shape or form. Judaism is not the religion that says the world is only 6000 years old, it is the religion that is adaptable to advances in science and other areas. The reason it is adaptable is because everything in the Torah is meant to be relevant forever. This is why, throughout every age, Judaism has been applicable. This is why it is so disheartening to see some people get stuck in the 18th century, this is not what Judaism is meant to be.

Ralbag On How to Observe Judaism

I am going to take two quotes from the Ralbag and just point out how amazingly beautiful his words are. He says (In his introduction to the WARS of the Lord),

"It is evident, as Maimonides (may his name be blessed) has said, that we must believe what reason has determined to be true. If the literal sense of the Torah differs from reason, it is necessary to interpret those passages in accordance with with the demands of reason (Guide 2:25)...... It is, therefore, evident that if reason causes us to affirm doctrines that are incompatible with the literal sense of Scripture, we are not prohibited by the Torah to pronounce the truth of these matters, for reason is not incompatible with the true understanding of the Torah. The Torah is not a law that forces us to believe false ideas; rather it leads us to the truth to the extent that is possible, as we have explained in the beginning of out commentary on the Torah (Ralbag commentary on the Torah 2a)."

Here the Ralbag, quoting the Rambam, tells us that the Torah must abide by reason. It therefore is incumbent upon us to understand the Torah in light of reason. If something is nonsensical through its literal meaning then that must not be the true meaning of the text and it must then be interpreted in a way that conforms to reason.

However, at the end of the Ralbag's first book in the Wars of the Lord he qualifies his statements. He says,

"Adherence to reason is not permitted if it contradicts religious faith; indeed, if there is such a contradiction, it is necessary to attribute this lack of agreement to our own inadequacy.... We, too, behave accordingly if we see that religion requires a different view from the one our reason has affirmed."

So there are two situations that the Ralbag is telling us: 1) Reason should be used to understand the Torah in the correct way, even if that means the literal understanding of the verse is not the correct understanding and 2) When our reason contradicts the Torah and no alternative explanation is sufficient then we must disregard our reason and accept the Torah.

I think the proper understanding of the Ralbag is as followed. There are certain aspects of life that are unexplainable through reason, those being G-D's existence and his ability to create miracles that are clearly non-natural occurrences. However, unless a prophet tells us that something is not natural, or G-D Himself tells us something is non-natural, then we should believe our reason. The Ralbag, Rambam and several others have the opinion that G-D does everything as close to natural as possible. This is why they would explain all types of occurrences through nature, except the miracles that are clearly outside of nature. However, even the events that are seemingly outside of the natural possibilities are still kept as close to nature as possible.

So the Ralbag, Rambam and countless others are under the impression that one should view the world through reason. Reasonable ideas should be at the forefront of a persons view of this world. One should not think that some great Rabbi walked on water or flew around the world, this is illogical and hence unnecessary to believe. Black magic is also something that seems to defy logic and belief in it is not a core of Judaism, therefore, it should not be believed in.

Four Views on The Kuzari Principle of Faith

The Kuzari principle of faith is the basic answer any Jew will give when questioned as to why they believe in G-D. The answer goes like this: The Bible says that there were 600,000 male Jews at Mount Sinai (roughly 2.5 million people) that saw and heard G-D's revelation directly. This occurrence has been handed down orally and through the Bible. This causes a Jew to believe in the veracity of the Jewish religion because if G-D spoke to the Jews and told them He was G-D then He must be G-D. Also, it was a national revelation, this means that every single Jew heard it and, therefore, they all kept the commandments and the religion. It would take another national revelation to change the religion and the belief system and this is why the Jewish people have never accepted Christianity or Islam, because they believe in private revelations to Jesus and Mohammad respectively.

On the surface this proof seems pretty good. There is a historical event where G-D revealed himself to the Jews and told them to follow the Jewish religion. Logically, all Jews should follow this religion since they have an oral tradition and a written tradition that tells them that this event occurred. Just like we know George Washington lived, so too we know that G-D talked to the Jews.

However, is this the only proof that one really requires to believe in Judaism? Doesn't it seem a bit flimsy? In truth, there are several different answers to this question. 1) I trust my ancestors and I don't think they would lie so this is all the proof I need. I believe in the validity of the Bible and the oral tradition, end of story. 2) Well, it does seem a little flimsy, but since I believe there must be a G-D Judaism makes the most sense as a religion. 3)There are no triangulating sources or scientific proofs for this event and therefore I do not believe in it. 4) This event is false, the archeological evidence proves that it never happened.

Let's address each of these issues and how the four different types of people would address the Kuzari principle.

1)This person seems like the basic Jew. There is a simple faith and they don't want to rock the boat. They believe in G-D and do not care what anyone else has to say on the matter. In truth, what causes a person like this to believe is that they were raised in a Jewish home and were told that these ideas are true or they just don't think about the questions. There is nothing wrong with that, but what if they had been raised in a different religion?

2)This is a very broad idea. What first must be understood is why does this person believe G-D exists and then why does he believe that Judaism is the most logical religion? There can be several reasons why a person could believe in G-D. One could be the big bang theory as it exists now seems to indicate that there was a starting point of our universe. This seems to indicate that there must have been some entity that started it. Also, the complexity at which living organisms exist in the universe seem to tell us that there is some kind of intelligent creator. To say all of these things are random is like saying a monkey could write any one of Shakespear's plays randomly, or better, it could throw paint against a wall and create the Mona Lisa (This is an exaggeration, I know how gradual natural selection in the theory of evolution brings the randomness down, but it is still random). Also, if everything is random we still need to account for where everything came from. These ideas seem to point to a creator. However, why does Judaism seem to be the most logical religion? This now points us in the direction of the Kuzari argument. Just considering the major three monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, we can answer this question. Christianity and Islam both claim that the revelation at Sinai happened for the Jews. It is part of the Koran (in Sura 2 I believe) and it is part of Christianity's belief. That means that both of these religions think G-D spoke to the Jewish people and made a covenant with them. The Jews were the original chosen people according to both of these religions. All of the Jewish nation saw G-D and heard Him say that they were the chosen people, keep the Jewish religion. However, according to both Islam and Christianity, G-D came to one man and said, "I, the Lord, have changed my mind, let's make up a new religion." That does not seem so logical. If G-D created a religion by telling everyone in that religion, doesn't it seem logical that, to change that same religion, He would tell everyone the new plan? It is similar to the CEO of Honda saying that they were going to make the Insight. Later, a car mechanic comes along and tells everyone that they should stop making the insight and focus on a car that is like the Ford Excursion. Would anyone listen to this mechanic?

3) This question seems very reasonable, how can we verify the Bible? Why should anyone believe that it speaks the truth? Just like Judaism, Islam and Christianity are not compatible with one another and therefore at least two are false, why should anyone believe in any of them? This is the weak atheism claim. There is no proof of G-D's existence so there is no reason for anyone to believe in Him. Just because we don't know where the first atom came from, or how complex organisms came into being does not mean there is a G-D, it simply means we do not know. Unless you can prove that this revelation happened, there is no reason to believe it is not made up. However, it is possible that it happened, we just don't know.

4)This is the strong atheism answer. All religions are false, G-D does not exist. There is evidence that proves there is no G-D. The revelation at Sinai is an impossibility because of the archeological evidence. The archeological evidence shows that there was no mass exodus from Egypt and that other stories in the Bible are false. Therefore, since all monotheistic religions are based on these ideas, all of them are false. Also, since evolution is a fact, and it is random, there is no need for G-D. Although, I can not tell you where the first atom came from, this does not mean there is any possibility that G-D exists.

In my opinion, the first and fourth answers seem to be a bit hasty. The first answer relies too heavily on sources that could have possibly been falsified. This answer relies on one or two sources that are not strong proofs. The main reason that this person believes is most probably because they were raised thinking it or they like the religion and the values it contains, but they did not dig too deeply into solid proofs. However, the fourth opinion is also a bit rash. This relies too heavily on archeological evidence or lack there of. If G-D does exist then there would not need to be archeological evidence for the exodus. G-D supported them through miracles, how do miracles fit into archeology? Furthermore, who says that absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence? Also, believing that complex organisms occurred through complete randomness seems a bit far fetched. It is a possibility, but how can we call it a certainty when the odds are so unlikely? The main problem with both of these positions is that they contain certainty without compelling evidence.

The second and third answers seem to be a little bit more honest. Neither is absolutely certain of their position, but through their research have come to basic conclusions. Each one admits to their bias and says what pushes them closer to one ideology as apposed to the other. The third answer, weak atheism, needs absolute proof before they are willing to believe in G-D. The second answer, belief in G-D through probable logic, admits that there is no absolute proof, but that it seems logical that a G-D does exist.

Tolerance and Ideas In Jewish Christian Relations

I just started reading this book that was originally written in German by Rabbi Dr. Leo Adler. The books name is The Biblical View Of Man. He was in the Mir yeshiva when it was in Lithuania and Shanghai. After the war, he became the Rabbi of the Jewish community in Basel, Switzerland. In his book is a letter from 1966 that he wrote in response to a request from Father Theodor Bogler, the editor of a Christian Journal, to contribute a Jewish interpretation of Christmas. His letter states that he did not feel comfortable contributing. However, the elegance and class with which the letter is written is remarkable. Also, I think it is very important for Jewish people to read as well as the Christians that read the letter when it was published in their journal. (The Journal was Liturgie und Monchtum). The letter states,

"Most honored Father,

I thank you for your friendly letter of May 24 and the invitation to contribute to the Christmas edition of Liturgie und Monchtum a piece on the Jewish attitude to the Christian festival of Christmas. Although I very much appreciate your friendly offer, I must reject it. If as you write, you heard of me through my booklet The Biblical View of Man, then if you reread the chapter on "The Transformed View of Man in Apocryphal Literature" you will understand that the idea of a G-D who reaches out to man, turning himself into man and flesh so as to reach man because man can no longer manage to reach G-D and, indeed, was never in his history capable of doing so - that this idea is of apocryphal origin and is diametrically opposed to the ancient biblical tradition of man being equipped with freedom and, thereby, with the strength and righteousness needed to find his way along the path to G-D.

Accordingly, the Christian interpretation of the Christmas festival is an impossible notion for Jewish theology, not only a question of a religion's attitude. Notwithstanding all the moral and ethical commonalities, which result both from Christianity's Jewish origin and from the recent renewed Christian attention to the Bible, we must not lose sight of that which divides us - which is nowhere more obvious than in connection with the Christmas festival, which for professing Christians has not only a symbolic meaning, but also a religious reality of the highest order.

Far be it from me, therefore, to oppose the certainty of Christian belief with that of Jewish belief, something which anyway would do you no service.

So I would ask you to leave it at that, with no other alternative in a situation in which each of us perceives G-D and seeks his own share in Him in his own way.

Yours, with friendly regards,
Rabbi Leo Adler"

There are a few things that are very important to point out about this letter. First of all, he points out that, according to Judaism, man is equipped with all of the tools to find his way on the path towards G-D. This means that in any situation a man finds himself there is always room to believe in G-D and follow his ways. No Jew should ever feel that it is an impossibility to connect to G-D, there is always a way, one just has to search.

Another major idea here is the tolerance that he shows towards the Christians. He reveals his ability to accept the Christian belief in G-D and shows that Jews do not need to force their belief on others. He thinks that any way that someone can connect to G-D, whether it be Judaism or Christianity, a person should follow his beliefs. There should be religious tolerance and brotherly love among all religions.