Parashas Eikev: When to Take Pesukim Non-literally

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Contingency Plan, by Ryan Yee

Parashas Eikev: When to Take Pesukim Non-literally

Question: What do the following four pesukim from this week's parashah have in common?

• "Hear, O Israel, today you cross the Jordan, to come and drive out nations that are greater and mightier than you, cities that are great and fortified in the sky" (Devarim 9:1)
• "You shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and no longer stiffen your neck" (ibid. 10:16)
• "Behold! To Hashem, your God, belong the heaven and the highest heaven, the earth and everything that is in it" (ibid. 10:14)
• "You shall place these words of Mine upon your heart and upon your soul; you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes" (ibid. 11:18)

If you read the title of this blog post, then you already know the answer: these are all pesukim which we do not take literally! 

Unlike some of our fundamentalist Christian neighbors, we Jews have never subscribed to Biblical Literalism. "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" (Shemos 21:24) refers to monetary compensation, not literal eye-gouging and tooth-pulling; "with a strong hand and an outstretched arm" (Devarim 4:34) is an allegory, and doesn't mean that God has limbs; "Yisachar is a strong-boned donkey" (Bereishis 49:14) is a metaphor, not a taxonomic statement. The list goes on and on.

The problem is that although there are many instances in which it is obvious that we do not take a pasuk literally, there are others which are not so clear-cut. Is the Torah's account of creation to be taken at face value? Did the snake in the Garden of Eden really talk? Was Avraham Avinu really visited by angels in human form?

If only there was a methodology for how to approach these questions of interpretation! Better yet, it would be great to have a list of interpretive rules and guidelines that we could apply as a litmus test to determine whether a pasuk is literal or non-literal.

Thankfully for us, Saadia Gaon [1] provides us with exactly what we are looking for! He lays out a set of rules for when to interpret a pasuk literally and when not to. According to Saadia Gaon, there are four - and only four - reasons why we would not take a pasuk literally. He even provides us with at least one example from each category. Here is a translation of his treatment of this topic:

It is a well-known fact that every statement found in the Torah is to be understood in its literal sense except for those that cannot be so construed for one of the following four reasons:

Reason #1: It may, for example, either be rejected by the observation of the senses, such as the statement: "And the man called his wife’s name 'Chava' because she was the mother of all living things" (Bereishis 3:20), whereas we see that the ox and the lion are not the offspring of womankind. Hence we must conclude that the implication of the statement embraces human descendants only. 

Reason #2: Or else the literal sense may be negated by rationality, such as that of the statement: "For Hashem, your God, is a devouring fire, a jealous God" (Devarim 4:42). Now fire is something created and defective, for it is subject to extinction. Hence it is logically inadmissible that God resemble it. We must, therefore, impute to this statement the meaning that God’s punishment is like consuming fire, in accordance with the remark made elsewhere in Scripture: "For all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of My jealously" (Zephaniah 3:8).  

Reason #3: Again, [the literal meaning of a Biblical statement may be rendered impossible] by an explicit text of a contradictory nature, in which case it would become necessary to interpret the first statement in a non-literal sense. Thus, for example, it is said in Scripture: "You shall not test Hashem, your God, as you tested Him at Massah" (Devarim 6:16). And it is also said, on the other hand: "And do not test Me now ... if I will not open for you the windows of heaven" (Malachi 3:10). Now the point wherein these two statements agree is that we must not test our Lord as to whether He is able to do a certain thing, as they did of whom it is reported: "And they tested God in their heart by asking food for their craving. They spoke against God, saying: 'Can God prepare a table in the wilderness?'” (Tehilim 78:18-19). It is to these that the remark "as you tested Him in Massah" refers. It is, however, permissible for a servant of God to test his Master’s power by asking whether it will be possible for Him to create a miracle in his behalf. Such a request was indeed made by Gideon, who said: "I will test but this one time through the fleece" (Shoftim 6:39). It was also done by Hezekiah (II Melachim 20:8) and others. 

Reason #4: Finally any Biblical statement to the meaning of which rabbinic tradition has attached a certain qualification is to be interpreted by us in keeping with this authentic tradition. Thus it has been transmitted to us that the punishment of malkos (lashes) consists of thirty-nine blows, although Scripture states: "Forty lashes he shall give him" (Devarim 25:3). We therefore adopt the view that this is just a rough way of saying that there be thirty-nine stripes. The text of Scripture has merely expressed this thought in round numbers, as it has done in the statement: "After the number of days in which you spied out the land, even forty days, for every day a year shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years" (Bamidbar 14:34). For in reality there were only thirty-nine years, since the first year of Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness did not enter into this punishment. 

Thus, there are only these four possible reasons for a non-literal interpretation of the verses of the Holy Torah, there being no fifth. 

There you have it - the four cases in which we take a pasuk non-literally. Now let's see how these categories to apply to the pesukim from our parashah. 

Example #1: "Hear, O Israel, today you cross the Jordan, to come and drive out nations that are greater and mightier than you, cities that are great and fortified in the sky" (Devarim 9:1)

This pasuk is an example of Saadia Gaon's first category: pesukim we take non-literally because they contradict our senses. It is impossible to actually build cities that are "in the sky" because the sky cannot support such structures. Alternatively, if we read this phrase as "up to the sky," it is still impossible to take this literally, since human beings cannot build structures which reach that high. "Skyscraper" is a figure of speech - not a literal description.

This particular form of non-literal statement is referred to by Chazal (the Sages) as "guzma" or "divrei havai." Chazal [2] teach: "The Torah spoke in an exaggerated manner, the prophets spoke in an exaggerated manner, and the Sages spoke in an exaggerated manner."

Example #2: "You shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and no longer stiffen your neck" (ibid. 10:16)

This pasuk is an example of Saadia Gaon's second category: pesukim which we take non-literally because they are negated by rationality. It would be absurd to take this pasuk literally, that Hashem commands each and every Jew to surgically remove their own pericardium. The Ibn Ezra [3] is fond of using this pasuk as an example of when to interpret a commandment in the Torah non-literally if doing so would be irrational. He offers several reasons for why our pasuk falls into this category: the Torah says that we should do this mitzvos and live by them; it is prohibited to murder others, and to murder ourselves; and - my favorite reason - the mitzvah would be impossible to do, since we would die before completing the procedure! Rather, the pshat of this pasuk is "you shall remove the foolishness of your mind," as Onkelos renders it.

Without a question, this is the trickiest of Saadia Gaon's interpretive rules to apply. Whether a pasuk is "negated by rationality" is not always a clear-cut matter. Consider, for example, the three instances mentioned earlier: the Six Days of Creation, the talking snake, and Avraham's visitors. The meforshim (commentators) are divided as to whether these pesukim should be taken literally or not; each side will claim that their interpretation is consistent with rationality. 

Nevertheless, Saadia Gaon's rule still stands. The fact that the application of this rule is subject to difficulty and dispute does not negate its validity. 

Example #3: "Behold! To Hashem, your God, belongs the heaven and the highest heaven, the earth and everything that is in it" (ibid. 10:14)

This pasuk is an example of Saadia Gaon's third category: pesukim which we take non-literally because they are explicitly contradicted by another text in the Torah. Chazal point out the contradiction of our pasuk by using a similar pasuk from Tehilim:

Rebbi Levi raised a contradiction: in one place it is written: "The earth and its fullness belong to Hashem" (Tehilim 24:1), but in another place it is written: "As for the heavens, the heavens are Hashem's, but the earth He has given to mankind" (Tehilim 115:16)! [Which is it? Does the earth belong to Hashem or to mankind?]

[Rebbi Levi answered:] This is not a contradiction: the first pasuk refers to before one recites a blessing; the second is referring to after one recites a blessing.

Like any contradiction, this one is resolved by qualifying each statement such that it doesn't contradict the other. 

Example #4: "You shall place these words of Mine upon your heart and upon your soul; you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes" (ibid. 11:18)

This pasuk is an example of Saadia Gaon's fourth category: pesukim which we take non-literally because we have a mesorah (oral tradition) for how to interpret the pasuk which overrides its literal meaning. Although the pasuk itself would seem to indicate that we should place our head-tefillin between our eyes, the Torah she'baal Peh (Oral Torah) interpretation that was received by Moshe Rabbeinu at Sinai teaches that the head-tefillin should be placed so that it is resting on one's hairline above the spot that is between one's eyes. Like many of the non-literal interpretations in this category, there would be no way for us to arrive at this reading on our own without the oral tradition. 

And there you have it! Saadia Gaon assures us that these are the only four categories of non-literal pesukim, and thus far in my learning, I have seen no reason to doubt his claim. So next time you wonder whether a pasuk should be taken literally, just whip out Saadia Gaon's checklist, run through all four categories, and that should help you to find your answer!

End Notes:
[1] Saadia ben Yosef al-Fayyumi (Saadia Gaon), Emunos v'Deos 7:2
[2] Talmud Bavli: Maseches Tamid 29a
[3] Rabbeinu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Shemos 20:1; see also Ibn Ezra's introduction to Torah in his regular commentary and in his Shitah Acheres commentary

Parashas Vaeschanan: The Place of the Proof of Torah mi'Sinai

This dvar Torah looks like it was inspired by the parashas ha'shavua, when in actuality, it was inspired by the fact that I am going over the proof of Torah mi'Sinai with a student, and have been thinking about the role that it plays, and ought to play. 

Disclaimer: Unlike most of my blog posts, in which I make every effort to explain everything so that every reader can follow every step, this post will assume that the reader is familiar with the proof of Torah mi'Sinai. If you are not familiar with the proof, then you might not be able to follow this post. I have included links to three presentations of this proof within the post. I encourage you to check them out, whether or not you read this post.

Parashas Vaeschanan: The Place of the Proof of Torah mi'Sinai

In this week's parashah Moshe Rabbeinu urges the generation that is about to enter Eretz Yisrael not to forget about what they and their ancestors witnessed at Maamad Har Sinai (the Revelation at Sinai): 

Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld and lest you remove them from your hear all the days of your life, and make them known to your children and your children's children - the day that you stood before Hashem, your God, at Horeb, when Hashem said to me, "Gather the people to Me and I shall let them hear My words, so that they shall learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and they shall teach their children." 

So you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain was burning with fire up to the heart of heaven, darkness, cloud, and thick cloud. Hashem spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His covenant that He commanded you to observe, the Ten Declarations, and He inscribed them on two stone Tablets. Hashem commanded me at that time to teach you decrees and ordinances, that you shall perform them in the Land to which you cross, to possess it ... 

For inquire now regarding the early days that preceded you, from the day when Hashem created man on the earth, and from one end of heaven to the other end of heaven: Has there ever been anything like this great thing or has anything like it been heard? Has a people ever heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire as you have heard and survived? Or has any god ever miraculously come to take for himself a nation from amidst a nation, with challenges, with sings, and with wonders, and with war, and with a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with greatly awesome deeds, such as everything that Hashem, your God, did for you in Egypt before your eyes? 

You have been shown in order to know that Hashem, He is the God! There is none beside Him! From heaven He caused you to hear His voice in order to teach you, and on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words from the midst of the fire, because He loved your forefathers, and He chose his offspring after him, and took you out before Himself with His great strength from Egypt; to drive away before you nations that are greater and mightier than you, to bring you, to give you their land as an inheritance, as this very day. You shall know this day and take to your heart that Hashem, He is the God - in heaven above and on the earth below - there is none other. You shall observe His decrees and His commandments that I command you this day, so that He will do good to you and to your children after you, and so that you will prolong your days on the Land that Hashem, your God, gives you, for all the days.

Why did Hashem reveal Himself through such a momentous, public spectacle, and why did Moshe Rabbeinu see fit to exhort Bnei Yisrael to teach their children about the revelation? The answer is explicitly stated prior to the Torah's initial account of this event. Although Bnei Yisrael "believed in Hashem and in [the word of] Moshe, His servant" (Shemos 14:31) after Moshe took them out of Egypt, he was still concerned that they didn't fully believe in his prophecy. In response to this concern, Hashem promised Moshe that the Revelation at Sinai would remove any doubt about the legitimacy of his prophecy:

Hashem said to Moshe, "Behold! I will come to you in the thickness of the cloud, so that the people will hear as I speak to you, and they will also believe in you forever" (ibid. 19:9).

In other words, the primary purpose of Maamad Har Sinai was to establish nevuas Moshe (Mosaic prophecy) as authentic, thereby proving the Divine Authorship of the Torah. 

If this sounds like a big deal, that's because it is. The Rambam cites the "proof of Torah mi'Sinai" as the basis for our belief in nevuas Moshe, and our rejection of any other prophet. [1] The Ramban maintains that the Torah obligates us to teach this proof to our children. The Kuzari wrote at length about this topic - so much so, that this proof is often referred to as "the Kuzari principle." Contemporary authors have also written presentations of this proof. In my opinion, the best presentations are:

• Torah from Sinai
• Living Up to the Truth: Chapter 6
• A Rational Argument for the Divine Origin of Torah

Much ink has been spilled about the validity of this "proof" (or "rational demonstration," to be more accurate). Some maintain that is valid; others disagree. This discussion is beyond the scope of this blog post. 

Suffice it to say, my position is that this proof is valid, and is compelling to those who understand it. Be that as it may, I have grown increasingly doubtful as to how prominent of a role it should play in Jewish education. 

When I converted to Judaism and began my Jewish education in 11th grade, my Mishlei rebbi was of the opinion that it was essential for all students to be taught the proof of Torah mi'Sinai as the foundation of their Judaism. He taught it to my class, and I gained tremendously from it. When I started teaching, I took the same stance - both because this was the way that I had been taught, and because it seemed to me that it is impossible to have true emunah (conviction) in the Divine Authorship of Torah without it.

But over time, my Mishlei rebbi changed his tune. He argued that although the proof might be convincing on an intellectual level, it is unlikely to actually change any student's mind. Since the proof hinges on a clear categorization of how people assess secondhand knowledge, and since most people don't think in these terms (and don't rigorously analyze secondhand knowledge before accepting it), then this proof will not be real to the average student's mind, and will not affect him or her on an emotional level. 

When I first heard my rebbi express this objection, I disagreed. I dismissed his opinion as overly pessimistic, and chalked it up to the dim view of human nature that he has been trending towards over the past ten years. 

But the more experience I have had teaching this proof to students, the more I am inclined to agree with my rebbi. Although I have had some students who claim that Torah mi'Sinai changed their lives, this is definitely not the norm. Most students have never even been exposed to a philosophical proof, so the whole exercise feels artificial to them. Others have a difficult time thinking about hypothetical scenarios, which interferes with their ability to follow the proof. Many high school students are poor judges of how plausible or implausible a hypothetical scenario is, which leads them to lend undue weight to unlikely possibilities. And some students just don't have the patience to work through each step of the proof and get each step clear. 

The biggest problem with the proof is that at the end of the day, most people just aren't motivated by logical arguments. Even students who accept the proof and have no objections tend to go about their lives in the same manner as they did before they heard the proof. It simply doesn't affect them.

Being that this has been my experience, I find myself wondering: Is there a benefit in teaching the proof of Torah mi'Sinai? If so, what is that benefit?

As present, I believe that there are two benefits which make Torah mi'Sinai worth teaching, despite these difficulties. The most important reason for teaching Torah mi'Sinai to students is to show them that Judaism is fundamentally different from other religions. Whereas other religions demand blind faith, Judaism demands proof. It was not enough for Bnei Yisrael to merely have faith in Moshe's prophecy; they needed proof, and so should we. The Rashba identifies this need for proof as a hallmark of our nation:

Yisrael are the inheritors of the true religion; they are the children of Yaakov, the man of truth; they are all offspring of truth who are willing to endure the yoke of exile and that which befalls them, rather than to believe anything until after they have subjected it to intensive analysis - analysis after analysis - in order to remove all impurities from that which is said to them … Even the Jews who were enslaved with the harshest labor doubted Moshe when Moshe was commanded to bring them good news [of their imminent redemption]; in spite of this, he said, “They will not believe me,” and it was necessary for him to bring many signs [of his prophecy]. This is the true sign of our nation, the Nation of Hashem: that we do not allow ourselves to be seduced by anything until after we have arrived at its truth by way of intensive, complete analysis.

Even if students aren't moved or motivated by the proof, it is important for them to know that Judaism claims something that no other religion claims, namely, that our God spoke to our prophet in front of the entire nation, leaving no room to doubt the legitimacy of his prophecy. 

The second benefit of the proof of Torah mi'Sinai is that it takes away the excuse of "Judaism has no basis." There are many Jews who justify their turning away from Judaism by telling themselves that the whole religion is baseless. I believe that it is important to at least attempt to show these Jews that this assumption is false. Of course, not everyone will heed this point, but those who understand the proof and are intellectually honest will be forced to confront the fact that their excuse for abandoning Judaism isn't valid. Even if the proof doesn't emotionally motivate them to embrace Judaism, at least it will negate the intellectual basis of their rejection of Judaism.

That is where I stand, as of now. I suspect that my view will continue to change the more I teach and review the proof of Torah mi'Sinai. I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic!

[1] See Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah Chapter 8. The secondary purpose of Maamad Har Sinai is to prevent people from being taken in by a navi sheker (false prophet), as the Torah states in Parashas Re'eh:

The entire word that I command you, that you shall observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it. If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce to you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes about of which he spoke to you, saying: "Let us follow gods of others that you did not know and we shall worship them!" - do not hearken to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, for Hashem, your God, is testing you to know whether you love Hashem, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul. Hashem, your God, you shall follow and Him shall you fear; His commandments you shall observe and to His voice shall you hearken; Him shall you serve and to Him shall you cleave. And that prophet and that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death, for he had spoken perversion against Hashem, your God - Who takes you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeems you from the house of slavery - to make you stray from the path on which Hashem, your God, has commanded you to go; and you shall destroy the evil from your midst (Devarim 13:2-6)

We do not believe in Moshe Rabbeinu's nevuah (prophecy) because of the miracles he did. We only believe in it because of Maamad Har Sinai. Furthermore, we only believe the nevuah of another (alleged) navi based on the criteria outlined by Moshe Rabbeinu in the Torah. Thus, if someone else comes along, performs miracles, and claims to speak words of prophecy which contradict the Torah of Moshe, then we know that this prophet is a navi sheker. 

I am including this in a footnote because it is implicit in the primary purpose of Torah, but is worthwhile to mention as a separate point nonetheless.

[2] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Aderes (Rasha), Shailos u'Tshuvos 1:548

"No, the Rambam was NOT a Racist" or "The Allegory of the Palace"

Artwork: Teferi, Temporal Archmage, by Tyler Jacobson

"No, the Rambam was NOT a Racist" or "The Allegory of the Palace"

The Allegation

There's a certain public figure I follow on social media. Let's call him Malcolm (not his real name, nor his real pseudonym). His Twitter tagline is "Black. Jewish. Orthodox." As such, he describes himself as a "unicorn" within the Orthodox Jewish community. He is a social justice crusader when it comes to issues of racism and other forms of discrimination within the Jewish community. I chose to follow him because he seemed like a decent and educated guy who, like myself, is bothered by the prevalence of bigotry among Orthodox Jews. 

Last week Malcolm wrote a lengthy post on his Facebook page urging his fellow Jews to join the Black Lives Matter movement. In this post he made the following statement:

Every week, I show up to any given synagogue and have to encounter/battle at least one person who doesn't think I'm the right color to belong there. I frequently study Mishneh Torah, a superb tome of halachic literature written by Maimonides, the same Maimonides who also wrote in Guide to the Perplexed that black people are "incapable of attaining to supreme religious values" and that their place in nature is "below that of a man and above that of a monkey".

When I read this, I knew it was a terrible distortion of the Rambam's views. Since Malcolm is a public figure, I felt I had a responsibility to say something. 

I commented on Malcolm's Facebook post informing him that this was a severe misreading of the Rambam, and that if he read the quotation in context he would see that the Rambam's statement had nothing to do with racism or race. I also mentioned that the Rambam writes in several places in the Mishneh Torah that all human beings - men and women, Jews and non-Jews - can reach the utmost heights of intellectual perfection and closeness to Hashem. 

Malcolm responded with his version of "citing the Rambam's statement in context." He merely reiterated the quotation, but with a few more words from the same sentence. He then told me that if I was correct about the Rambam's other statements affirming human equality, then Rambam was contradicting himself. 

Again, I urged him to read the Rambam in the full context of the chapter. I spelled out my arguments and said that if anything, the Rambam's statements undermine racism. The author's only response was: "IN CONTEXT, it is STILL a racially problematic statement." 

I will now present to you, my readers, the full context of the Rambam's statement, so that you can judge for yourself whether it indicates that the Rambam was racist. 

The Allegory of the Palace

The statement in question can be found in the Guide for the Perplexed 3:51. The Rambam begins the chapter with an elaborate allegory, which we will refer to as "The Allegory of the Palace." Here is the translation of the allegory and its explanation, with the passage in question underlined:

A king is in his palace, and all his subjects are partly in the country, and partly abroad. Of the former, some have their backs turned towards the king's palace, and their faces in another direction; and some are desirous and zealous to go to the palace, seeking to inquire in his temple and to minister before him, but have not yet seen even the face of the wall of the house. Of those that desire to go to the palace, some reach it, and go round about in search of the entrance gate; others have passed through the gate, and walk about in the ante-chamber; and others have succeeded in entering into the inner part of the palace, and being in the same room with the king in the royal palace. But even the latter do not immediately on entering the palace see the king, or speak to him; for, after having entered the inner part of the palace, another effort is required before they can stand before the king – at a distance, or close by – hear his words, or speak to him.

I will now explain the allegory which I have made. The people who are abroad are all those that have no religion, neither one based on philosophical speculation nor one received by tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander about in the far north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our region who are like them. I consider these as irrational beings, and to my mind, they are not on the level of human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, and a mental faculty above that of the monkey.

Those who are in the country, but have their backs turned towards the king's palace, are those who possess religion, belief, and thought, but happen to hold false doctrines, which they either adopted in consequence of great mistakes made in their own speculations, or received from others who misled them. Because of these doctrines they recede more and more from the royal palace the more they seem to proceed. These are worse than the first class, and under certain circumstances it may become necessary to slay them, and to extirpate their doctrines, in order that others should not be misled.

Those who desire to arrive at the palace, and to enter it, but have never yet seen it, are the mass of religious people: the multitude that observes the divine commandments, but are ignorant.

Those who arrive at the palace, but go round about it, are those who devote themselves exclusively to the study of the practical law: they believe in true principles of emunah on the basis of tradition, and learn the practical worship of God, but are not trained in philosophical treatment of the principles of the Torah, and do not endeavor to establish the truth of their faith by proof.

Those who undertake to investigate the principles of religion, have come into the ante-chamber: and there is no doubt that these can also be divided into different grades. But those who have succeeded in finding a proof for everything that can be proved, who have a true knowledge of God, so far as a true knowledge can be attained, and are near the truth, wherever an approach to the truth is possible, they have reached the goal, and are in the palace in which the king lives.

There you have it, in its full context. Now I will present my defense of the Rambam against Malcolm's charge of racism.

Malcom wished to read the Rambam as categorically proclaiming Kushites (a.k.a. Ethiopians, Africans, Blacks) to be irrational, subhuman creatures. To my mind, the entire allegory flies in the face of such an interpretation. The point of the allegory is to show that each person's position in relation to the king is based on his or her involvement in the pursuit of knowledge. In the allegory the king's subjects are mobile. True, they may presently be situated in various positions throughout the kingdom, but they can move closer or further away, depending on the choices they make. 

When the Rambam speaks about "the extreme Turks that wander about in the far north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our region who are like them," he is not referring to their race, but to their level of education - specifically, the educational of level of the Turks and Kushites in the 13th century. The Rambam does not hold that a Northern Turk or a Southern Kushite is inherently irrational or intrinsically incapable of sophisticated thought. Rather, he would maintain that if one of these individuals decided to start learning, then he could become as great as any other Jew, or human being. 

The correctness of this reading of the Rambam is evident if we try to read the other elements of the allegory according to Malcolm's interpretation. He wants to read the Rambam as saying that "the people who are abroad" (i.e. the Northern Turks and Southern Ethiopians) are innately inferior to other races. Would Malcolm say the same thing about "those who are in the country but have their backs turned to the king's palace" (i.e. people with false doctrines), and claim that the Rambam believes these people to be inherently heretical and incapable of change? And what about "those who have never seen the palace" (i.e. the religious masses)? When the Rambam calls them "ignorant," is he saying that this ignorance is an immutable, genetic trait? And when he describes the people who "go round about in search of the entrance gate" (i.e. those who only study halacha without philosophy), does Malcolm think the Rambam means that these people are constitutionally unable to study philosophy because of who they are or how they were born?  

Obviously, the answer to all of these questions is "no!" Just as the Rambam maintains that a person with a false belief can change his mind and turn in the opposite direction, and an ignoramus can start learning and move towards the palace, and a pure halachist can begin studying philosophy and gain entry to the palace, so too, the irrational Northern Turks and Southern Kushites can acquire true ideas and actualize their status as human beings, just like everyone else. 

One might object, saying: "Oh yeah? Well why did the Rambam single out Turks and Africans from all the other races? Clearly this indicates racism!" 

To this I would respond: "Clearly, it does not!" The Rambam was describing a circumstantial demographic reality of his times. Apparently, during the 13th century, the Turks in the extreme North and the Kushites in the South were primitive tribesmen who didn't have any religious ideology. Presumably, the Rambam quoted these groups because they were paradigmatic examples that the readers of the Guide would be familiar with. It would be no different than nowadays, if we spoke about "the uncivilized tribes of the Amazon and New Guinea." This would not be a racial slur against Amazonians or New Guineans. It just happens to be that at the present time these groups of indigenous people exemplify the category under discussion. 

Let's go back to Malcolm's claim again. If the Rambam were racist against Turks in general, then why did he specify, "the extreme Turks that wander about in the far north"? Why didn't he simply say "Turkish people," as a whole? The same goes for the Kushites in the South. According to Wikipedia, there were "large communities ... of black Africans" living in Egypt during the time period that the Rambam resided there. If the Rambam intended to include all black people in his allegedly racist statement, why didn't he simply say "the Kushites" instead of limiting it to "the Kushites in the South"? 

And another thing: how would Malcolm explain the end of the Rambam's statement: "the extreme Turks that wander about in the far north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our region who are like them"? According to my reading, the answer is clear: he is referring to those people in his region who were just as uneducated as the Northern Turks and the Southern Kushites. But if the Rambam were making sweeping statements about specific races, then what could he mean by "and those who are like them"? He can't be referring to other Turks and Kushites, since then he would just say, "Turks and Kushites" and omit the last clause altogether. If he were referring to all non-Jews, he would just say so. And if you're going to try to claim that the Rambam was making a generic reference to "minorities," like the KKK and neo-Nazis of today are wont to do, then that's just a gross anachronism of Anglo-American racism.

This isn't the only statement of this nature that the Rambam makes in the Guide. In 3:29 the Rambam talks about the widespread admiration of Avraham Avinu. He writes:

No one is antagonistic to him or ignorant of his greatness except the remnants of this religious community that has perished, remnants that survive in the extremities of the earth, such as the Turks heretics in the extreme North and the Indians in the extreme South. These are the remnants of the religious community of the Sabeans, for this was a religious community that extended over the whole earth. 

Perhaps Malcolm would take this as proof that the Rambam was racist against extremely Southern Indians, and doubly racist against Northern Turks (since he mentioned them twice)! I, on the other hand, am inclined to go with the more straightforward and consistent reading. The Rambam is not making a point about race. He is talking about people's beliefs, and citing examples from the well-known demographics of his time. 

I mentioned earlier that the Rambam makes other statements which affirm his very modern and progressive view of human equality. I know of no better example than the concluding halachos of Sefer Zeraim in the Mishneh Torah. First he explains the unique position held by the Leviim:

Why didn’t the Tribe of Levi merit in the inheritance of the Land of Israel and its spoils along with their brethren? Because they are set aside to serve Hashem and to minister to Him and to teach His upright ways and righteous laws to the masses, as it is stated, “They shall teach Your laws to Yaakov and Your teachings to Israel” (Devarim 33:10).

Therefore, they are separated from the ways of the world. They do not go to war like the rest of Israel, nor do they receive an inheritance, nor do they acquire for themselves with their bodily power, but rather, they are the legion of Hashem, as it is stated, “Bless, O Hashem, His legion” (ibid. 33:11), and He, Blessed is He, provides for them, as it is stated, “I Am your Portion and your Inheritance” (Bamidbar 18:20).

But then he makes a surprising statement:

Not only the Tribe of Levi, but each and every member of humanity whose spirit generously moves him and whose understanding of his knowledge [of all existing things causes him] to separate himself to stand before Hashem to minister unto Him and to serve Him in order to know Hashem, and to walk with uprightness as God made him, removing from his neck the yoke of the many calculations which people seek – he becomes sanctified as holy of holies. God will be His portion and heritage forever and ever, and He will provide what is sufficient for him in this world like He provides for the Kohanim and the Levites. And thus David declared, “Hashem is the lot of my portion; You are my cup; You support my lot” (Tehilim 16:5).

The Rambam does not say "every Jew" or "every descendant of Avraham." Rather, he says "each and every member of humanity" can reach the level where "he becomes sanctified as holy of holies." Man, woman, Jew, non-Jew, black, white - it doesn't matter. Everyone can seek knowledge and understanding of Hashem, and reach the heights of human perfection. 

In conclusion, I think that Malcolm is forcing his BLM agenda into the words of the Rambam. If he would like to charge the Rambam with being an intellectual elitist, then the Allegory of the Palace would provide a solid basis for that claim. But the Rambam's intellectual elitism is color-blind. To paint the Rambam as a racist on the basis of this misinterpretation of his words is pure motzi shem ra (slander).

Epilogue

After presenting all of these arguments, Malcolm declined to respond any further. However, another commenter chimed in and said in reference to my comments: 

Holy crap, reading all the whitejewsplaining on this thread makes [Malcolm's] original point.

Little did this commenter realize that I am not a "white Jew," as they ironically assumed, but a "Jew of color." I must admit that I took great joy in responding to this comment with the following:

I am a Jew of color. If you're going to make racist remarks about my comments, please use "Chink" or "Ching Chong" or something that is more appropriate.

I will end this blog post with a quotation from my fellow Chinaman, Bruce Lee, on the topic of the Rambam's Palace Allegory: 

You know what I want to think of myself? As a human being ... under the sky, under the heavens there is but one family. It just so happens that people are different.

The sooner we recognize what it means to be human and accept that there are differences, the greater our chances of working together and to help each other actualize our humanity.


ADDENDUM (8/8/16 at 3:00pm)

Yaakov directed me to an excerpt from the Rambam's medical writings which I was unaware of while writing this post. Apparently, the Rambam held by Galenic notions of environmental determinism, believing that physiological development is affected by factors in the climate and geographical locale, and that this has an impact on the intellectual and psychological dispositions of the people who lived there. Those who dwelt in moderate climates were more predisposed to attain human perfection, while those who lived in the extremities of the earth were less predisposed. His comments about "extreme Turks that wander about in the far north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our region who are like them" should be taken in that light. Needless to say, these theories have since been debunked, but they were the "science of the times" and the Rambam subscribed to them.

I felt compelled by intellectual honesty to include this as an addendum in this post, which is why I updated it as soon as possible. Regardless, I do not believe that this affects my main point here. I still believe that Malcolm is projecting modern notions of racism onto the Rambam's words, and missing the whole thrust of the Palace Allegory. Also, even according to the Rambam's Galenic theories, both "whites" AND "blacks" would be inferior or superior in their predispositions, depending on where they lived. The Rambam would make the same statements about fair-skinned Norwegians as he would about dark-skinned Kushites.

Parashas Masei: The Journey from Boring to Interesting

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Prairie Stream, by Titus Lunter

Parashas Masei: The Journey from Boring to Interesting

Whether we choose to admit it or not, certain sections in Torah have a reputation for being rather "boring" for the average student. A few examples that come to mind are: 

• Terumah/Tetzaveh (Shemos Chapters 25-28), which details the construction of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and the vestments of the Kohanim
• Vayakhel/Pekudei (Shemos Chapters 36-39), which is a repetition of the same material
• Tzav/Shemini (Vayikra Chapters 8-9), which recounts the special korbanos (sacrifices) and procedures of inaugurating the Mishkan and consecrating the Kohanim - both of which happened only once, and have relatively little connection to the rest of the sacrificial order
• Bamidbar (Bamidbar Chapters 1-4), which lists the names and numbers of Bnei Yisrael, the organization of the camp, and the duties of the Leviim

One of the most "boring" chapters of them all is - you guessed it - the beginning of Parashas Masei (Bamidbar 33), which dryly recounts the journeys and sojourns of Bnei Yisrael during their 40 years in the Wilderness. Here's an excerpt, just to give you a sample of the flavor:

Bnei Yisrael traveled from Raamses and encamped in Sukkos. They journeyed from Sukkos and encamped in Eisam, which is on the edge of the Wilderness. They journeyed from Eisam and it turned back to Pi ha'Chiros, which is before Baal Tzefon, and they encamped before Migdol. They journeyed from before ha'Chiros and passed through the midst of the Sea toward the Wilderness; they went on a three-day trip in the Wilderness of Eisam, and they encamped in Marah. They journeyed from Marah and arrived at Elim; in Elim there were twelve springs of water and seventy date palms, and they encamped there.

And this goes on for a grand total of 56 pesukim! The meforshim (commentators) have little to offer for sections like these. Even Rashi remains silent on many of these pesukim. 

However, while it may be true that "the words of Torah are poor in one place and rich in another" [1], this doesn't mean that one can assess the "poverty" or "wealth" of a section of Torah based on first impressions. There are areas of Torah which appear "poor" but turn out to be incredibly "rich," if you know where and how to look.

Personally, I have found that with each year of learning that goes by, another "boring" area of Chumash opens up to me, and I realize how many ideas there are beneath the surface. For example, I used to find it dull and tedious to read about the construction of the klei ha'Mikdash (vessels of the Holy Temple), but now I can't wait to learn more about them! I thought I'd never find the organization of the camp to be a fascinating topic, but one year it just lit up, thanks to the framework provided by a certain commentator. 

With this in mind, I set out to examine the first chapter of Parashas Masei to see if maybe this year I might find something valuable that had eluded me in the past. Thanks to the Ralbag, the search was a success!

Let's take another look at part of the excerpt that I cited above, with some key terms underlined:

They journeyed from before ha'Chiros and passed through the midst of the Sea toward the Wilderness; they went on a three-day trip in the Wilderness of Eisam, and they encamped in Marah. They journeyed from Marah and arrived at Elim; in Elim there were twelve springs of water and seventy date palms, and they encamped there.

The Ralbag [2] addresses the question: Why this itinerary? We know that Hashem didn't always take Bnei Yisrael on the most direct path, and that the destinations were often planned based on what would be best for Bnei Yisrael's development at that time. 

Ralbag offers an answer based on the information provided earlier in the Chumash (Shemos 15:22-27), in the initial account of this journey. Let's review the relevant pesukim:

Moshe caused Israel to journey from the Sea of Reeds and they went out to the Wilderness of Shur; they went for a three-day period in the Wilderness, but they did not find water. They came to Marah, but they could not drink the waters of Marah because they were bitter; therefore they named it Marah. The people complained against Moshe, saying, "What shall we drink?" He cried out to Hashem, and Hashem showed him a tree; he threw it into the water and the water became sweet ... They arrived at Elim, where there were twelve springs of water and seventy date-palms; they encamped there by the water.

Here is the Ralbag's explanation of this progression:

Here is what I think about why it mentioned their finding of this water in this way: Hashem did this in order to show them that the tovos (goods) will come to them in degrees, proportionate to their closeness to Him. It first mentions that they initially went for three days in the desert without water. Afterwards they found water at Marah, but it was bitter, and they needed Hashem to sweeten it. And after that, Hashem brought them to a place where they found water in abundance, along with fruit trees. This undoubtedly caused the hearts of the people to be drawn to His service.

Ralbag is referring to the universally held position among the Rishonim (as far as I know) that each person receives hashgachah pratis (personal Divine providence) in proportion to his or her closeness to Hashem. The further away from Hashem a person is, the more his or her life is governed by the laws of nature. The closer that person is, the more the tovos in his or her life are "ordered" by Hashem. 

Hashem demonstrated this idea to Bnei Yisrael by guiding them through an increasing level of hashgachic assistance: first they had no water, then they had poor quality water that Hashem helped them improve, and finally they were given water in abundance. The same type of progression can be expected for ALL tovos, as one continues drawing closer and closer to Hashem.

When I read the Ralbag's commentary and realized that he was able to see a lesson about hashgachah in these pesukim which were seemingly devoid of ideas, I thought to myself, "Wow! I wonder what other great ideas are hiding in other seemingly idea-less pesukim, just waiting to be discovered?" 

I was reminded of Shlomo ha'Melech's mashal (analogy) in Mishlei: "if you search for it as if it were hidden treasures - then you will understand fear of Hashem, and discover the knowledge of God" (Mishlei 2:4-5). No self-respecting treasure hunter would superficially glance at an area of land, shrug his shoulders, and say, "Well, looks like there's no treasure here," and then move on. Real treasure can be found in the most inconspicuous, ordinary, boring of places, and can only be found by those who are willing to dig where no one else is digging.

The Rambam enumerates Torah min ha'Shamayim (Torah from Heaven) as the eighth of his Thirteen Fundamental Principles of Judaism. In his initial presentation of this principle [3] the Rambam adds something that we wouldn't expect:

And there is no difference between, “And the sons of Cham were Cush and Mitzrayim and Put and Canaan” (Bereishis 10:6) or “And his wife’s name was Mehetavel, the daughter of Matred” (ibid. 39:39) and “I am Hashem” (Shemos 20:2) or “Hear, O Israel, Hashem is our God, Hashem is One” (Devarim 6:4) – all is from the mouth of the Almighty and all of the Torah of Hashem is perfect, pure, holy, and true. 

And, in the eyes of the Sages, there was no greater heretic and rebel as Menashe, for he believed that in the Torah there are grain and chaff and that these accounts and narratives have no value at all, and that Moshe said them on his own. And this is the meaning of the statement “the Torah is not from heaven” which the Sages understand to refer to one who asserts that the whole Torah in its entirety is from the Holy One, blessed is He, excepting a particular verse which (he maintains) was not uttered by Holy One, blessed is He, but by Moshe himself, and concerning such a person it is said, “For he has despised the word of Hashem” (Bamidbar 15:31) - may He be exalted over the speech of the heretics. 

Rather within every letter of the Torah there is wisdom and wonders for him to whom God has given understanding. And its ultimate wisdom cannot be grasped, “the measure thereof is longer than the earth and broader than the sea” (Iyov 11:9). And man has but to follow in the footsteps of David, the anointed one of the God of Yaakov, who prayed, “Open my eyes that I may behold wonders from Your Torah” (Tehilim 119:18).

According to the Rambam, the yesod (fundamental principle) of Torah min ha'Shamayim isn't limited to the belief that Hashem authored the Torah. More than that, Torah min ha'Shamayim includes a conviction that every part of the Torah is infused with wondrous chochmah (wisdom) - even the seemingly "boring" parts. There is no "chaff."

It is parshiyos like Masei that really put this yesod to the test. When the time to learn these parshiyos rolls around, it behooves us to follow Shlomo's approach and "search for it as if it were hidden treasure," while taking a note from David and beseeching Hashem to "open our eyes that we may behold wonders from His Torah."

[1] Talmud Yerushalmi Rosh ha'Shanah 3

[2] Rabbeinu Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag / Gersonides) Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar 33:8-9
[3] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Commentary on the Mishnah: Introduction to Perek Chelek

Questioning Ends

Originally posted in 2009. Reposting now because this relates directly to the 2016 Olympics, and Tishah b'Av. Also, bear in mind that this was written by the 2009 me. Nowadays, I wouldn't be so quick to initiate a discussion like this.

Artwork: Voyage's End, by Chris Rahn

Questioning Ends

Every once in a while I like to play a game I call "Socrates." The rules are simple: choose a stranger, ask yourself, "What would Socrates talk about with this person?" and initiate a conversation. The resulting discussions are usually very eye-opening, although they are usually very short. I thought it might be interesting to share an example with you. 

Last night I was in the mood to play Socrates on Facebook. Like most Facebook users, I have a large number of "friends" who aren't really friends, but old acquaintances from my past life. One of these old acquaintances - a former classmate from 10th grade, whom we'll call "Jim" - posted a quotation as his Facebook status. The quotation was from a long-distance runner named Paula Radcliffe, and said, "You just have to keep believing that one day you will win." 

I happened to know that Jim is a runner. He was a runner in high school, and from his Facebook profile, it looks as though he would like to make a career out of running. I assumed that this quotation was in reference to one of Jim's running-related goals. 

I asked myself, "What would Socrates say to Jim? Jim clearly thinks highly of this quotation, and I'm sure he'd be willing to discuss it. What should I ask him to get the discussion going?" The answer came to me pretty quickly. I clicked on the "comment" section under Jim's status and typed a single question: "Why is it important to win?" 

I chose this question because I really wanted to know. During the Beijing Olympics I often wondered what really drives these people, in their minds. If you asked them why winning is important, would they really try to rationally argue for the value of winning? Would they admit that winning isn't objectively important, but that it had always been a childhood dream which they feel compelled to achieve? Would they give an answer like, "I want to see what I am capable of" or "I want to show the world that it is possible to overcome one's limitations and achieve one's dreams"? How many of them would just shrug their shoulders and say, "For the fun of it"? And most of all, I wondered how many of them simply don't think about why they should try to win; they just go for it. 

The first response I received was from one of Jim's friends, who wrote: 

Winning is how you define it. Too many people say winning is being the 1st place in anything. I say trying your best, having fun, and learning something new have a lot to do with being a winner ... and I think you do that every day. 

A second one of Jim's friends said: 

I think what this quote means is that if you keep believing in your dreams and give the best you can day in and day out and train like there's no tomorrow, then you will win. Not in a sense of place necessarily, as [Friend #1] said, but in a sense that you have done everything you could, and in doing so, you achieve your dream (i.e. win). 

I noted that neither Friend #1 nor Friend #2 had really understood my question as I had intended it. They thought I was asking about the meaning of the quotation itself, when in truth, I was really asking about the premise of the quotation. I tried to clarify with the following comment: 

I definitely agree that it is important to believe in yourself and your dreams and to try your best, and that by doing all of these things, you increase your chances of winning. My question was not about the means, but about the end: Why is winning important? 

Is "winning" really "however you define it," as [Friend #1] said? If winning means "trying your best, having fun, and learning something new," then you don't have to believe that one day you will do these things - you can just do them today! And if achieving your dream is winning, then shouldn't you first evaluate whether your dream is a good thing before you strive to achieve it? A person might dream of climbing Mt. Everest, but if he achieves this dream, does that really make him a better person? Will it really make him happy? 

That is what I mean by: Why is winning important?

Finally, Jim responded. He said: 

The quote really means to get to the heart of not doubting it when it seems a dream is impossible. I'm headed for the 2012 Olympic trials in the 10k. This requires six miles of 4:40 per mile, if not faster. I'm nowhere near that fitness level, and to get there takes TONS: miles, time, focus, exercises, effort, etc. Believing I can banish a past of lukewarm effort with this journey is really hard to believe. So it is that belief in something so preposterous it seems highly unattainable is the belief of which Paula Radcliffe speaks. That is what speaks to me. 

I realized then that there was probably no point in going on with the discussion. It was clear that he still didn't (or couldn't) see my question, whether because of my lack of clarity or his inability to think about the ends he was pursuing. Most of all, I didn't want to risk shaking the foundations of Jim's goal in life for no good reason. 

Nevertheless, I gained a lot from this brief discussion. Thinking about Jim's state made me feel extremely grateful to the chachamim from whom I've learned, and from the Torah-system which produced them, and from the One who gave us that Torah-system. I am thankful to live a life in which self-reflection and introspection are a part of everyday living, and I am happy to have been granted the knowledge, skills, and the personal disposition which make this self-reflection and introspection possible. 

Blessed is the True Existence Who gave the Torah to Israel, His people.

The Four Levels of Belief in God

The Four Levels of Belief in God's Oneness

One of the earliest books on Jewish thought is Chovos ha'Levavos (Duties of the Heart), by Rabbeinu Bachya ben Paquda. The first of the ten sections (or "gates") of the book is entitled Shaar ha'Yichud (The Gate of Oneness). In this section the author delves into Judaism's unique concept of monotheism and offers detailed proofs from Scripture and logic to support each of his points.

Towards the beginning of this section (chapter 2) Rabbeinu Bachya presents his categorization of the four levels of belief in God's Oneness. For the sake of easy reference, I will assign titles to each level. These titles are my own, but the rest of the text is a translation of the author's words (or, more accurately, my translation based on several Hebrew translations of the author's original Arabic).

The first level represents the absolute minimum:

Level #1: Speech: The first [level of acknowledging God’s Oneness] is the declaration of God’s Oneness in speech alone. This level is attained by the child or the simple person who has no understanding of the [true] meaning of emunah, nor is its truth established in his mind. 

This barely even qualifies as "belief." The person on this level might use the term "Hashem" and say the Shema, but hasn't given any real thought to the meaning of the words he is saying. Rabbeinu Bachya doesn't even bother to explain why this is the lowest level, or what the problems with are; they are too obvious to be mentioned.

I don't know how many Jews are on this level. I would like to think that the number is small, but I'm afraid it's much larger. And if we expand our count to include all of the non-Jews who profess a belief in God, then the number skyrockets into the billions, since this is the extent of most people's belief. 

The next group definitely represents the majority of Orthodox Jews I have encountered:

Level #2: Tradition: The second level is the acknowledgment of God’s Oneness with the mind and in speech based on what one has received from tradition, because he believes the person from whom he has received it. [However,] one does not grasp [at this level] the true meaning of the subject on the strength of one’s own intellect and understanding. 

Some might view reliance on the Mesorah (authoritative tradition) as the highest level of belief. Rabbeinu Bachya begs to differ. Not only does he view it as a relatively low level, but he also maintains that there is an inherent risk in relying on tradition alone, as he goes on to explain:

He is like a blind man who is led by one who can see. It may happen that one receives [the tradition] from someone who, likewise, knows it only from tradition. That would resemble a string of blind men, each of whom has his hand on the shoulder of the one in front of him, until the file reaches a person endowed with sight, who is at their head and guides them. Should this guide of theirs fail them and neglect to watch over them carefully, or if one of them should stumble or suffer an accident, then all of them would be affected: they would all stray from the path and either fall into a pit or a ditch, or blunder into an obstacle that would prevent them from continuing. 

The same is true of one who acknowledges God’s Oneness by relying on tradition. One cannot be sure that he will not embrace shituf (i.e. belief in a god who is not truly One, but who partakes of multiplicity), for when he hears the statements and arguments of the dualists, his views might change and he might fall into error without his being aware of it. For this reason our masters have stated: “Be diligent in the study of Torah, and know what answer to give a heretic” (Avos 2:14). 

This brings us to the third level:

Level #3: Proof: The third level is the acknowledgment of God’s Oneness with the mind and in speech after one is able to support it [the doctrine] with arguments for the truth of His existence, by way of reasoned analysis. [However,] one does not have knowledge of the meaning of “the absolute One” and “the relative one.” 

This level is very subtle and falls within a precise range. It describes someone who has arrived, through rational investigation and analysis, at a conviction that God exists, but hasn't reached a correct understanding of Who God is. For example, Albert Einstein became convinced of God's Existence through his study of the universe:

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble ... this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment.

Isaac Newton likewise said:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

But although both men arrived at their belief in God through rational inquiry, they did not follow through with their investigation to the point where they grasped the fundamental truth of Yichud Hashem (God's Oneness) or its associated truths (i.e. God's non-physicality, His Eternality, that He is a Necessary Existence, etc.).

Rabbeinu Bachya provides an analogy to describe the limitations of this level:

A person [at this level] resembles a man, endowed with sight, who, on a journey to a distant land, reaches a point in the road where it branches off into many different directions. Although he knows the general direction and location of his city of destination, he does not know which road will take him there; despite great effort on his part, he fails to reach his destination, for he does not know the way. This is like what Scripture says: “A fool wearies himself with his efforts, for he does not know how to get to the city” (Koheles 10:15). 

Level #3 isn't unique to people like Einstein and Newton. I have seen a number of Jewish educators successfully demonstrate that Hashem exists, then stop short of explaining what we mean by "Hashem." Of course, this can definitely be the developmentally appropriate place to stop in a lesson. But one must recognize that this level of belief is incomplete. 

This brings us to the ultimate level:

Level #4: True Conviction: The fourth level is the acknowledgment of God’s Oneness with the mind and in speech after one knows how to support [the doctrine] with arguments and arrive at knowledge of His true Oneness by way of rational analysis and correct, intelligent arguments. This is the highest and most accomplished level of them all, and it is this high station which the prophet urged us to attain when he said: “Understand it today and reflect on it in your mind: Hashem is the God in the heavens above and on the earth below, there is no other” (Devarim 4:39). 

This is the level of true emunah, which is the highest level of knowledge and belief we can attain. By devoting ourselves to the study of the yesodei ha'Torah from Rabbeinu Bachya, the Rambam, the Rashba, and the other masters of the Mesorah, then we may one day reach this level, with God's help. 

Texting, Torah, and the Stamina for Immortality

Originally published in April 2012 (not counting the updated social media references). 

Texting, Torah, and the Stamina for Immortality

The Technological Generation Gap

I heard a shiur by Rabbi AZ about this generation's unprecedented preoccupation with and dependence on technology. Smartphones, Facebook, texting, Snapchat, Instagram, and other forms of online/electronic social networking - the average teenager considers these things to be an indispensable component of his or her very being. Many of these kids cannot conceive of a life in which they are not constantly connected to their social circle via the various modes of technology. To some, the thought of giving up their phone is actually terrifying. 

Members of the older generations have a difficult time understanding this phenomenon. To them, the notion of being so attached to their cell phone is laughable, pathetic, and altogether mystifying. "What do you mean you can't live without your phone?" "Do you really need to be texting everywhere you go?" "How much time do you spend on YouTube anyway?" "Don't you want to spend time with your friends in person instead of communicating with them through typing?" These expressions of astonishment reflect a drastic disconnect with the direction in which the world is moving. 

Rabbi AZ believes that this new wave of technology will change (and is already changing) the way our minds and psyches work. Just as such changes have occurred with every major technological advancement in history (e.g. the agricultural revolution, the invention of the printing press, the industrial revolution), so too, the human psyche will be changed with the rise of the "information age." Rabbi AZ maintains that the driving force behind this change is the fact that we carry our technology on our bodies and are connected 24/7 (or 24/6, for Jews). This constant connectedness to our social circles and to the world is largely responsible for the change in how we relate to others and how we relate to ourselves.

Changes in Man

Some might challenge Rabbi AZ's assertion by quoting the words of Shlomo ha'Melech in Koheles:

Whatever has been is what will be, and whatever has been done is what will be done. There is nothing new under the sun. Sometimes there is something of which one says: "Look, this is new!" - it has already existed in the ages before us. As there is no recollection of the former ones, so too, of the latter ones that are yet to be, there will be no recollection among those of a still later time (Koheles 1:9-11).

"How can you say that things are changing?" one might ask. "Are you saying that just because we have new technology, the way that humans operate will change?"

The answer is that Shlomo ha'Melech was talking about the permanent nature of things - not the particulars, which clearly do change. Adler provides a good example of this distinction in Desires Right & Wrong: the Ethics of Enough (1991):

[We] must distinguish between primary natural needs and those that are secondary and instrumental. The primary natural needs are those that are inherent in human nature and so are the same for all human beings everywhere and at all times. Having a capacity for knowledge, man has a natural need for it. As Aristotle said, "man by nature desires to know."

To acquire knowledge, human beings do not need schools as now constituted and operated. At other times and other other circumstances, the need for knowledge was served by parental instruction, indoctrination and discipline by the elders of the tribe, pedagogues and tutors, and so on. There are many different means to serve the acquisition of knowledge by the young. At different times and under different circumstances, each of these different means may be required to implement the acquisition of the real good needed.

These secondary and instrumental needs can be called "natural" only in the sense that they are means for implementing needs that are natural. They themselves are not natural in the sense of being inherent in human nature and so common to all human beings everywhere and at all times.

Keeping this distinction in mind helps us answer the question often asked: "Do not natural needs change from time to time and with variations in the surrounding circumstances?" The answer is both no and yes. No, primary natural needs never vary. Yes, the instrumental needs that we call "natural" because they are needed to implement our natural desires, do change.

In our present society, people think schools are needed; that was not always the case. In our urban society, people think that public transportation is needed to serve the need to earn a living by those who live at a distance from their place of work. That was not the case in tribal life or in rural agricultural communities. Health is a primary natural need, but it is only in an environment being polluted by the effects of advanced technology that we now need, secondarily and instrumentally, environmental protection for the care of our health.

When the word "need" is used with reference to whatever may be needed to implement our natural desires, we must remember that, unlike our primary natural needs, the secondary instrumental needs are variable. New needs come into existence; needs that once existed disappear. Such variation in needs violates the sense of the word "natural" when it is applied to primary needs. The secondary needs can be called "natural" only in the sense that the goods needed to serve to implement genuinely natural needs.

Our growing dependence on recent technology falls into the category of "secondary instrumental needs." At its core, the human psyche remains the same, but changes in our secondary instrumental needs can trigger changes in our psyche and the way we view the world.

The Tragedy of the Vampire

As I listened to Rabbi AZ's shiur, I was reminded of a passage in Anne Rice's book, Interview with the Vampire (1974), which I am currently rereading. 

SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! 

The protagonist of the book is Louis. In 1791 Louis is transformed against his will into a vampire by another vampire named Lestat. The two of them subsequently transform a five year old girl named Claudia into a vampire, whom Louis grows to regard as his beloved immortal daughter. Louis and Claudia eventually flee from Lestat and travel to France where they encounter a group of "Old World" vampires led by the 400-year-old Armand. A series of sinister events leads to the death of Claudia and all of the other "Old World" vampires except for Armand. Louis and Armand band together as the sole survivors, and begin to develop a vampiric companionship.

Up until this point, the nature of this companionship has not been defined. It is only towards the end, when Louis is contemplating leaving, that Armand tells him why he needs a companion:

[Armand:] "You fear that, the isolation of it, the burden, the scope of eternal life."

[Louis:] "Yes, that's true, but that's only a small part of it. The era, it doesn't mean much to me. She (Claudia) made it mean something. Other vampires must experience this and survive it, the passing of a hundred eras."

[Armand:] "But they don't survive it. The world would be choked with vampires if they survived it. How do you think I came to be the eldest here or anywhere?" he asked.

[Louis:] I thought about this. And then I ventured, "They die by violence?"

[Armand:] "No, almost never. It isn't necessary. How many vampires do you think have the stamina for immortality? They have the most dismal notions of immortality to begin with. For in becoming immortal they want all the forms of their life to be fixed as they are and incorruptible: carriages made in the same dependable fashion, clothing of the cut which suited their prime, men attired and speaking in the manner they have always understood and valued. When, in fact, all things change except the vampire himself; everything except the vampire is subject to constant corruption and distortion. Soon, with an inflexible mind, and often even with the most flexible mind, this immortality becomes a penitential sentence in a madhouse of figures and forms that are hopelessly unintelligible and without value. One evening a vampire rises and realizes what he has feared perhaps for decades, that he simply wants no more of life at any cost. That whatever style or fashion or shape of existence made immortality attractive to him has been swept off the face of the earth. And nothing remains to offer freedom from despair except the act of killing. And the vampire goes out to die. No one will find his remains. No one will know where he has gone. And often no one around him - should he still seek the company of other vampires - no one will know that he is in despair. He will have ceased long ago to speak of himself or of anything. He will vanish." 

That is why Armand needs Louis. Armand senses that he is unable to connect to the present generation and is in danger of remaining frozen in the world of the past, which is quickly fading.

"I must make contact with the age," he said to me calmly. "And I can do this through you ... not to learn things from you which I can see in a moment in an art gallery or read in an hour in the thickest books ... you are the spirit, you are the heart," he persisted.

The Torah's Stamina for Immortality

The dilemma that confronts the vampire, as expressed by Armand, closely parallels the dilemma that confronts the teachers of Torah in the face of the changes in technology and society. Rabbi AZ concluded his shiur by calling attention to the fact that the educational methods employed by the guardians of the Mesorah (Torah tradition) must be adapted to this rapidly changing world. If the methods used by teachers clash with the mentality of the present generation, we risk alienating the modern Jewish teenager. Rabbi AZ said:

The question is: How can the method of learning Torah - how can the process of learning the methodology and the Mesorah - how can that transform from [the old way] to the new way that people think, the new way that they take in knowledge ... The old ways are fixed, and the people running the institutions are not 20 years old. They're 50 years old. They don't live in this kind of world. So the old institutions are made for different people. 

New changes in educational media are happening every day. Public services such as Google and Wikipedia have revolutionized the manner in which people seek out knowledge and information. Devices like the Kindle and iPad are threatening to replace the book as the medium of learning. Institutions like TED and Khan Academy are changing the way people educate themselves.

We have seen our Mesorah undergo many changes throughout the millennia of the Torah's existence: 

• The transition from having "direct access to Hashem" via Moshe Rabbeinu in the Midbar, to the implementation of an independently standing Torah-system in Eretz Yisrael. 
• The transition from the age of Nevi'im to the post-prophetic era. 
• The transition from a centralized, authoritative Sanhedrin overseeing the formulation and transmission of Torah she'baal Peh, to the fragmented educational organizations in galus. 
• The transition from a purely oral Torah she'baal Peh, to a limud Torah she'baal Peh that is anchored in writing: first in the form of the Mishnah, then the Sifra, Sifrei, Tosefta, and Braisos, then the Talmuds, and so on. 
• The transition from the "Geonic monopoly" of the to post-Geonic authority. 
• The transition psak that naturally emanated from learning the primary sources of Torah she'baal Peh to psak rooted in the written works of the poskim. 

Although the Torah itself is perfect and unchanging, these changes in our circumstances have made it necessary to adapt. For example, if Rebbi Yehuda ha'Nasi had not radically altered the model of teaching Torah she'baal Peh, then it would have been utterly lost. His decision to alter the manner in which Torah was taught and learned does not imply any lack of perfection in the Torah itself.

The sum of the matter is that the Torah does have the stamina for immortality, but in order to tap into that stamina, the teachers of Torah in every generation must adapt to the continually shifting reality of the present age. The guardian of the Mesorah must embody the spirit of Torah, but must simultaneously "make contact with the age." The teacher who fails to do this runs the serious risk of stultifying the Torah in the eyes of the contemporary student and endangering the entire chain of the Mesorah.