Ralbag Explains the Rationlistic View of Rambam and How It Effects Modernity

I am so excited because I have finally received the three volume set of The Wars of The Lord, that is the Ralbag's Magnum Opus. In it he talks about everything, it is similar to The Guide for the Perplexed only it is longer. Right now I am on the chapter where the Ralbag discusses the creation of the world. I found a very straight forward statement from the Ralbag that proves that the Rambam valued science over tradition just as much as the Ralbag himself. He says,

"In general, we must accept whatever view is philosophically provable, as Maimonides himself says, even the doctrine of Aristotle if it were proved; and we must interpret whatever the Torah seems to contradict this view in a way that agrees with the truth."

Seymor Feldman, the translator and commentor for this version of The Wars of The Lord, comments in the notes that this is seen in the Rambam in The Guide for the Perplexed in section two chapter 25. This is, obviously, in addition to the Ralbag's own words that the Rambam writes this.

How fascinating it is to see how the Rambam truly held. That scientific facts cause us to understand the Torah differently. What can this teach us about the Rambam's view of the Torah? The most blatantly obvious idea is that the Torah is not a document that its simple understanding remains constant. Clearly, the Rambam holds, that the Torah must continuously be reviewed and reinterpreted in light of new ideas and new evidence.

This brings me to more recent topics. One topic deals with how the modern Jew should view science and how he or she should view morality in war. For some reason there are people that say it is blasphemy to rely on science and its conclusions. This clearly goes against both the Rambam and the Ralbag, but it also misses the point of the Torah. The Torah is supposed to be a guidebook that teaches us how to live and engage our surroundings, ignoring the outside world is at best ridiculous and at worst damaging. Can we really say that the Torah is ignorant of how Jews are supposed to interact with a modern society?

Also, modern morality is different than ancient morality in certain aspects. In the modern world a country needed to crush its enemies otherwise it would be destroyed by the other surrounding nations. If the Babylonians did not utterly destroy all their opponents then they would have rebellions on their hands. So too, when Jews went to war they had to use these tactics. Anyone that denies that is just foolish. If the Jews did not act this way the surrounding nations would view them as weak and continuously attack since they would know Jews do not punish their enemies. However, nowadays this is not how (most) of the world treats their enemies. In fact, a country that does act this way is more likely to be attacked by other nations. Should the modern Jew ignore this fact? No, they should adjust themselves accordingly and thereby use the morals instructed within the Torah towards modern day life. This is why we call the Torah a living document, because it is always relevant and teaches us how to act.

Medieval Commentators on Equality In Judaism

I was looking for the Meiri's position that further discusses Judaism and Morality. So to follow up on my previous post, found here, I wanted to translate a Meiri in Bava Kama that discusses this equality. He says (Bava Kama: 37B),

"An ox that belongs to a Jew that gores an ox of a non-Jew is exempt from paying from the law of neighbor and if a non-Jew's ox gores the ox of a Jew, whether it is a delinquent ox or not, pays full damages. This law only refers to a non-Jew that is not careful for the property of others (damaging them without care), therefore, we fine him that he, the non-Jew, should not become used to this type of action of damaging other people's property without care. This which is stated in the Gemorah only applies to nations that do not have laws and are barbaric people. For these types of people the Gemorah says that the non-Jews accepted upon themselves the seven Noahide commandments and if they are not followed then their property becomes unprotected by the law. However, all non-Jews that keep the seven Noahide commandments are considered like full fledged Jews."

First just to state the seven Noahide laws are:

1)Prohibition of Idolatry
2)Prohibition of Murder
3)Prohibition of Theft
4)Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity
5)Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
6)Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
7)Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.

With these ideas in mind it is clear to see what the Meiri is saying. If a state does not have just laws, like protecting people's property then their property, in turn, is not protected. These seven Noahide laws are very moral laws, I don't know why anyone would say they are not a just basis for a law. Thus, if a person is unjust and cheats and steals, the Gemorah tells us that you do not have to respect his protection under the law. Obviously, you can not make these decisions yourself, but there must be a court that decides this, a beis din.

With this idea from the Meiri in mind, it is clear to see that even a Jew that acts unjustly would fall under this category of the "non-Jew" that does not have protection under the law. Therefore, I see equality in the laws of the Torah. The non-Jew is protected just as much as the Jew. If a state is unjust then their rules do not apply, because they are unjust. However, in a country like America since the laws are just a Jew must follow them. Anyone who says otherwise clearly misses the point of the laws of the torah.

UPDATE*****

The Rambam on the same Gemarah as the Meiri (Bava Kama 37B) states a very similar Halacha as that of the Meiri. He says,

"An ox of a Jew that gores the ox of a non-Jew, whether it is a delinquent animal or not, is exempt. This is because the non-Jewish courts do not require a man to pay for the damage his ox does, therefore we judge this case like they would judge it. An ox of a non-Jew that gores the ox of a Jew, whether it is delinquent or not, pays full damages. This is a punishment that is enforced on non-Jews since they are not careful in the laws and do not try to prevent damage. For if they were not punished in this manner they would not watch their animals and they would let them damage everyone and everything."

This Rambam clearly tells us the qualifications of what is going on in this case. At first glance, one would think that a non-Jew is discriminated against. However, this is not the case. The only reason the non-Jew is treated like this is because he is not careful to prevent his ox from damaging other people's property. However, if he would treat his ox like a Jew treats his ox, namely trying to prevent his ox from damaging other people's property, then this non-Jew would be treated like a Jew.

The Morals of Judaism

In Judaism there are several laws that seem to discriminate against non-Jews. Unfortunately, these laws are sometimes abused by people to undermine Jew-Gentile relations. This is a corruption of the true ethics and morals of Judaism. Judaism is a religion of friendly relations and non-discrimination even though this may appear not to be the case in some instances. True, there are some occurrences in Jewish literature that appear to be discriminatory where it seems like the life of a Jew or the possessions of a Jew seem more important than those of a Gentile. However, I do not believe that the true meaning of these ideas are meant in this manner. In order to divulge the true meaning of the sages throughout the generations I think a view of man through the Bible is in order.

I think the reason for the apparent discrimination of the Gentile can be divulged through an excerpt from the book The Biblical View of Man. In it Rabbi Dr. Leo Adler discusses how the Bible views a man that does not believe in G-D. He says,

"On the other hand, Godlessness and lack of fear of G-D, in the biblical conception of man, indicate human depravity: ;The benighted man thinks There is no G-D; man's deeds are corrupt and loathsome, no one does good' (Psalm 14:1). Lack of fear of G-D is so clearly considered moral corruption that Abraham can justify passing off his wife as his sister with the claim that 'I thought surely there is no fear of G-D in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife' (Genesis 20:11)."

The Gentile that is discriminated against is referred to as a man that does not have a fear of G-D. This idea was referring to an era of human civilization where there was depravity and debauchery that was being done on a daily basis. The only force in the world, in this era, that could stem human depravity was a belief in G-D. Without this essential belief, man would act immorally. There were no exceptions as quoted from Abraham's experience, man without a fear of G-D was immoral and without limits. Otherwise, why would Abraham fear for his life, wouldn't moral people allow one to be married to a beautiful woman and not have to fear for his life? Thus, in the Bible, we see that a man without a fear of G-D is immoral and without constraint. This is the purpose of the Bible, to provide moral limits for man.

Therefore, we can see that in biblical times man without a belief in G-D is immoral and dangerous. Abraham had to fear for his life when he went to a city populated with immoral people. The Bible tells us that this situation justified his lie and turned an otherwise immoral act, lying, into a necessity for life. Thus, we see the basis for protecting people against immoral people even if it means acting in a, seemingly, immoral way.

This idea can be seen in the philosophy of Kant from this website where it discusses the repercussions of Kant's Categorical Imperative. It says,

"The second consequence follows from Kant's basic moral rule, the categorical imperative: 'Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.' In other words, you can only give yourself permission to a behavior ('act according to that maxim') which you simultaneously give everyone else the same permission to do (you 'will that it would become a universal law'). This means that if I steal from you, I give permission to everyone to steal from me."

In a sense, this is the moral code that the Bible is following. When a person acts immorally, he or she allows all those to act immorally towards them. This can be seen in the case of Abraham. The Bible seems to tell us that there are two types of people in its time, those who believe in G-D, the moral people, and those who do not believe in G-D, the immoral people. This does not speak of our current generation, but rather of the society of ancient times.

This idea is not just Biblical in nature, but it evolves into a Rabbinic principle as well. This can be found in a Tosephta, a Tannaic work, in Shevuot 3:6. It says,

"Rabbi Reuben met a philosopher in Tiberias, who asked him: 'Who makes himself hateful in the world?' Rabbi Reuben replied: 'He who denies his Creator.' 'But how does that make him hateful to men?' wondered the philosopher. Rabbi Reuben replied: 'Honor thy father and mother; though shalt not murder; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness. No man can break these laws without first denying G-D, no man can commit one of these cardinal sins without first ignoring Him Who gave these commands!'"

This Tosephta is explained by Rabbi Dr Leo Adler in the following manner. He says,

"He who sins against morality and ethics can do it only by denying G-D. Rabbi Reuben built his thesis upon a verse from Leviticus (5:21): 'When a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord by dealing deceitfully with his fellow, robbing him or oppressing him...' Here too, disloyalty to G-D is assumed to be the precondition for moral failure vis a vis man: whoever sins against men did so after first breaking faith with G-D. For the Bible, fear of G-D is the foundation of man's being, not a separate res religiosa (as it was considered by the philosopher who argued with Rabbi Reuben)."

It seems like from this Tosephta that the philosopher would be considered a moral person, although he was curious of the basis of the morality of the Bible. However, even at this point in history, in the rabbinic literature, man was still moral based on his belief in G-D. Without this belief man had no reason to act appropriately and compassionately. This led Jews to be persecuted as well as other minorities. However, at this point in history there was persecution from the pagan Romans and Zoroastrians against the monotheistic religions. This violated basic morals and thus allowed those being persecuted to act according to how Kant explained earlier in this post.

Throughout Jewish history we have seen that Jews have been oppressed and mistreated. During the years of Christian domination the Jews were constantly subjected to forced baptism, death or expulsion. These acts were clearly immoral. Under Islam, Jews were constantly demeaned and treated as second class citizens. Check out the sources listed in Wikipedia. Regarding the Islamic persecutions they mention a few,

"Islam and Judaism have a complex relationship. Traditionally Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands, known as dhimmis, were allowed to practice their religions and to administer their internal affairs, but subject to certain conditions.[205] They had to pay the jizya (a per capita tax imposed on free adult non-Muslim males) to the Islamic state.[205] Dhimmis had an inferior status under Islamic rule. They had several social and legal disabilities such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[206] Many of the disabilities were highly symbolic. The one described by Bernard Lewis as "most degrading"[207] was the requirement of distinctive clothing, not found in the Qur'an or hadith but invented in early medieval Baghdad; its enforcement was highly erratic.[207] On the other hand, Jews rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and they were mostly free in their choice of residence and profession.[208] Notable exceptions include the massacre of Jews and/or forcible conversion of some Jews by the rulers of the Almohad dynasty in Al-Andalus in the 12th century,[209] as well as in Islamic Persia,[210] and the forced confinement of Morrocan Jews to walled quarters known as mellahs beginning from the 15th century and especially in the early 19th century.[211]"

This would reveal that even under Muslim rule the Jews were discriminated against and so were other non-Muslims. Also, in Christian lands the Jews and Muslims were discriminated against. Thus, repeating Kant's morals, the Jews would have every right not to respect Muslim or Christian rights even though they do believe in G-D.

Just to recap everything that we have stated until now. Originally, the Bible tells us that people that did not believe in G-D acted immorally because they had no reason to act morally. Therefore, when the Bible discusses people that do not believe in G-D and how a person can act towards them, it is referring to an immoral person that acts with depravity and debauchery. Also, even a believer in G-D can act immorally, that has been seen in the 2000 years of Jewish exile culminating with the holocaust executed by Hitler in Germany.

What we see from all of this is that the Jewish commentators that discuss mistreating Gentiles are referring to the Gentiles that mistreat Jews or anyone else. According to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant this is an entirely moral and appropriate reaction. However, nowadays I do not think that these laws would apply in the same way. As we have disclosed, the person of the Bible that does not believe in G-D is a person that is immoral. The Bible does not disclose its feelings about a person that denies G-D's existence but is still moral and demands equality for all people. In my opinion, it seems like from the sources that I have quoted, that a person that does not believe in G-D, but is moral, should be treated morally and does not fall under the umbrella of an immoral idolater.

Therefore, my conclusion is that if a group of people condones immoral behavior towards another group, it would appear to be that the Bible and Rabbinic literature would say like Kant, that one treats them as they treat others. However, if a person is moral, regardless of whether he or she believes in G-D, they are to be treated morally and correctly, with love and compassion. The Rabbinic commentaries do not discuss mistreating a Gentile in general, but rather a Gentile that mistreats and oppresses Jews or other people in general. These people do not have to be treated morally since they treat others immorally. However, a Gentile that is moral must be treated with proper morals and a failure to do so would be considered a transgression against the Biblical commandments and Rabbinic tradition.

UPDATE:
Here is a link to Kant's ideas of morals spelled out in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Also, here is another link to a different page with more of Kant's ideas on more subjects like politics in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

ANOTHER UPDATE:

Here are the Rishonim that holds like what I am saying.

Reconciling Immanuel Kant's Theory of Morals With Judaism

I would like to introduce this subject by just stating that I believe everything the Torah says is moral. However, I do find a value to explaining the morality found within the Torah from external sources as well. I do not believe the Torah's morals are limited to these external morals, since the morals found in the Torah are from G-D and therefore infallible, but these external morals do provide logical explanations for the choices of G-D's morals. It is probably the case that these reasons are not the real reasons, but giving reasons for the commandments are fallible in the same way, yet people have always tried to do that.

In order to introduce Kant's ideas, I would like to bring in a portion written by the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It says,

"Kant argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Immorality thus involves a violation of the CI and is thereby irrational. Other philosophers, such as Locke and Hobbes, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality. However, these standards were either desire-based instrumental principles of rationality or based on sui generis rational intuitions. Kant agreed with many of his predecessors that an analysis of practical reason will reveal only the requirement that rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. Yet he argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle) and hence to moral requirements themselves, can nevertheless be shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality — the CI — is none other than the law of an autonomous will. Thus, at the heart of Kant's moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean ‘slave’ to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect."

Kant's ideas here seem very rational and well developed. All people are equal, we are not to be 'slaves' to our desires and only rational thought is to be used when figuring out what is moral. I believe that the morals that are laid out in the Torah can be shown to be very congruent with these ideas, except the last. This, however, does not preclude the Torah from being similar to Kant's ideas since Kant is using rationality, whereas the Torah uses the morals that are laid out by G-D. Therefore, the important aspects to show that are congruent are that all people are equal and that we are not to base morality on our personal desires. The fact that Kant gets his morals from logic and the Torah receives its morals from G-D does not make these two approaches dissimilar.

Before continuing, I believe it is important to point out that Kant specifically says that Judaism's morality can not be congruent with his morality. However, the reasons he gives show a lack of understanding of Judaism. For example, he says that the laws contained within Judaism appear to only apply to the nation and political aspects of the jewish people. This is pointed out in the following paragraph that describes Kant's views written by Peter J. Leithart. He says,

"Judaism was only a collection of merely statutory laws supporting a political state; for whatever moral additions were appended to it, whether originally or only later, do not in any way belong to Judaism as such. Judaism was meant to be secular. Its commands are political, external; the consequences of disobedience are dispensed by human beings. Judaism contains no reference to the future life, and since this is a rational belief, it can only be that G-D deliberately excluded this from Judaism. Judaism did not aim at any universal church, but was exclusivist and hostile to the whole human race outside. G-D was not a moral G-D, but demanded obedience without any accompanying demand for moral progress."

It is interesting to note that most Jews that Kant associated with were non-religious philosopher types. It stands to reason that he did not really know the truth about Judaism. First of all, "The consequence of disobecidence" was not just dispensed by human beings. This is true because there are several laws in Judaism that say a man's soul is removed from the covenant. The fact that Kant can even entertain the idea that Judaism does not refer to the future life reveals that a non-believer must have taught him all he knew about Judaism. As we all know, Judaism is all about the future life. The next world, the spiritual world, is talked about so much throughout the Mishna, Talmud and so many other jewish sources. My final comment will be on Kant's idea that Judaism is exclusivist. First off, Judaism allows anyone to convert, which he says makes Christianity non-exclusive. Secondly, the belief in Judaism is that one need not convert and that person can still live a meaningful life as long as they follow the seven Noahide laws. The morality found within the Torah is not exclusive for Jews, rather it is meant for all humankind. The laws are exclusive for Jews, for them to fulfill the statutes, but the morals found inside the Torah are universal.

Kant's morality philosophy must first be stated before being able to compare it to the Torah. It states, "

An agent's maxim, according to Kant, is his "subjective principle of human actions": that is, what the agent believes is his reason to act. (Kant, Foundations, pp. 400, 429.) This idea has five steps:
1)Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration "I will lie for personal benefit." Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfill some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim.
2)Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim.
3)Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim.
4)If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world.
5)If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.

I think this type of rationale can be applied to the morals in the Torah. (By the way if I am wrong that does not disprove anything other than my theory.) First, it must be stated that Kant believes that human beings, because of their ability to act on a law they give to themselves, their autonomy, possess a dignity that renders them as ends not means. To kill a human being then is always wrong in that it is the ultimate violation of their status as an end. On the other hand, in so far as we choose to kill another, justice requires, Kant believes, that we die also. The case of a war would be along the same lines. In a legitimate war of self-defense against an aggressor, killing the enemy is morally justifiable, since the latter has chosen to attack us without just cause.

These ideas found within Kant's ideology can answer up some questions of morality that have been bothering people about certain Biblical statements. For example, exterminate Amalek. How is it possible that a moral system would require the destruction of a nation? I believe that, if we say that the Torah is similar to Kant then we have our answer. The Torah reveals to us that the nation of Amalek will always try to kill the nation of the Jews. This was proven years later when Haman, in the story of Purim, tried to kill the Jews and it was made known that he was from Amalek. Therefore, since there will be a continuous struggle and the Amalekites will always try to kill the Jews, it is incumbent upon the Jewish people to survive. This survival is contingent upon the fact that we destroy Amalek since they will forever try to kill us. How could the Jewish people make sure they survive? By wiping out the very nation that is trying to wipe them out. I think that is the justice that Kant speaks of and it can be applied to this situation. Also, this does not violate the five steps that he lays out for individual thought because this is only a reactionary measure for what is just.

Similarly, this idea explains why a murderer should be put to death. If a person kills another then it is morally unacceptable to leave that person alive. For if you leave them alive, how is it just and fair that one who has killed another remain alive? It has to be that he is put to death in order that the justness of the world and its morality remain intact.

Kant and the Torah seem very congruent in their ideas of what is just, but like I mentioned before, I think they are also similar in how a person should morally behave in general. One should always be thinking, what would happen if the whole world acted like this. Similarly, in Judaism, the rules only allow one to act in a certain way that is not detrimental to society. Anything that is detrimental is not permissible. I think the main difference between them is that Kant uses his rational, whereas the Torah is morals straight from G-D.

Again, I am not an expert on this, but these were some ideas that I came up with. If proven wrong then maybe Kant and the Torah are not reconcilable, or maybe I am just not thinking in the proper way. Either way, this was just an idea I had that i wanted to share. I am open for anyones comments and corrections.