The Rambam continues his discussion of the differences between Maaseh Merkavah and Maaseh Breishis (Metaphysics and Physics). He says,
ומה בין ענין מעשה מרכבה לענין מעשה בראשית. שענין מעשה מרכבה אפילו לאחד אין דורשים בו אא"כ היה חכם ומבין מדעתו מוסרין לו ראשי הפרקים. וענין מעשה בראשית מלמדין אותו ליחיד אע"פ שאינו מבין אותו מדעתו ומודיעים אותו כל מה שיכול לידע מדברים אלו. ולמה אין מלמדין אותו לרבים. לפי שאין כל אדם יש לו דעת רחבה להשיג פירוש וביאור כל הדברים על בוריין
"What is the difference between the subject of Maaseh Merkavah and the subject of Maaseh Breishis. The subject of Maaseh Merkavah is not allowed to be expounded unless the person is wise and about to undertand through his own knowledge and then, only the basic principles are allowed to be told over. The subject of Maaseh Breishis can be taught one-on-one even though the person can not understand it on their own and it can be made known to this person as much as possible. However, why can't (Maaseh Merkava) be taught to the masses? This is because not every man is equipped with a broad mind to attain the correct understanding of this subject."
The laws of teaching Maaseh Merkavah and Maaseh Breishis can tell us a great deal about their subject matter. The fact that Maaseh merkavah can only be taught to a wise person that can understand the subject matter on his own and the specifics of the subject matter are not allowed to be passed on is very telling. Maaseh Merkavah must contain information that is so complex and difficult to understand that the Rabbis were worried that it could easily be misunderstood. Not only must they have been afraid of this misunderstanding, but also the outcome of this misunderstanding. Therefore, only someone who can figure the subject matter out on their own is allowed to even be told the general ideas found within this category of subjects. This is Metaphysics. Metaphysics is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. In Judaism, this subject is very abstract and has to do with G-D and spirituality. This is why Maaseh Merkavah can not be taught to just anyone, because it has to do with very abstract ideas and some of them are unrelated to the physical world.
Maaseh Breishis is different. It is allowed to be taught to a single disciple no matter who they are. This is because all of Maaseh Breishis is related to the physical world and is practical to a certain degree. However, it is not allowed to be taught to a group in case some people in the group try to interpret the subject matter themselves. It is a difficult subject and it lends itself to misinterpretation. If people learned it in a group then they will come to misunderstand the subject and believe in improper ideas.
These are the reasons why Maaseh Breishis can be taught to anyone, but Maaseh Merkavah must be withheld from the general public. Maaseh Merkavah, even with a proper teacher is so abstract and difficult that not just anyone can learn it. A person who learns this subject, when they are unprepared, is likely to have many problems with the ideas contained within it. However, Maaseh Breishis can be taught to anyone with the proper teacher.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
What Makes Tisha Biav Such a Unique Fast Day?
What exactly is it that we are fasting for on Tisha Biav? It is treated more strictly than any other fast day and has many of the same laws as Yom Kippur, but why is this so?
The Gemorah in Taanis (26B) tells us that there were five tragic events that happened on Tisha Biav. The decree that the Jewish people should wander in the desert and not enter the land was given, The first and second Bais Hamikdashes were destroyed, the city of Beitar was destroyed, and Jerusalem was completely demolished.
These seem like very tragic events, but there can be several questions asked here. 1)Once we entered the land why would we still mourn the fact that our forefathers couldn't enter the land 40 years ago? 2)On the same note, why would we mourn for the first Bais Hamikdash? If we rebuilt the Bais Hamikdash and are mourning over the second Bais Hamikdash, there is no reason to mourn over the first, it was rebuilt. 3)Why are we mourning over a specific city that was destroyed that is not Jerusalem? So many other cities were destroyed and we do not mourn over their destruction. Also, there were many cities that were massacred by Romans, what makes Beitar so unique? 4)Finally, hasn't Jerusalem been rebuilt? Why are we mourning over the destruction of Jerusalem if we own it and have rebuilt it, except for the Bais Hamikdash which we already mourn?
It seems like what we are truly mourning over is potential that is wasted. All five tragedies are cases where Jews have a great potential, but waste it. What we are really mourning over is the fact that we had such great opportunities, but because of our own flaws, we were not able to seize them when we had the chance.
The first occurrence of a wasted opportunity was by the spies in the desert. G-D was ready to give us the land, but because 10 of the spies spoke lashon hora and we listened to it we were forced to wander 40 years in the desert. That was 40 years that could have been spent in Israel worshiping G-D and fulfilling all of the commandments in the Torah. However, because of the sin of the spies we ended up losing Miriam, Aharon, and Moshe before entering the land and we were not able to fulfill all of the commandments in the Torah, since they were not applicable yet.
The next two examples of wasted opportunity were the destruction of the two Bais Hamikdashes. Both of these were destroyed because the Jewish people were violating many commandments. It was because of the neglect of the Torah and commandments that G-D removed His house from being among us. Had we realized how special this house was, before it was too late, then we would still have His house instead of the Dome of the Rock in its place.
The last two tragedies mentioned in the Gemorah are the destruction of the city Beitar and the destruction of Jerusalem. These two events coincided with each other. Both of these tragedies are dependent upon the story of Bar Kochba (Bar Kosiba). Before going into the Bar Kochba story, the background of what was occurring at that time must be given. In the year 130 CE a new emperor, Hadrian, was appointed. He had promised the Jews that he would rebuild Jerusalem for them as a gift. Unfortunately, something happened and he decided that he would build Aelia Capitolina and never allow Jews to enter the city. To build this city Hadrian had the already destroyed city completely razed, including the temple mount area. As if this wasn't enough provocation, he then banned circumcision. In 132 when the Jewish people could no longer take the persecution and the injustice, they rebelled with their leader Bar Kochba.
At first Bar Kochba followed the advice of Rebbe Akiva and his victories were seen as signs that he was the Moshiach (redeemer). Rebbe Akiva himself said that he thought Bar Kochba was the Moshiach. Bar Kochba's success lasted for about 2 and a half years. Unfortunately, something happened and Bar Kochba no longer listened to the advice of Rebbe Akiva. He even made an alliance with the Samaritans! This was, of course, against the advice of Rebbe Akiva. After these events Rabbi Akiva realized that Bar Kochba was not the Moshiach and shortly thereafter in 135 CE Bar Kochba lost Jerusalem and a few months later his stronghold of Beitar was destroyed.
These are the events that we mourn on Tisha Biav, events that show a national waste of opportunity. If the nation did not listen to the Meraglim, they would have gone straight to Israel. If the nation would not have been sinning then the Bais Hamikdashes would not have been destroyed. If the nation would have done real repentance then the Bar Kochba rebellion would have been successful. These are all national failures that lead to national consequences. That is why we are remembering these tragedies, because they show us as a nation that wasted opportunity. These tragedies could have been avoided if we would have just seized the moment and overcome our evil inclinations. This is the lesson we must never forget and this is why Tisha Biav is so important.
The Gemorah in Taanis (26B) tells us that there were five tragic events that happened on Tisha Biav. The decree that the Jewish people should wander in the desert and not enter the land was given, The first and second Bais Hamikdashes were destroyed, the city of Beitar was destroyed, and Jerusalem was completely demolished.
These seem like very tragic events, but there can be several questions asked here. 1)Once we entered the land why would we still mourn the fact that our forefathers couldn't enter the land 40 years ago? 2)On the same note, why would we mourn for the first Bais Hamikdash? If we rebuilt the Bais Hamikdash and are mourning over the second Bais Hamikdash, there is no reason to mourn over the first, it was rebuilt. 3)Why are we mourning over a specific city that was destroyed that is not Jerusalem? So many other cities were destroyed and we do not mourn over their destruction. Also, there were many cities that were massacred by Romans, what makes Beitar so unique? 4)Finally, hasn't Jerusalem been rebuilt? Why are we mourning over the destruction of Jerusalem if we own it and have rebuilt it, except for the Bais Hamikdash which we already mourn?
It seems like what we are truly mourning over is potential that is wasted. All five tragedies are cases where Jews have a great potential, but waste it. What we are really mourning over is the fact that we had such great opportunities, but because of our own flaws, we were not able to seize them when we had the chance.
The first occurrence of a wasted opportunity was by the spies in the desert. G-D was ready to give us the land, but because 10 of the spies spoke lashon hora and we listened to it we were forced to wander 40 years in the desert. That was 40 years that could have been spent in Israel worshiping G-D and fulfilling all of the commandments in the Torah. However, because of the sin of the spies we ended up losing Miriam, Aharon, and Moshe before entering the land and we were not able to fulfill all of the commandments in the Torah, since they were not applicable yet.
The next two examples of wasted opportunity were the destruction of the two Bais Hamikdashes. Both of these were destroyed because the Jewish people were violating many commandments. It was because of the neglect of the Torah and commandments that G-D removed His house from being among us. Had we realized how special this house was, before it was too late, then we would still have His house instead of the Dome of the Rock in its place.
The last two tragedies mentioned in the Gemorah are the destruction of the city Beitar and the destruction of Jerusalem. These two events coincided with each other. Both of these tragedies are dependent upon the story of Bar Kochba (Bar Kosiba). Before going into the Bar Kochba story, the background of what was occurring at that time must be given. In the year 130 CE a new emperor, Hadrian, was appointed. He had promised the Jews that he would rebuild Jerusalem for them as a gift. Unfortunately, something happened and he decided that he would build Aelia Capitolina and never allow Jews to enter the city. To build this city Hadrian had the already destroyed city completely razed, including the temple mount area. As if this wasn't enough provocation, he then banned circumcision. In 132 when the Jewish people could no longer take the persecution and the injustice, they rebelled with their leader Bar Kochba.
At first Bar Kochba followed the advice of Rebbe Akiva and his victories were seen as signs that he was the Moshiach (redeemer). Rebbe Akiva himself said that he thought Bar Kochba was the Moshiach. Bar Kochba's success lasted for about 2 and a half years. Unfortunately, something happened and Bar Kochba no longer listened to the advice of Rebbe Akiva. He even made an alliance with the Samaritans! This was, of course, against the advice of Rebbe Akiva. After these events Rabbi Akiva realized that Bar Kochba was not the Moshiach and shortly thereafter in 135 CE Bar Kochba lost Jerusalem and a few months later his stronghold of Beitar was destroyed.
These are the events that we mourn on Tisha Biav, events that show a national waste of opportunity. If the nation did not listen to the Meraglim, they would have gone straight to Israel. If the nation would not have been sinning then the Bais Hamikdashes would not have been destroyed. If the nation would have done real repentance then the Bar Kochba rebellion would have been successful. These are all national failures that lead to national consequences. That is why we are remembering these tragedies, because they show us as a nation that wasted opportunity. These tragedies could have been avoided if we would have just seized the moment and overcome our evil inclinations. This is the lesson we must never forget and this is why Tisha Biav is so important.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Devarim- Taking Mussar
In the beginning of Devarim Moshe recounts many things that happened to the Jews in the desert and where they traveled. Rashi tells us (1:1) that Moshe was recounting all the places where the Jewish people angered G-D. Later, Rashi makes a comment on the place called Chatzeiros. He says, "He said to them, 'You should have learned a lesson from what happened to Miriam at Chatzeiros (Bamidbar 12:1-13) because of the slander she spoke, and nevertheless you spoke against G-D (This is referring to when the spies declared the Cannanites more powerful than G-D. Bamidbar 13:31 see Rashi there).'" The only problem with this explanation is that it seems to say that Chatzeiros is a rebuke for the sin of the spies, however, Moshe already said Paran which referred to the sin of the spies. Why then does Rashi tell us that there were two mentions of the sin of the spies, one sin referred to by Paran and the other referred to by Chatzeiros?
The Maharal tells us the answer to this complication. He tells us that an evil deed is a sin. However, if a person is warned not to commit a sin and then they commit that sin, the act of ignoring the warning is a sin in and of itself on top of the original sin. The spies here commited two sins. 1) The fact that the spies went and spoke lashon hora about G-D (actually Motzei shame ra) and 2) They witnessed the punishment of Miriam for speaking loshon hora and they ignored this warning.
This idea teaches us a very important lesson, the importance of accepting mussar (rebuke or lessons). The fact that Moshe thought it was important to point out that the spies had not taken mussar from what happened to Miriam is very telling of the importance of learning a lesson. If someone is so arrogant that they can not take rebuke from anyone or if they see someone sin and do not learn from that, that arrogance is a sin in and of itself. Moshe is teaching us a valuable idea, do not ignore the world around you or else it will come to haunt you in the future. Just like the spies were considered to have sinned for not taking mussar from what happened to Miriam, so too anyone who ignores the lessons around them will be committing a sin.
I think this week, where some very religious people were put in jail for money laundering, can teach us a very valuable lesson. If we are not able to take mussar from this terrible desecration of G-D's name, then we will not only be commiting a desecration of G-D's name in the future, but a further sin will be commited of not taking mussar from the lessons that are right in front of our faces.
The Maharal tells us the answer to this complication. He tells us that an evil deed is a sin. However, if a person is warned not to commit a sin and then they commit that sin, the act of ignoring the warning is a sin in and of itself on top of the original sin. The spies here commited two sins. 1) The fact that the spies went and spoke lashon hora about G-D (actually Motzei shame ra) and 2) They witnessed the punishment of Miriam for speaking loshon hora and they ignored this warning.
This idea teaches us a very important lesson, the importance of accepting mussar (rebuke or lessons). The fact that Moshe thought it was important to point out that the spies had not taken mussar from what happened to Miriam is very telling of the importance of learning a lesson. If someone is so arrogant that they can not take rebuke from anyone or if they see someone sin and do not learn from that, that arrogance is a sin in and of itself. Moshe is teaching us a valuable idea, do not ignore the world around you or else it will come to haunt you in the future. Just like the spies were considered to have sinned for not taking mussar from what happened to Miriam, so too anyone who ignores the lessons around them will be committing a sin.
I think this week, where some very religious people were put in jail for money laundering, can teach us a very valuable lesson. If we are not able to take mussar from this terrible desecration of G-D's name, then we will not only be commiting a desecration of G-D's name in the future, but a further sin will be commited of not taking mussar from the lessons that are right in front of our faces.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
How to Acquire Wisdom
In Mishlei (13:10) the verse says, "Only by willfulness is strife fomented; but wisdom is with those who take counsel."
The Vilna Goan tells us that "Only by willfulness is strife fomented" is referring to someone who is unwilling to budge from the understanding that they achieve through their own learning. Someone who specifically needs to always be right is a person that is always causing strife, because they are never willing to hear the other opinions involved. On the other hand the phrase "But wisdom is with those who take counsel" means that the true way to acquire knowledge is to take advice from everyone. A person must listen to every opinion with an open mind, in Torah learning, before coming to a final conclusion. This is what the Mishna in Pirkei Avos (4:1) means when it says, "Who is wise? Someone who learns from every person." The Vilna Goan tells us that true wisdom is found by those people who are always asking for other people's advice.
The Meiri on this mishna in avos tells us that in order for a person to truly learn they need to approach the subject they are learning without haughtiness and assumed authority. For example, a person should never say to themselves, "How can I learn anything from so and so." A person should view every person as having something to offer them and then they will truly be able to learn and acquire wisdom.
However, the Meiri brings up a Gemorah that seemingly says the opposite of this teaching. In Chullin (18B) there is a discussion about what Rav and Shmuel said about a certain type of animal slaughter and whether it was kosher. Rav Yosef comes and says what he heard was the teaching of Rav and Shmuel on the subject. However, the Gemorah goes on to tell us that Rav Zeira ate meat that would be unkosher according to Rav Yosef's understanding of Rav and Shmuel. When this was pointed out to Rav Zeira he said, "Who says Rav and Shmuel says this? Yosef the son of Chiya?!?! He learns from anyone." When Rav Yosef heard what Rav Zeira said he was very upset and he exclaimed, "Did I learn this teaching from just anyone?! I learned it from Rav Yehuda!" This Gemorah seems to be saying that one should not learn from anyone, but only recognized scholars. How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?
The Meiri tells us that it is possible to say that in specific areas there are always people that one should turn to for answers. For example, if there is a talmud of a Rabbi, that talmud most likely knows what his Rebbe said better than some random guy. That is the point of the Gemorah, that in a specific area there are some people better to listen to than others.
The Mishna in avos, says the Meiri, is different. The Mishna in avos is giving a general rule for how to find a person that is an expert in a certain area. A person needs to be willing to listen to all people because an expert might be found in the most uncommon of places. For instance, who would have thought that a boy that went to a modern orthodox high school in Skokie, Illinois would become Rav Nosson Tzi Finkel? The point of this Mishna is to teach us not to judge a book by its cover, rather we must learn from everyone. This will allow us to find all the wisdom that is available.
The Vilna Goan tells us that "Only by willfulness is strife fomented" is referring to someone who is unwilling to budge from the understanding that they achieve through their own learning. Someone who specifically needs to always be right is a person that is always causing strife, because they are never willing to hear the other opinions involved. On the other hand the phrase "But wisdom is with those who take counsel" means that the true way to acquire knowledge is to take advice from everyone. A person must listen to every opinion with an open mind, in Torah learning, before coming to a final conclusion. This is what the Mishna in Pirkei Avos (4:1) means when it says, "Who is wise? Someone who learns from every person." The Vilna Goan tells us that true wisdom is found by those people who are always asking for other people's advice.
The Meiri on this mishna in avos tells us that in order for a person to truly learn they need to approach the subject they are learning without haughtiness and assumed authority. For example, a person should never say to themselves, "How can I learn anything from so and so." A person should view every person as having something to offer them and then they will truly be able to learn and acquire wisdom.
However, the Meiri brings up a Gemorah that seemingly says the opposite of this teaching. In Chullin (18B) there is a discussion about what Rav and Shmuel said about a certain type of animal slaughter and whether it was kosher. Rav Yosef comes and says what he heard was the teaching of Rav and Shmuel on the subject. However, the Gemorah goes on to tell us that Rav Zeira ate meat that would be unkosher according to Rav Yosef's understanding of Rav and Shmuel. When this was pointed out to Rav Zeira he said, "Who says Rav and Shmuel says this? Yosef the son of Chiya?!?! He learns from anyone." When Rav Yosef heard what Rav Zeira said he was very upset and he exclaimed, "Did I learn this teaching from just anyone?! I learned it from Rav Yehuda!" This Gemorah seems to be saying that one should not learn from anyone, but only recognized scholars. How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?
The Meiri tells us that it is possible to say that in specific areas there are always people that one should turn to for answers. For example, if there is a talmud of a Rabbi, that talmud most likely knows what his Rebbe said better than some random guy. That is the point of the Gemorah, that in a specific area there are some people better to listen to than others.
The Mishna in avos, says the Meiri, is different. The Mishna in avos is giving a general rule for how to find a person that is an expert in a certain area. A person needs to be willing to listen to all people because an expert might be found in the most uncommon of places. For instance, who would have thought that a boy that went to a modern orthodox high school in Skokie, Illinois would become Rav Nosson Tzi Finkel? The point of this Mishna is to teach us not to judge a book by its cover, rather we must learn from everyone. This will allow us to find all the wisdom that is available.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Is "Everything" Really In the Torah?
Many religious Jews are always taught that everything, all knowledge that exists and will exist, can be found in the Torah. However, we have to ask ourselves, "Whose opinion is this and where does this idea come from?"
In Pirkei Avos the following mishna exists (This mishna is listed differently in different pirkei avos. It is found at the end of the fifth chapter, but the mishna can be anywhere from 19-26). "Ben Bag Bag says, Turn to it, and turn to it again, for everything is in it. Pore over it, grow old and gray over it. Do not budge from it. You can have no better guide for living than it.'" (translation is from the book of legends from Judaica classic library)
Ben Bag Bag seems to be the source of this idea that everything can be found in the Torah. However, is he actually saying that all knowledge that exists or will exist can be found in the Torah? Perhaps, the idea of "everything can be found in it" refers to something else, something a little more specific? Maybe the last words of his quotation "You can have no better guide for living than it" can shed some light on what he is really trying to say.
In relation to this Mishna, most people have heard of the following Medrash Rabba (Genesis 1:1). It says, "R. Hoshaia Rabbah began his discourse with the verse 'Then I was by Him as a nursling (amon)' (Prov. 8:30). The word amon may be read umman, meaning "overall design"--I was in the mind of the Holy One, says the Torah, like the overall design in the mind of a craftsman. In the way of the world, when a king of flesh and blood builds a palace, he builds it not according to his own whim, but according to the idea of an architect. Moreover, the architect does not build it out of his own head; he has [a design]--plans and diagrams to know how to lay out the chambers and where to put in wicket doors. Even so the Holy One looked into the Torah as He created the world."
This Medrash seemingly tells us that G-D had the Torah before He created the physical world and that He used the Torah to create the physical world. On a simple level it seems that since G-D used the Torah to create the entire world that everything in the physical world (physics, biology, etc) should be able to be found in the Torah. However, this Medrash might not be as simple as it appears. Perhaps the Medrash is coming to teach us about the goal of creation and not just some simplistic reading that the Torah was an actual blueprint for all of creation.
I think that once we understand this Medrash in the proper way then we will be able to understand what Ben Bag Bag is trying to tell us. The Medrash is pointing out to us that G-D created the physical world with a specific purpose and that purpose can be found in the Torah. Therefore, once we understand the purpose of creation then we can understand the true meaning of the Torah. So what is the purpose of creation?
If we look at some verses in Tanach a proper understanding of this Medrash can be attained. In Mishlei (3:19) it says, "G-D founded the earth on wisdom." Then in Psalms (111:10) it says, "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of G-D." The Eitz Yosef and the Anaf Yosef on the first Medrash in Medrash Tanchuma tell us that the Torah is referred to as "the beginning." This means that the only way for one to acquire wisdom is to fear G-D and the only way to fear G-D is to learn the Torah. Therefore, "G-D looked into the Torah and created the world" means that He saw that the only way man could acquire wisdom in this world was to couple all of his (man's) learning with a fear of G-D. The Gra in the beginning of Mishlei tells us this as well. Only once a person has a fear of G-D can they acquire any type of knowledge. They can learn as much as they want, but until they have a fear of G-D all of their learning, in any subject, is worthless. This is because without a proper foundation nothing is stable. Learing anything without having a fear of G-D is like building a castle on quicksand, it takes a lot of work, but in the end there is nothing.
I think the idea that attaining knowledge is contingent on a fear of G-D needs to be explained. It seems to me that the only way one can truly know something is true is by having a belief in G-D. For example, no archeologist can ever be 100% certain that something happened in the past. They can make logical assumptions based on fractured pieces of evidence that they put together, but they can never really KNOW. However, a belief in G-D allows the believer to know that something is true. I can know that certain things are true because I believe in a G-D that controls the world or that set up nature in a certain way. However, why should someone who does not believe in G-D think that nature will remain constant? What is causing that person to think that nature works indefinitely? Therefore, a person that does not believe in G-D can never truly know something. Without G-D there are no objective truths.
This leads us to the purpose of creation. The purpose of creation, according to this Medrash, would then be for man to acquire wisdom. This goes beautifully with the Rambam and Ralbag's understanding of the immortality of the human soul. What part of a man is considered to live eternally? The Rambam and Ralbag both tell us that it is the acquired intellect of a person that lives eternally and will experience heaven. If this is true, then it must be that the goal of G-D's creation was man and his ability to acquire heaven.
Now we can explain the idea that Ben Bag Bag brings down. What does it mean that everything is found in the Torah? It does not literally mean that all wisdom is found in the Torah, but something much more basic. Everything that will lead you on the proper path to acquiring a fear of G-D is found in the Torah. This can also be seen from the last words that Ben Bag Bag says, "You can have no better GUIDE for living than it." It is impossible to live properly without a fear of G-D. Without a fear of G-D there is no wisdom to be acquired and your life will end up without meaning. However, with a fear of G-D, all wisdom is attainable and furthermore, heaven WILL be acquired.
*********(Later Addition to show I didn't make this up myself)
This is exactly what the Meiri says on this Mishna in Avos. The Meiri says,
"(Ben Bag Bag) is giving a warning that it is not enough to just have a crude reading of the Torah, rather it needs to be read over and over, meaning many times. If one reads it over and over then a person will be able to answer any doubts they had in their heart with it (the Torah). This is the idea of "Everything is in it."
The Meiri is telling us that when Ben Bag Bag says that "Everything is in it" he is telling us that we can answer up any questions that we have with the validity of the Torah. We don't need to look at other religions or science to figure out the truth of the Torah, we just need to really understand the Torah and what it is coming to teach. Since it comes to teach a fear of G-D this means that we will be able to truly believe in G-D and have a fear of G-D once we understand the Torah in all of its glory. Now, once you understand the Torah and you have acquire this fear of G-D, you are ready to acquire true knowledge.
The Medrash and Ben Bag Bag do not mean to say that one can learn to become a doctor through the Torah. However, they are teaching us that in order to acquire real knowledge that will lead a person to the proper path, the path to heaven, then a person needs a fear of G-D.
****UPDATE*******
See Rav Josh Waxman's post that deals with this issue as well:
parshablog: Should one study secular subjects, independently of Torah?
In Pirkei Avos the following mishna exists (This mishna is listed differently in different pirkei avos. It is found at the end of the fifth chapter, but the mishna can be anywhere from 19-26). "Ben Bag Bag says, Turn to it, and turn to it again, for everything is in it. Pore over it, grow old and gray over it. Do not budge from it. You can have no better guide for living than it.'" (translation is from the book of legends from Judaica classic library)
Ben Bag Bag seems to be the source of this idea that everything can be found in the Torah. However, is he actually saying that all knowledge that exists or will exist can be found in the Torah? Perhaps, the idea of "everything can be found in it" refers to something else, something a little more specific? Maybe the last words of his quotation "You can have no better guide for living than it" can shed some light on what he is really trying to say.
In relation to this Mishna, most people have heard of the following Medrash Rabba (Genesis 1:1). It says, "R. Hoshaia Rabbah began his discourse with the verse 'Then I was by Him as a nursling (amon)' (Prov. 8:30). The word amon may be read umman, meaning "overall design"--I was in the mind of the Holy One, says the Torah, like the overall design in the mind of a craftsman. In the way of the world, when a king of flesh and blood builds a palace, he builds it not according to his own whim, but according to the idea of an architect. Moreover, the architect does not build it out of his own head; he has [a design]--plans and diagrams to know how to lay out the chambers and where to put in wicket doors. Even so the Holy One looked into the Torah as He created the world."
This Medrash seemingly tells us that G-D had the Torah before He created the physical world and that He used the Torah to create the physical world. On a simple level it seems that since G-D used the Torah to create the entire world that everything in the physical world (physics, biology, etc) should be able to be found in the Torah. However, this Medrash might not be as simple as it appears. Perhaps the Medrash is coming to teach us about the goal of creation and not just some simplistic reading that the Torah was an actual blueprint for all of creation.
I think that once we understand this Medrash in the proper way then we will be able to understand what Ben Bag Bag is trying to tell us. The Medrash is pointing out to us that G-D created the physical world with a specific purpose and that purpose can be found in the Torah. Therefore, once we understand the purpose of creation then we can understand the true meaning of the Torah. So what is the purpose of creation?
If we look at some verses in Tanach a proper understanding of this Medrash can be attained. In Mishlei (3:19) it says, "G-D founded the earth on wisdom." Then in Psalms (111:10) it says, "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of G-D." The Eitz Yosef and the Anaf Yosef on the first Medrash in Medrash Tanchuma tell us that the Torah is referred to as "the beginning." This means that the only way for one to acquire wisdom is to fear G-D and the only way to fear G-D is to learn the Torah. Therefore, "G-D looked into the Torah and created the world" means that He saw that the only way man could acquire wisdom in this world was to couple all of his (man's) learning with a fear of G-D. The Gra in the beginning of Mishlei tells us this as well. Only once a person has a fear of G-D can they acquire any type of knowledge. They can learn as much as they want, but until they have a fear of G-D all of their learning, in any subject, is worthless. This is because without a proper foundation nothing is stable. Learing anything without having a fear of G-D is like building a castle on quicksand, it takes a lot of work, but in the end there is nothing.
I think the idea that attaining knowledge is contingent on a fear of G-D needs to be explained. It seems to me that the only way one can truly know something is true is by having a belief in G-D. For example, no archeologist can ever be 100% certain that something happened in the past. They can make logical assumptions based on fractured pieces of evidence that they put together, but they can never really KNOW. However, a belief in G-D allows the believer to know that something is true. I can know that certain things are true because I believe in a G-D that controls the world or that set up nature in a certain way. However, why should someone who does not believe in G-D think that nature will remain constant? What is causing that person to think that nature works indefinitely? Therefore, a person that does not believe in G-D can never truly know something. Without G-D there are no objective truths.
This leads us to the purpose of creation. The purpose of creation, according to this Medrash, would then be for man to acquire wisdom. This goes beautifully with the Rambam and Ralbag's understanding of the immortality of the human soul. What part of a man is considered to live eternally? The Rambam and Ralbag both tell us that it is the acquired intellect of a person that lives eternally and will experience heaven. If this is true, then it must be that the goal of G-D's creation was man and his ability to acquire heaven.
Now we can explain the idea that Ben Bag Bag brings down. What does it mean that everything is found in the Torah? It does not literally mean that all wisdom is found in the Torah, but something much more basic. Everything that will lead you on the proper path to acquiring a fear of G-D is found in the Torah. This can also be seen from the last words that Ben Bag Bag says, "You can have no better GUIDE for living than it." It is impossible to live properly without a fear of G-D. Without a fear of G-D there is no wisdom to be acquired and your life will end up without meaning. However, with a fear of G-D, all wisdom is attainable and furthermore, heaven WILL be acquired.
*********(Later Addition to show I didn't make this up myself)
This is exactly what the Meiri says on this Mishna in Avos. The Meiri says,
"(Ben Bag Bag) is giving a warning that it is not enough to just have a crude reading of the Torah, rather it needs to be read over and over, meaning many times. If one reads it over and over then a person will be able to answer any doubts they had in their heart with it (the Torah). This is the idea of "Everything is in it."
The Meiri is telling us that when Ben Bag Bag says that "Everything is in it" he is telling us that we can answer up any questions that we have with the validity of the Torah. We don't need to look at other religions or science to figure out the truth of the Torah, we just need to really understand the Torah and what it is coming to teach. Since it comes to teach a fear of G-D this means that we will be able to truly believe in G-D and have a fear of G-D once we understand the Torah in all of its glory. Now, once you understand the Torah and you have acquire this fear of G-D, you are ready to acquire true knowledge.
The Medrash and Ben Bag Bag do not mean to say that one can learn to become a doctor through the Torah. However, they are teaching us that in order to acquire real knowledge that will lead a person to the proper path, the path to heaven, then a person needs a fear of G-D.
****UPDATE*******
See Rav Josh Waxman's post that deals with this issue as well:
parshablog: Should one study secular subjects, independently of Torah?
Monday, July 20, 2009
Rambam-Difference Between Maaseh Merkava and Maaseh Breishis-Yisodei Hatorah perek 4 halacha 10
The Rambam here introduces us into the next subject that he will be talking about. First, he just wants to point out the differences between the two subjects of "Maaseh Merkava" and "Maaseh Bereishis." He says,
כל הדברים האלו שדברנו בענין זה כמר מדלי הם ודברים עמוקים הם. אבל אינם כענין עומק פרק ראשון ושני. וביאור כל אלו הדברים שבפרק שלישי ורביעי הוא הנקרא מעשה בראשית. וכך צוו החכמים הראשונים שאין דורשין בדברים האלו ברבים אלא לאדם אחד מודיעין דברים אלו ומלמדין אותו:
"All of these things that we have spoken about on this subject are like a drop of water in a bucket and they are very deep. However, they are not as deep as the first two perakim. The subjects that are in the third and fourth perek are known as 'Maaseh breishis' (Acts of Creation). So too the original wise ones commanded us not to explain these subjects in public, rather they should be made known to a single person and taught to him."
The difference that Rambam points out between Maaseh Breishis and Maaseh Merkava is that Maaseh Breishis deals with things that are in the physical world. It talks about the elements of the world, decomposition and physical creation. Basically, Maaseh Breishis can be defined, according to the Rambam, as physics. However, Maaseh Merkava is that which relates to G-D. This deals with G-D's negative attributes and how man connects to Him. Also, the knowledge of the different angels and how they relate to the world are both Maaseh Merkava subjects. This is why the Rambam tells us that the subjects of the first two perakim are deeper and more complex subjects, because metaphysics is harder to understand than physics. Physics deal with the natural world, so man can eventually understand it on his own level. However, metaphysics deals with the connection between man and G-D. The Rambam himself points out that even Moshe never fully comprehended G-D or His characteristics. It is only through understanding what G-D is not, according to the Rambam, that we can have some type of semblance of what G-D is.
כל הדברים האלו שדברנו בענין זה כמר מדלי הם ודברים עמוקים הם. אבל אינם כענין עומק פרק ראשון ושני. וביאור כל אלו הדברים שבפרק שלישי ורביעי הוא הנקרא מעשה בראשית. וכך צוו החכמים הראשונים שאין דורשין בדברים האלו ברבים אלא לאדם אחד מודיעין דברים אלו ומלמדין אותו:
"All of these things that we have spoken about on this subject are like a drop of water in a bucket and they are very deep. However, they are not as deep as the first two perakim. The subjects that are in the third and fourth perek are known as 'Maaseh breishis' (Acts of Creation). So too the original wise ones commanded us not to explain these subjects in public, rather they should be made known to a single person and taught to him."
The difference that Rambam points out between Maaseh Breishis and Maaseh Merkava is that Maaseh Breishis deals with things that are in the physical world. It talks about the elements of the world, decomposition and physical creation. Basically, Maaseh Breishis can be defined, according to the Rambam, as physics. However, Maaseh Merkava is that which relates to G-D. This deals with G-D's negative attributes and how man connects to Him. Also, the knowledge of the different angels and how they relate to the world are both Maaseh Merkava subjects. This is why the Rambam tells us that the subjects of the first two perakim are deeper and more complex subjects, because metaphysics is harder to understand than physics. Physics deal with the natural world, so man can eventually understand it on his own level. However, metaphysics deals with the connection between man and G-D. The Rambam himself points out that even Moshe never fully comprehended G-D or His characteristics. It is only through understanding what G-D is not, according to the Rambam, that we can have some type of semblance of what G-D is.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Does the Rambam Think Believing in Creation Ex Aliquo (Creation of the World From a Primordial Matter) Makes You a Heretic?
I was learning through some of the Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva and something caught my attention. In perek 3 halacha 7 of Hilchos Teshuva the Rambam lists five types of people that are considered heretics. He says,
"There are five types of people that are called heretics: One who says that there is no G-D and there is no guide (for the world); One who says there is a guide (for the world), but there are two or more; One who says that there is one G-D, but He has a physical body and an image; Also, one who says that He (G-D) is not the only first one and former of everything; Also, one who worships another 'G-D' in order that it act as an intermediary between this man and the Lord of the world. All five of these people are heretics."
It would seem from this statement in the Rambam, that anyone who says that G-D is not the only first one and former of everything, that he believes that anyone who believes in creation Ex Aliquo is a heretic. Creation Ex Aliquo is the belief that there was a primordial matter that had no shape or form that G-D used to create everything. This idea was first brought forth by the Greek philosopher Plato.
The Raavad here says that the Rambam is talking about the philosopher in the following Medrash Rabbah (1:9). The Medrash says,
"A certain philosopher asked Raban Gamliel, 'Your G-D is indeed a great former, but he found good materials which assisted Him, tohu, vohu, darkness, wind, water and the deep. Rabban Gamliel replied, May your spirit blow away! With regards to all of them it is written that they were created." The rest of the Medrash goes into the different verses throughout Tanach that prove all of these six things were created.
The commentator on the Rambam that most clearly points out that he thinks the Rambam is saying that believing in creation Ex Aliquo makes one a heretic is the Lechem Mishna on this Rambam. He explicitly says that if someone believes in creation Ex Aquila then they are in the Rambam's category of a heretic.
However, I saw in the sefer likutim in the back of the Rambam Frankel, in the name of the Rada, that the Rambam clearly states (The Guide for the Perplexed 2:25) that if one found a proof for creation Ex Aliquo that it could be read into the pasukim. The Rada seems to think that the Rambam and Raavad are arguing here and not agreeing like the Lechem Mishna says. The Raavad would call a person that believes in creation Ex Aliquo a heretic, but the Rambam would not. He is referring to something else when he says, "Also, one who says that He (G-D) is not the only first one and former of everything."
Indeed, the Rambam does say that creation Ex Aliquo, Plato's view, is a possibility if one wants to believe in Judaism. He even says in The Guide for the Perplexed(2:25),
"If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (ch. xxiii.), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion; this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory."
By the Rambam's own admission, if a person believes in Plato's idea of creation, Ex Aliquo, then they are not rejecting the fundamental principles of the religion. So why would the Rambam call this man a heretic? If the Lechem Mishna is right, what is the Rambam saying?
In light of this I think we can correctly understand the Rambam in the following way. The Rambam is saying that someone who believes in Aristotle's philosophy, that the world has always existed in its current state, would be considered a heretic. In fact, the Rambam even says in The Guide for the Perplexed(2:25),
"If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively. The Allegorists amongst the Mohammedans have done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions."
This seems like a reasonable understanding of the Rambam since Aristotle believed in a single G-D that is not physical. However, Aristotle believes that the universe is eternal and that there was no creation. The Rambam believes that if someone denies creation then they are a heretic. However, a person can believe in creation Ex Nihilo or creation Ex Aliquo. This seems to be the correct understanding of the Rambam.
"There are five types of people that are called heretics: One who says that there is no G-D and there is no guide (for the world); One who says there is a guide (for the world), but there are two or more; One who says that there is one G-D, but He has a physical body and an image; Also, one who says that He (G-D) is not the only first one and former of everything; Also, one who worships another 'G-D' in order that it act as an intermediary between this man and the Lord of the world. All five of these people are heretics."
It would seem from this statement in the Rambam, that anyone who says that G-D is not the only first one and former of everything, that he believes that anyone who believes in creation Ex Aliquo is a heretic. Creation Ex Aliquo is the belief that there was a primordial matter that had no shape or form that G-D used to create everything. This idea was first brought forth by the Greek philosopher Plato.
The Raavad here says that the Rambam is talking about the philosopher in the following Medrash Rabbah (1:9). The Medrash says,
"A certain philosopher asked Raban Gamliel, 'Your G-D is indeed a great former, but he found good materials which assisted Him, tohu, vohu, darkness, wind, water and the deep. Rabban Gamliel replied, May your spirit blow away! With regards to all of them it is written that they were created." The rest of the Medrash goes into the different verses throughout Tanach that prove all of these six things were created.
The commentator on the Rambam that most clearly points out that he thinks the Rambam is saying that believing in creation Ex Aliquo makes one a heretic is the Lechem Mishna on this Rambam. He explicitly says that if someone believes in creation Ex Aquila then they are in the Rambam's category of a heretic.
However, I saw in the sefer likutim in the back of the Rambam Frankel, in the name of the Rada, that the Rambam clearly states (The Guide for the Perplexed 2:25) that if one found a proof for creation Ex Aliquo that it could be read into the pasukim. The Rada seems to think that the Rambam and Raavad are arguing here and not agreeing like the Lechem Mishna says. The Raavad would call a person that believes in creation Ex Aliquo a heretic, but the Rambam would not. He is referring to something else when he says, "Also, one who says that He (G-D) is not the only first one and former of everything."
Indeed, the Rambam does say that creation Ex Aliquo, Plato's view, is a possibility if one wants to believe in Judaism. He even says in The Guide for the Perplexed(2:25),
"If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (ch. xxiii.), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion; this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory."
By the Rambam's own admission, if a person believes in Plato's idea of creation, Ex Aliquo, then they are not rejecting the fundamental principles of the religion. So why would the Rambam call this man a heretic? If the Lechem Mishna is right, what is the Rambam saying?
In light of this I think we can correctly understand the Rambam in the following way. The Rambam is saying that someone who believes in Aristotle's philosophy, that the world has always existed in its current state, would be considered a heretic. In fact, the Rambam even says in The Guide for the Perplexed(2:25),
"If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively. The Allegorists amongst the Mohammedans have done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions."
This seems like a reasonable understanding of the Rambam since Aristotle believed in a single G-D that is not physical. However, Aristotle believes that the universe is eternal and that there was no creation. The Rambam believes that if someone denies creation then they are a heretic. However, a person can believe in creation Ex Nihilo or creation Ex Aliquo. This seems to be the correct understanding of the Rambam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)