Defamation - Anti-Semitism: The Movie

Great Documentary about Antisemitism

Palestinians with Jewish Heritage

The Little Mermaid (Hebrew)-Under the Sea

Numa Numa Hebrew

Interesting Article from The Jewish Week

This article appeared in The Jewish Week http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/national/many_orthodox_teens_half_shabbos_way_life

For Many Orthodox Teens, ‘Half Shabbos’ Is A Way Of Life

Rambam’s Approach to the Role of Philosophy in Traditional Judaism

Rabbi Moshe ben-Maimon, known as Maimonides, or by the Hebrew acronym Rambam, is one of the most illustrious Torah scholars of all time, prompting the saying “From Moses to Moses, there was none like Moses” (The Jewish Virtual Library, 2011). He was born in Cordoba, Spain in 1135, and passed away in Egypt on December 12, 1204. He served as a Rabbi, physician, and philosopher in Morocco and Egypt. His magnus opus is the Mishneh Torah, a 14-volume code of Jewish Law, which “profoundly influenced the evolution, study, and practice of Jewish law, while his philosophical treatise Guide of the Perplexed, has served as a paradigm for the cross-fertilization of philosophical and religious discourse” (Kraut, p.7 ). One of the specific areas that Maimonides discusses in his works is the relationship between the study of philosophy and traditional Judaism, and the way in which philosophy can enrich the study of Torah and practice of mitzvoth. Maimonides sought to show that Jewish law and philosophy can be unified, and there is no conflict between the authority of the law and tradition in Judaism and the logic reasoning gained through the study of philosophy.

Maimonides achieved a significant influence in his lifetime. His students described him as a “light to the East and to the West, the bright light and the shining star, the unique personality of the generation and its marvel, from East to West, who restored the faith to its former glory” (Gerber, p.10 ). His works profoundly shaped the realm of religious life, medicine, philosophy, ethics, and Jewish scholarship. Gerber remarks that Maimonides was regarded by the later generations as “The Great Eagle”. Rambam also served as the Sephardi communal leader, and he is regarded as “the Sephardi par excellence”. He took the name “Moshe ben Maimon ha-Sephardi or al –andalusi” (Gerber, p.11).

The Maimonides family could trace their ancestral roots back to Yehuda ha-Nasi, the compiler of the Mishnah (Gerber, p.12). Maimonides lived in a tumultuous period that marked the ending of the Golden Age of Jewish life in Muslim Spain. For fears of persecution, his family left Cordoba, Spain for Morocco, yet in both places they were persecuted by the Almohad dynasty. He briefly settled in the Holy Land where he encountered the conflict between the Crusaders and Ayyubids. He moved to Egypt in the 1160’s and witnessed a period that was marked by instability in the Muslim world, due to the conflict between Sunni Ayyubids, who expelled the Shi’ite Fatimids, and ultimately burned Cairo in the 1190’s.

The Muslim attitudes towards Jews were ambivalent, at times tolerant and at other times discriminatory. The Almohad dynasty claimed that Mohammed’s decree of toleration for Jews and Christians was limited to 500 years and ended in 1122. Therefore, the Almohad dynasty fiercely sought to convert non-Muslims to Islam. For several decades after 1146, the Almohad dynasty began in Spain their attempts to spread Islam and persecuted Jews (Gerber, p.13). In Morocco, many Jews were killed for not accepting conversion to Islam, while those Jews who accepted Islam lived as crypto-Jews rather than being martyred. An anonymous Rabbi arose who heavily criticized those who had chosen to convert to Islam and live as crypto Jews. At this point, Maimonides arose as a leader of the Jewish community, writing a humane responsa in regards to this in his Iggeret ha-Shmad-Epystle on Martyrdom or Epistle on Apostasy, in which he remarked that though the Jews are expected to accept Islam’s proclamation of faith, this is done only in words, as deeds are not enforced (Gerber, p.14-15), and therefore a Jew is not required to become a martyr.

After a brief journey to Israel, Rambam went to Egypt. During this time of wandering, he was nevertheless able to produce his first great legal work Perush ha-Mishnah, his Commentary on the Mishnah, an impeccable work that established his legal authority (Gerber, p.17). Not long after his arrival in Egypt, Maimonides’ father died. Later on, Maimonides’ brother also died when his ship sunk in the Indian Ocean, leaving behind his widow wife and children. In order to support himself, Maimonides practiced medicine.

Maimonides’ philosophy can also be traced through his medical works. The vizier Al-Fadil commissioned Maimonides to write several medical works for him. In his medical advice, Maimonides stressed moderation, and a proper balance of diet and rest. During this time period, messianic fervent arose, especially in the community of Yemen, which was threatened with a false messiah and the surge of Islam calling for converts from among the Jews. At this point, Maimonides wrote the Epistle to Yemen, in which he responded to this crisis by pointing out that Messiah was yet to come, and he refuted the claims that the Muslim triumph and the Jewish suffering were proof that Islam was the truth (Gerber, p.22). He reminded the people that G-d’s covenant with the Jewish people is eternal and that if a true Messiah figure were to arise, he would have to be a greater prophet than all the prophets after Moses and will appear first in Israel, not in Yemen, through this dismissing the charlatans.

During the 1170’s, Maimonides worked at compiling the Mishneh Torah in Hebrew, in which he unified halakhah and philosophy. The Mishneh Torah was to contain all the “institutions, customs, and rules from Moses down to the termination of the Talmud, including the later explanations by the Geonim” (Gerber, p. 23). “It was a unique case in history of one man daring to capture the entirety of Jewish knowledge in a single creation” (Gerber, p. 23). Maimonides’ work was received with awe, as this was unheard of since the compilation of the Talmud. His great philosophic treatise, the Guide to The Perplexed, was compiled between 1185-1190 (Gerber, p. 24). In his Guide to The Perplexed, Maimonides also illustrates a symbiosis of classical Arabic, Greek, and Jewish traditions (Gerber, p. 26).

Jewish philosophy is identified with Maimonides, and his Guide to the Perplexed marks an unquestionable legacy (Harvey, p. 27). Rabbi Sammuel ibn Tibbon translated the book from Arabic into Hebrew in 1204. Maimonides considered Aristotelian philosophy to be the superior philosophy and made it the dominant school of Jewish philosophy (Harvey, p. 28).

Maimonides Approach to Philosophy in David Hartman’s work: 

Maimonides: Torah and Philosophic Quest 

Rabbi David Hartman is a student of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik who received his ordination from Yeshiva University and a doctorate in Philosophy from McGill University. In his book Maimonides: Torah and Philosophic Quest, Hartman seeks to link Rambam’s philosophy with halacha. Hartman takes as the point of origin for understanding this link a major event in Judaism, that is the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, “the central shaping event of Jewish experience” (Hartman, p.3). At Mount Sinai, a set of normative framework was given to define the daily life of the Jewish people. As such, the questions that followed after were not directed at exploring the definition of what is good, “It has been told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord does require of you” (Mic. 6:8) because this was already known from the Torah and Jewish law, as encompassed in the Oral Law, and so the “major concern was not theoretical virtue, but the human capacity to embody the will of G-d in action” (Hartman, p.3).

Maimonides’ works of philosophy are directed at the religious Jew, who is confronted by the clash between philosophy and tradition (Harman, p. 8). Maimonides’ philosophy requires accepting that philosophy can be practiced within tradition. As such, one may try to find ground for integration in such a way that one acknowledges there is divine revelation and human understanding, and rather than viewing this as a conflict, one can acknowledge the limits of human understanding (Hartman, p. 15). This falls within the boundaries of the principle of limit, and not the principle of negation (Hartman, p. 16). Maimonides shows that when there is an apparent contradiction between the claims of tradition and the claims of reason, this tension can be resolved by expanding the possible meanings of religious language to include symbolic meanings rather than only a literal understanding. Therefore,

“Maimonides really saw no incompatibility between his Judaism and his philosophy; he was a Jew in letter and a philosopher in spirit throughout his life” (Hartman, p. 22). Maimonides points out that the role of the Torah is to provide the individual with a proper political order and this serves as the basis through which one can engage in theoretical perfection through the quest of philosophical matters. The law of Sinai is a prerequisite for theoretical perfection. Hartman’s understanding of Maimonides’ philosophy is that he sought an integration of philosophy and the teaching of tradition in order to establish a harmonious relation “between commitment to community and intellectual love of G-d” (Hartman, p. 27).

Maimonides’ Guide to the Perplexed was directed at discussing the apparent conflict between “Talmudic Judaism and philosophic inquiry” (Hartman, p. 28). He also attempted to lead the halakhic Jew to engage in a philosophic orientation applied to Jewish spirituality. He informs his readers that the literalistic approach “robs out religion of its beauties, darkens its brilliance, and makes the Law of G-d convey meanings quite contrary to those it was intended to convey” (Hartman, p. 33). Therefore, Maimonides directs his message to a reader that is an observant Jew and who regards Halakhah as a self-contained system with its own logic, development, and interpretation and who can also understand Aggadic discourse from a different point of view, which can be gained by exploring sources not found in tradition (Hartman, p. 35). If the Agaddah reflects something that may be in opposition, then it must be understood symbolically. Maimonides expects the reader to retain the framework of the tradition, while at the same time to explore the symbolic meanings. Therefore, a rabbinical statement, which may be contrary to universal truths, can be understood symbolically in order to avoid conflicts. Hartman points out that this symbolic language also ensures that those who are not capable enough won’t be able to embark in this road for spiritual excellence, while ensuring that it would cultivate the individual capacity for excellence of an individual in a community that is defined by a law that applies to all individuals. Hartman remarks that,

“The emphasis upon individual excellence and the spiritual well-being of community are two characteristics of the supposedly incompatible world views of philosophy and Judaism. Maimonides resolves the apparent conflict between philosophy and Halakhah by showing that the Talmud, through Halakhah and Aggadah, embraced both the individual and community” (Hartman, p. 38).

The Rambam chooses to discuss the symbolism of an Aggadic statement that may portray a conflict between philosophy and Halakhah because it encompasses a worldview, which would not allow unity between philosophy and halakhic Judaism (Hartman, p. 39). This statement is “G-d only has in His world the four cubits of the Halakhah” (T.B Berakhot 8a). Hartman explains that apparently, it seems that this statement involves defining one’s lifestyle solely according to halakhah. Yet, he proceeds to explain that Maimonides did not invalidate the literal meaning of this statement, but rather he brought as example the relationship between G-d and man that existed before the giving of the Torah.

The Torah also encompasses the stories of the people that were relating to G-d prior to the revelation of the Torah, and who represent human models. As such, this implies that the philosophical method can be revealed through a theological understanding of the world of nature. In order to understand what humanity is, the philosopher’s goal is to distinguish the activities that are unique to men in particular. Therefore, reason is the factor that differentiates men from other creatures and the most sublime thinking patterns can be uncovered through the study of metaphysics and based on reflection on G-d. Therefore, intellectual disciplines lead a person from knowledge of nature to metaphysics, and ultimately to knowledge of the most perfect being—G-d. Philosophers believe that man must achieve moral excellence in order for this process to take place. Therefore, Maimonides’s conclusion is that,

“….the matter was not made known through the Prophets alone, but also the wise men of the ancient nations, even though they never saw the Prophets nor heard their words, already knew that man is not whole unless he includes [within himself] knowledge and practice.” (Introduction to the Commentary to the Mishneh Torah, Hartman, p 41). 

As such, Maimonides defines philosophy as a pathway to G-d. In The Commentary to the Mishnah, Maimonides defines the unity between philosophy and halakhah, and he remarks that there are human models that constitute the evidence for this claim which date before Sinai, as man knew G-d by knowledge of nature and metaphysics. Yet, Hartman proceeds to explain further, that after the giving of the Torah, in order for Maimonides’ claim to be received well by traditional Jews, Maimonides needs to find evidence that would emphasize the value of theoretical knowledge in practice.

Maimonides explains that there are different levels to the practice of halakhah. One such model, rejected by both prophets and philosophers, is that of the “hedonistic intellectual”—a person who thinks he can separate the perfection of his intellect from his behavior. The second model if of a person who fears G-d and practices moral virtues, but he is limited in his learning, and he does not study the sciences of nature and metaphysics. Moreover, Maimonides points out that “lack of theoretical knowledge affects the nature of practice” (Hartman, p. 44). Maimonides explains that this second model refers to the am ha-aretz whose imperfection in practice is due to lack of theoretical knowledge—lacking knowledge in legal tradition is detrimental to knowledge, while lack of knowledge of philosophic disciplines leads to a lack of understanding of G-d (Hartman, p. 45). Maimonides identifies the hasid as the halachic Jew who knows philosophy. The next issue at stake is how to emerge as a gifted individual in a society that places value on the unity of the community since the philosopher discovers G-d through independent reasoning, while the community is bound by a covenant. Maimonides remarks that in the tradition of the Talmud, the rarity of excellence was accounted for and the values of the community were defined in terms of such individuals:

“Ben Zoma once saw a crowd on one of the steps of the Temple Mount. He said: Blessed is He that discerneth secrets and Blessed is He who has created all these to serve me.” (T.B. Berakhot 58a) (Hartman, p. 46).

Another similar statement that portrays this message is:

“Hezekiah further states in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah who said it in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, I have seen the sons of heaven and they are but few. If there be a thousand, I and my son are among them; if a hundred, I and my son are among them; and if only two, they are I and my son” (T.B. Sukkah 45b) (Hartman, p. 47).

According to Maimonides, this statement represents the Rabbi’s acceptance and understanding of nature. Therefore, both the teachers of Aggadah and philosophers agree to the criteria of truth and the rarity of human excellence because they are facts of human existence. Maimonides interprets further that the halakhic men of the community are supposed to be trained in knowing the law. However, this is incomplete and in order to achieve a greater intellectual level, one must know philosophy also.

Maimonides discusses philosophy in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, which implies that following law does not involve only obedient readiness to follow the law. Maimonides presents the first commandment of the Decalogue, “I am the L-rd your G-d who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage” and interprets it to mean that man is required to learn about G-d, in such a way that by gaining knowledge of nature, one can also have demonstrative knowledge of G-d (Hartman, p. 49). Maimonides states that:

“When a man reflects on these things, studies all these created beings, from the angels and spheres down to human beings and so on, and realizes the Divine Wisdom manifested in them all, his love for G-d will increase, his soul will be filled with fear and trembling, as he becomes conscious of his own lowly condition, poverty, and insignificance, and compares himself with any of the great and holy bodies; still more when he compares himself with any one of the pure forms that are incorporeal and have never had associations with the corporeal substance. He will then realize that he is a vessel full of shame, dishonor, and reproach, empty and deficient” (M.T. Yesodei ha-Torah, 1-6).

When man is compared to having been created in the image of G-d, Maimonides explains this to refer to the capacity to reason (Hartman, p.50):

“The vital principal of all flesh is the form which G-d has given it. The superior intelligence in the human soul is the specific form of the mentally normal human being. To this form, the Torah refers in the text “I will make man in My image, after My likeness” (Gen. 1:26). This means that man should have a form that knows and apprehends idealistic beings that are devoid of matter, such s the angels which are forms without substance, so that [intellectually] man is like the angels.” (M.T. Yesodei ha-Torah, IV, 12). 

Moreover, Hartman states that in Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah and in Hilkhot Teshuvah, the fact that the immortality of the soul is connected to the intellectual faculty of man is proof that the tradition does not exclusively emphasize normative obedience (Hartman, p.50). Moreover, Maimonides identifies the most sublime teachings of Judaism, Ma’aseh Bereshit and Ma’aseh Merkavah, with physics and metaphysics, and remarks that the most learned of the tradition learn areas of knowledge that are not specific for Judaism. Hartman notes that Maimonides “placed knowledge of pardes above knowledge of the law and made it a condition for joining the ranks of the sages and prophets” (Hartman, p.53). Those who argue for a split in Maimonides thinking can find this in an interpretation of the Song of Songs, which is interpreted to mean in tradition to be the relationship of love between G-d and Israel as a parable. In the Mishneh Torah, Rambam interprets this parable in terms of achieving knowledge of G-d through nature. Reason therefore does not separate a Jew from a non-Jew, “Beloved is man who is created in the image of G-d” (Avot 3:14) (Hartman, p. 52), while physics and metaphysics are accessible to those endowed with reason,

“Not only the tribe of Levi, but every single individual from among the world’s inhabitants whose spirit moved him and whose intelligence gave him the understanding to withdraw from the world in order to stand before G-d—to serve and minister to Him, to know G-d—and he walked upright in the manner in which G-d made him, shaking from his neck the yoke of the manifold contrivances which men seek—behold! this person has been totally consecrated and G-d will be his portion and inheritance forever and ever. G-d will acquire for him sufficient goods in this world just as he did for the Priests and Levites. Behold, David, may he rest in peace, says: “O Lord, the portion of my inheritance and my cup, You maintain my lot” (Ps. 16:5) (M.T. Laws of Sabbatical Year and Jubilee, XIII, 13)

Hartman explains further that Maimonides especially restructured the Song of Songs in order to show the importance of studying the sciences so that one would improve one’s practice. Maimonides argues that Torah is an integrative system of both norms and philosophy (Hartman, p.54).

In terms of pre-Mosaic models, the relationship between G-d and Abraham is not based on halakhah (Hartman, p. 57) Yet, Maimonides claims that Talmudic Aggadah is representative for the philosophic tradition of Judaism. Going by the view that Abraham discovered G-d when he was 40 years old (as opposed to 3 years old), Maimonides states that the pathway that led Abraham to discover G-d had to do with his attempt to understand the nature and origin of the celestial movements (Hartman, p.58).

Abraham based his convictions on reason, by relying on demonstrative truth, which led him to knowing G-d and rejecting idol worshipping. Maimonides says that the universe remain unintelligible if G-d is not recognized as the source of existence. Abraham observed that those who worship idols become alienated, “the multitude grasp only the actions of worship, not their meanings or the true reality of the Being worshipped through them” (Guide I, 36, p.58). Hartman remarks that the problem of intermediaries in worshipping G-d which is different from belief in G-d’s corporeality, though it may be apparently compatible with truth, it is not compatible with safeguarding belief in G-d in the community. Practically, people will not be able to remember all the intermediaries, whereas the presence of images may lead people to forget there is a G-d since they will instead bow down to the images (Hartman, p. 59). Abraham’s community that he created was based solely on knowledge of G-d. Maimonides points out that there was a historical process that created a need for the Torah. Though Levi’s tribe withstood the environmental challenges towards idol worshiping, however in a community in which not all men are scholars, people will be prone to foreign influences.

Hartman remarks that the scope of Halakhah is to remind people that the ultimate task is to know G-d. The goal of Halakhah represents a preventive measure so as to keep people from becoming overwhelmed by the need for economic and political survival, and to achieve spiritual transcendence. The mundane routines have a dehumanizing effect. Yet, one must also reflect on the symbolic details of the Halakhah in order to understand the scope of each action. Maimonides criticizes belief in G-d’s corporeality because this prevents man from reflecting on the nature of the mitzvoth (Hartman, p. 63). According to Maimonides, philosophy affects the religious attitudes and perspectives of individuals, setting a higher standard (Hartman, p. 65).

Hartman remarks that Maimonides’ goal is not to point out that Judaism is compatible with the universality of philosophy, but he wants to point out how philosophy can enrich Jewish life (Hartman, p. 66). Philosophy stresses universality, and the Torah stresses particularity. Maimonides exemplifies the hasid as the one who achieves “unity of contemplative ideal and of halakhic observance” (p. 67).

Maimonides reveals that an issue stemming from the literalistic interpretation of Torah and Aggadah is that G-d appears as the master of all material benefits, which He would bestow on man. However, Maimonides believed that the true end was olam ha-ba, the world to come, if so giving a higher meaning to the perception of religious observances. Maimonides acknowledges the rarity of those who performed the commandments for their own sake and how rare those who achieved intellectual excellence are (Hartman, p.73). In Torah studying, Maimonides remarks that self-interested behavior is motivated by different forms of gratification corresponding to the different levels of appreciation, and one must overcome egocentric responses. Maimonides says that there are different stages in human development, starting from self-interest and moving higher towards disinterested philosophic worship (Hartman, p.72).

Though in the Bible, blessings and curses are not attached to a certain level of observance, Maimonides seeks sources in the Talmud that advocate for the necessity to transcend self-interest when worshipping G-d,

“The sages warned us against this also, i.e., against a man making the attainment of some worldly object the end of his service to G-d, and his obedience to His precepts. And this is the meaning of the dictum of that distinguished and perfect man who understood the fundamental truth of things—Antigonus of Sogo—“Be not like servants who minister to their master upon the condition of receiving a reward; but be like servants who minister to their master without the condition of receiving a reward”. They really meant to tell us by this that a man should believe in truth for truth’s sake. And this is the sense they wish to convey by their expression oved me-ahavah, “serving from motives of love”, and by their comment on the phrase “that delight in His commandments”. Rabbi Elizer said “in His commandments”, and not in the reward for the performance of his commandments” (Introduction to the Guide to the Perplexed, Hartman, p.73) 

Maimonides also points out that there are different levels of worship. There are individuals who serve G-d out of fear (yirah) and studying Torah not for its own sake (shelo lishmah), and those who serve G-d out of love (ahavah) and studying Torah for its own sake (lishmah), which is the highest level of worship. The Rabbis were aware of the fact that there are lower forms of religious experience, and they were aware they must develop a system that would be available to all, regardless of religious level. They warned about not revealing the highest level of worship, love, to those who were not ready for this level, and whose worship was based on self-interest because these people would not be able to psychologically comprehend this level (Hartman, p.74). The issue in this regard was that for one who believes that if he does good, he will be rewarded by G-d, if he were to be told this is a level of worship based on self-interest, then he may come to believe that G-d does not respond to man’s condition. The Rabbis’ reaction to this was to legitimize actions that are not based on pure motives, “A man should always occupy himself with Torah and good deeds, though it is not for their own sake, for out of [doing good] with an ulterior motive there comes [doing good] for its own sake”. (T.B. Pesahim 50b).

The Talmud recognizes that actions can be imperfect, and that when an action stems from impure motives, it can lead to purity of motive (Hartman, p.75). The Rabbis also recognized the needs of the community—if an individual believes that by doing good to other people, G-d will reward him, but if by doing so, he helps the poor, then this is good for the sustenance of the community. It fulfills the needs of the community, even if it stems from an egocentric perspective. According to Maimonides, the study of philosophy can raise the individual’s level of worship from yirah to ahavah (Hartman, p.76). Therefore, philosophy redirects the halakhic Jew from a perspective of reciprocity to one that is based on pure love.

One may come to appreciate “contemplative joy and disinterested love”:

“In the world to come there will be no eating and no drinking, no washing and no anointing and no marriage; but only the righteous sitting with crowns on their heads enjoying the splendor of the Shekhinah. By their remark “their crown on their heads” is meant the preservation of the soul in the intellectual sphere, and the merging of the two into one as has been described by the illustrious philosophers in ways whose exposition would take too long here. By their remark, “enjoying the splendor of he Shekhinah,” is meant that those souls will reap bliss in what they comprehend of the Creator, just as the holy hayyot and the other ranks of angels enjoy felicity and the final goal consist in reaching to this exalter company and attaining to this high pitch. The continuation of the soul, as we have stated, is endless, like the continuation of the Creator, praised be He, who is the cause of its continuation in that it comprehends Him, as is explained in elementary philosophy. This is the great bliss with which no bliss is comparable and to which no pleasure can be likened” (Introduction to the Guide, M.T, Hilkhot Teshuvah 4, Hartman, p.79) 

Therefore, through the concept of olam ha-ba, Maimonides is portraying the notion that one should find joys not in material and physical pleasures, but beyond that, in intellectual pursuits. In regards to the statement of the Mishnah, “All Israel has a share in the world to come”, Rambam remarks that all Israel can achieve spiritual perfection and experience olam haba. However, one also must keep in mind that someone's spiritual potential cannot be measured when the individual lives in social and economic hardship and when historical conditions make it such that someone is concerned with basic problems of survival (Hartman, p.83).

Maimonides’ legal works are concerned with the individuals who are influenced by the material conditions of history (Hartman, p.85). The Guide to the Perplexed is concerned with achieving the ideal of love for G-d despite the political conditions. The Guide is aimed at training the individual to achieve the state of olam haba in a non-messianic world. They both seek to help an individual achieve excellence as a member of the Jewish community. In order to receive the Torah, the children of Israel had to be first freed from bondage in order to ensure that they would not be concerned with the pressures of physical survival. Once the Jews were freed from slavery, then they were asked to serve G-d. Though there are few individuals who can achieve this in spite of adverse conditions, Hartman remarks that Judaism does not establish the standards based on what the elite few can achieve (Hartman, p.84).

Maimonides believes that in order to achieve a higher level of perfection, that of the hasid, one needs philosophical knowledge of G-d, so he notes there is an important connection between theoretical knowledge of G-d and following the path of lifnim mi-shurat ha-din, “law which is beyond the line of legal requirement” (Hartman, p.90). There are actions that are required for every member of the community and actions performed by individuals who want to achieve more, beyond the requirements. As an example, Maimonides illustrates how the master should treat his slave. According to the legislative authority of the law, a master may not treat his slave harshly. However, a master who understands how G-d relates to all His creations knows that their existence exemplifies the ethical attributes of G-d. The action that falls under the category of din channels the perception of G-d within the juridical relationship between G-d and Israel. However, when these boundaries are expanded beyond this to apply to all men, this action stems from “imitation of the G-d of creation” (Hartman, p.93) as the very existence of all mankind reflects the ethical attribute of G-d. Maimonides describes treatment for a non-Jewish slave,

“It is permitted to treat a heathen slave with vigor. Though such is the rule, it is the quality of piety and the way of wisdom that a man be merciful and pursue justice and not make his joke heavy upon the slave or distress him, but give him to eat and drink of all food and drinks. The sages of old were wont to let the slave partake of every dish that they themselves ate of and to give the meal of the cattle and of the slaves precedence over their own (…) So it is also explained in the good paths of Job in which he prided himself: “If I did despise the cause of my manservant, when they contended with me…Did not He that made me in….the womb make him? And did not One fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:13,15)” (M.T. Book 12, “Laws of Slaves” IX, 8, Hartman, p.57).

If one acknowledges G-d as the creator of life and worships G-d in terms of love, then his practice improves in terms of the scope of obligation and his reasons for performing the commandments. If one worships G-d based on expectation of rewards, then he only follows the strict requirements of the laws, and one cannot go beyond the motivation based on self-interest through the theocentric world of philosophic reason. Maimonides explains this as follows,

“We have already explained in the commentary on Avot that the meaning of hesed is excess in whatever manner excess is practiced. In most cases, however, it is applied to excess in beneficence. Now it is known that beneficence includes two notions, one of them consisting in the exercise of beneficence toward one who has no right at all to claim this form you, and the other consisting in the exercise of beneficence toward one who deserves it, but in a greater measure than he deserves it. In most cases, the prophetic books use the word hesed in the sense of practicing beneficence toward one who has no right at all to claim this from you. Therefore every benefit that comes from Him, may He be exalted, is called hesed. Thus it says: “I will make mention of the lovingkindnesses (hasdei) of the Lord.” Hence this reality as a whole—I mean that He, may He be exalted, has brought it into being—I mean that he, may He be exalted, has brought it into being—is hesed. Thus it says: “The world is built up in lovingkindness (hesed)”; the meaning of which is “The building up of the world is lovingkindness.” And He, may He be exalted, says in an enumeration of His attributes: And abundant in lovingkindness.” (Guide III, Hartman, p. 95)

The hasid shows loving-kindness towards those who have no legal claim against him, therefore reflecting G-d’s hesed. According to Maimonides, a hasid has transcended the level of reciprocity, and he does not need to seek revenge or retaliate,  

“The practice of the righteous is to suffer contumely and not inflict it; to hear themselves reproached, not retort; to be impelled in what they do by love, and to rejoice in suffering.” (M.T., Hilkhot Deot II, 3, Hartman, p.97).

According to Jewish law, when a sage is wronged, he may protect his honor,

“To safeguard his honor, the hakkam may himself excommunicate a boor who treated him disrespectfully. For this, neither witnesses nor previous warning are necessary. The ban is not removed until the offender has appeased the hakkam.” (M.T., Hilkhot Talmud Torah, VI, 12, Hartman, p. 97).

Maimonides however has a different approach to this:

“Although a hakkam has the right to pronounce the ban to safeguard his honor, it is not credible for a scholar to accustom himself to this procedure. He should rather close his ears to the remarks of the illiterate and take no notice to them, as Solomon in his wisdom, said, “Also pay no heed to all the words that are spoken.” Such too was the way of the ancient saints. They heard themselves reviled and made no reply. Yet more, they forgave the reviler and pardoned him. Great sages, glorifying in their commendable practices, said that they never, for the sake of personal honor, imposed on anyone the lighter or severer ban. This is the way of scholars, which it is right to follow.” (M.T., Hilkhot Talmud Torah, VI, 12, Hartman p.97).

Maimonides viewed Moses as the character who achieved the highest philosophic knowledge and humility (Hartman, p.98). Given that Judaism requires an individual to accept Jewish law, Maimonides discusses individuals who are committed and have an obedient personality and individuals who are guided by their own independent thinking (Hartman, p.104). There are authoritarian systems and systems who encourage reason. The ultimate authority in Halakhah is G-d, and Halakhah unconditionally accepts the divine authority. According to Maimonides, the purpose of Halakhah is to create the ideal conditions for love of G-d through intellectual means. Rambam’s approach is to develop the framework for an intellectual and a spiritual life that is dedicated to philosophic knowledge of G-d. Halakhah encourages developing a critical mind through which one can reflect and evaluate independently, and therefore Halakhah is not exclusively concerned with obedience to authority. For example, in the Guide, when Maimonides presents the character of the prophet, he states that the prophet can make judgments in regards to war and peace, economic conditions, and temporarily suspend the laws of Torah, however a prophet may not order the people to perform idolatry:

“….for the testimony of reason which denies his prophecy is stronger than the testimony of the eye which sees his miracles, for it has already made clear to men of reason that it is not proper to honor nor to worship other than the One who caused all beings to exist and is unique in [His] ultimate perfection.” (Introduction to the Commentary of the Mishnah, Hartman, p. 106).

Therefore, since a prophet cannot demand that which is contrary to reason and cannot change Mosaic law, then an individual must exercise his ability for critical thinking, and if the prophet were to do something contrary, then he would be recognized as a false prophet. At the same time, the prophet’s authority takes place within a context that limits what he can legitimately demand:

“And so, if a Prophet claims that G-d told him that the judgment [pesak] in any given commandment is such and that that argument of so-and-so is correct, behold that Prophet is killed; for he is a false prophet as we have explained, for there is no revelation of Torah after the first messenger [Moses] and there is no addition and no diminution, “it is not in the heavens” (Deut. 30:12). And G-d did not assign us to Prophets, but he assigned us to wise men, masters of argument. He did not say, “And you shall appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate…” (Deut. 17:9). And the Sages have dealt at great length with this issue and it is correct.” (Introduction to the Commentary of the Mishnah, Hartman, p. 109). 

Therefore, a Jew is required to engage in “meticulous selectivity” (Hartman, p. 121) and to be able to reflect critically. For example, a Jew must know when to follow the prophet, but he must also know not to do unnecessary actions such as for example to tie a knot on Shabbat when it’s not necessary. Therefore, the Halakhah calls for developing “a disciplined, discriminating approach” (Hartman, p.121).

Moreover, Maimonides believed in being loyal to Jewish tradition, and he did not believe this entails any conflict with universal truths. Maimonides was loyal to the authority of Moses and Abraham, and at the same time open to studying the rational arguments of Aristotle and al-Farabi. Hartman notes that Maimonides claimed an oral tradition of philosophic knowledge within Judaism:

“Know that many sciences devoted to establishing the truth regarding these matters that have existed in our religious community have perished because of the length of the time that has passed, because of our being dominated by the pagan nations, and because, as we have made clear, it is not permitted to divulge these matters to all people…Now if there was insistence that the legalistic science of law should not, in view of the harm that will be caused by such a procedure, be perpetuated in a written compilation accessible to all the people, all the more could none of the “mysteries of the Torah” have been set down in writing bad be made accessible to the people. On the contrary, they were transmitted by a few men belonging to the elite to a few of the same kind, just as I made clear to you from their sayings: “The mysteries of the Torah may only be transmitted to a counselor, wise I crafts, and so on.” This was the cause that necessitated the disappearance of these great roots of knowledge from the nation.” (Guide to the Perplexed I, Hartman p. 128).

Therefore, Maimonides points out that philosophy has an oral tradition that is based on demonstrative argument. He states that Judaism “always recognized that philosophic truths transcended loyalty to authority.” (Hartman, p. 128-129). Maimonides maintained that the tradition from Sinai required loyalty both to a legal and a philosophical oral tradition. Therefore, the one who studies the Guide to the Perplexed finds that he may remain a loyal Jew while maintaining his loyalty both to the oral law and reason. The Jewish philosopher is able to recognize that there are limitations to human intellect and that demonstrative reason is not the only source of knowledge. Therefore, one must accept as legitimate the beliefs of Judaism as established by authority (Hartman, p.129):

“Do not think that what we have said with regard to the insufficiency of the human intellect and its having a limit at which it stops is a statement made in order to conform to Law. For it is something that has already been said and truly grasped by the philosophers without their having concern for a particular doctrine of opinion. And it is a true thing that cannot be doubted except by an individual ignorant of what has already been demonstrated.” (Guide I, Hartman, p. 130). 

Therefore one can both be a philosopher and a Jew:

“The utmost power of one who adheres to a law and who has acquired knowledge of true reality consists, in my opinion, in his refuting the proofs of the philosophers bearing on the eternity of the world. How sublime a thing it is when the ability is there to do it! And everyone who engaged in speculation, who is perceptive, and who has acquired true knowledge of reality and does not deceive himself, knows that with regard to this question—namely the eternity of the world or its temporal creation—no cogent demonstration can be reached and that it is a point before which the intellect stops.” (Hartman, p. 130).

Moreover, Maimonides remarks that it is the knowledge of epistemology that brings harmony between philosophy and Judaism, because it avoids confusing claims based on authority and claims based on reason (Hartman, p.131). If the two are confused, then this may lead to conflict and perplexity, and ultimately to apostasy, when one is deficient in knowledge of logic. Maimonides warns that when it comes to differentiating between speculative arguments and demonstrative arguments, if one forgets this distinction, it may lead to rejecting Torah. However, a balanced study of both Halakhah and philosophy may enrich one’s intellectual horizons and service to G-d.

References:

Kraut, Benny. Moses Maimonides: Communal Impact, Historic Legacy: Proceedings of an International Symposium November 16th, 2003. Center for Jewish Studies, Queens College, CUNY

Gerber, Jane S. Moses Maimonides: Historic Personality and Community Leader Published in Moses Maimonides: Communal Impact, Historic Legacy: Proceedings of an International Symposium November 16th, 2003. Editor: Benny Kraut, Center for Jewish Studies, Queens College, CUNY

Harvey, Zev-Warren. Maimonides’ Place in the History of Philosophy Published in Moses Maimonides: Communal Impact, Historic Legacy: Proceedings of an International Symposium November 16th, 2003. Editor: Benny Kraut, Center for Jewish Studies, Queens College, CUNY

Hartman, David. Maimonides: Torah and Philosophic Quest. The Jewish Publication Society, 1976.

Mishneh Torah by Moses Maimonides (English translation, Online Edition) 2011:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/682956/jewish/Mishneh-Torah.htm

The Guide to the Perplexed (English translation, online Edition) 2011: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/index.htm

The Jewish Virtual Library 2011: Maimonides’ Biography

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Maimonides.html

South Koreans Learning Talmud

From: http://www.aish.com/jw/s/South_Koreans_Learning_Talmud.html

The South Korean ambassador to Israel, Ma Young-sam, raised eyebrows recently when he told reporters the Talmud was mandatory reading for Korean schoolchildren.

South Korea is a country with a deep Buddhist history, but one which has embraced with vigour the Christianity brought to its shores by missionaries in the late 1800s. Official statistics say some 30 per cent of South Koreans are church-going. In such a country, Jews are few and far between.
Yet, pop down to the local corner shop and along with a pot of instant rice or dried noodles, you can buy a copy of Stories from the Talmud. It is not rare, either, to come across book-vending machines stocked with classic works of Babylonian Judaism.

The Talmud is a bestseller in South Korea and is on the curriculum for primary school children.

The Talmud is a bestseller in South Korea - even the government insists it is good for you, and has included it on the curriculum for primary school children.

Lee Chang-ro heads a literature research team at the Ministry for Education. He says: "The reasons why Korean children are taught Talmud are pretty obvious. Koreans and Jews both have a long history of oppression and surviving adversity with nothing but their own ingenuity to thank. There are no natural resources to speak of in Korea, so, like the Jews, all we can develop is our minds."
The fascination with Judaism does not end there. Media outlets regularly run newspapers columns on "Jewish education", weekly radio features, and television documentaries, all of them showing Jews in a glowing light.

The Talmud on display in a Korean bookshop

Although average Koreans can boast that their bookshelves hold at least one or two copies of the Talmud, to think of Korea as a hotbed of latent Judaism would be wrong. The motivation is less to do with religion and more to do with aspiration. Korean parents value schooling above all else. Parents send their children to after-school crammers until midnight and will spend their last penny on tutors and extra lessons. And, shy of good role models on the quest to securing academic success for their offspring, mothers almost unerringly turn to the Jews for inspiration.
Mother-of-two Lee San-sook explains that the way that Jewish children are brought up is universally viewed as positive in Korea.

"The stereotype of Jews here is that they are ultra-intelligent people. Jews have come out of nowhere to become business chiefs, media bosses, Nobel Prize winners - we want our children to do the same. If that means studying Talmud, Torah, whatever, so be it," she says.

Nonetheless, for a small number of Koreans, this love of Jewishness does translate into religious observance, even though, with no synagogues and no access to kosher food, they encounter almost insurmountable problems in leading a Jewish life.

One wannabe Jew, 38-year-old Park Yo-han, has handed in his notice at an investment bank to take the plunge into Judaism. He says he will go to New York, where he knows nobody, has no job prospects, just to follow his dream of Orthodox conversion.

"I've tried just about everything. Converting in Korea isn't difficult - it's impossible," he says.
Jewish observance in Seoul is almost entirely centred on Friday night services in the back of a Christian chapel on a US Army base. Every week, the tiny congregation of ex-pats and locals flip pews containing hymns books and New Testaments to face a pokey little ark for prayers. At the end of the night, everything gets put back in place for Friday night Mass. If there was not a small Ner Tamid hanging above the ark, you really would mistake it for a cupboard.

Most of the regular and long-serving members of the congregation are non-Jewish Koreans - civil servants, doctors and a politician from the ruling party, who is currently squeezing in his attendance between bouts of campaigning for local elections. They have no wish to convert but they take their interest in Judaism seriously. Most boast impressive collections of Judaica and read Hebrew fluently.
Among their number is a living legend of Korean Jewry, Abraham Cha. One of the few Koreans who have actually converted, he is a regular fixture at the US Army base services.

An old man now, he still cuts a memorable figure. He has a wild beard, payot, tzitzit protruding proudly, and maintains an unrivalled personal library of Jewish books from around the world, which he has painstakingly collected.

Cha says he had to give up everything to become an observant Jew in Korea.

Anti-Jewish feeling is almost unthinkable in this part of the world.

"My family don't speak to me any more, I had to divorce my wife. I even had to stop working because they wouldn't give me the day off on Shabbat or on Jewish holidays. My bosses couldn't conceive what it meant to be Jewish."

Although precisely what it involves to be a Jew eludes most Koreans, anti-Jewish feeling is almost unthinkable in this part of the world.

Says Seoul resident Naomi Zaslow, "If you refuse a plate of pork ribs here, people will be dumbfounded. If you tell them it's because you're Jewish, they'll unfailingly look impressed and say: 'Oh, you must be very clever'."

This article originally appeared in the Jewish Chronicle