Chareidim Who Ignore History Are Doomed To Repeat History's Mistakes

The events in Beit Shemesh and the general Israeli population's reaction reminds me of a story told over in the Talmud and Josephus. (I am not talking about Kamtza and Bar Kamtza because that is not analogous) I am talking about the story found in Kiddushin 66a and Josephus Antiquities Book 13 section 10 that deals with King Yannai's transformation from a follower of the Pharisees to the Sadducees. First let us see the source in Kiddushin 66a (Translation found here):

It once happened that King Jannai went to Kohalith in the wilderness and conquered sixty towns there. On his return he rejoiced exceedingly and invited all the Sages of Israel. Said he to them, ‘Our forefathers ate mallows when they were engaged on the building of the [second] Temple; let us too eat mallows in memory of our forefathers.’ So mallows were served on golden tables, and they ate. Now, there was a man there, frivolous, evil hearted and worthless, named Eleazar son of Po'irah, who said to King Jannai. ‘O King Jannai, the hearts of the Pharisees are against thee.’ ‘Then what shall I do?’ ‘Test them by the plate between thine eyes.’ So he tested them by the plate between his eyes. Now, an elder, named Judah son of Gedidiah, was present there. Said he to King Jannai. ‘O King Jannai! let the royal crown suffice thee, and leave the priestly crown to the seed of Aaron.’ (For it was rumoured that his mother had been taken captive in Modi'im.) Accordingly, the charge was investigated, but not sustained, and the Sages of Israel departed in anger. Then said Eleazar b. Po'irah to King Jannai: ‘O King Jannai! That is the law even for the most humble man in Israel, and thou, a King and a High Priest, shall that be thy law [too]!’ ‘Then what shall I do?’ ‘If thou wilt take my advice, trample then, down.’ ‘But what shall happen with the Torah?’ ‘Behold, it is rolled up and lying in the corner: whoever wishes to study. Let him go and study!’ Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Immediately a spirit of heresy was instilled into him, for he should have replied. ‘That is well for the Written Law; but what of the Oral Law?’ Straightway, the evil burst forth through Eleazar son of Po'irah, all the Sages of Israel were massacred, and the world was desolate until Simeon b. Shetah came and restored the Torah to its pristine [glory]. 

The Josephus details are a little different, but overall the idea is the same (Josephus Antiquities 13:10 translation found here):

However, this prosperous state of affairs moved the Jews to envy Hyrcanus; but they that were the worst disposed to him were the Pharisees, who were one of the sects of the Jews, as we have informed you already. These have so great a power over the multitude, that when they say any thing against the king, or against the high priest, they are presently believed.  Now Hyrcanus was a disciple of theirs, and greatly beloved by them. And when he once invited them to a feast, and entertained them very kindly, when he saw them in a good humour, he began to say to them, that they knew he was desirous to be a righteous man, and to do all things whereby he might please God, which was the profession of the Pharisees also. However, he desired, that if they observed him offending in any point, and going out of the right way, they would call him back and correct him. On which occasion they attested to his being entirely virtuous; with which commendation he was well pleased. But still there was one of his guests there, whose name was Eleazar, a man of an ill temper, and delighting in seditious practices. This man said," Since thou desirest to know the truth, if thou wilt be righteous in earnest, lay down the high priesthood, and content thyself with the civil government of the people," And when he desired to know for what cause he ought to lay down the high priesthood, the other replied, "We have heard it from old men, that thy mother had been a captive under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes." This story was false, and Hyrcanus was provoked against him; and all the Pharisees had a very great indignation against him.  Now there was one Jonathan, a very great friend of Hyrcanus's, but of the sect of the Sadducees, whose notions are quite contrary to those of the Pharisees. He told Hyrcanus that Eleazar had cast such a reproach upon him, according to the common sentiments of all the Pharisees, and that this would be made manifest if he would but ask them the question, What punishment they thought this man deserved? for that he might depend upon it, that the reproach was not laid on him with their approbation, if they were for punishing him as his crime deserved. So the Pharisees made answer, that he deserved stripes and bonds, but that it did not seem right to punish reproaches with death. And indeed the Pharisees, even upon other occasions, are not apt to be severe in punishments. At this gentle sentence, Hyrcanus was very angry, and thought that this man reproached him by their approbation. It was this Jonathan who chiefly irritated him, and influenced him so far, that he made him leave the party of the Pharisees, and abolish the decrees they had imposed on the people, and to punish those that observed them.

 In both of these versions there is one common theme, there is a Pharisee that insulted the king inappropriately and this allowed for the king to be swayed by one of the Sadducees to become evil. Obviously, if there was no wicked Sadducee there would have been no problem, but that is the point, there is always a "wicked Sadducee." Had the foolish Pharisee, who was punished in both stories (see commentaries on Kiddushin 66a), not insulted the king based on a foolish assumption NOTHING bad would have happened. His ridiculous attempt at righteousness caused much death and sorrow for the Jewish people.

The question is who should be blamed in a situation like this? Obviously, we give blame to the Sadducee, but that is expected of him. The Sadducee is the antithesis of Torah Judaism, should we have expected him to stay silent when the Pharisees allowed the king to be insulted? No, he was doing what was in his nature. It would be foolish for us to place the true blame on the Sadducee just like it would be ridiculous for us to place blame on a lion released from the zoo for mauling a person. Obviously, you place blame on the lion keeper that freed the lion and not the lion itself. The Sadducee in this case was a malicious animal that was "caged" because King Yannai was an ardent follower of the Pharisees. However, the Pharisee that insulted the King's lineage and status "released" this caged beast and allowed it to maul the Pharisees.

This is exactly what is going on in Israel today. Obviously, there are left wingers that are anti the Chareidi way of life that are waiting to jump on them at every moment. The only way the Chareidim can stave off their criticism is by being completely innocent (which has hardly been the case in the past). However, when you have people that associate with the Chareidim and are not denounced by the Chareidi leadership in Israel that do such disgusting acts what do you expect from the left wingers? It is not their fault that they are criticizing the Chareidi community, that is what they have been doing all along. However, since these acts are SO INCREDIBLY reprehensible everyone is listening to them now. They are able to turn the general public against the Chareidim in a way that was not achievable before.

The only way for the Chareidim to stave this crisis off is by giving these thugs the harshest punishment. In the Josephus story (and in the commentators to the story in Kiddushin) we see that the reason King Yannai was so furious at the Pharisees had nothing to do with this single Pharisee. What upset King Yannai was the reaction of the greater Pharisee community. They did not punish the Pharisee that insulted him harshly enough. If the Chareidi community would disavow this sect with the harshest criticism then the general Israeli public would be much more forgiving. NONE of the Chareidi leadership has done anything to disavow these disgusting thugs. That is what is so frustrating. The Chareidi apologists fail to see this. If you do not punish those within your ranks appropriately, you are at fault. You can cry and cry about how they are not 'REAL" Chareidim (whatever that means), but until you take actions against them your words are meaningless and the "King" (the Israeli Public) will punish you for being complacent with their acts.

Why Only Those Whose "Heart Maketh Him Willing" Are Commanded to Give Terumah (Tithes)?

This week's Parsha, Terumah, opens up with G-D commanding Moshe to (Shemos 25:2-8):

ב  דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ-לִי תְּרוּמָה:  מֵאֵת כָּל-אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ, תִּקְחוּ אֶת-תְּרוּמָתִי.	2 'Speak unto the children of Israel, that they take for Me an offering; of every man whose heart maketh him willing ye shall take My offering.
ג  וְזֹאת, הַתְּרוּמָה, אֲשֶׁר תִּקְחוּ, מֵאִתָּם:  זָהָב וָכֶסֶף, וּנְחֹשֶׁת.	3 And this is the offering which ye shall take of them: gold, and silver, and brass;
ד  וּתְכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי, וְשֵׁשׁ וְעִזִּים.	4 and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair;
ה  וְעֹרֹת אֵילִם מְאָדָּמִים וְעֹרֹת תְּחָשִׁים, וַעֲצֵי שִׁטִּים.	5 and rams' skins dyed red, and sealskins, and acacia-wood;
ו  שֶׁמֶן, לַמָּאֹר; בְּשָׂמִים לְשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, וְלִקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים.	6 oil for the light, spices for the anointing oil, and for the sweet incense;
ז  אַבְנֵי-שֹׁהַם, וְאַבְנֵי מִלֻּאִים, לָאֵפֹד, וְלַחֹשֶׁן.	7 onyx stones, and stones to be set, for the ephod, and for the breastplate.
ח  וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם.	8 And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.

However, there is something unusual about this command that G-D is giving over. If all of these materials are going to be used for the Mishkan (Temporary Temple) why doesn't G-D command everyone to give Terumah (tithes)? One might claim that G-D is commanding everyone to give tithes, but this is simply not the case. The second verse of the Parsha clearly states that only "every man whose heart maketh him willing ye shall take My offering." How can a commandment only apply to those that WANT to do the commandment? 


I could give my own idea, but first let us see what Rav Moshe Feinstein has to say. In Darash Moshe (Terumah on this verse) Rav Feinstein asks the same question. He says,


It is a wonderment (speaking about the part of the verse of "take for Me an offering of every man whose heart maketh him willing"), and should Terumah (tithes) not be taken from those who are not willing? It is a stretch to answer that [the Torah] is coming to teach us that we do not take Terumah with Judges (by force), just like by the commandment of Tzedakah (charity) where we also do not take charity through judges (by force) and we do not compel anyone to give (see Tosfos in Kesubos 49b Divrei hamaskil Akfiya). Nevertheless, we won't answer [this question] in this manner.   


It appears that [the Torah] is teaching us that only those that are willing [to give] are commanded in the Mitzva (commandment) of Terumah and the people whose hearts do not desire to give, G-D does not want to command them [to give]. If these people, who do not want to give, give Terumah to fulfill the commandment they still receive reward, but it is the reward of someone who is not commanded and fulfills the Mitazva (a lower level of reward).


I think [this idea] applies by Munachos (99b) where it says on this verse:


For R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan, This verse is neither duty nor command but a blessing. For when the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that the words of the Torah were most precious to Joshua, as it is written, His minister Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tent, He said to him, ‘Joshua, since the words of the Torah are so precious to thee, [I assure thee,] ‘this book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth’!


Apparently, this idea in the Gemara is a wonderment. Is the idea that one should not forget Torah (that is learned) really a blessing? On the contrary, we find in Sanhedrin (106b) that Doeg is punished by forgetting the Torah (that he learned). So, this person that is not punished [Joshua] is receiving a blessing?


Therefore, we need to say that since the words of the Torah were so precious to Joshua (Yehoshua) therefore G-D commanded him to never allow the words of Torah to depart from his mouth.
(This is like the view that R. Shmuel ben Nahmani in the name of R. Jonathan was arguing on which says: Ben Damah the son of R. Ishmael's sister once asked R. Ishmael, May one such as I who have studied the whole of the Torah learn Greek wisdom? He thereupon read to him the following verse, This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night.(Joshua 1:8) Go then and find a time that is neither day nor night and learn then Greek wisdom.)


This explanation (that G-D commanded Joshua not to let the words of Torah ever to leave his mouth.) is even according to R. Shmuel ben Nahmani in the name of R. Jonathan.  [However, where R. Shmuel ben Nahmani argues is] by people who the Torah is not dear to them. It is not fit for G-D to command them to learn all the time. (However, Ben Damah would hold that even they are commanded to learn all the time.) Therefore, according to R. Samuel b. Nahmani in the name of R. Jonathan,  if they learn without desire and without a great love they will be considered like someone who is performing a Mitzva (commandment) even though they were not commanded (which carries with it a lower level of reward). Therefore, everyone should strive to learn with a great desire and love for Torah and G-D. This also applies to every Mitzva that does not have a specified amount (like Torah learning) because only those that love the Mitzva are commanded to perform it as much as possible.

Rav Moshe's idea makes a lot of sense to me. Let me explain what I think he is saying in a more practical sense. There are certain commandments that G-D gave us that have specific rules. For example, one must sit in a Sukkah on Succos, one must keep kosher, one must put on tefillin, etc.... These rules all have specific guidelines. Everyone is commanded to keep them on the same level because they set up the bear minimum guideline for following Judaism (Orthodox Judaism). However, there are certain commandments that were given without guidelines like learning Torah and giving charity. Rav Moshe is telling us that these Mitzvos show us how G-D only wants us to want to serve Him. If G-D forces us to love Him or our fellow Jew then that "love" is, essentially, worthless. Therefore, we must realize our love for G-D on our own and that will bring us to want to follow His commandments. That is why Terumah (tithes) was only commanded to those "whose heart compels him" because it is this true love that G-D desires us to acquire. G-D does not want us to artificially go through the motions and be robots of obedience. He wants us to reach a level in our hearts and minds that we are able to realize how much we truly love Him and His Torah. If we can't reach this level then G-D is not going to force us into servitude, it MUST be OUR choice!

Why The Gemara Must Explain Eye for an Eye in a Non-Literal Fashion

In this week's Parsha, Mishpatim, there is a very famous verse. It says (Shemos 21:24):

כד  עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן, שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן, יָד תַּחַת יָד, רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל.
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,


Is the Torah actually telling us that if a man pokes another man's eye out then his eye should be poked out? Is it so wrong if that would be what the Torah is saying? Perhaps the Torah is referring to money and this is NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERAL like other aspects of the Torah? Let's see what our options are.

In the Gemara in Babba Kamma (83b-84a) it discusses whether this verse is meant literally or not. There are several different Tannaim and Amoraim that bring down their reasonings as to why they believe the verse is not meant literally, but rather it is a parable for money. (For the Gemara in English see here and in Hebrew see here)

The first views brought down in the Gemara are a mixture of Tannaim and Amoraim saying why they feel the ORIGINAL intent of the Torah is monetary compensation and not a literal flesh for flesh type of deal. They bring down different words that they elaborate on to teach these different meanings. However, there are two views in the Gemara that seem to be saying that the intent of the Torah is actually that of flesh for flesh, but they are "proven" wrong. The first view is that of Abaye quoting the Study Hall of Hezekiah. (Granted, this idea is questioned without an answer, but I do not think that should rule it out as an opinion because one could easily come up with an answer.) The second view is that of Rebbe Eliezar. He says that an Eye for an Eye is meant literally. (Granted, the Gemara goes on to explain him as meaning something else, but it seems unjustified, as will be explained later.)

The view that Abaye brings down says:

"Abbaye said: [The principle of pecuniary compensation] could be derived from the teaching of the
School of Hezekiah. For the School of Hesekiah taught: Eye for eye, life for life, but not ‘life and
eye for eye’. Now if you assume that actual retaliation is meant, it could sometimes happen that eye
and life would be taken for eye, as while the offender is being blinded, his soul might depart from
him."

So, according to this explanation of Abaye it seems like the reason we only collect money in this situation is because it is impossible to make sure the punishment will not kill the guilty party. However, if we somehow had a way to inflict the damage while being positive that the person would not die, then an Eye for an eye could be literal. (Abaye is trying to come up with a reason to make the Torah not literal, however, his reasoning leads to the possibility for the Torah to be taken literally. If we somehow came up with a method to take an eye out while being sure to not kill the person, then, according to Abaye's reasoning, we would take the eye and not the money. I would venture to say that nowadays, according to Abaye's reasoning, the Torah would be taken literally.)

The opinion of Rebbe Eliezar requires a deeper analysis. It is clear that Abaye's statement is meant to work on the inability for man to assure the people that taking out an eye would not kill the guilty party. However, Rebbe Eliezaar says:

"It was taught: R. Eliezer said: Eye for eye literally refers to the eye [of the offender]."

However, the Gemara makes a very puzzling statement about Rebbe Eliezar's words:

"Literally, you say? Could R. Eliezer be against all those Tannaim [enumerated above]?"

What is the Gemara trying to tell us here? Rebbe Eliezar was a Tanna, Tannaim argue all the time. Why would the Gemara assume that Rebbe Eliezar is UNABLE to argue on the other Tannaim listed here? There are many times when Tannaim argue against the opinions of several other Tannaim and the Gemara does not completely reinterpret their words. It is strange that here, in the instance of Eye for an Eye, the Gemara feels that Rebbe Eliezar is unable to argue with other Tannaim. After all, this is the same Rebbe Eliezar that defied all of the Tannaim and was excommunicated by Rabban Gamliel.

(For those who are unfamiliar with the story,  here it is from here (Babba Metzia 59a-b):

We learned elsewhere: “If he cut it into separate tiles, placing sand between each tile: Rabbi Eliezer declared it clean, and the sages declared it unclean; and this was the oven of ‘Aknai.”  Why [the ovenof] ‘Aknai?—Said Rav Judah in Samuel’s name: “[It means] that they encompassed it with arguments as a snake, and proved it unclean.”

It has been taught: On that day Rabbi Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. Said he to them: “If the halakhah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!”

Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place. Others affirm, four hundred cubits.

“No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,” they retorted.

Again he said to them: “If the halakhah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!”—whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards.

“No proof can be brought from a stream of water,” they rejoined.

Again he urged: “If the halakhah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,” whereupon the walls inclined to fall.

But Rabbi Joshua rebuked them, saying: “When scholars are engaged in a halakhic dispute, what have you to interfere?”

Hence they did not fall, in honor of Rabbi Joshua, nor did they resume their upright position, in honor of Rabbi Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined.

Again he said to them: “If the halakhah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!” Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: “Why do you dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halakhah agrees with him!” But Rabbi Joshua arose and exclaimed: “It is not in heaven.” 

What did he mean by this? Said Rabbi Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because You have long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, ‘‘After the majority must one incline.” 

Rabbi Nathan met Elijah (the prophet) and asked him: “What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour?—He laughed [with joy],” he replied, “saying, ‘My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me.’’’

It was said: On that day all objects which Rabbi Eliezer had declared clean were brought and burnt in fire. Then they took a vote and excommunicated him.  Said they, “Who shall go and inform him?”

“I will go,” answered Rabbi Akiva, “lest an unsuitable person go and inform him, and thus destroy the whole world.” 

What did Rabbi Akiva do? He donned black garments and wrapped himself in black, and sat at a distance of four cubits from him.

“Akkiva,” said Rabbi Eliezer to him, “what has particularly happened today?”

“Master,” he replied, “it appears to me that your companions hold aloof from you.” Thereupon he too rent his garments, put off his shoes, removed [his seat] and sat on the earth, while tears streamed from his eyes. The world was then smitten: a third of the olive crop, a third of the wheat, and a third of the barley crop. Some say, the dough in women’s hands swelled up. 

A tanna taught: Great was the calamity that befell that day, for everything at which Rabbi Eliezer cast his eyes was burned up. Rabban Gamaliel too was traveling in a ship, when a huge wave arose to drown him.

“It appears to me,” he reflected, “that this is on account of none other but Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus.”

Thereupon he arose and exclaimed, “Sovereign of the Universe! You know full well that I have not acted for my honor, nor for the honor of my paternal house, but for Yours, so that strife may not multiply in Israel!”

At that the raging sea subsided.)

This story clearly shows that Rebbe Eliezar was quiet capable and willing to argue on multiple Tannaim, even many at once. Therefore, I am confused as to why the Gemara feels that it must reinterpret his statements to mean something else. 


It seems to me that there is something else going on here in this Gemara. The Torah gave the scholars the ability to set laws as they see fit. The Torah says, without any ambiguity, that we should follow our leaders. What does it seem like is going on here? The Torah scholars in the time of the Gemara did not want anyone to think that taking a limb for a limb was acceptable. That is why they spent two full pages bringing numerous different ideas as to why this verse MUST NOT be literal. The Gemara could not bring down just one or two opinions in this situation like it does in so many others, it needed to show how there was unanimous support for this idea of eye for an eye not being literal. That is why any hint of literal explanation like Abaye or Rebbe Eliezar, along with a couple others, are rejected in the strongest terms. Why MUST have Rebbe Eliezar meant something else when he seemingly says that the punishment was meant to be literal? Because that idea was (and is) antithetical to the ideas found in the Torah. Therefore, it MUST be unanimous that Eye for an Eye was not literal. 


What do I mean that Eye for an eye being literal is antithetical to the Torah? The Torah is divine wisdom and the moral compass for the Jewish people. How could the Torah then claim that the punishment for maiming someone is to be maimed? Lashes and the death penalty are fundamentally different than maiming someone. The reason is hinted to in the Gemara as another answer, but I will just say it out here. Lashes heal and are not permanent. Death is equal, you took someones life and now your life is being taken because every man is equal under G-D. However, maiming someone is unjust in and of itself. How can you know how much my arm is worth to me and those around me. How much was the arm that was taken worth? Maiming someone is not an equal punishment. Two eyes do not see equally well, are not the same size and, by definition, do not have the same worth. The only just way to deal with this is monetarily. 


The Gemara gives this idea a unique amount of attention and the Gemara brings down a unique amount of opinions to show how it must be that this verse was meant to mean monetary value. I think that the reason for this is because of our belief as Jews that the Torah is from G-D and is divine. Meaning, the Torah is the source of all Justice and it teaches us how to live our lives.  

What Was Amram (Moshe's Father) Thinking?

In this week's Parsha, Shemos, we learn that Pharoh made a terrible decree against the Jews as it says (Shemos 1:16):

טז  וַיֹּאמֶר, בְּיַלֶּדְכֶן אֶת-הָעִבְרִיּוֹת, וּרְאִיתֶן, עַל-הָאָבְנָיִם:  אִם-בֵּן הוּא וַהֲמִתֶּן אֹתוֹ, וְאִם-בַּת הִוא וָחָיָה. 
 16 and he said: 'When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, ye shall look upon the birthstool: if it be a son, then ye shall kill him; but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.' 

When Pharoh saw that was not working he then made this decree on everyone, even the Egyptians (Ibid 1:22):

כב  וַיְצַו פַּרְעֹה, לְכָל-עַמּוֹ לֵאמֹר:  כָּל-הַבֵּן הַיִּלּוֹד, הַיְאֹרָה תַּשְׁלִיכֻהוּ, וְכָל-הַבַּת, תְּחַיּוּן.
22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying: 'Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.'

However, what is curious is the beginning of the next chapter (Shemos 2:1):

א  וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ, מִבֵּית לֵוִי; וַיִּקַּח, אֶת-בַּת-לֵוִי. 
1 And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi.  

Why does there need to be a verse that tells us that a Levite went out and took a daughter of Levi to be his wife? Why not just start the next chapter with the second verse which says:

ב  וַתַּהַר הָאִשָּׁה, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן; וַתֵּרֶא אֹתוֹ כִּי-טוֹב הוּא, וַתִּצְפְּנֵהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה יְרָחִים. 
2 And the woman conceived, and bore a son; and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months. 

Starting the chapter with this second verse would make a lot more sense since it actually gives us details about how Moshe was kept alive. What is the significance that Moshe's parents got married even after Pharoh's decree that ALL boys, even Egyptians boys, were to be killed?

The Gemara in Sotah (12b) tells us why this first verse is significant:

And there went a man of the house of Levi (Ex. II, 1). Where did he go? R. Judah b. Zebina said that he went in the counsel of his daughter. A Tanna taught: Amram was the greatest man of his generation; when he saw that the wicked Pharaoh had decreed 'Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river', he said: In vain do we labour. He arose and divorced his wife (Since all the male children to be born would be killed, and the primary object of marriage was the procreation of sons.). All [the Israelites] thereupon arose and divorced their wives. His daughter said to him, 'Father, thy decree is more severe than Pharaoh's; because Pharaoh decreed only against the males whereas thou hast decreed against the males and females. Pharaoh only decreed concerning this world whereas thou hast decreed concerning this world and the World to Come (The drowned babes would live again in the Hereafter; but unborn children are denied that bliss). In the case of the wicked Pharaoh there is a doubt whether his decree will be fulfilled or not, whereas in thy case, though, thou art righteous, it is certain that thy decree will be fulfilled, as it is said: Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee (Job XXII, 28)!  He arose and took his wife back; and they all arose and took their wives back.(Translation and comments found http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_12.html)

However, this explanation seems odd. Why did Amram decide that there was no reason to be married anymore? What was he thinking? If he was the leader of the generation and a righteous person how could he just give up like that? Why did it take his daughter to point out his mistake? This Gemara makes Amram seem very foolish.

The Chasam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Sofer) gives a terrific explanation. However, he apparently had a different Girsa (version) of the Gemora in Tractate Sotah. His version reads only one word differently, but it is essential for his explanation. Instead of saying that once Amram divorced his wife then EVERYONE divorced their wives, his version reads that once Amram divorced his wife then ALL THE RIGHTEOUS people divorced their wives. Personally, I think the Chasam Sofer's version is more correct because, as we learn later, many Jews living at this time were not very good Jews and that is why only a fifth of Jews actually left Egypt. Therefore, it stands to reason that only the RIGHTEOUS Jews followed Amram's example and not ALL the Jews.

In order to explain what Amram was thinking the Chasam Sofer brings down a puzzling Gemara in Tractate Babba Basra (60b). It says:

It has been taught: R. Ishmael ben Elisha said: Since the day of the destruction of the Temple we should by rights bind ourselves not to eat meat nor drink wine, only we do not lay a hardship on the community unless the majority can endure it. And from the day that a Government (Rome) has come into power which issues cruel decrees against us and forbids to us the observance of the Torah and the precepts (referring to Hadrian's harsh decrees after the Bar Kochba revolt) and does not allow us to enter into the ‘week of the son’ (circumcision), we ought by rights to bind ourselves not to marry and beget children, and the seed of Abraham our father would come to an end of itself. However, let Israel go their way: it is better that they should err in ignorance than presumptuously. 

Rebbe Yishmael (Ishmael) is basically saying that we should make the same decree that Amram made. In a situation where the Jews are living where they will not be allowed to perform the Torah and Mitzvos, nor can they circumcise their sons, then the Rabbis should make a decree that no one should get married and have children. However, because the majority of the Jews will not be able to follow this decree, it is not made.

The Chasam Sofer tries to explain this idea because it sounds strange. He says:

G-D made a covenant with Avraham, our father, that his children would survive forever, therefore, if someone would even hint at wiping them out, G-D would be forced to save us and nullify their (Rome's) decrees. This saying [of Rabbi Yishmael, that the Rabbis should have made a decree that no one could get married,] would wipe out the children of Avraham, our father, and since this is impossible (for G-D to let the children of Avraham to be wiped out) G-D would have been forced to nullify the decrees (of Rome). However, no such decree (that no one can get married) was made because the majority of the congregation (of Jews) would not have been able to handle such a decree and they would have had children through forbidden acts. Therefore, the children of Avraham would not have been wiped out (because there would be people procreating through forbidden acts) and the decree (that no one should get married) would not help (to force G-D to nullify the decrees of Rome).  

Now, with this idea in mind, we can answer up what Amram was thinking. The Chasam Sofer continues:

This is what Amram's intention was as well. He thought that if he and all of Israel divorced their wives then there would be no children and G-D would be forced to save them and nullify Pharoh's evil decree (that all males should be killed). However, when he divorced his wife only the RIGHTEOUS (This is why that one word is important) Jews divorced their wives, but other Jews kept their wives [and kept procreating.] Therefore, the evil [that Amram was bringing on the congregation] was double because he caused the RIGHTEOUS people's children to be wiped out, but Avraham's children were still being perpetuated [through the none righteous Jews and,] therefore, it would not force G-D to nullify the decrees [of Pharoh.] This is why Miriam told him that his decree was worse than Pharoh's. 

I think this explanation of the Chasam Sofer is excellent. Without it we are left with an Amram that makes no sense. He acts selfishly and msiguided and it takes his daughter to turn him around. However, with the Chasam Sofer's explanation Amram has great intentions with a righteous plan. Miriam merely points out that his plan is not working.

There are two other aspects that the Chasam Sofer shows us here as well. The first is interesting and the second is obvious. The first is that the Rabbis CAN NOT make decrees that they know the congregation will not be able to follow. This is why it is so important to find Rabbis that are not just great Torah scholars, but they also must understand the Jewish people. If they are distant and removed, no matter how great a Torah scholar they are, they can not lead the congregation.

The second point is something that people have always told me one is not allowed to do, but here the Chasam Sofer does it with ease. The Gemara gives the explanation (in Sotah 12b) for Miriam's statement of why Amram's decree is harsher than Pharoh's, because it ceases the procreation of girls and boys. However, The Chasam Sofer says the reason it is harsher is because it caused the righteous not to procreate, but allowed the unrighteous to procreate. If a person sees a possible explanation of the Torah that teaches a valuable lesson, that lesson should be taught even if it is not the explanation in the Gemara (This is done by almost every Rishon and Achron as well as many modern commentators). The Chasam Sofer is teaching us that people should not be unjustly punished. A righteous person does not deserve to be punished while a wicked person is rewarded. If the Rabbis want to make a decree, they need to make sure that decree does not punish the righteous and reward the wicked.

How the Torah and the Rabbis Teach Us to Treat Our Wives

This week's Parsha, Lech Licha, has an absolutely MIND BOGGLING discussion between Avraham and Sarah. The verses state (Genesis 12:11-13):

יא. וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר הִקְרִיב לָבוֹא מִצְרָיְמָה וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל שָׂרַי אִשְׁתּוֹ הִנֵּה נָא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אִשָּׁה יְפַת מַרְאֶה אָתְּ:
11. Now it came to pass when he drew near to come to Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, "Behold now I know that you are a woman of fair appearance.
יב. וְהָיָה כִּי יִרְאוּ אֹתָךְ הַמִּצְרִים וְאָמְרוּ אִשְׁתּוֹ זֹאת וְהָרְגוּ אֹתִי וְאֹתָךְ יְחַיּוּ:
12. And it will come to pass when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, 'This is his wife,' and they will slay me and let you live.
יג. אִמְרִי נָא אֲחֹתִי אָתְּ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לִי בַעֲבוּרֵךְ וְחָיְתָה נַפְשִׁי בִּגְלָלֵךְ:
13. Please say [that] you are my sister, in order that it go well with me because of you, and that my soul may live because of you."

Avraham is basically asking his wife to pretend to be his sister. Let's think about what that means. Well, the argument here is that since they will kill Avraham and take Sarah anyways, why not pretend Avraham is her brother and, because she is going to be courted by other men, he will benefit from her. That sounds like a strange request. However, it is a pekuach nefesh (life endangering) situation so Avraham was probably justified in this request especially since, as her brother, Avraham could protect her to some extent and she would not be "forced" into anything. The Egyptians, apparently, would try to honor him into allowing one of them to be with Sarah. However, if Avraham descended into Egypt as her husband they would have just killed him and raped her. This is, seemingly, the way Avraham was thinking. 

The mind boggling thing here is that he was pleading with Sarah to allow him to carry out his plan. This seems counter to the way society was run up until more modern times. Even in Rome, a "civilized" society, the law was a man could do whatever he wanted to do to his family, kill them, beat them and so on. The fact that Avraham would not carry out his plan without Sarah's go ahead speaks mountains of his character. The truth is that even if Avraham had not consulted with Sarah he could have just told the Egyptians that she was his sister and whatever she said would be worthless. Why would the Egyptians kill him if he said she was his sister regardless of what she said? However, Avraham cared what Sarah had to say and would only carry out his plan if she gave the go ahead. This is a very different attitude towards women than that of most ancient civilizations. In fact, it was only very recently (1920 in the United States and no earlier than 1881 in the Isle of Man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage) that women were allowed to vote in elections. 


However, this appreciation for a wife was not lost on Avraham. A good example of this value is found in the Gemorah on 59a in Babba Metzeia. It states, "R. Helbo said: One must always observe the honour due to his wife, because blessings rest on a man's home only on account of his wife, for it is written (Genesis 12:16), 'And he treated Abram well for her sake.' And thus did Rava say to the townspeople of Mahuza, Honour your wives, that ye may be enriched."


Also, the Rambam says in the Laws of Women (15:19):
וכן צוו חכמים שיהא אדם מכבד את אשתו יותר מגופו ואוהבה כגופו. ואם יש לו ממון מרבה בטובתה כפי ממונו. ולא יטיל עליה אימה יתירה ויהיה דבורו עמה בנחת ולא יהיה עצב ולא רגזן:
"So too, the Rabbis commanded that a man should honor his wife more than himself and love her like himself. If he has money, then he should increase his goodness towards her according to how much money he has. He should not place upon her a lot of fear, he should speak to her soothingly, he should not cause her grief and he should not be ill-tempered with her."

We find in Judaism that throughout our existence as a people we have always held the value of respect for women no matter what the situation. Avraham did not speak to Sarah with haste or with an ill-temper even though he was fearful FOR HIS LIFE. Rambam tells us that we MUST speak to our wives in a soothing nature and without causing grief no matter the situation, rather we must look at Avraham as an example for how to treat our wives.


I think it is quit obvious why the Torah points out that Avraham treated Sarah with respect and the Rabbis specifically tell us a man must honor his wife, because the societies that they were surrounded by did not do this. The Midianites treated their women like weapons, using them as tools to fight the Jewish people by sending them to have illicit relations with them. The Egyptians would take women against their will, as pointed out in this week's Parsha. In the time of the Gemorah, the Romans would allow a husband to KILL his wife without batting an eyelash. The Rambam lived in a Muslim society and, although he was influenced to some degree, seemingly kept this Jewish value of honoring your wife more than yourself.

Unfortunately, there are some Jewish men that do not honor this Jewish value. However, they are the few outliers and transgressors of this Jewish law. The Torah explicitly teaches us that a man must honor his wife and the Rabbis reinforce this idea. Avraham and Sarah were equal partners and, we can see from this story, he consulted with her for her opinion.

Avraham and Sarah had a very trying life together. They were tested over and over. However, they were able to make it work because they were in it together and respected each others ideas and truly loved one another. Their life together is one to be emulated.

Thoughts On Tisha BiAv

Tonight starts the fast of Tisha BiAv. The culmination of the three weeks (if you don't hold of the three weeks then the nine days). The past three weeks (or nine days) have been a period of mourning. Why? Supposedly, on Shiva Asar Bitamuz (the 17th of the month of Taamuz) the walls of Jerusalem were breached and then the temple was destroyed on Tisha BiAv (The 9th of the month of Av). There are other reasons stated in the Gemora and other places, but this is the most publicized (and I think the most reasonable reason to mourn for). Any other reason stated for this fast and period of mourning other than the destruction of the Temple does not make sense to me. There have been so many tragedies throughout the years that Judaism has existed, why would we choose to mourn some over others? The reason we mourn the Temple, even today, is because it represents the pinnacle of Jewish worship of G-D. Therefore, if we are going to mourn something throughout the generations let it be the destruction of the Temple. For, when it is rebuilt we will again be a "complete" nation.

Also, commemorating different horrific acts against Jews throughout the years would create fast days on every day of the year, so that is not a plausible commemoration. True, we are saddened that so many Jews were killed throughout the generations and our holy scriptures were defiled, but to mourn these events on separate days is untenable. That is why Tisha BiAv is supposed to commemorate all Jewish tragedies. (Why there are other fast days and days of mourning throughout the year, I do not understand, except for Yom Kippur because it is not a day of mourning).  Indeed, these commemorations must be in tangent with Tisha BiAv in order for them to have true meaning. Why? Because what was the reason these people were killed? What was the reason they were hated and their holy books were burned? It was simply because they were Jewish. And, what is the greatest symbol and idea in Judaism? It is the worship in the Temple that represents a Jew's connection to G-D. This idea is stated most clearly in the Midrash Tanchuma (Matos 3):

Moshe told G-D, "If the Jewish people were uncircumcised, idol worshipers, or deniers of the commandments then the Midianites would not hate us (the Jewish people) and they would not run after us. It is specifically because we (the Jewish people) follow your Torah [that they hate us and try to kill us]. Therefore, it is not a "revenge" for us, but for You (G-D)." 

The Jewish people mourn Tisha BiAv because it reminds us that we are removed from G-D and we were spread throughout the nations of the world. Subsequent to that, the nations of the world then killed us, oppressed us and detroyed what we held dear. It is the principle of cause and effect, the Temple was destroyed and thereby other tragedies befell us. Therefore, we mourn, in order to remember the cause and, along with the cause, everything that was an effect of that cause.

Personally, it is very hard for me to relate to Tisha BiAv. Fasting does nothing but make me angry. I can not contemplate the past on an empty stomach, nor can I appreciate all the tragedies that befell my people. All I can focus on is my hunger and my headache. This is especially true when I have to go to school or work on Tisha BiAv. How, then, am I supposed to make Tisha BiAv meaningful? Is it by reading Kinnos that talk about tragedies that I am disconnected from? Is it by listening to Eicha which is written in a language that is difficult for me to understand? I am unsure how this day is supposed to help me remember and commemorate all the tragedies that have befallen my people.

I personally believe that one of the most important things one can do is commemorate the past. Holidays, days of mourning, and just learning history is probably one of the most important things. This is why, I believe, the Torah and many books in Neviim (prophets) and Kesubim (writings) are written in a way that tells the story of Jewish heritage. A person can not understand what they need to do in the future if they do not know what has been done in the past. The Torah is there to teach us life lessons in order that we learn how to act and how not to act. The main argument I would give for this idea is that the Torah could have just been written as a book of laws, like the code of Hammurabi, and the other books could have been written like a mussar sefer, like Mesilas Yesharim, or some other format. This idea is why I find it so necessary (and why the Rabbis instituted the idea) to mourn and commemorate the past.

However, I still do not understand how mourning has anything to do with fasting. Fasting, to me, seems like it is either to inflict pain on oneself or to attempt to grab at a higher "spiritual" position, like we do on Yom Kippur. Why do we fast if the point is commemoration and mourning? Does the person in a house of mourning fast after their relative has past away? (No, in case you were wondering.)

It seems to me that the point of Tisha BiAv is not just to mourn for the Temple, but an attempt to request that G-D allow us to rebuild the Temple. For we can see in many places like in Esther 4:3 it says:

ג  וּבְכָל-מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה, מְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר דְּבַר-הַמֶּלֶךְ וְדָתוֹ מַגִּיעַ--אֵבֶל גָּדוֹל לַיְּהוּדִים, וְצוֹם וּבְכִי וּמִסְפֵּד; שַׂק וָאֵפֶר, יֻצַּע לָרַבִּים.

3 And in every province, where ever the king's commandment and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, and weeping, and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes.

What was the point of fasting, weeping and wailing? I think it is clear from the Gemora in Gittin why someone would fast (56a):

For R. Zadok observed fasts for forty years in order that Jerusalem might not be destroyed

The idea behind fasting has nothing to do with commemoration. The idea behind fasting is that we are requesting from G-D that He observe our desire for something to happen. By Megilas Esther the Jewish people were requesting that G-D save them from death and by the Gemora in Gittin Rav Tzadok was requesting that Jerusalem not be destroyed. On Tisha BiAv why is there a national fast day? Is it solely because we are mourning? NO! It is because it is a national day for us to request G-D's help and compel Him (as if that were possible) to allow us to rebuild or for Him to rebuild the Temple.


The day of Tisha BiAv has a two-fold meaning, remembrance AND requesting. This is what we should take into the day of Tisha BiAv, we are not just supposed to be sad, we are supposed to be requesting the rebuilding of the TEMPLE. One who focuses on just the sadness of the day misses an extraordinary opportunity at supplication of G-D. We are not supposed to do other things than focus on tragedy and the destruction of the Temple for two reasons: 1) We are supposed to commemorate our loses, but 2) We are supposed to be requesting the rebuilding of the Temple.

Hopefully, this will be the year that our prayers and fasting will be recognized in such a way that it will lead to a rebuilding of the Temple. I hope that G-D will act in a similar manner to these verses (Shemos 2:23-25):

כג  וַיְהִי בַיָּמִים הָרַבִּים הָהֵם, וַיָּמָת מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם, וַיֵּאָנְחוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן-הָעֲבֹדָה, וַיִּזְעָקוּ; וַתַּעַל שַׁוְעָתָם אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים, מִן-הָעֲבֹדָה.	23 And it came to pass in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died; and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage.
כד  וַיִּשְׁמַע אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-נַאֲקָתָם; וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּרִיתוֹ, אֶת-אַבְרָהָם אֶת-יִצְחָק וְאֶת-יַעֲקֹב.	24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.
כה  וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיֵּדַע, אֱלֹהִים.  {ס}	25 And God saw the children of Israel, and God took cognizance of them.

How Different Were the Rambam and the Maharal

The Rambam (Maimonides) is known as the Paradigm of rationalistic Judaism. Whenever someone wants to show how rational Judaism is they often find themselves quoting the Rambam. On the other hand, the Maharal is the champion of the non-rationalistic (mystic) approach to Judaism. One will often hear a Gemora, that sounds absurd, explained allegorically due to the Maharal's approach. Also, the fact that Maharal believed in Astrology, demons and other mystical creatures and devices, while the Rambam denied their reality, separates these two great thinkers. However, after reading the Rambam's "Introduction to the Chapter of Chelek" I see that these two Torah giants, that are on the opposite sides of the rational vs non-rational argument, had a very similar approach to understanding Aggadita in the Gemora.

First let's hear what Maharal says (found here):

Be'eir haGolah #4 (p 51), translation R' Mordechai Becher, posted to
V15n9 by RGSeif:

Now you will see that most of the words of the Sages were in the form of metaphor and the analogies of the wise... unless they state that a particular story is not a metaphor, it should be assumed that it is a metaphor. The matters of great depth were generally expressed by the Sages using metaphors, and should be understood as metaphors unless they are explicitly indicated to be taken literally. And therefore one should not be surprised to find matters in the words of the Sages that appear to be illogical and distant from the mind. (Berachot 61a:The evil inclination looks like a fly)

So the Maharal explains Aggadita Gemoras, as a general rule, as allegories and metaphors. This is what one would expect from a non-rationalist, because he is trying to show how the Sages were never wrong. Therefore, anything they say that can be misconstrued or misinterpreted as the Sages being wrong is changed into an allegory in order to show they had a deeper meaning and thereby they are saved the embarrassment of being proven inept. However, wouldn't we assume that a rationalistic approach would be to assume that the Sages made incorrect statements?

This does, in fact, seem to be the view of the Rambam and his son, Rav Avraham. From Rav Avraham's Essay on Aggadita (Found Here):

To begin with, let me point out that if a person puts forward a certain theory without offering proof, expecting people to accept it at face value just because they respect him, he is sadly mistaken; his approach flies in the face of both the Torah and common sense. It goes against common sense, because he wants people to believe something without evaluating and investigating whether it squares with the facts. And it runs counter to the Torah, because it goes against the truth and is unethical. The Torah [tells us not to curry favor with anyone], saying [to a judge], "Do not give special consideration to the poor, nor show respect to the great" (Leviticus 19:15). And it says also, "Do not give anyone special consideration when rendering judgment" (Deuteronomy 1:17). And there is no difference between a person who believes an idea without supporting evidence and one who trusts a person's statement simply because he respects him and holds that it must be true since it comes from a great scholar. This does not prove that the statement is true.
Accordingly, we are not required to endorse all the theories of the Sages of the Talmud on medicine, physics, and astronomy in every respect just because we know the authors to be outstanding personalities and eminent scholars in all facets of the Torah. Of course, when it comes to Torah knowledge, the scholarship of the Sages is unsurpassed, and it is their responsibility to teach it to us, as it says, "You must keep the Torah as they interpret it for you" (Deuteronomy 17:11), but this does not necessarily apply to all other branches of knowledge. You can see that even the Sages themselves when faced with an issue that could not be proven by debate and logical arguments, said, "I swear, that even if Joshua b. Nun had said it, I would not have obeyed him!" (Berachot 24b)3Which means, "I would not believe him although he was a prophet, since he cannot prove his point by the talmudical rules of logical argument."
Let me offer you one conclusive proof that no one will refute. It is this: We find that the Sages themselves said that the opinions expressed in the Gemara with regard to general medicine are not borne out, like for instance when the Gemara says that wearing a "preserving stone" is a safeguard against miscarriage, or other things mentioned in tractate Shabbat. They tested these remedies and found them not to have any therapeutic value.

 Also, the Rambam himself speaks of the Sage's ability to make mistakes in scientific matters. He says (The Guide for the perplexed 3:14 found here):

You must, however, not expect that everything our Sages say respecting astronomical matters should agree with observation, for mathematics were not fully developed in those days: and their statements were not based on the authority of the Prophets, but on the knowledge which they either themselves possessed or derived from contemporary men of science.

So we see that Rav Avraham and his father, the Rambam, admit that the Sages could err in non-Torah related areas. However, this does not mean that we are supposed to understand their Aggadita Gemoras (non-halachic) in a literal fashion. For Rav Avraham also says in his introduction (Essay on Aggadita):

It is important to understand that the homiletic expositions and stories in the Talmud have underlying meanings that are shrouded in secrecy, and most of the commentators did not even attempt to probe their deeper meaning.

.... If you follow my guidelines in understanding the aggadic teachings of the Sages, you will come to grasp their deeper meaning, and, as a result, you will not make light of them or deny that they are true. Neither will you fall into the trap of thinking that the miracles that happened to the Sages are as momentous as those that happened to Moses and Israel at the parting of the Red Sea, or as remarkable as the parting of the Jordan for Elisha and Elijah. Such misconceptions arise when you take the derash (i.e., homiletic interpretations) literally and accept only the surface meaning of the text. But there is abundant evidence to show that the aggadic tales and teachings, aside from their plain meaning, have profound hidden significance.

The Rambam also discusses this idea in a few places. First, the Rambam says later on in the same chapter of The Guide quoted above (3:14):

But I will not on that account denounce what they say correctly in accordance with real fact, as untrue or accidentally true. On the contrary, whenever the words of a person can be interpreted in such a manner that they agree with fully established facts, it is the duty of every educated and honest man to do so.

The Rambam is pointing out here that in every instance that we CAN interpret the Sages to be in congruence with the facts, we should. This idea is even more explicitly discussed in the Rambam's introduction to Perek Chelek (The 10th chapter of Mishnayos Sanhedrin and Talmud Yerushalmi and the 11th chapter in Talmud bavli). The Rambam discusses three groups of people that interpret the Sages words on Aggadita (non-Halachic discussions):

What you need to know, with regard to matters pertaining to the words of the Sages (May they be remembered for blessings), is that there are three groups of people (who interpret their words).

1) The first group, and it is the majority of what I have seen [in the sense] that I have seen their books or I have heard about what they say from others, [is made up of people] that interpret the Sages based on their simple reading and they do not believe the sages have a hidden meaning in any way. [The people in this group believe] that the impossible things the Sages say are obligatory for existence. Indeed, these people [interpret the sages this way] because they do not understand the Sciences and they are far from understanding [deeper meanings]. There are none among them that are men of integrity that can realize this by themselves (that some of the words of the sages are similes and therefore the message is the main point and not the simple meaning) and there is no one that points this out to them. The [people of this first group] hold that the Sages, may they be remembered for blessings, with all their righteous and sweet words only intended what could be understood according to their (the people of this first group) knowledge, which is the simple (vulgar) reading. [They believe this] even though some [of the Sages words (understood according to the simple meaning)] lead to slander against the Sages and they (the words) appear to be far from intelligent [so much so that] if they were read and explained according to their simple and vulgar meaning to a regular person, even more so to a wise person, the [regular person or wise person] would be in wonderment of how [anyone could think this] and they would say, "How could it be that there is a man in the world that thinks like this?!?! Also, [how could it be] that anyone thinks this is an acceptable belief and even more so that it is a proper belief?"

This is the group (the First group) that has a lack in knowledge that troubles themselves with their foolishness because they honor and glorify the Sages, according to their(this First group) understanding, [but really] they denigrate the [Sages] without understanding them. By the life of G-D (A serious exclamation)! This group destroys the beauty of the Torah and darkens its radiance and they are assigning to the Torah of G-D the opposite of what it is intended to be. For G-D said regarding the Perfect Torah (Devarim 4:6), "[The nations of the world] shall hear all of these decrees and say 'Surely this is a wise and discerning people, a great nation!'" However, this group tells over the literal words (not according to the allegory and true meaning) of our Sages, may they be remembered for blessings, that when other nations hear these words they say, "Only a nation of fools and rascals that is a puny nation [would say this]."

The majority of the time this is what is occurring with the interpreters [from this group]: They are explaining and making known to the greater nation [ideas] which they do not know (causing them to distort these ideas of the Sages). Who would grant [the people from this group], since they do not know or understand, that they should be silent[, that would be Wise for them]. In the same manner that it says [in Iyov 13:5,] "Who would grant that you fall utterly silent; that would be a wise thing for you!" Or they should say, "We do not understand the intentions of the Sages in this case, and we do not know how to explain it." However, they think that they understand it and try to make known and explain it to the nation according to their weak mental [abilities]- they do not explain what the Sages actually said. They preach at the head of the nation [their understanding of] tractate Brachos and Perek Chelek and other things according to the literal understanding, word for word. (Translation and elucidation provided by me, E-man)

I will translate the rest later, but for our point I think it is clear what the Rambam is saying. We must understand the words of the Sages, when they seem contrary to the truth, in an allegorical and metaphorical way when possible. The Sages, in Aggadita, were trying to teach us deeper meanings and the simple reading of their words is worthless. Not just worthless, but detrimental! The Rambam insists that we understand the words of the Sages in a deeper way and not make them seem unintelligent.

This view of the Rambam seems to make him almost in the camp of the Maharal. Both believe that the words of the Sages have a deeper meaning and excluding that deeper meaning is an incorrect way to learn Aggadita. The only thing that separates the Rambam and Maharal is to what extent the Rabbis sayings were to be made into allegories. The Rambam and his son, as we have shown above, believe that the Sages were incorrect in believing in the power of astrology and other mystical types of things. However, the Maharal believes that astrology and other mystical things, like Sheidim, do actually exist.

Therefore, the Maharal and Rambam agree on most things in the Gemora, when the Sages say something that seems untenable, we must try to understand the deeper meaning in their words. Where the Maharal and Rambam seem to differ is, basically, their own views on certain laws of science. The Maharal believed in Mysticism and, therefore, did not need to make the Sages words into allegory only type of Gemoras, whereas, the Rambam would have to make these Gemoras into allegories or individual opinions of Sages.

However, whether you are a rationalist like the Rambam or a mystic like the Maharal, it seems like no one would condone a simple literalistic interpretation of the untenable Gemoras unless it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain otherwise. Only then is one to claim, according to the Rambam, that this Gemora is a Daas Yachid (individual opinion that we do not hold like). The Maharal says that the words of the Sages should be understood as metaphors "unless they state that a particular story is not a metaphor." Showing that there are practically no Aggadita Gemoras that one can assume are literal. The Rambam also says (In Perek Chelek while dealing with the third group, the right way to understand the Sages), "Everything the Sages say that are impossible we should understand them as speaking through the language of puzzles and parables."

However, there are some Gemora's that the Rambam finds impossible to explain as parables and is willing to agree that there are a few beliefs found in the Sages that are false. However, he explains that these beliefs are not communal beliefs by the Sages. When there are beliefs that the Sages have that contradict logic and reality AND they are impossible to relate through allegories or metaphors THEN the Rambam ascribes those beliefs to a minority opinion in the Sages. As the Rambam says in his letter on astrology (found here):

I know that you may search and find sayings of some individual sages in the Talmud and Midrashim whose words appear to maintain that at the moment of a man's birth, the stars will cause such and such to happen to him. Do not regard this as a difficulty, for it is not fitting for a man to abandon the prevailing law and raise once again the counterarguments and replies (that preceded its enactment). Similarly it is not proper to abandon matters of reason that have already been verified by proofs, shake loose of them, and depend on the words of a single one of the sages from whom possibly the matter was hidden. Or there may be an allusion in those words; or they may have been said with a view to the times and the business before him. (You surely know how many of the verses of the holy Law are not to be taken literally. Since it is known through proofs of reason that it is impossible for the thing to be literally so, the translator [of the Aramaic Targum] rendered it in a form that reason will abide. ) A man should never cast his reason behind him, for the eyes are set in front, not in back...

What we see from here is that the Rambam seems almost identical to the Maharal in his understanding of difficult statements by the Sages. It seems that whether you are a rationalist or a non-rationalist, the simple meanings of the Sages does not reveal a real difficulty in the Sages as a whole. As a whole, the Sages were never wrong, according to the Rambam and the Maharal. However, there were some Sages that, individually, were incorrect in their understanding of some sciences. This would also explain why the Rambam and his son seem to ascribe misinformation to the Sages. They mean that there are som INDIVIDUAL Sages that err and believe in the power of astrology and other mystical things.

As stated above, it seems like the Rambam and Maharal do not differ in HOW to read the Gemora. Rather they argue on scientific fact. The Maharal believes in mysticism and, therefore, believes the Sages also believed in mysticism and finds no reason to relate these teachings of the Sages as allegories. The Rambam disagrees about mysticism and, therefore, he DOES relate these statements of the Sages as allegories.

Rambam's View of Sheidim(demons) In the Gemora

(Some Updates and revisions have been added)
Over at Rationalist Judaism there was a very interesting discussion about Chazal's (the Rabbis of the Gemora) beliefs, specifically about Sheidim (demons), and whether the Rambam was representing what Chazal believed or whether he "argued" with them. Josh Waxman over on Parshablog took the Gemora that I brought over in the comments on Rationalist Judaism and argued with my interpretation of the Gemora. What I would like to do is show how the Rambam's approach to Sheidim (demons), Astrology and other magical things that are mentioned in the Gemora is consistent with at least some opinions in Chazal.

First, we must analyze what it is that the Rambam believes. I would like to suggest two different ideas that the Rambam is likely to use when confronting a Gemora that seems to be non-rational, aka it seems to be acknowledging the existence of magic, demons or astrology. The Rambam states in his famous letter on astrology that can be found here in translated form (By Isadore Twersky):

The summary of the matter is that our mind cannot grasp how the decrees of the Holy One, blessed be He, work upon human beings in this world and in the world to come. What we have said about this from the beginning is that the entire position of the star gazers is regarded as a falsehood by all men of science. I know that you may search and find sayings of some individual sages in the Talmud and Midrashim whose words appear to maintain that at the moment of a man's birth, the stars will cause such and such to happen to him. Do not regard this as a difficulty, for it is not fitting for a man to abandon the prevailing law and raise once again the counterarguments and replies (that preceded its enactment). Similarly it is not proper to abandon matters of reason that have already been verified by proofs, shake loose of them, and depend on the words of a single one of the sages from whom possibly the matter was hidden. Or there may be an allusion in those words; or they may have been said with a view to the times and the business before him. (You surely know how many of the verses of the holy Law are not to be taken literally. Since it is known through proofs of reason that it is impossible for the thing to be literally so, the translator [of the Aramaic Targum] rendered it in a form that reason will abide. ) A man should never cast his reason behind him, for the eyes are set in front, not in back...

The Rambam seems to be of the opinion that any Gemora that seems to understand that magic, astrology or demons (mystical demons) are real is a daas yachid (lone opinion) that was unaware of the truth in these matters, or perhaps there is another way to explain these Gemoras as not being a problem. This other reason is most clearly explained by the Rambam's son, Avraham ben HaRambam. He says in reference to aggadita (story, as opposed to halachic) gemoras (found here):

The second part of the stories consists of such stories as did not a[c]tually occur but were seen in dreams; they speak of them as real stories, because they believed that no thoughtful man would ever mistake them for real facts; as the one (Vol. I, 24.)We are taught (in a Baraitha) R. Ishmael said: “Once upon entering the holy of holies, to prepare incense, I noticed etc.,” and many other similar stories. And the same is true regarding certain stories in which are mentioned the visions of the prophets, how G-d spoke to them, and also the stories of demons. The thoughtless observer who, for the sake of believing, thinks that these things occurred exactly as stated though the facts are contrary to common sense, in doing so, is both foolish and ignorant of the laws of nature. (Introduction to the Agada, Abraham son of Moses Maimonides, translated by Rabbi S. H. Glick in the preface of Volume 1 of his translation of “En Jacob” page XIV).

These stories that go against logic are to be explained as allegories or dreams. Thereby, we have two different ways the Rambam can understand a Gemora, either it was written by a lone opinion (Daas Yachid) or it is meant as an allegory.

To further reinforce our knowledge that the Rambam did not believe in magic, astrology or mystical demons we must turn to the Mishna Torah in the Laws of Idol Worship (11:16):

All these matters [i.e. necromancy, enchantment, et cetera] are all matters of falsehood and deceit, and it was with these that the early idolaters made the other [non-idolatrous] gentiles deviate and follow them. It is not fitting for Jews, who are the cleverest of the clever, to use such nonsense, or even to think that they are of any use, for it is written, "Surely there is no enchantment in Jacob, or divination in Israel" (Bamidbar 23:23), and it is also written, "For these nations, whom you shall dispossess, listen to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so" (Devarim 18:14). Anyone who believes in these or similar things and privately thinks that they are true and wise, but that [we don't practice them because] the Torah forbade them, is a fool and lacks knowledge, and is in the category of women and children, who are lacking in knowledge. But those people who are wise and of a perfect mentality know very clearly that all these things that the Torah forbade are not wise, but are merely stuff and nonsense which those lacking in knowledge follow and because of which abandon the ways of truth. Because of this, when warning us against these nonsenses, the Torah says, "You shall be perfect with the Lord your God". (Devarim 18:13)

The Rambam makes a pretty intense stance against any type of mysticism. He believes they are all illusions and falsehoods with no power. Also, the Rambam believes this to be the position of the Torah and that of Chazal (the Sages). There are many answers that are needed for several Gemoras. However, I would like to focus solely on Sheidim for now. Perhaps at a later date I will deal with Gemoras on astrology, magic and other such things, but for now I would like to narrow the Explanation to Sheidim (demons) that are found in the Gemora.

In order to do this, it is imperative that we understand what the Rambam's view of Sheidim (demons) is so that we can explain it. Luckily, the Rambam talks about this in the Moreh Nevuchim (The Guide for the Perplexed 1:7):

As regards the words, "the form of Adam, and his likeness," we have already stated (ch. i.) their meaning. Those sons of Adam who were born before that time were not human in the true sense of the word, they had not "the form of man." With reference to Seth who had been instructed, enlightened and brought to human perfection, it could rightly be said, "he (Adam) begat a son in his likeness, in his form." It is acknowledged that a man who does not possess this "form" (the nature of which has just been explained) is not human, but a mere animal in human shape and form. Yet such a creature has the power of causing harm and injury, a power which does not belong to other creatures. For those gifts of intelligence and judgment with which he has been endowed for the purpose of acquiring perfection, but which he has failed to apply to their proper aim, are used by him for wicked and mischievous ends; he begets evil things, as though he merely resembled man, or simulated his outward appearance. Such was the condition of those sons of Adam who preceded Seth. In reference to this subject the Midrash says: "During the 130 years when Adam was under rebuke he begat spirits," i.e., demons; when, however, he was again restored to divine favour "he begat in his likeness, in his form." This is the sense of the passage, "Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and he begat in his likeness, in his form" (Gen. v. 3).

The Rambam believes that Sheidim (demons) are regular human beings that are immoral and cause harm to others. This is an important tool for understanding the Gemoras that talk about sheidim (demons) according to the Rambam.

Before entering into the Gemoras let us just sum up what we know up to this point. The Rambam believes that all mystical things are falsehoods. Other than the belief in G-D which is a Mesorah from our forefathers who SAW Him, we trust our senses and scientific evidence above all else. This is not just the opinion of the Rambam, but of most of Chazal (the Sages) as well. If a Gemora seemingly contradicts this it is either allegorical, the opinion of a lone sage that was unaware of the falseness of mysticism, or the Gemora is not being properly understood. Now, let us continue onto the Gemoras.

I think it is most appropriate to bring the Gemorah that the Rambam is dealing with in "The Guide for the Perplexed." The Gemora is found in Eruvin 18b, it says:

R. Jeremiah b. Elazar further stated: In all those years during which Adam was under the ban he begot ghosts and male demons and female demons, for it is said in Scripture: And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years and begot a son in his own likeness, after his own image (Breishis 5:3), from which it follows that until that time he did not beget after his own image. An objection was raised: R. Meir said: Adam was a great saint. When he saw that through him death was ordained as a punishment he spent a hundred and thirty years in fasting, severed connection with his wife for a hundred and thirty years, and wore clothes of fig [leaves] on his body for a hundred and thirty years. (How then could he have begotten children?) — That statement (That Adam begot ghosts, male demons and female demons) was made in reference to the semen which he emitted accidentally.

There is an identical Yalkut Shemoni in Breishis 42 that replaces the name of R. Jeremiah b. Elazar with Rav Elazar ben Ezaria. Now, it would seem like there are two ways to understand this story. Either Rav Meir is coming to argue on Rav Jeremiah and Rav Elazar, or he is coming to explain them. If Rav Meir was coming to argue, then the Rambam makes a lot of sense, Rav Meir is just an opinion that is mistaken because he believed in magic and we do not hold of that. However, if he is coming to explain Rav Elazar and Rav Jeremiah then Rambam has to explain this as allegorical. The best way to explain it would, seemingly, be that Rav Meir is arguing on Rav Jeremiah and Rav Elazar ben Azariah. Rav Meir is holding that these Sheidim came from Adam's accidental semen emissions (non-natural) and Rav Elazar/R. Jeremiah are holding the "Sheidim" are a product of an actual pregnancy (natural). This seems likely because the Gemora brings in the word Meisavay which means Rav Meir is challenging them. (It would seem like Rav Elazar ben Azaria and Rav Jeremiah would hold that maybe Adam did separate for a time, but not necessarily 130 years, that is a bit excessive.)

Still, the Gemora says that Adam and Chava begot Sheidim (demons) even according to Rav Elazar and Rav Jeremiah, so how are we gonna explain that? We already did! The Rambam in "The Guide" that we quoted above says that Sheidim (demons) are real, however, they are not supernatural beings. These demons are just normal men who are wicked and cause harm to others. Therefore, we have a rationalistic approach to the Gemora that excludes magic and mysticism (like Rambam wanted) yet we have a perfectly logical and simple understanding of the Gemora.

Now, for the final idea that I would like to present. There are a series of statements made by Abaye in Chullin 105b that seem to indicate that he was originally taught that Sheidim (demons) do not exist, but then his Master taught him that really there were such a thing as demons. Here is one such example that will also help us with a later Gemora:

Abaye also said: At first I thought the reason why one does not sit under a drain pipe was that there was waste water there, but my Master has told me. It is because demons are to be found there. Certain carriers were once carrying a barrel of wine. Wishing to take a rest they put it down under a drain pipe, whereupon the barrel burst, so they came to Mar son of R. Ashi. He brought forth trumpets and exorcised the demon who now stood before him. Said he to the devil, ‘Why did you do such a thing?’ He replied. ‘What else could I do, seeing that they put it down on my ear’? The other [Mar son Of R. Ashi] retorted: ‘What business had you in a public place? It is you that are in the wrong, you must therefore pay for the damage’. Said the devil, ‘Will the Master give me a time wherein to pay’? A date was fixed. When the day arrived he defaulted. He came to court and [Mar b. R. Ashi] said to him, ‘Why did you not keep your time?’ He replied. ‘We have no right to take away anything that is tied up sealed, measured or counted; but only if we find something that has been abandoned’.

For some reason Abaye thought that Sheidim (demons) did not exist, but once his Master told him about them then his original thinking was out the door. Who was this Master? It was none other than his adoptive father Rabbah bar Nachmani. As Rashi tells us in Shabbos 22a (DH Kol Milay Dimar): This refers to Rabbah Bar Nachmani. So we see that Abaye only started believing in Sheidim(demons) after Rabbah bar Nachmani told him about it. There are several instances of this on the page in Chullin 105a, but I am just bringing in one example.

Let us note that Rav Yosef was the head of the academy at Pumedisa, where Abaye learned and he later became the head of the Academy after Rav Yosef. Rabbah bar Nachmani was Rav Yosef's famous bar plugta (debater). As noted in Sanhedrin 17b, they were both at the academy in Pumbedisa and were famous for being bar plugtas, always arguing. This is important to have in mind because we are about to show how Rabba bar Nachmani believed in mystical Sheidim (demons) and Rav Yosef can be understood to not believe in them. Therefore, Abaye was originally taught like Rav Yosef, but when he was done learning from Rav Yosef, Rabbah started teaching him about demons.

If we make this conjecture then we can explain the following two Gemoras in a very appropriate way according to the Rambam. There is a Gemora in Baba Kama that discuses an abandoned house that most commentaries explain to be talking about a Sheid (demon). It says (Baba Kama 21a) :

R. Sehorah slated that R. Huna quoting Rab had said: He who occupies his neighbour's premises without having any agreement with him is under no legal obligation to pay him rent, for Scripture says, Through emptiness(ושאיה) even the gate gets smitten.(Yishayahu 24:12) Mar, son of R. Ashi, remarked: I myself have seen such a thing and the damage was as great as though done by a goring ox (Better translation is- "I saw it and it was like a goring ox") and. R. Joseph said: Premises that are inhabited by tenants keep in a better condition. What however is the [practical] difference between them? — There is a difference between them in the case where the owner was using the premises for keeping there wood and straw.

This seems like a perfectly harmless Gemora, no mention of Sheidim (demons) at all. However, Rashi (and several other Rishonim) here and on page 97a explains that שאיה is the name of a Sheid (demon). So what is going on here? R. Sehorah is telling us that a person dwelling in a house keeps the demon Shaya away and Rav Yosef argues and says there are no demons, rather a person who lives in a house fixes the problems that arise. Also, Mar bar Rav Ashi says that he SAW this Sheid damaging and it was like a goring ox (the translation from Soncino has something to be desired). This makes perfect sense because, as we showed earlier, Mar bar Rav Ashi believes in Sheidim (demons) so much so that in Chullin 105b he was the one who exorcised a demon! So, it seems like we have Rav Sehorah and Mar bar Rav Ashi on the side that Sheidim exist and it is Sheidim that damage the house and on the other side we have Rav Yosef who, seemingly, does not believe in Sheidim and therefore concludes that the benefit here is that a person will fix the broken parts in a house.

So far, we have been able to use the Rambam's principles perfectly to explain these Gemoras. However, there is a Gemora in Pesachim 110a that appears to show that Rav Yosef believes in Sheidim (demons). It says there:

R. Joseph said: The demon Joseph told me [that] Ashmedai the king of the demons is appointed over all pairs.’ and a king is not designated a harmful spirit. Others explain it in the opposite sense: On the contrary, a king is quick-tempered [and] does whatever he wishes, for a king can break through a wall to make a pathway for himself and none may stay him.

Here, it appears to be saying that Rav Yosef is talking to a demon about demon issues. However, if we take a closer look, the Rambam tells us that sheidim (demons) are really just regular people that are wicked. So, perhaps this demon Joseph was just a wicked person. Also, the subject matter that they were discussing ended up being ambiguous, as seen by the contradiction of whether Ashmedai is a damaging spirit or not. Rav Yosef appears to be trying to show us that there is no clear answer about Sheidim (demons), adding to the idea that they are probably not really mystical.

This is in contrast to Rav Papa, who believes in mystical Sheidim (demons), who comes and argues with Rav Yosef. He says the very next word in the Gemora:

R. Papa said, Joseph the demon told me: For two we kill; for four we do not kill, [but] for four we harm [the drinker]. For two [we hurt] whether [they are drunk] unwittingly or deliberately; for four, only if it is deliberate, but not if it is unwitting. And if a man forgot himself and happened to go out, what is his remedy? Let him take his right-hand thumb in his left hand and his left-hand thumb in his right hand and say thus: ‘Ye [two thumbs] and I, surely that is three! But if he hears one saying, ‘Ye and I, surely that is four!’ let him retort to him, ‘Ye and I are surely five!’ And if he hears one saying, ‘Ye and I are six,’ let him retort to him, ‘Ye and I are seven. This once happened until a hundred and one , and the demon burst [with mortification].

The point of Rav Papa is to counter Rav Yosef's claim that demonology is ambiguous and show that everything is specific. Also, notice that in Rav Yosef's story this Joseph character is talking about some other demon, implying that he himself is not necessarily a demon, while in Rav Papa's story the Joseph character IS talking about himself as a demon. This is just another argument between a believer in mystical demons and someone who does not believe in mystical demons.

This is not an exhaustive list, but a mere peek into what explanations are possible. The Rambam is a very acceptable position and is not something that necessarily goes against Amoraim or Tannaim. Clearly, there is no reason to immediately claim that the Rambam goes against all of his predecessors. As I have said before, Aristotle, who did not believe in anything mystical, lived long before the Rambam, Amoraim and Tannaim. To claim that only mysticism existed in the times of Chazal (the Sages) is to deny plain and simple facts. True, there were probably people among the Sages that believed in mysticism, but there were probably Sages that did not.

The question here is what is the truth and what is the myth that crept in? When the Torah was given was there mystical Sheidim (demons) that had supernatural powers and Greek Hellenism effected some of the Sages and caused them to err? Or perhaps the opposite is true and the Persian/Babylonian Mysticism corrupted some of our Sages.

All we know for sure is that nowadays it seems like these things do not exist and that is all we can be certain of. However, the Rambam has definitely not corrupted the Mesorah in this situation.