The Case of Circumstantial Evidence, Risk , Possibility and Probability
We are prohibited from executing punishment on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence, even if it be close to absolute certainty.
For example, if one were pursuing another man to kill him, and he ran into a house with the pursuer at his heels, and we came in after them and found the pursued man in the throes of death, with his foe the pursuer, standing over him with knife in hand, and both covered with blood – the Sanhedrin may not execute the pursuer in fulfillment of the penalty, there being no corroboration by witnesses to the murder. As the Torah states: v’naki v’tzadik al taharog ki lo atzdik rasha, A clean one and a righteous on you shall not kill. (Shmos 23:7)
The Midrash says:
If they saw him pursuing another to kill him and they warned him: “He is a Jew, a son of the covenant; if you kill him, you will be killed” – and they averted their eyes and then found him [the pursued] slain, in the death throes, the knife dripping blood in the killer’s hand – I would think that he [the pursuer] were liable [to execution]; it is, therefore, written: “ A clean one and a righteous one you shall not kill.” (Mekhilta)
The Rambam writes in the Sefer ha’Mitzvos (Negative Commandment 290):
… That you should not find this mitzvah difficult or misguided. In the realm of possibility some things are highly probable and some are highly improbable and some are in the area between these two. The realm of the possible is extremely broad. If the Torah allowed execution of punishment on the basis of the highly probable approaching certainty we would come to execute punishment in cases less probable than that and in instances even less probable than that until punishment would be executed and men wrongly killed on the barest surmise of the judge’s imagination. Therefore, God closed the door and commanded that no punishment be executed until eyewitnesses testified that the event had occurred without a doubt and that it cannot be interpreted otherwise. If we do not execute punishment on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence, the worst that can happen is that we exonerate a guilty man. But if we act upon such evidence, it is possible that one day an innocent man will be killed. It is more desirable to exonerate a thousand guilty men than to kill one innocent one.
Showing posts with label Rambam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rambam. Show all posts
Monday, October 26, 2009
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
A Horse Named After the Rambam? What’s Next?
The New York Times reports:
SPORTS / OTHER SPORTS September 3, 2007
Colt Serves as a Reminder of a Philosopher's Reach
By JOE DRAPE
Ahmed Zayat and Earle Mack hope that naming a racehorse after the famous Jewish philosopher Maimonides will spread a message of peace.
See link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/sports/othersports/03maimonides.html?ex=1189569600&en=e74cb38296019a3e&ei=5070
SPORTS / OTHER SPORTS September 3, 2007
Colt Serves as a Reminder of a Philosopher's Reach
By JOE DRAPE
Ahmed Zayat and Earle Mack hope that naming a racehorse after the famous Jewish philosopher Maimonides will spread a message of peace.
See link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/sports/othersports/03maimonides.html?ex=1189569600&en=e74cb38296019a3e&ei=5070
Monday, April 16, 2007
Shabbos Mincha: Sim Shalom or Shalom Rov?
Nusach Ashkenaz siddurim customarily have shalom rov as the selection for birkas shalom at Mincha on Shabbos, following the same custom as on a weekday.
The recently published Sefer Kush’yos, by a student of the Maharam mi’Rutenberg, asks the question: Why do we say sim shalom at Mincha on Shabbos and on fast days? Because the Torah is read on those occasions and one needs to mention, toras chaim, the Torah of life, which is part of the text of sim shalom.
This indicates that the early minhag Ashkenaz was sim shalom.
The Gemara says the reason why on ordinary days the priests do not ‘lift up their hands’ at Minhah is because of the likelihood of intoxication, but on the days [cited above] the question of intoxication does not arise.
(Ta’a’nis 26b. See also Orach Chaim 127, Hagahos Maimoniyos, Rambam, Ahavah, Seder Tefillos, Frankel edition p. 327))
It appears that there are two reasons behind saying sim shalom: 1) Torah reading which is referred to in sim shalom as Toras Chaim and 2) acceptance of the validity of having birkas kohanim at Mincha when there is no chance of intoxication by the kohanim i.e. fast days.
The recently published Sefer Kush’yos, by a student of the Maharam mi’Rutenberg, asks the question: Why do we say sim shalom at Mincha on Shabbos and on fast days? Because the Torah is read on those occasions and one needs to mention, toras chaim, the Torah of life, which is part of the text of sim shalom.
This indicates that the early minhag Ashkenaz was sim shalom.
The Gemara says the reason why on ordinary days the priests do not ‘lift up their hands’ at Minhah is because of the likelihood of intoxication, but on the days [cited above] the question of intoxication does not arise.
(Ta’a’nis 26b. See also Orach Chaim 127, Hagahos Maimoniyos, Rambam, Ahavah, Seder Tefillos, Frankel edition p. 327))
It appears that there are two reasons behind saying sim shalom: 1) Torah reading which is referred to in sim shalom as Toras Chaim and 2) acceptance of the validity of having birkas kohanim at Mincha when there is no chance of intoxication by the kohanim i.e. fast days.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Chad Gadya, One Little Goat: What is the Connection to the Seder Haggadah?
Everyone is familiar with the last song in the Ashkenazic Haggadah, Chad Gadya, One Little Goat:
One Little Goat, One Little Goat, that father bought for two zuzim,
One Little Goat, One Little Goat.
And then came a cat, and ate the goat that father bought for two zuzim,
One Little Goat, One Little Goat….
And then came the Holy One, blessed is He, and killed the angel of death, who slew the slaughterer, who slaughtered the ox…that beat the dog that bit the cat, that ate the goat that father bought for two zuzim,
One Little Goat, One Little Goat.
However, the question is: What is the Connection to the Seder Haggadah? This song could easily be better related to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur when we all stand before God in judgment.
According to Rav Dovid Cohen, the answer may lie in the Rambam’s description of the mitzvah to recount the exodus from Egypt (Note: Even though the Rambam did not have Chad Gadya in his Haggadah).
We are commanded to recite the story of the Exodus from Egypt, with all the eloquence at our command, on the eve of the fifteenth of Nisan. One who expands on this theme is to be commended, enlarging on the iniquity of the Egyptians and the sufferings which they inflicted upon us, and on the way in which God wrought His vengeance upon them…. (Sefer HaMitzvos, Aseh 157)
Chad Gadya’s inclusion in the Haggadah reminds us of the message that in the end God’s takes His vengeance, justice is done and everyone gets their just deserts.
The lesson of Chad Gadya is, therefore, very much connected to the Seder, even though, it has a broader mussar message for everyone all year. In the end, as they say, whatever goes around comes around, whether at home or at work, at school or at play -- justice is done and everyone gets their just deserts.
One Little Goat, One Little Goat, that father bought for two zuzim,
One Little Goat, One Little Goat.
And then came a cat, and ate the goat that father bought for two zuzim,
One Little Goat, One Little Goat….
And then came the Holy One, blessed is He, and killed the angel of death, who slew the slaughterer, who slaughtered the ox…that beat the dog that bit the cat, that ate the goat that father bought for two zuzim,
One Little Goat, One Little Goat.
However, the question is: What is the Connection to the Seder Haggadah? This song could easily be better related to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur when we all stand before God in judgment.
According to Rav Dovid Cohen, the answer may lie in the Rambam’s description of the mitzvah to recount the exodus from Egypt (Note: Even though the Rambam did not have Chad Gadya in his Haggadah).
We are commanded to recite the story of the Exodus from Egypt, with all the eloquence at our command, on the eve of the fifteenth of Nisan. One who expands on this theme is to be commended, enlarging on the iniquity of the Egyptians and the sufferings which they inflicted upon us, and on the way in which God wrought His vengeance upon them…. (Sefer HaMitzvos, Aseh 157)
Chad Gadya’s inclusion in the Haggadah reminds us of the message that in the end God’s takes His vengeance, justice is done and everyone gets their just deserts.
The lesson of Chad Gadya is, therefore, very much connected to the Seder, even though, it has a broader mussar message for everyone all year. In the end, as they say, whatever goes around comes around, whether at home or at work, at school or at play -- justice is done and everyone gets their just deserts.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Rambam on Love, Friendship and Marriage
Aseh lekha rav u’kneh lekha chaver
APPOINT FOR THYSELF A TEACHER AND ACQUIRE FOR THYSELF A COMPANION (Avos 1:6)
Why the change in verb from aseh, make or appoint a rav for yourself, to the verb kneh when it comes to acquire a chaver, a friend for yourself?
The Rambam in his Commentary on the Mishnah explains the difference in meaning based on the type of relationship.
A teacher is someone you can choose to learn from. There is no mutual giving required in the relationship. The teacher gives his lesson to the student. The student gives nothing in return to the teacher (except, perhaps, for the contractual payment of tuition). The personal aspect of the relationship is one way. The teacher gives and the student takes by learning his lesson.
Marital relationships can exist on two levels:
1. Friendship based on the physical relationship for mutual pleasure and mutual needs, such as, support for food, shelter and clothing.
2. Friendship and love based on trust – friendship between soul mates. A relationship in which the husband and wife can bare their soul, secrets and business affairs, both good and bad, without fear of harm or hurting the relationship. Love that is based on mutual caring and trust with common goals in life. One helps the other with their tasks. Their purpose is to give to the other rather than take from their partner in life.
Teacher-student relationships may also rise to a higher level of friendship where there is a mutual relationship in the sharing of ideas and knowledge to reach common goals and caring for each other personally.
The ultimate goal to strive for in love, friendship and marriage is mutual caring and respect for each other as you work towards common objectives in life.
APPOINT FOR THYSELF A TEACHER AND ACQUIRE FOR THYSELF A COMPANION (Avos 1:6)
Why the change in verb from aseh, make or appoint a rav for yourself, to the verb kneh when it comes to acquire a chaver, a friend for yourself?
The Rambam in his Commentary on the Mishnah explains the difference in meaning based on the type of relationship.
A teacher is someone you can choose to learn from. There is no mutual giving required in the relationship. The teacher gives his lesson to the student. The student gives nothing in return to the teacher (except, perhaps, for the contractual payment of tuition). The personal aspect of the relationship is one way. The teacher gives and the student takes by learning his lesson.
Marital relationships can exist on two levels:
1. Friendship based on the physical relationship for mutual pleasure and mutual needs, such as, support for food, shelter and clothing.
2. Friendship and love based on trust – friendship between soul mates. A relationship in which the husband and wife can bare their soul, secrets and business affairs, both good and bad, without fear of harm or hurting the relationship. Love that is based on mutual caring and trust with common goals in life. One helps the other with their tasks. Their purpose is to give to the other rather than take from their partner in life.
Teacher-student relationships may also rise to a higher level of friendship where there is a mutual relationship in the sharing of ideas and knowledge to reach common goals and caring for each other personally.
The ultimate goal to strive for in love, friendship and marriage is mutual caring and respect for each other as you work towards common objectives in life.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Frumkeit and Choosing Right from Wrong
Who is Superior? The Chasid who does not desire to sin or the Man who controls himself from sinning?
The Rambam asks this question in the sixth chapter of Shemonah Perakim, his introduction to Avos.
The philosophers say that the person who does not desire to sin is on a higher level. It is better not to desire murder or stealing or sexual immorality than to desire these sins and refrain from them.
The Chakhamim say:
Whoever is greater than his friend has a greater evil impulse than he.
le’fum tza’a’ra agra, according to the pain, so is the reward.
Who is strong? The man who controls his passions – ay’ze’hu gibor? Ha’kovesh es yitzro.
Man should not say:
I do not want to eat meat with milk
I do not want to wear sha’atnez, garments with linen and wool
I do not want to have illicit sexual relations
Rather Man should say: I want to, but what shall I do – my Father in heaven has forbidden me.
According to the Rambam, the resolution to the conflict between the ideas of the philosophers and the Chakhamim is contained in the words of the Chakhamim.
The Chakhamim say that the things the philosophers use as examples of sin are generally accepted laws of morality, such as, murder, theft, robbery, fraud, harming an innocent man, repaying a benefactor with evil, degrading parents and the like.
Regarding these laws of morality the Chakhamim say:
If they were not written down in the Torah, they would deserve to be written down.
Note, the Chakhamim did not say:
I do not want to kill
I do not want to steal
I do not want to lie, but I want to – but what shall I do?
On the contrary, the Chakhamim only mention statutes, chukim, that have no apparent reason, such as, meat with milk, sha’atnez and illicit sexual relations.
The Rambam’s resolution of the difference between the philosophers and Chazal is difficult. Should a person have to struggle his entire life against his passions and be in constant turmoil? The answer is no. At the end of his life that person would be like a shmatteh, a worn out rag, to use the analogy given by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein.
Rather, the goal of Man should be to mold his personality according to the mitzvos of the Torah to the point where his will agrees with the will of God. The struggle ends at some point and Man’s will is in consonance with the mitzvos.
One might ask: Perhaps we have come full circle back to the view of the philosophers that it is better not to desire to sin even for chukim? Yes and no. Yes, it is better not to desire to sin. No, the reason he does not desire to sin is not for the same reason as the philosophers. Namely, Man should not desire to sin because it morally wrong alone. If the only reason to refrain from sin is because it is morally wrong, why do we need the Torah?
Man should not desire to sin because God commanded it, as well. Man has to know and follow the mitzvos because the Torah says so – because there is a metzaveh, a Commander. Gadol ha’me’tzuveh v’oseh me’eino me’tzuveh v’oseh – the person who is commanded is higher than the person who is not commanded.
The Rambam asks this question in the sixth chapter of Shemonah Perakim, his introduction to Avos.
The philosophers say that the person who does not desire to sin is on a higher level. It is better not to desire murder or stealing or sexual immorality than to desire these sins and refrain from them.
The Chakhamim say:
Whoever is greater than his friend has a greater evil impulse than he.
le’fum tza’a’ra agra, according to the pain, so is the reward.
Who is strong? The man who controls his passions – ay’ze’hu gibor? Ha’kovesh es yitzro.
Man should not say:
I do not want to eat meat with milk
I do not want to wear sha’atnez, garments with linen and wool
I do not want to have illicit sexual relations
Rather Man should say: I want to, but what shall I do – my Father in heaven has forbidden me.
According to the Rambam, the resolution to the conflict between the ideas of the philosophers and the Chakhamim is contained in the words of the Chakhamim.
The Chakhamim say that the things the philosophers use as examples of sin are generally accepted laws of morality, such as, murder, theft, robbery, fraud, harming an innocent man, repaying a benefactor with evil, degrading parents and the like.
Regarding these laws of morality the Chakhamim say:
If they were not written down in the Torah, they would deserve to be written down.
Note, the Chakhamim did not say:
I do not want to kill
I do not want to steal
I do not want to lie, but I want to – but what shall I do?
On the contrary, the Chakhamim only mention statutes, chukim, that have no apparent reason, such as, meat with milk, sha’atnez and illicit sexual relations.
The Rambam’s resolution of the difference between the philosophers and Chazal is difficult. Should a person have to struggle his entire life against his passions and be in constant turmoil? The answer is no. At the end of his life that person would be like a shmatteh, a worn out rag, to use the analogy given by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein.
Rather, the goal of Man should be to mold his personality according to the mitzvos of the Torah to the point where his will agrees with the will of God. The struggle ends at some point and Man’s will is in consonance with the mitzvos.
One might ask: Perhaps we have come full circle back to the view of the philosophers that it is better not to desire to sin even for chukim? Yes and no. Yes, it is better not to desire to sin. No, the reason he does not desire to sin is not for the same reason as the philosophers. Namely, Man should not desire to sin because it morally wrong alone. If the only reason to refrain from sin is because it is morally wrong, why do we need the Torah?
Man should not desire to sin because God commanded it, as well. Man has to know and follow the mitzvos because the Torah says so – because there is a metzaveh, a Commander. Gadol ha’me’tzuveh v’oseh me’eino me’tzuveh v’oseh – the person who is commanded is higher than the person who is not commanded.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Why Does a Tallis Have Rough Edges Tied with Knots?
Ve’shibatzta ha’ke’sones shesh, And you shall embroider the coat of fine linen, and you shall make the mitre of fine linen, and you shall make the girdle of needlework. (Shemos 28:39)
The Rambam says the following about the Kohen’s garments:
The garments [of the Kohen] were also entirely woven, me’shu’ba’tzos, and not cut, in order not to spoil the work of the weaving. (Moreh 3, 45)
The taleisim we wear today also have uncut edges tied with knots in keeping with the rule followed for the Kohen’s garments in the Beis ha’Mikdash. The idea is not to spoil the work of the weaver and keep his work in pristine form and appearance. That is the embroidery for the Kohen’s garments and in keeping with that tradition, for our taleisim, as well.
The Rambam says the following about the Kohen’s garments:
The garments [of the Kohen] were also entirely woven, me’shu’ba’tzos, and not cut, in order not to spoil the work of the weaving. (Moreh 3, 45)
The taleisim we wear today also have uncut edges tied with knots in keeping with the rule followed for the Kohen’s garments in the Beis ha’Mikdash. The idea is not to spoil the work of the weaver and keep his work in pristine form and appearance. That is the embroidery for the Kohen’s garments and in keeping with that tradition, for our taleisim, as well.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
How Do You Assess the Value of a Mitzvah? The Case of Shabbos vs. Sexual Morality and Murder
Be as careful with a minor commandment as with a major one, since you do not know the reward for the commandments. Assess the loss incurred in a good deed against its reward and the gain in sin against its loss. (Mishnah Avos 2, 1)
R. Sa’adia Gaon writes:
We know that the transgression is not severe by the fact that the punishment is not severe...We know that the transgression is severe because the punishment is severe i.e. kares, excision, misah bi’ye’dei shamayim – death by an act of heaven and the four methods of execution (sekilah, serefah, hereg, chenek) (Emunos v’De’os 5,4)
One can determine the severity or lightness of the transgression based on the punishment.
Positive Commandments vs. Negative Commandments
The Rambam makes a distinction between positive commandments and negative commandments. Concerning mitzvos lo’ sa’aseh, (with a few exceptions) the Torah is clear on the punishment for these transgressions. There are eight degrees of punishment: misah – execution by (sekilah, serefah, hereg and chenek) kares -- excision, misah bi’ye’dei shamayim – death by an act of heaven and malkos -- stripes.
On the other hand, concerning mitzvos aseh, since the reward is not clear it is hard to know what is more or less severe. Rather, God preferred to command the fulfillment of each mitzvah, whichever one it may be, without declaring which would receive greater reward. Therefore, it behooves us to strive to fulfill each and every mitzvas aseh equally. In this vein, Chazal say, ha’osek b’mitzvah patur min ha’mitzvah, without any prejudice between the one mitzvah he is performing and the mitzvah being missed at the same time (Sukkah 25a). Similarly, they say: ‘ein ma’avirin ‘al ha’mitzvos, We do not pass over mitzvos i.e. when the occasion for practicing a mitzvah presents itself to you, do not pass it by and forsake it to practice some other mitzvah (Pesachim 64b, Yoma 33a).
Subsequently, the Mishnah says, even though the measure of one mitzvah against another is not clear there is a method for comparison. Every aseh that is not performed which has a punishment for failure of performance also has great reward linked to it when it is performed.
(Rambam Mishnah Commentary, Avos 2,1)
Sefer Chasidim disagrees with this approach:
Regarding the opinion that according to the severity of the suffering inflicted you can determine the punishment and reward for mitzvos he argues:
The punishment for transgressing Shabbos is stoning i.e. the most severe punishment. In some cases of sexual immorality the punishment is less severe -- strangulation or kares, excision. Should Shabbos, then, be assessed as having a higher value than sexual morality? No. Despite the fact that it is permitted to transgress Shabbos to save a life, there is no similar exception for sins with a lesser punishment like forbidden sexual relationships or murder where neither would receive the severer punishment of stoning. Hence, do not conclude from these degrees of punishment that one mitzvah has more value than another. Also, in assessing a mitzvah, there is the additional factor of when exceptions are permitted. In contrast to Shabbos, the Torah does not make exceptions to the rule for immorality and murder. (Parma edition, Siman 157, my paraphrase)
The Rambam provides a more comprehensive approach to the issue of punishment in relation to sin in the Moreh:
Preliminary Remark.—Whether the punishment is great or small, the pain inflicted intense or less intense, depends on the following four conditions.
1. The greatness of the sin. Actions that cause great harm are punished severely, whilst actions that cause little harm are punished less severely.
2. The frequency of the crime. A crime that is frequently committed must be put down by severe punishment; crimes of rare occurrence may be suppressed by a lenient punishment considering that they are rarely committed.
3. The amount of temptation. Only fear of a severe punishment restrains us from actions for which there exists a great temptation, either because we have a great desire for these actions, or are accustomed to them, or feel unhappy without them.
4. The facility of doing the thing secretly, and unseen and unnoticed. From such acts we are deterred only by the fear of a great and terrible punishment.
After this preliminary remark, I say that the precepts of the Law may be divided into the following four classes with respect to the punishment for their transgression: -- (1) Precepts whose transgression is followed by sentence of death pronounced by a court of law. (2) Precepts whose transgression is punished with excision, such transgression being held to be a very great sin. (3) In some cases the transgression is punished by stripes administered with a strap (such transgression not being considered a grievous sin, as it concerns only a simple prohibition); or by ”death by Heaven.” (4) Precepts the transgression of which is not punished [even] by stripes. Prohibitions of this kind are all those that involve no act. But there are the following exceptions: [First], Swearing falsely, because it is gross neglect of man’s duty, who ought to bear constantly in mind the greatness of God. [Secondly], Changing an animal devoted to the sanctuary for another (Lev. xxvii. 10), because this change leads to contemning sacrifices devoted to the name of God. [Thirdly], Cursing a person by the name of God (ibid. xix. 14); because many dread the effect of a curse more than bodily harm. The transgression of other negative commandments that involve no act causes little harm, and cannot always be avoided, as it consists in mere words: moreover, man’s back would be inflicted with stripes all the year round if he were to be punished with stripes for each transgression of this kind. Besides, previous warning is impossible in this case. There is also wisdom in the number of stripes: for although the number of their maximum is given, there is no fixed number how many are to be applied to each person; each man receives only as many stripes as he can bear, but not more than forty (Dent. xxv. 3), even if he be strong enough for a hundred.
The ”death by the court of law” is not inflicted for the transgression of any of the dietary laws: because in such a case no great harm is done, and the temptation of man to transgress these laws is not as great as the temptation to the enjoyment of sexual intercourse. In some of the dietary laws the punishment is excision. This is the case with the prohibition of eating blood (Lev. xvii. 26). For in ancient days people were very eager and anxious to eat blood as a kind of idolatrous ceremony, as is explained in the book Tomtom, and therefore the prohibition of eating blood is made very stringent. Excision is also the punishment for eating fat; because people enjoy it, and because it was distinguished and sanctified by its use in the offerings. … Death by the court of law is decreed in important cases: when faith is undermined, or a great crime is committed, viz., idolatry, incest, murder, or actions that lead to these crimes. It is further decreed for breaking the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 15): because the keeping of Sabbath is a confirmation of our belief in the Creation; … Capital punishment is only decreed for these serious crimes, and in no other case. Not all forbidden sexual intercourse is visited with the penalty of death, but only in those cases in which the criminal act can easily be done, is of frequent occurrence, is base and disgraceful, and of a tempting character; otherwise excision is the punishment. Likewise not all kinds of idolatry are capital crimes, but only the principal acts of idolatry, such as praying to an idol, prophesying in its name, passing a child through the fire, consulting with familiar spirits, and acting as a wizard or witch.
(Moreh 3, 41)
As we see from the discussion in these sources, there are more factors in addition to the severity of the punishment to consider in assessing the value of a mitzvah. The meaning of the Mishnah can take on many different interpretations depending on whether we look at positive or negative commandments, exceptions permitted for some mitzvos and not for others, the degree of temptation involved, the ability to sin secretly and the frequency of the sin.
Should Shabbos, then, be assessed as having a higher value than sexual morality and murder?
The fact is, it is permitted to transgress Shabbos to save a life. There is no similar exception for forbidden sexual relationships or murder, where neither would receive the severer punishment of stoning. Sexual morality and murder allow no exceptions to the rule. In assessing these mitzvos, there is the additional factor of when exceptions are permitted. Therefore, as the Sefer Chasidim points out, sexual morality and murder should be assessed as having a higher value than Shabbos.
R. Sa’adia Gaon writes:
We know that the transgression is not severe by the fact that the punishment is not severe...We know that the transgression is severe because the punishment is severe i.e. kares, excision, misah bi’ye’dei shamayim – death by an act of heaven and the four methods of execution (sekilah, serefah, hereg, chenek) (Emunos v’De’os 5,4)
One can determine the severity or lightness of the transgression based on the punishment.
Positive Commandments vs. Negative Commandments
The Rambam makes a distinction between positive commandments and negative commandments. Concerning mitzvos lo’ sa’aseh, (with a few exceptions) the Torah is clear on the punishment for these transgressions. There are eight degrees of punishment: misah – execution by (sekilah, serefah, hereg and chenek) kares -- excision, misah bi’ye’dei shamayim – death by an act of heaven and malkos -- stripes.
On the other hand, concerning mitzvos aseh, since the reward is not clear it is hard to know what is more or less severe. Rather, God preferred to command the fulfillment of each mitzvah, whichever one it may be, without declaring which would receive greater reward. Therefore, it behooves us to strive to fulfill each and every mitzvas aseh equally. In this vein, Chazal say, ha’osek b’mitzvah patur min ha’mitzvah, without any prejudice between the one mitzvah he is performing and the mitzvah being missed at the same time (Sukkah 25a). Similarly, they say: ‘ein ma’avirin ‘al ha’mitzvos, We do not pass over mitzvos i.e. when the occasion for practicing a mitzvah presents itself to you, do not pass it by and forsake it to practice some other mitzvah (Pesachim 64b, Yoma 33a).
Subsequently, the Mishnah says, even though the measure of one mitzvah against another is not clear there is a method for comparison. Every aseh that is not performed which has a punishment for failure of performance also has great reward linked to it when it is performed.
(Rambam Mishnah Commentary, Avos 2,1)
Sefer Chasidim disagrees with this approach:
Regarding the opinion that according to the severity of the suffering inflicted you can determine the punishment and reward for mitzvos he argues:
The punishment for transgressing Shabbos is stoning i.e. the most severe punishment. In some cases of sexual immorality the punishment is less severe -- strangulation or kares, excision. Should Shabbos, then, be assessed as having a higher value than sexual morality? No. Despite the fact that it is permitted to transgress Shabbos to save a life, there is no similar exception for sins with a lesser punishment like forbidden sexual relationships or murder where neither would receive the severer punishment of stoning. Hence, do not conclude from these degrees of punishment that one mitzvah has more value than another. Also, in assessing a mitzvah, there is the additional factor of when exceptions are permitted. In contrast to Shabbos, the Torah does not make exceptions to the rule for immorality and murder. (Parma edition, Siman 157, my paraphrase)
The Rambam provides a more comprehensive approach to the issue of punishment in relation to sin in the Moreh:
Preliminary Remark.—Whether the punishment is great or small, the pain inflicted intense or less intense, depends on the following four conditions.
1. The greatness of the sin. Actions that cause great harm are punished severely, whilst actions that cause little harm are punished less severely.
2. The frequency of the crime. A crime that is frequently committed must be put down by severe punishment; crimes of rare occurrence may be suppressed by a lenient punishment considering that they are rarely committed.
3. The amount of temptation. Only fear of a severe punishment restrains us from actions for which there exists a great temptation, either because we have a great desire for these actions, or are accustomed to them, or feel unhappy without them.
4. The facility of doing the thing secretly, and unseen and unnoticed. From such acts we are deterred only by the fear of a great and terrible punishment.
After this preliminary remark, I say that the precepts of the Law may be divided into the following four classes with respect to the punishment for their transgression: -- (1) Precepts whose transgression is followed by sentence of death pronounced by a court of law. (2) Precepts whose transgression is punished with excision, such transgression being held to be a very great sin. (3) In some cases the transgression is punished by stripes administered with a strap (such transgression not being considered a grievous sin, as it concerns only a simple prohibition); or by ”death by Heaven.” (4) Precepts the transgression of which is not punished [even] by stripes. Prohibitions of this kind are all those that involve no act. But there are the following exceptions: [First], Swearing falsely, because it is gross neglect of man’s duty, who ought to bear constantly in mind the greatness of God. [Secondly], Changing an animal devoted to the sanctuary for another (Lev. xxvii. 10), because this change leads to contemning sacrifices devoted to the name of God. [Thirdly], Cursing a person by the name of God (ibid. xix. 14); because many dread the effect of a curse more than bodily harm. The transgression of other negative commandments that involve no act causes little harm, and cannot always be avoided, as it consists in mere words: moreover, man’s back would be inflicted with stripes all the year round if he were to be punished with stripes for each transgression of this kind. Besides, previous warning is impossible in this case. There is also wisdom in the number of stripes: for although the number of their maximum is given, there is no fixed number how many are to be applied to each person; each man receives only as many stripes as he can bear, but not more than forty (Dent. xxv. 3), even if he be strong enough for a hundred.
The ”death by the court of law” is not inflicted for the transgression of any of the dietary laws: because in such a case no great harm is done, and the temptation of man to transgress these laws is not as great as the temptation to the enjoyment of sexual intercourse. In some of the dietary laws the punishment is excision. This is the case with the prohibition of eating blood (Lev. xvii. 26). For in ancient days people were very eager and anxious to eat blood as a kind of idolatrous ceremony, as is explained in the book Tomtom, and therefore the prohibition of eating blood is made very stringent. Excision is also the punishment for eating fat; because people enjoy it, and because it was distinguished and sanctified by its use in the offerings. … Death by the court of law is decreed in important cases: when faith is undermined, or a great crime is committed, viz., idolatry, incest, murder, or actions that lead to these crimes. It is further decreed for breaking the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 15): because the keeping of Sabbath is a confirmation of our belief in the Creation; … Capital punishment is only decreed for these serious crimes, and in no other case. Not all forbidden sexual intercourse is visited with the penalty of death, but only in those cases in which the criminal act can easily be done, is of frequent occurrence, is base and disgraceful, and of a tempting character; otherwise excision is the punishment. Likewise not all kinds of idolatry are capital crimes, but only the principal acts of idolatry, such as praying to an idol, prophesying in its name, passing a child through the fire, consulting with familiar spirits, and acting as a wizard or witch.
(Moreh 3, 41)
As we see from the discussion in these sources, there are more factors in addition to the severity of the punishment to consider in assessing the value of a mitzvah. The meaning of the Mishnah can take on many different interpretations depending on whether we look at positive or negative commandments, exceptions permitted for some mitzvos and not for others, the degree of temptation involved, the ability to sin secretly and the frequency of the sin.
Should Shabbos, then, be assessed as having a higher value than sexual morality and murder?
The fact is, it is permitted to transgress Shabbos to save a life. There is no similar exception for forbidden sexual relationships or murder, where neither would receive the severer punishment of stoning. Sexual morality and murder allow no exceptions to the rule. In assessing these mitzvos, there is the additional factor of when exceptions are permitted. Therefore, as the Sefer Chasidim points out, sexual morality and murder should be assessed as having a higher value than Shabbos.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Rambam on God, Prophecy and the Torah
In Yesodei haTorah Rambam tells us the halakhos regarding our beliefs on:
God
Creation and
Prophecy
On the subject of creation he tells us about the angels. (Yesodei haTorah, 2:3-7)
Question:
Why does the Rambam discuss mal’a’khim, angels, in Yesodei haTorah in between the subjects of God (Yesodei haTorah 1) and Prophecy (Yesodei haTorah, 7-10)?
I believe the connection between angels and prophecy lies in a discussion of Avoda Zarah in the Moreh where the Rambam writes:
It is known that the heathen in those days built temples to stars, and set up in those temples the image which they agreed upon to worship; because it was in some relation to a certain star or to a portion of one of the spheres. We were, therefore, commanded to build a temple to the name of God, and to place therein the ark with two tables of stone, on which there were written the commandments" I am the Lord," etc., and " Thou shalt have no other God before me," etc. Naturally the fundamental belief in prophecy precedes the belief in the Law, for without the belief in prophecy there can be no belief in the Law. But a prophet only receives divine inspiration through the agency of an angel. Comp. " The angel of the Lord called" (Gen. xxii. 15): " The angel of the Lord said unto her" (ibid. xvi. 11): and other innumerable instances. Even Moses our Teacher received his first prophecy through an angel." And an angel of the Lord appeared to him in the flame of fire" (Exod. iii.). It is therefore dear that the belief in the existence of angels precedes the belief in prophecy, and the latter precedes the belief in the Law. The Sabeans, in their ignorance of the existence of God, believed that the spheres with their stars were beings without beginning and without end, that the images and certain trees, the Asherot, derived certain powers from the spheres, that they inspired the prophets, spoke to them in visions, and told them what was good and what bad. I have explained their theory when speaking of the prophets of the Ashera. But when the wise men discovered and proved that there was a Being, neither itself corporeal nor residing as a force in a corporeal body, viz., the true, one God, and that there existed besides other purely incorporeal beings which God endowed with His goodness and His light, namely, the angels, and that these beings are not included in the sphere and its stars, it became evident that it was these angels and not the images or Asherot that charged the prophets. From the preceding remarks it is clear that the belief in the existence of angels is connected with the belief in the Existence of God; and the belief in God and angels leads to the belief in Prophecy and in the truth of the Law. In order to firmly establish this creed, God commanded [the Israelites] to make over the ark the form of two angels. The belief in the existence of angels is thus inculcated into the minds of the people, and this belief is in importance next to the belief in God's Existence; it leads us to believe in Prophecy and in the Law, and opposes idolatry. If there had only been one figure of a cherub, the people would have been misled and would have mistaken it for God's image which was to be worshipped, in the fashion of the heathen; or they might have assumed that the angel [represented by the figure] was also a deity, and would thus have adopted a Dualism. By making two cherubim and distinctly declaring" the Lord is our God, the Lord is One," Moses dearly proclaimed the theory of the existence of a number of angels; he left no room for the error of considering those figures as deities, since [he declared that) God is
one, and that He is the Creator of the angels, who are more than one.
--Moreh 3, 45
The sequence is as follows:
God – angels – prophecy – Torah.
Each one is a prerequisite for the next one. God created the angels. The angels are needed to communicate with the prophets. Prophecy is a prerequisite for the Torah.
God
Creation and
Prophecy
On the subject of creation he tells us about the angels. (Yesodei haTorah, 2:3-7)
Question:
Why does the Rambam discuss mal’a’khim, angels, in Yesodei haTorah in between the subjects of God (Yesodei haTorah 1) and Prophecy (Yesodei haTorah, 7-10)?
I believe the connection between angels and prophecy lies in a discussion of Avoda Zarah in the Moreh where the Rambam writes:
It is known that the heathen in those days built temples to stars, and set up in those temples the image which they agreed upon to worship; because it was in some relation to a certain star or to a portion of one of the spheres. We were, therefore, commanded to build a temple to the name of God, and to place therein the ark with two tables of stone, on which there were written the commandments" I am the Lord," etc., and " Thou shalt have no other God before me," etc. Naturally the fundamental belief in prophecy precedes the belief in the Law, for without the belief in prophecy there can be no belief in the Law. But a prophet only receives divine inspiration through the agency of an angel. Comp. " The angel of the Lord called" (Gen. xxii. 15): " The angel of the Lord said unto her" (ibid. xvi. 11): and other innumerable instances. Even Moses our Teacher received his first prophecy through an angel." And an angel of the Lord appeared to him in the flame of fire" (Exod. iii.). It is therefore dear that the belief in the existence of angels precedes the belief in prophecy, and the latter precedes the belief in the Law. The Sabeans, in their ignorance of the existence of God, believed that the spheres with their stars were beings without beginning and without end, that the images and certain trees, the Asherot, derived certain powers from the spheres, that they inspired the prophets, spoke to them in visions, and told them what was good and what bad. I have explained their theory when speaking of the prophets of the Ashera. But when the wise men discovered and proved that there was a Being, neither itself corporeal nor residing as a force in a corporeal body, viz., the true, one God, and that there existed besides other purely incorporeal beings which God endowed with His goodness and His light, namely, the angels, and that these beings are not included in the sphere and its stars, it became evident that it was these angels and not the images or Asherot that charged the prophets. From the preceding remarks it is clear that the belief in the existence of angels is connected with the belief in the Existence of God; and the belief in God and angels leads to the belief in Prophecy and in the truth of the Law. In order to firmly establish this creed, God commanded [the Israelites] to make over the ark the form of two angels. The belief in the existence of angels is thus inculcated into the minds of the people, and this belief is in importance next to the belief in God's Existence; it leads us to believe in Prophecy and in the Law, and opposes idolatry. If there had only been one figure of a cherub, the people would have been misled and would have mistaken it for God's image which was to be worshipped, in the fashion of the heathen; or they might have assumed that the angel [represented by the figure] was also a deity, and would thus have adopted a Dualism. By making two cherubim and distinctly declaring" the Lord is our God, the Lord is One," Moses dearly proclaimed the theory of the existence of a number of angels; he left no room for the error of considering those figures as deities, since [he declared that) God is
one, and that He is the Creator of the angels, who are more than one.
--Moreh 3, 45
The sequence is as follows:
God – angels – prophecy – Torah.
Each one is a prerequisite for the next one. God created the angels. The angels are needed to communicate with the prophets. Prophecy is a prerequisite for the Torah.
The prohecy of Moshe Rabbenu for the Torah is different and on a higher level without the intermediary of an angel. But that is a subject for another post.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Rambam on Chasidim and Humility
The Mishnah says: Me’od me’od he’vei she’fal ruach.
BE EXCEEDING LOWLY OF SPIRIT, FOR THE EXPECTATION OF MORTAL MAN IS [THAT HE WILL TURN TO] WORMS. (Avos, 4:4)
Why this accentuated deviation from the advocacy of a middle course?
According to Rambam: Because, for Man, being naturally over-inclined to pride, it is necessary to over-emphasize the quality of self-depreciation.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah the Rambam relates a story that he read in a book on ethics.
One of the pious (Arabic: al-fu’du’la. Hebrew: chasidim) was asked:
What was the happiest day of your life?
He said:
The day I traveled on a ship in the lowest class wearing rags. Wealthy merchants were on the boat and one them wanted to relieve himself. In view of my lowly status he urinated on me. I was amazed at his arrogance and brazenness. In truth, I was not upset in the least by his actions and I accepted it with equanimity. At that point I was very happy that I reached the level of not caring about the debasement I suffered from this flawed person and that I was able to put him out of mind.
The Rambam concludes from this: There is no doubt that this is the ultimate extreme low in spirit that Man can reach at the other end of the spectrum from the trait of pride (Arabic: at-tikbar. Hebrew: ha'ga’a’vah).
Is the Rambam praising this exceedingly humble, meek and submissive person? Is the Rambam saying that this is true chasidus that people should emulate and strive for as the ultimate level of humility?
I think not because later on in the Rambam’s commentary on this Mishnah, he quotes the Gemara:
R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rav: A talmid chakham should possess an eighth [of pride]. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: [This small amount of pride] crowns him like the awn of the grain. Rava said: [A talmid chakham] who possesses [haughtiness of spirit] deserves excommunication, and if he does not possess it [some pride] he deserves excommunication (Sotah 5a).
The Rambam then concludes:
It is not fitting to go to the extreme of total shiflus because it is not a pious and good, proper trait (Arabic: min al-fa’da’il. Hebrew: ha’ma’alos).
Rashi says on the words and if he does not possess it [some pride] he deserves excommunication: A talmid chakham who has no sense of self-worth and self-respect will be unable to gain the respect and awe he needs from his community to teach and chastise them.
Some have interpreted the behavior of the chasid in this story as the Rambam’s recommended model to imitate. Clearly, we see from the Gemara and the Rambam’s conclusion that the chasid’s behavior is not desirable and in fact should be shunned. Meekness at that level is an extreme to avoid. The use of the term chasidim by the Hebrew translators of the Rambam is misleading. The source of the story may not even be a Jewish book on ethics. The Rambam may have been quoting a non-Jewish source and holding it up for disapproval.
The Rambam needs to be read very carefully, in context and with close attention to his conclusions after a long excursus.
May we all be able to find the small turn from middle path towards humility, avoid the pitfalls of ga’avah and the mistaken path of the meek.
BE EXCEEDING LOWLY OF SPIRIT, FOR THE EXPECTATION OF MORTAL MAN IS [THAT HE WILL TURN TO] WORMS. (Avos, 4:4)
Why this accentuated deviation from the advocacy of a middle course?
According to Rambam: Because, for Man, being naturally over-inclined to pride, it is necessary to over-emphasize the quality of self-depreciation.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah the Rambam relates a story that he read in a book on ethics.
One of the pious (Arabic: al-fu’du’la. Hebrew: chasidim) was asked:
What was the happiest day of your life?
He said:
The day I traveled on a ship in the lowest class wearing rags. Wealthy merchants were on the boat and one them wanted to relieve himself. In view of my lowly status he urinated on me. I was amazed at his arrogance and brazenness. In truth, I was not upset in the least by his actions and I accepted it with equanimity. At that point I was very happy that I reached the level of not caring about the debasement I suffered from this flawed person and that I was able to put him out of mind.
The Rambam concludes from this: There is no doubt that this is the ultimate extreme low in spirit that Man can reach at the other end of the spectrum from the trait of pride (Arabic: at-tikbar. Hebrew: ha'ga’a’vah).
Is the Rambam praising this exceedingly humble, meek and submissive person? Is the Rambam saying that this is true chasidus that people should emulate and strive for as the ultimate level of humility?
I think not because later on in the Rambam’s commentary on this Mishnah, he quotes the Gemara:
R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rav: A talmid chakham should possess an eighth [of pride]. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: [This small amount of pride] crowns him like the awn of the grain. Rava said: [A talmid chakham] who possesses [haughtiness of spirit] deserves excommunication, and if he does not possess it [some pride] he deserves excommunication (Sotah 5a).
The Rambam then concludes:
It is not fitting to go to the extreme of total shiflus because it is not a pious and good, proper trait (Arabic: min al-fa’da’il. Hebrew: ha’ma’alos).
Rashi says on the words and if he does not possess it [some pride] he deserves excommunication: A talmid chakham who has no sense of self-worth and self-respect will be unable to gain the respect and awe he needs from his community to teach and chastise them.
Some have interpreted the behavior of the chasid in this story as the Rambam’s recommended model to imitate. Clearly, we see from the Gemara and the Rambam’s conclusion that the chasid’s behavior is not desirable and in fact should be shunned. Meekness at that level is an extreme to avoid. The use of the term chasidim by the Hebrew translators of the Rambam is misleading. The source of the story may not even be a Jewish book on ethics. The Rambam may have been quoting a non-Jewish source and holding it up for disapproval.
The Rambam needs to be read very carefully, in context and with close attention to his conclusions after a long excursus.
May we all be able to find the small turn from middle path towards humility, avoid the pitfalls of ga’avah and the mistaken path of the meek.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Rambam on Divine Attributes in Prayer: The Limits of Human Power
One should also not add to the enumeration of Hashem’s attributes in the Shemoneh Esreh and say: ha’el ha’gadol ha’gibor v’ha’nora he’chazak v’ha’amitz v’ha’izuz, the great, mighty and awesome God, strong, brave and powerful. It is beyond human ability to fully praise God, except to say what Moshe said. (Tefillah 9:7)
This Rambam follows the Gemara:
A certain [reader] went down in the presence of R. Hanina and said, O God, the great, mighty, terrible, majestic, powerful, awful, strong, fearless, sure and honored. He waited till he had finished, and when he had finished he said to him, Have you concluded all the praise of your Master? Why do we want all this? Even with these three that we do say, had not Moses our Master mentioned them in the Law (Devarim 10:17) and had not the Men of the Great Synagogue come and inserted them in the Tefillah, we should not have been able to mention them, and you say all these and still go on! It is as if an earthly king had a million denarii of gold, and someone praised him as possessing silver ones. Would it not be an insult to him? (Berakhos 33b)
The Rambam explains this mashal in Moreh Nevukhim:
Consider, first, how repulsive and annoying the accumulation of all these positive attributes was to him; next, how he showed that, if we had only to follow our reason, we should never' have composed these prayers, and we should not have uttered any of them. It has, however, become necessary to address men in words that should leave some idea in their minds, and, in accordance with the saying of our Sages," The Torah speaks in the language of men," the Creator has been described to us in terms of our own perfections; but we should not on that account have uttered any other than the three above-mentioned attributes, and we should not have used them as names of God except when meeting with them in reading the Law. Subsequently, the men of the Great Synagogue, who were prophets, introduced these expressions also into the prayer, but we should not on that account use [in our prayers] any other attributes of God. The principal lesson to be derived from this passage is that there are two reasons for our employing those phrases in our prayers : first, they occur in the Pentateuch; secondly, the Prophets introduced them into the prayer. Were it not for the first reason, we should never have uttered them; and were it not for the second reason, we should not have copied them from the Pentateuch to recite them in our prayers: how then could we approve of the use of those numerous attributes! You also learn from this that we ought not to mention and employ ill our prayers all the attributes we find applied to God in the books of the Prophetq: for he does not say," Were it not that Moses, our Teacher, said them, we should not have been able to use them": but he adds another condition-" and had not the men of the Great Synagogue come forward and established their use in the prayer," because only for that reason are we allowed to use them in our prayers. We cannot approve of what those foolish persons do who are extravagant in praise, fluent and prolix in the prayers they compose, and in the hymns they make in the desire to approach the Creator. They describe God in attributes which would be an offence if applied to a human being; for those persons have no knowledge of these great and important principles, which are not accessible to the ordinary intelligence of man. Treating the Creator as a familiar object, they describe Him and speak of Him in any expressions they think proper; they eloquently continue to praise Him in that manner, and believe that they can thereby influence Him and produce an effect on Him. If they find some phrase suited to their object in the words of the Prophets they are still more inclined to consider that they are free to make use of such texts-which should at least be explained-to employ them in their literal sense, to derive new expressions from them, to form from them numerous variations, and to found whole compositions on them. This license is frequently met with in the compositions of the singers, preachers, and others who imagine themselves to be able to compose a poem. Such authors write things which partly are real heresy, partly contain such folly and absurdity that they naturally cause those who hear them to laugh, but also to feel grieved at the thought that such things can be uttered in reference to God. Were it not that 1 pitied the authors for their defects. And did not wish to injure them, I should have cited some passages to show you their mistakes; besides, the fault of their compositions is obvious to all intelligent persons. You must consider it, and think thus : If slander and libel is a great sin, how much greater is the sin of those who speak with looseness of tongue in reference to God, and describe Him by attributes which are far below Him; and I declare that they not only commit an ordinary sin, but unconsciously at least incur the guilt of profanity and blasphemy. This applies both to the multitude that listens to such prayers, and to the foolish man that recites them. Men, however, who understand the fault of such compositions, and, nevertheless, recite them, may be classed, according to my opinion, among those to whom the following words are applied:" And the children of Israel used words that were not right against the Lord their God" (2 Kings xvii. 9): and" utter error against the Lord" (Isa. =ii. 6). If you are of those who regard the honour of their Creator, do not listen in any way to them, much less utter what they say, and still less compose such prayers. knowing how great is the offence of one who hurls aspersions against the Supreme Being. There is no necessity at all for you to use positive attributes of God with the view of magnifying Him in your thoughts, or to go beyond the limits which the men of the Great Synagogue have introduced in the prayers and in the blessings, for this is sufficient for all purposes, and even more than Sufficient, as Rabbi Haninah said. Other attributes, such as occur in the books of the Prophets, may be uttered when we meet with them in reading those books; but we must bear in mind what has already been explained, that they are
either attributes of God's actions, or expressions implying the negation of the opposite. This likewise should not be divulged to the multitude; but a reflection of this kind is fitted for the few only who believe that the glorification of God does not consist in uttering that which is not to be uttered, but in reflecting on that on which man should reflect.
We Will now conclude our exposition of the wise words of R. Haninah. He does not employ any such simile as:" A king who possesses millions of gold denarii, and is praised as having hundreds" : for this would imply that God's perfections, although more perfect than those ascribed to man are still of the same kind: but this is not the case, as has been proved. The excellence of the simile consists in the words: who possesses golden denarii, and is praised as having silver denarii" this implies that these attributes, though perfections as regards ourselves, are not such as regards God; in reference to Him they would all be defects, as is distinctly suggested in the remark," Is this not an offence to Him ?" '
(Moreh I,59)
I always suspected that there is also anti-Islamic polemic here because the Muslims list a hundred attributes of God.
This Rambam follows the Gemara:
A certain [reader] went down in the presence of R. Hanina and said, O God, the great, mighty, terrible, majestic, powerful, awful, strong, fearless, sure and honored. He waited till he had finished, and when he had finished he said to him, Have you concluded all the praise of your Master? Why do we want all this? Even with these three that we do say, had not Moses our Master mentioned them in the Law (Devarim 10:17) and had not the Men of the Great Synagogue come and inserted them in the Tefillah, we should not have been able to mention them, and you say all these and still go on! It is as if an earthly king had a million denarii of gold, and someone praised him as possessing silver ones. Would it not be an insult to him? (Berakhos 33b)
The Rambam explains this mashal in Moreh Nevukhim:
Consider, first, how repulsive and annoying the accumulation of all these positive attributes was to him; next, how he showed that, if we had only to follow our reason, we should never' have composed these prayers, and we should not have uttered any of them. It has, however, become necessary to address men in words that should leave some idea in their minds, and, in accordance with the saying of our Sages," The Torah speaks in the language of men," the Creator has been described to us in terms of our own perfections; but we should not on that account have uttered any other than the three above-mentioned attributes, and we should not have used them as names of God except when meeting with them in reading the Law. Subsequently, the men of the Great Synagogue, who were prophets, introduced these expressions also into the prayer, but we should not on that account use [in our prayers] any other attributes of God. The principal lesson to be derived from this passage is that there are two reasons for our employing those phrases in our prayers : first, they occur in the Pentateuch; secondly, the Prophets introduced them into the prayer. Were it not for the first reason, we should never have uttered them; and were it not for the second reason, we should not have copied them from the Pentateuch to recite them in our prayers: how then could we approve of the use of those numerous attributes! You also learn from this that we ought not to mention and employ ill our prayers all the attributes we find applied to God in the books of the Prophetq: for he does not say," Were it not that Moses, our Teacher, said them, we should not have been able to use them": but he adds another condition-" and had not the men of the Great Synagogue come forward and established their use in the prayer," because only for that reason are we allowed to use them in our prayers. We cannot approve of what those foolish persons do who are extravagant in praise, fluent and prolix in the prayers they compose, and in the hymns they make in the desire to approach the Creator. They describe God in attributes which would be an offence if applied to a human being; for those persons have no knowledge of these great and important principles, which are not accessible to the ordinary intelligence of man. Treating the Creator as a familiar object, they describe Him and speak of Him in any expressions they think proper; they eloquently continue to praise Him in that manner, and believe that they can thereby influence Him and produce an effect on Him. If they find some phrase suited to their object in the words of the Prophets they are still more inclined to consider that they are free to make use of such texts-which should at least be explained-to employ them in their literal sense, to derive new expressions from them, to form from them numerous variations, and to found whole compositions on them. This license is frequently met with in the compositions of the singers, preachers, and others who imagine themselves to be able to compose a poem. Such authors write things which partly are real heresy, partly contain such folly and absurdity that they naturally cause those who hear them to laugh, but also to feel grieved at the thought that such things can be uttered in reference to God. Were it not that 1 pitied the authors for their defects. And did not wish to injure them, I should have cited some passages to show you their mistakes; besides, the fault of their compositions is obvious to all intelligent persons. You must consider it, and think thus : If slander and libel is a great sin, how much greater is the sin of those who speak with looseness of tongue in reference to God, and describe Him by attributes which are far below Him; and I declare that they not only commit an ordinary sin, but unconsciously at least incur the guilt of profanity and blasphemy. This applies both to the multitude that listens to such prayers, and to the foolish man that recites them. Men, however, who understand the fault of such compositions, and, nevertheless, recite them, may be classed, according to my opinion, among those to whom the following words are applied:" And the children of Israel used words that were not right against the Lord their God" (2 Kings xvii. 9): and" utter error against the Lord" (Isa. =ii. 6). If you are of those who regard the honour of their Creator, do not listen in any way to them, much less utter what they say, and still less compose such prayers. knowing how great is the offence of one who hurls aspersions against the Supreme Being. There is no necessity at all for you to use positive attributes of God with the view of magnifying Him in your thoughts, or to go beyond the limits which the men of the Great Synagogue have introduced in the prayers and in the blessings, for this is sufficient for all purposes, and even more than Sufficient, as Rabbi Haninah said. Other attributes, such as occur in the books of the Prophets, may be uttered when we meet with them in reading those books; but we must bear in mind what has already been explained, that they are
either attributes of God's actions, or expressions implying the negation of the opposite. This likewise should not be divulged to the multitude; but a reflection of this kind is fitted for the few only who believe that the glorification of God does not consist in uttering that which is not to be uttered, but in reflecting on that on which man should reflect.
We Will now conclude our exposition of the wise words of R. Haninah. He does not employ any such simile as:" A king who possesses millions of gold denarii, and is praised as having hundreds" : for this would imply that God's perfections, although more perfect than those ascribed to man are still of the same kind: but this is not the case, as has been proved. The excellence of the simile consists in the words: who possesses golden denarii, and is praised as having silver denarii" this implies that these attributes, though perfections as regards ourselves, are not such as regards God; in reference to Him they would all be defects, as is distinctly suggested in the remark," Is this not an offence to Him ?" '
(Moreh I,59)
I always suspected that there is also anti-Islamic polemic here because the Muslims list a hundred attributes of God.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Rambam on Yiddish, Yeshivish and Other Jewish Languages
When the Jewish people were exiled in the days of wicked Nevuchadnezzar, they mixed with Persians, Greeks and other nationalities. Children were born to them in foreign lands. The language of these children was confused, a mixture of many languages. They were unable to express themselves adequately and accurately in any one language, as it is written: “Their children spoke half in the tongue of Ashdod; they could not speak Hebrew, nor any foreign tongue” (Nechemiah 13:24). When anyone of them prayed, his Hebrew vocabulary was too limited to express his needs or to praise God without mixing Hebrew with other languages. When Ezra and his Beis Din took notice of this they instituted the Shemonah Esreh in their present order: the first contain praise to God; the last three thanksgiving; the intermediate blessings contain petitions for the most essential needs of the individual and the community. They were to be set on everyone’s lips and learned… (Tefillah 1:4).
The development of Jewish languages as a result of galus is a very interesting topic that sheds light on different levels of assimilation and acculturation in various places at different times.
The Gemara in Jewish Aramaic is probably the best example of a Jewish language that comes close to Hebrew in lasting importance for all time.
Judeo-Arabic probably comes next in holiness because of the many classic works of the Geonim and Rishonim that were written by R. Saadia Gaon, and classics like Chovos ha’Levavos, Kuzari, Moreh Nevukhim and Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Sefer ha’Mitzvos and many Teshuvos and letters.
Ladino was used to write Me’am Lo’ez. Yiddish, on the other hand, was not used as the language for any classic seforim.
What distinguishes all of these Jewish languages from Yeshivish is the fact that they were all written in Hebrew letters. Until modern times -- and the level of acculturation to non-Jewish culture that came with it -- Jews did not think of writing in a goyish alphabet. Other alphabets were foreign to them and not for Jews even when they used the vernacular of the country in which they lived for speech. This tells something about the acculturated nature of Yeshivish that I think many would like to ignore or deny.
The Rambam’s remarks are a sad commentary on our times: “The language of these children is confused, a mixture of many languages. They are unable to express themselves adequately and accurately in any one language.”
In ancient times this produced something positive: The Shemonah Esreh. In modern times we have yet to see what hasgacha pratis will bring about that is positive from the current cultural environment.
The development of Jewish languages as a result of galus is a very interesting topic that sheds light on different levels of assimilation and acculturation in various places at different times.
The Gemara in Jewish Aramaic is probably the best example of a Jewish language that comes close to Hebrew in lasting importance for all time.
Judeo-Arabic probably comes next in holiness because of the many classic works of the Geonim and Rishonim that were written by R. Saadia Gaon, and classics like Chovos ha’Levavos, Kuzari, Moreh Nevukhim and Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Sefer ha’Mitzvos and many Teshuvos and letters.
Ladino was used to write Me’am Lo’ez. Yiddish, on the other hand, was not used as the language for any classic seforim.
What distinguishes all of these Jewish languages from Yeshivish is the fact that they were all written in Hebrew letters. Until modern times -- and the level of acculturation to non-Jewish culture that came with it -- Jews did not think of writing in a goyish alphabet. Other alphabets were foreign to them and not for Jews even when they used the vernacular of the country in which they lived for speech. This tells something about the acculturated nature of Yeshivish that I think many would like to ignore or deny.
The Rambam’s remarks are a sad commentary on our times: “The language of these children is confused, a mixture of many languages. They are unable to express themselves adequately and accurately in any one language.”
In ancient times this produced something positive: The Shemonah Esreh. In modern times we have yet to see what hasgacha pratis will bring about that is positive from the current cultural environment.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav: Is There a Connection Between Shofar and Sukkah v’Lulav?
The Rambam’s Mishneh Torah is divided into fourteen books according to subjects or classes of laws. For example, the laws of Shabbos and the annual holidays that fall in different seasons and times of the year are in Sefer Zemanim, the Book of Seasons. Each book is further divided into sections of halakhos. In the case of Sefer Zemanim, those sections are Hilkhos Shabbos, Hilkhos Eruvin, Hilkhos Hamez u-Mazah, Hilkhos Shofar Sukkah v'Lulav, etc.
Why did the Rambam combine the laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav into one set of halakhos?
Shofar is a mitzvah on Rosh Hashanah and ostensibly has no connection to yetzias mitzrayim. Sukkah is connected to yetzias mitzrayim and the agricultural aspect of the shalosh regalim as the chag ha’asif, the harvest festival. Lulav is perfomed on Sukkos and hence fits with Sukkos. But what is the connection between Shofar, on one hand, and Sukkah and Lulav, on the other hand?
Discussions in my Sukkah came up with the following answers:
1. There is no connection, but, the Rambam preferred to group them together rather than leave them as singletons
2. They are connected by the fact that they are mitzvos aseh, positive commandments, that occur in Tishrei
3. There are eight chapters in Hilkhos Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav corresponding to the eight days of Sukkos when Shmini Atzeres is included. The Rambam discusses the simcha shel ahava component of Shmini Atzeres in the eighth chapter of Hilkhos Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav
Rav Dovid Cohen says the connection is the celebration of success on Sukkos with Lulav on being forgiven during the y’mei ha’din of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. This is based on the Midrash Tehilllim 17.
Why did the Rambam combine the laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav into one set of halakhos?
Shofar is a mitzvah on Rosh Hashanah and ostensibly has no connection to yetzias mitzrayim. Sukkah is connected to yetzias mitzrayim and the agricultural aspect of the shalosh regalim as the chag ha’asif, the harvest festival. Lulav is perfomed on Sukkos and hence fits with Sukkos. But what is the connection between Shofar, on one hand, and Sukkah and Lulav, on the other hand?
Discussions in my Sukkah came up with the following answers:
1. There is no connection, but, the Rambam preferred to group them together rather than leave them as singletons
2. They are connected by the fact that they are mitzvos aseh, positive commandments, that occur in Tishrei
3. There are eight chapters in Hilkhos Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav corresponding to the eight days of Sukkos when Shmini Atzeres is included. The Rambam discusses the simcha shel ahava component of Shmini Atzeres in the eighth chapter of Hilkhos Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav
Rav Dovid Cohen says the connection is the celebration of success on Sukkos with Lulav on being forgiven during the y’mei ha’din of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. This is based on the Midrash Tehilllim 17.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
The Difference Between Tish’a B’av and Yom Kippur
R. Avraham Heschel of Apt was opposed to voluntary fasts and self-affliction.
He used to say:
--If I could, I would abolish all the fasts except for the yom ha’mar, the bitter day, Tish’a b’Av and the Yom ha’Kadosh, the Holy Day, Yom Kippur.
On the bitter day -- who can eat?
On the Holy Day – who needs to eat?
He used to say:
--If I could, I would abolish all the fasts except for the yom ha’mar, the bitter day, Tish’a b’Av and the Yom ha’Kadosh, the Holy Day, Yom Kippur.
On the bitter day -- who can eat?
On the Holy Day – who needs to eat?
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Selichos: What Kind of Prayer?
Va’ya’avor Hashem ‘al panav vayikra, And ‘the Lord passed by before him and proclaimed [etc.] (Shemos 34:6). R. Yochanan said: Were it not written in the text, it would be impossible for us to say such a thing; this verse teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, drew his talis round Him like the sheliach tzibur and showed Moshe the order of prayer. He said to him: Whenever Israel sin, let them carry out this service, reciting the yud gimel midos ha’rachamim, thirteen attributes of mercy, before Me, and I will forgive them. Hashem, Hashem, ‘The Lord, the Lord’: I am the Eternal before a man sins and the same after a man sins and repents. ‘A God merciful and gracious:’ Rab Judah said: A covenant has been made with the thirteen attributes that they will not be turned away empty-handed, as it says, Behold I make a covenant. (Rosh Hashanah 17b).
The basic core of the selichos are these pesukim of the thirteen midos:
Hashem, Hashem, El Rachum v’Chanun….
And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin…(Shemos 34:6-7).
A covenant has been made with the thirteen attributes that they will not be turned away empty-handed. But, is that always the case? It appears many do come away empty-handed. The Tzror ha’Mor explains that one does not come away empty-handed if it is not merely used as a magic formula when saying these words. Only if one has internalized and emulated these Divine attributes in their behavior does the promise of this reward come true (Ki Sisa).
Rashi says: A covenant: A covenant has been made with the thirteen attributes, that if Yisrael mentions them in their prayers on fasts, that they will not be turned away empty-handed.
We learn two points from Rashi: 1) the yud gimel midos are recited on fasts and 2) that they are said be’tzibur, in public prayer.
Yet, there is no mention of the 13 midos in Gemara Ta’anis (15) on the subject of tefilas ta’anis!
The Rambam does not mention the 13 midos either in his hilkhos tefilah or in the seder ha-tefilos. However, the Rambam does say: The whole house of Israel has formed a custom to engage in the performance of charity and good deeds between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur to a much larger extent than during the entire year. Besides, during these ten days, they are all accustomed to rise in the night and to pray and supplicate in the synagogue until daylight (Teshuvah 3:4).
The Rokeach mentions reciting the13 midos in hilkhos yom hakippurim for ne’ilah only.
It appears that at first selichos was said on Yom Kippur just as the Torah tells they were first said by Hashem on Yom Kippur when the second tablets were given.
The Rav says, ‘al panav, according to the Gemara, does not mean and passed before him, Moshe. Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, drew the talis robe round Himself, so to speak, like the sheliach tzibur and showed Moshe the order of prayer for teshuvah. Every sheliach tzibur for selichos is, so to speak, playing the role of God, the first Sheliach tzibur for selichos. Therefore, we are especially careful in choosing a qualified sheliach tzibur; someone who is an accomplished person in the areas of Torah and good deeds for selichos and the yamin noraim.
(Based on the works of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik presented in Harerei Kedem by R. Mechel Shurkin, I, pp. 1-2 and Machzor M’soras Harav, pp.XXV-XXVI).
What kind of prayer is selichos?
It is a unique tefilah for special days modeled after the selichos on the Yom HaKadosh in which we ask for forgiveness. We have a bris with Hashem that we will not turned away empty-handed if we imitate His attributes and mention them. This was His lesson on prayer to us.
The basic core of the selichos are these pesukim of the thirteen midos:
Hashem, Hashem, El Rachum v’Chanun….
And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin…(Shemos 34:6-7).
A covenant has been made with the thirteen attributes that they will not be turned away empty-handed. But, is that always the case? It appears many do come away empty-handed. The Tzror ha’Mor explains that one does not come away empty-handed if it is not merely used as a magic formula when saying these words. Only if one has internalized and emulated these Divine attributes in their behavior does the promise of this reward come true (Ki Sisa).
Rashi says: A covenant: A covenant has been made with the thirteen attributes, that if Yisrael mentions them in their prayers on fasts, that they will not be turned away empty-handed.
We learn two points from Rashi: 1) the yud gimel midos are recited on fasts and 2) that they are said be’tzibur, in public prayer.
Yet, there is no mention of the 13 midos in Gemara Ta’anis (15) on the subject of tefilas ta’anis!
The Rambam does not mention the 13 midos either in his hilkhos tefilah or in the seder ha-tefilos. However, the Rambam does say: The whole house of Israel has formed a custom to engage in the performance of charity and good deeds between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur to a much larger extent than during the entire year. Besides, during these ten days, they are all accustomed to rise in the night and to pray and supplicate in the synagogue until daylight (Teshuvah 3:4).
The Rokeach mentions reciting the13 midos in hilkhos yom hakippurim for ne’ilah only.
It appears that at first selichos was said on Yom Kippur just as the Torah tells they were first said by Hashem on Yom Kippur when the second tablets were given.
The Rav says, ‘al panav, according to the Gemara, does not mean and passed before him, Moshe. Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, drew the talis robe round Himself, so to speak, like the sheliach tzibur and showed Moshe the order of prayer for teshuvah. Every sheliach tzibur for selichos is, so to speak, playing the role of God, the first Sheliach tzibur for selichos. Therefore, we are especially careful in choosing a qualified sheliach tzibur; someone who is an accomplished person in the areas of Torah and good deeds for selichos and the yamin noraim.
(Based on the works of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik presented in Harerei Kedem by R. Mechel Shurkin, I, pp. 1-2 and Machzor M’soras Harav, pp.XXV-XXVI).
What kind of prayer is selichos?
It is a unique tefilah for special days modeled after the selichos on the Yom HaKadosh in which we ask for forgiveness. We have a bris with Hashem that we will not turned away empty-handed if we imitate His attributes and mention them. This was His lesson on prayer to us.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Rambam on Class Size in School
Twenty-five children may be taught by one teacher. If there are more than twenty-five pupils, but fewer than forty, an assistant should be engaged to help with instruction. If there are more than forty, two elementary teachers are appointed.
(Talmud Torah 2:5)
(Talmud Torah 2:5)
Monday, September 04, 2006
Rambam on Exercise, Dieting and Lashon Hara’
Anyone who sits around idle and does not exercise will be subject to physical discomforts and failing strength, even though he eats wholesome food and takes care of himself in accordance with medical advice. Overeating is like deadly poison to the human body. Most illnesses which befall man arise either from bad food or excessive eating of good food. Shlomo, in his wisdom said: shomer piv u’l’shono shomer me’tzaros nafsho, “He who guards his mouth and his tongue keeps himself clear of trouble” (Mishlei 21:23). That is to say, he who guards his mouth from bad food and excessive eating, and keeps his tongue from unnecessary talk keeps himself clear of trouble.
--Dei’os, 4:15
--Dei’os, 4:15
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Sheva Berakhos: The Holiness of Kiddushin
What does holiness mean?
The root of kiddushin is kuf, daled and shin which means to separate. Something is holy because it is separated, distinguished, dedicated, sanctified and apart from something else.
The world is divided into three realms: Space, Time and Intellect; olam, shanah and nefesh. Hashem has given us mitzvos that sanctify each realm.
Some examples include:
Space – Eretz Yisrael as Eretz ha-Kodesh, the Holy Land
Time – Shabbos Kodesh for the holy day of the week, Shemittah for the years
Intellect – Purification of the mind through Torah study, kedushas and taharas ha-guf with the laws of tum’ah / taharah and kashrus
The Rambam named one of the 14 books that comprise the Mishneh Torah, Sefer Kedushah, Book of Holiness. There are only two sets of laws in Sefer Kedushah: 1 – Forbidden sexual relationships and 2 – Forbidden foods. The Rambam explains that with these two areas of law Hashem sanctified us and separated us from the goyim. In both cases the Torah says separation, ve-hivdalti and va-'avdil:
22. You shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them; that the land, where I bring you to dwell in it, vomit you not out.
23. And you shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you; for they committed all these things, and therefore I loathed them.
24. But I have said to you, You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess it, a land that flows with milk and honey; I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people.
25. You shall therefore differentiate between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean birds and clean; and you shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by bird, or by any manner of living thing that creeps on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.
26. And you shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from other people, that you should be mine.
--Vayikra 20
Marriage is called kiddushin because it sanctifies and dedicates the chassan and kallah to each other and separates them from everyone else. The birkas ‘erusin says:
Ve-tzivanu ‘al ho-‘aroyos, ve’asar lanu ‘es ho-‘arusos, ve-hittir lanu ‘es ha-nes’uos lanu ‘al ye-dei chuppah ve-kiddushin.
…Commanded us regarding forbidden unions; Who forbade betrothed women to us and permitted women who are married to us through canopy and consecration….
Holy matrimony is kiddushin. The chassan and kallah are holy to each other; dedicated to each other, permitted to each other and separated and forbidden to others.
Although, according to Rav Kafih, the Rambam did not conclude the birkas ‘erusin with the words ‘al ye-dei chuppah ve-kiddushin. The Rambam stopped at mekadesh yisrael because the kedushah of ‘am yisrael is not based solely on the chuppah and kiddushin of a pe-nuyah alone. Rather, kedushas ‘am yisrael is based on the laws of ‘isurei biah and ma’achalos ‘asuros.
May all chassanim and kallos be zokheh to a life of kedushah and taharah, kedushas ha-nefesh and kedushas ha-guf.
The root of kiddushin is kuf, daled and shin which means to separate. Something is holy because it is separated, distinguished, dedicated, sanctified and apart from something else.
The world is divided into three realms: Space, Time and Intellect; olam, shanah and nefesh. Hashem has given us mitzvos that sanctify each realm.
Some examples include:
Space – Eretz Yisrael as Eretz ha-Kodesh, the Holy Land
Time – Shabbos Kodesh for the holy day of the week, Shemittah for the years
Intellect – Purification of the mind through Torah study, kedushas and taharas ha-guf with the laws of tum’ah / taharah and kashrus
The Rambam named one of the 14 books that comprise the Mishneh Torah, Sefer Kedushah, Book of Holiness. There are only two sets of laws in Sefer Kedushah: 1 – Forbidden sexual relationships and 2 – Forbidden foods. The Rambam explains that with these two areas of law Hashem sanctified us and separated us from the goyim. In both cases the Torah says separation, ve-hivdalti and va-'avdil:
22. You shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them; that the land, where I bring you to dwell in it, vomit you not out.
23. And you shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you; for they committed all these things, and therefore I loathed them.
24. But I have said to you, You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess it, a land that flows with milk and honey; I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people.
25. You shall therefore differentiate between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean birds and clean; and you shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by bird, or by any manner of living thing that creeps on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.
26. And you shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from other people, that you should be mine.
--Vayikra 20
Marriage is called kiddushin because it sanctifies and dedicates the chassan and kallah to each other and separates them from everyone else. The birkas ‘erusin says:
Ve-tzivanu ‘al ho-‘aroyos, ve’asar lanu ‘es ho-‘arusos, ve-hittir lanu ‘es ha-nes’uos lanu ‘al ye-dei chuppah ve-kiddushin.
…Commanded us regarding forbidden unions; Who forbade betrothed women to us and permitted women who are married to us through canopy and consecration….
Holy matrimony is kiddushin. The chassan and kallah are holy to each other; dedicated to each other, permitted to each other and separated and forbidden to others.
Although, according to Rav Kafih, the Rambam did not conclude the birkas ‘erusin with the words ‘al ye-dei chuppah ve-kiddushin. The Rambam stopped at mekadesh yisrael because the kedushah of ‘am yisrael is not based solely on the chuppah and kiddushin of a pe-nuyah alone. Rather, kedushas ‘am yisrael is based on the laws of ‘isurei biah and ma’achalos ‘asuros.
May all chassanim and kallos be zokheh to a life of kedushah and taharah, kedushas ha-nefesh and kedushas ha-guf.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Rambam’s 13 Principles of Faith: Missing the 14th ?
Is there a fourteenth principle that the Rambam does not enumerate?
The number 14 has special significance for the Rambam. Rambam consistently classifies the mitzvos into groups of fourteen: fourteen books, classes, or categories. This scheme is first mentioned by Rambam in the Sefer ha-Mitzvos and is also used in the Mishneh Torah and the Moreh Nevuchim.
The Mishneh Torah is also referred to as Yad ha-Hazakah, alluding to the fourteen books; the numerical value of the letters Yud and Dalet (Yad) equal fourteen.
Yet, the Rambam has 13 ‘ikkarim, principles of faith, in his introduction to Perek Chelek. The most familiar version of these 13 are the Ani Ma’amin’s in the Siddur.
Many reasons have been offered for the use of 14 in Rambam’s writings.
Rav Dovid Cohen feels that the Rambam memorialized his brother and benefactor by using the number 14, the gematria of Dalet Vav Dalet, 4+6+4 = 14.
R. Yehoshua ha-Nagid (1310-1355, a descendant of Rambam), quoted by R. N.L. Rabinovitch in Mishneh Torah im Perush Yad Peshutah, Hakdamah u-Minyan ha-Mizvot (Jerusalem, 1997), 68, offers the following explanation: [The number fourteen] is an allusion to the positive and negative commandments. The numerical value of the 248 positive commandments in small numbers is as follows: 200 = 2, 40 = 4, and 8 = 8. 2+4+8 = 14. Similarly, the 365 negative commandments in small numbers are as follows: 300 = 3, 60 = 6, and 5 = 5. 3+6+5 = 14. R. Rabinovitch questions this explanation in light of the fact that it was not customary to refer to the different numbers 248 and 365 as the breakdown between the positive and negative commandments in the time of Rambam. Rambam’s thirteen ikkarim, the Principles of Faith, are also actually fourteen. The fourteenth principle, not listed with the others but nonetheless underlying them all, is the belief in free will. Rambam says in Hilkhot Teshuvah 5:3 that free will is an important principle and it is the pillar on which the Torah and the mitzvos stand. Perhaps, R. Rabinovitch argues, Rambam therefore chose the number fourteen as the numerical scheme for his writings.
--See Elimelekh Polinsky, “Parent-Child Relationships and Ta’amei ha-Mizvot” in The Legacy of Maimonides: Religion, Reason and Community edited by Yamin Levy and Sahlom Carmy (Yashar Books, 2006), pp.175-176 n. 4. http://www.yasharbooks.com/Legacy.html
The number 14 has special significance for the Rambam. Rambam consistently classifies the mitzvos into groups of fourteen: fourteen books, classes, or categories. This scheme is first mentioned by Rambam in the Sefer ha-Mitzvos and is also used in the Mishneh Torah and the Moreh Nevuchim.
The Mishneh Torah is also referred to as Yad ha-Hazakah, alluding to the fourteen books; the numerical value of the letters Yud and Dalet (Yad) equal fourteen.
Yet, the Rambam has 13 ‘ikkarim, principles of faith, in his introduction to Perek Chelek. The most familiar version of these 13 are the Ani Ma’amin’s in the Siddur.
Many reasons have been offered for the use of 14 in Rambam’s writings.
Rav Dovid Cohen feels that the Rambam memorialized his brother and benefactor by using the number 14, the gematria of Dalet Vav Dalet, 4+6+4 = 14.
R. Yehoshua ha-Nagid (1310-1355, a descendant of Rambam), quoted by R. N.L. Rabinovitch in Mishneh Torah im Perush Yad Peshutah, Hakdamah u-Minyan ha-Mizvot (Jerusalem, 1997), 68, offers the following explanation: [The number fourteen] is an allusion to the positive and negative commandments. The numerical value of the 248 positive commandments in small numbers is as follows: 200 = 2, 40 = 4, and 8 = 8. 2+4+8 = 14. Similarly, the 365 negative commandments in small numbers are as follows: 300 = 3, 60 = 6, and 5 = 5. 3+6+5 = 14. R. Rabinovitch questions this explanation in light of the fact that it was not customary to refer to the different numbers 248 and 365 as the breakdown between the positive and negative commandments in the time of Rambam. Rambam’s thirteen ikkarim, the Principles of Faith, are also actually fourteen. The fourteenth principle, not listed with the others but nonetheless underlying them all, is the belief in free will. Rambam says in Hilkhot Teshuvah 5:3 that free will is an important principle and it is the pillar on which the Torah and the mitzvos stand. Perhaps, R. Rabinovitch argues, Rambam therefore chose the number fourteen as the numerical scheme for his writings.
--See Elimelekh Polinsky, “Parent-Child Relationships and Ta’amei ha-Mizvot” in The Legacy of Maimonides: Religion, Reason and Community edited by Yamin Levy and Sahlom Carmy (Yashar Books, 2006), pp.175-176 n. 4. http://www.yasharbooks.com/Legacy.html
Thursday, August 03, 2006
The Kotel: How the Western Wall Survived and its Meaning
Titus told four commanders to destroy the Beis ha-Mikdash in order to squelch any idea of rebellion and political independence by the Jews. Titus understood that the only way to subdue the Jews was to destroy their spiritual center.
In the Tish’ah be-Av Kinah, Zekhor asher asah, R. Elazar ha-Kalir, tells us how the Kotel survived when the Beis ha-Mikdash was destroyed: “He left the one on the west side as a memorial.” The commanders were told to destroy their assigned walls and yet one did not do his job. The poet Kalir does not say why, but, the attack on the western side failed. Hashem wanted to leave a remnant. Hence, we have the Kotel today.
The poem continues later with the idea that the Shekhinah resides on the Har ha-bayis even after the churban, ve-tzag achar kosleinu. The Shekhinah is still there today behind the wall that He chose to keep standing.
Hineh zeh ‘omed achar kosleinu mashgiach min ha-chalonos mei’tzitz min ha-charakim, Behold, he stands behind our wall, gazing in at the windows, looking through the lattice (Shir ha-Shirim 2:9).
The Midrash Shir ha-shirim Rabbah (2:26) says:
BEHOLD HE STANDETH BEHIND OUR WALL: behind the western wall of the Temple. Why so? Because God has sworn to him that it will never be destroyed….
The Shekhinah is behind the Kotel, in the shadow and shade of the Kotel.
The Rambam in Beis ha-Bechirah (6:14-16): kidsha le-sha’atah ve-kidshah le-‘asid lavo. The sanctity of the mikdash is from the shekhinah and the shekhinah is always present, u-shekihnah einah betelah (Vayikra 26:31).
Based on: The Lord is Righteous in All His Ways: Reflections on the Tish’ah be-Av Kinot by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, edited by Jacob J. Shacter, (Toras Horav Foundation, 2006) pp. 204-207.
In the Tish’ah be-Av Kinah, Zekhor asher asah, R. Elazar ha-Kalir, tells us how the Kotel survived when the Beis ha-Mikdash was destroyed: “He left the one on the west side as a memorial.” The commanders were told to destroy their assigned walls and yet one did not do his job. The poet Kalir does not say why, but, the attack on the western side failed. Hashem wanted to leave a remnant. Hence, we have the Kotel today.
The poem continues later with the idea that the Shekhinah resides on the Har ha-bayis even after the churban, ve-tzag achar kosleinu. The Shekhinah is still there today behind the wall that He chose to keep standing.
Hineh zeh ‘omed achar kosleinu mashgiach min ha-chalonos mei’tzitz min ha-charakim, Behold, he stands behind our wall, gazing in at the windows, looking through the lattice (Shir ha-Shirim 2:9).
The Midrash Shir ha-shirim Rabbah (2:26) says:
BEHOLD HE STANDETH BEHIND OUR WALL: behind the western wall of the Temple. Why so? Because God has sworn to him that it will never be destroyed….
The Shekhinah is behind the Kotel, in the shadow and shade of the Kotel.
The Rambam in Beis ha-Bechirah (6:14-16): kidsha le-sha’atah ve-kidshah le-‘asid lavo. The sanctity of the mikdash is from the shekhinah and the shekhinah is always present, u-shekihnah einah betelah (Vayikra 26:31).
Based on: The Lord is Righteous in All His Ways: Reflections on the Tish’ah be-Av Kinot by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, edited by Jacob J. Shacter, (Toras Horav Foundation, 2006) pp. 204-207.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)