Samuel Brush
Unit 2
Idolatry, Exodus 33, Moses, and Kavod
In Mishneh Torah and “Laws Concerning Idolatry”, Maimonides constructed a justification for the laws against idolatry in Judaism. He probably wrote this justification because he saw these laws as Hukkim – laws with less obvious rationale that require specialized knowledge to understand. Maimonides communicated his justification by first recounting the story of the laws’ creation and then reinforcing the story with Torah interpretation that supported his claims. He began by addressing the problem of idolatry at its core: “all know that You alone are God; their error and folly consists in imagining that this vain worship [i.e. idolatry] is your desire” (Maimonides, p. 72). Maimonides made a distinction about those who worshipped idols: while they were aware that only one God existed, which they saw embodied as a “particular star”, they were unaware that idolatrous worship was not God’s desire from man (Maimonides, p. 72). He wrote that the misconception spread through “false prophets who asserted that God” had told them to worship a particular star and to create figures of its image (Maimonides, p. 72). Maimonides went on to assert that the world was continually ignorant of the desires of the one true God until “that pillar of the world, the patriarch Abraham, was born” (Maimonides, p. 73). Maimonides relayed the story of Abraham, who realized at a young age that someone had to have been guiding the celestial sphere that was being worshipped by humans at the time. Maimonides claimed that Abraham was “forty years old when he recognized his Creator” and then went on to spread his revelation until “tens of thousands joined him” (Maimonides, pp. 73-74). Maimonides therefore traced Judaism’s laws against idolatry to Abraham, who he claims taught his non-idolatrous, monotheistic conception of religion and morality to his son, Isaac, and the law was then passed down for generations to the lineage of Abraham. Maimonides’ next section of justification for the commandments against idolatry included Torah interpretation. For example, on page 74, he cited Leviticus 20:23, in which the Jews were told that they would not follow the customs of the Gentiles. Indeed, idolatry was an old practice of gentiles. By this commandment, the Jews could not worship idols. Maimonides’ use of the origin story combined with his insightful Torah interpretation made the reasoning behind the laws against idolatry very clear. He masterfully employed an explanation of performative reasoning.
In Professor Don Seeman’s essay “Honoring the Divine as Virtue and Practice in Maimonides”, Seeman argued that the theme of divine kavod, or divine glory, linked Maimonides’ “philosophical, literary, and even medical concerns” with his “practical religious teaching” (Seeman, p. 195). Seeman wrote that Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed was connected to his other works through his understanding of the divine kavod. Lastly, Seeman examined Maimonides’ “consistent fascination with Exodus 33” and its role in organizing his “reflections on human perfection, ethics, and the relationship between idolatry and everyday religious language” (Seeman, p. 195). Seeman explained that Maimonides thought that one had to honor the divine presence of God by recognizing the appropriate limits of human intellect and speculation on the topic: “the individual who aspires to perfection…must continue to press on with all due modesty against the boundaries of knowledge, precisely in order to establish God’s true distinction or kavod” (Seeman, p. 206). Seeman showed that Maimonides’ guide to achieving kavod would “make even the quotidian routines of daily life into a series of sites for reflection upon “His commandments, may He be exalted,” rather than “that which is other than He.” This is divine incommensurability ritualized” (Seeman, p. 245). Seeman argued that Maimonides’ guide to living with kavod in mind gave the individual an intellectual and ethical purpose in their everyday activities and commandments. Lastly, Seeman highlighted the logic behind Maimonides’ unique reading of Exodus 33: “It is not the specific actions of God described in Scripture that are the real focus of divine emulation…but rather the core values—like mercy and compassion—that can be abstracted from them (and from nature) by reflection.” (Seeman, p. 249). In this passage, Seeman was noting the distinction that Maimonides made in his analysis of Exodus 33: the literal actions of God are less important than the values which inspire his actions, such as “mercy and compassion”. Seeman’s analysis of Maimonides’ interpretation of Exodus 33 is integral in developing our own understanding of how Maimonides viewed the concept of kavod.
To digress, one additional passage from Seeman’s essay that was relevant to our first class discussion of Maimonides can be found on page 231: “Maimonides’ son R. Abraham, by contrast, insists that Maimonides thinks imitatio Dei is an ethical directive distinct from general obedience to the commandments because it requires not only correct actions but also the cultivation of freestanding moral virtues” (Seeman, p. 231). This passage is an example of Maimonides advocating against the use of legislative reasoning (i.e. the simple following of laws because they exist); instead, he promoted the use of performative reasoning, accomplished by implementation of freestanding moral virtues, to understand the Jewish religious laws.
In “The Ethical Views of Maimonides within the context of Islamicate Civilization”, Lawrence Berman highlighted the influence of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics on Maimonides as well as on the greater intellectual community in contemporary Islamic civilization. Berman argued that Aristotle saw “the contemplative life” as “that which is most akin to the divine” (Berman, p. 16). While contemplation was important for Aristotle, “life controlled by practical reason” was the way to have “the life of moral virtues as being flourishing (or happiness)” (Berman, p. 17). Berman used this Aristotelian reconciliation of practical reason and contemplation as ideal to show the Aristotelian influence on Maimonides’ thinking. In particular, Berman applied this concept to Maimonides’ justification of the following of the commandments in the Torah. Berman wrote that the ideal ethical man would be “in constant tension between the two extremes of excess and of defect”; in other words, he would not ethically justify the commandments with strictly performative or legislative reasoning (Berman, p. 27). Lastly, Berman analyzed the relationship between intellectual perfection and the actions of God as they pertain to the commandments in Maimonides’ thought: “moral activity as a prerequisite to intellectual perfection…is not an imitation of the actions of God…once intellectual perfection has been achieved, which entails knowledge of the ways of God, the practical activity performed is…imitation of the ways of God” (Berman, p. 30). Berman argued that Maimonides did not see the following of the commandments before intellectual perfection was attained as an imitation of God. No, only after intellectual perfection was attained could a man be imitating God.
Dear Samuel,
Thanks for this! It is a very full account of the readings for this class.
First, I want to remind students to bring their Maimonides Reader to class with them tomorrow so we can look at these texts together.
Also, I wonder what if any questions you might have had about the readings, or what you may have thought was unclear. That would be a good place to start our discussion tomorrow. What do any of these readings have in common with each other or are they at odds with one another in some way? Why do you suppose that I assigned them all for the same week?
These are some of the questions I would like you to begin to consider.
best wishes,
Professor Seeman
That was a great read Sam! I found Maimonides’ intense focus on the laws of Judaism to be very interesting. Professor Seeman points out that Maimonides believed that achieving Kavod was possible only by constantly keeping in mind God’s Commandments. It would be interesting to compare the Maimonides method of praising God, through Commandments, to his contemporary Christian philosopher’s methods. Strauss points out that while Judaism was based in a divine set of laws, Christianity was set more in faith, so I imagine Christian philosophers would differ greatly from Maimonides.
I thought you did a really good job summarizing the readings and highlighting important quotes. From Unit 2’s readings, I really enjoyed reading Maimonides’ “Letter on Astrology,” in that it was amusing to sense from his harsh language his exasperation with the rabbis who wrote him. I also appreciated Maimonides’ simplistic writing style and his use of analogies to explain his reasoning, such as when he created the characters of the rich perfumer Simeon and the poor tanner Reuben to further explain the stars and spheres’ lack of divine power (Lerner, p. 184). It was refreshing that Maimonides’ reasoning behind the dangers of worshipping stars and spheres was easy to follow, which is atypical of most philosophers. I noticed that the readings were related to avoiding being led astray by misguided thoughts and actions, in that Maimonides’ “Laws Concerning Idolatry” describes laws to avoid idolatry, Maimonides’ “Letter on Astrology” describes how God-fearing men can become idol worshippers because of their lack of discernment, and Dr. Seeman’s article describes increasing one’s intellect in order to become closer to understanding God’s kavod.
In the Laws Concerning Idolatry, my initial view of the laws was that they would be in the category of Mishpatim, or rational commandments, as idolatry fundamentally represents a rejection of God’s Divine power. However, it seems that this was a faulty view, as Enosh was criticized not for rejecting the divine, but for aggrandizing and honoring men that He aggrandized. This idea led to Idol Worship and gives a less direct approach to the beginnings of idol worship- it was not based off a rejection of God. This lead to a chain of ideological changes that concluded in worshiping the stars. This status quo was ultimately broken by Abraham, who brought people back to a monotheistic approach to religion. Samuel’s commentary did prompt me to read through a second time, and definitely challenged me to think of idolatry as part of the Hukkim”.
In discussing “Honoring the Divine as Virtue and Practice In Maimonides”, several ideas were reached. One that was most fascinating to me was the common trend in Maimonides utter rejection of Anthropomorphism in his readings of Exodus 33. The Rambam’s interpretation of “show me your kavod” as a philosophical journey was shocking to me. This was not due to substance, but rather due to precedent, as he directly rejected writings that were commonly accepted, specifically by Saadia and Nachmanidies. In addition to Maimonides willingness to introduce novel interpretations, he is also able to integrate knowledge from the secular world. In Back to Basics and Letter on Astrology, he was more than willing to stand by precedent from Greeks and Persians who viewed Astrology to be a waste. Berman’s article furthers Maimonides willingness to integrate Jewish and Secular texts, with his discussion on Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics. Samuel presents a well thought aout summary of this text, providing a well thought out summary of the intersection between Maimonides and Aristotle.
I thought you did a very thorough job of summarizing the readings from unit two. In “A Maimonides Reader”, I found the following line particularly interesting: “for they use its words to cure the body whereas these are only medicine for the soul” (Maimonides, p. 75). I found this comparison of idolatry interesting in contrast to Maimonides overall tone in “Letter on Astrology”, as Maimonides becomes harsher and more frustrated in the latter as compared to the former. What stood out strongest to me as a commonality amongst the readings for this unit is the consistent rejection of “acting like the gentiles”. On multiple occasions, Maimonides references idolatry as a practice of the gentiles, and one that is rejected outright by those that follow “the one true God”, such as Abraham and his descendants.
Samuel Tavakoli
In the Laws Concerning Idolatry, my initial view of the laws was that they would be in the category of Mishpatim, or rational commandments, as idolatry fundamentally represents a rejection of God’s Divine power. However, it seems that this was a faulty view, as Enosh was criticized not for rejecting the divine, but for aggrandizing and honoring men that He aggrandized. This idea led to Idol Worship and gives a less direct approach to the beginnings of idol worship- it was not based off a rejection of God. This lead to a chain of ideological changes that concluded in worshiping the stars. This status quo was ultimately broken by Abraham, who brought people back to a monotheistic approach to religion. Samuel’s commentary did prompt me to read through a second time, and definitely challenged me to think of idolatry as part of the Hukkim”.
In discussing “Honoring the Divine as Virtue and Practice In Maimonides”, several ideas were reached. One that was most fascinating to me was the common trend in Maimonides utter rejection of Anthropomorphism in his readings of Exodus 33. The Rambam’s interpretation of “show me your kavod” as a philosophical journey was shocking to me. This was not due to substance, but rather due to precedent, as he directly rejected writings that were commonly accepted, specifically by Saadia and Nachmanidies. In addition to Maimonides willingness to introduce novel interpretations, he is also able to integrate knowledge from the secular world. In Back to Basics and Letter on Astrology, he was more than willing to stand by precedent from Greeks and Persians who viewed Astrology to be a waste. Berman’s article furthers Maimonides willingness to integrate Jewish and Secular texts, with his discussion on Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics. Samuel presents a well thought aout summary of this text, providing a well thought out summary of the intersection between Maimonides and Aristotle.
I found it particularly interesting that you chose to include Abraham’s age in your summary of the passage. It seems like a rather trivial piece of information upon first glance, but my curiosity was provoked by this information. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so, depending on your world view), the Prophet Muhammad was also 40 years old when he is said to have received revelation. Maimonides also said that one should wait to to study “esoteric teachings” until they have thoroughly studied the basic material. Rabbi Shabbetai ha-Kohen suggests the age of 40. Upon further reading, I also learned that the number 40 is mentioned 146 times in the Bible.
I was also interested in your description of Maimonides interpretation of Exodus as unique. From reading Dr. Seeman’s description, I think it partially reflects his Islamic context from my personal background on the topic.
I thought this was great, Sam. I really liked how you chose passages that reflect the continuity in Maimonides’ reasoning. Specifically, the distinction between the corporeal and spiritual world, and how that distinction manifests in life and Jewish scripture. Building on that idea, Maimonides explains how, gaining a better understanding of the divine Kavod requires one to recognize the limits of his/her own intellect. Maimonides also stresses the importance of improving one’s own intellect. Considering these two thoughts, I questioned how one is supposed to realize when he/she has reached the boundaries of human intellect. I found the answer to this question in an earlier passage in Professor Seeman’s commentary, and find it truly remarkable. Maimonides describes how Moses recognized God by showing how” He was differentiated in his [Moses’] mind from other exis- tents the way a person is differentiated when one has seen his back and perceived with one’s mind [the difference between] all of [that person’s] body and clothing from those of other people.” (Honoring the Divine as Virtue and Practice, Pg. 203). This passage emphasizes how you can only recognize and ‘define’ God by being able to distinguish between what we are able to comprehend through human intellect, and that which we do not have the capacity to understand. This concept then ties into Maimonides’ emphasize on strict adherence to Jewish law, because he believed that the constant reminders that are required in Jewish Law serve to remind us of the distinction between God and men- thus allowing us to come closer to reaching/understanding Kavod.
Sam, you summarized these pieces very well – all were clear and concise. While reading and analyzing these pieces (specifically Twersky’s and Lerner’s), I noted many areas of tension; one more simple detail is that Maimonides simultaneously identifies as a philosopher and rectifies his arguments by presenting them through a philosophical lens while juxtaposing the Torah and “philosophers” (essentially rendering these arguments as those of gentiles) on notions of idolatry and ontology (Lerner) – an issue of inconsistent word usage, really. A further juxtaposition of “philosophy” (thoughts and practices of the gentile) and the Torah falls short at a central root of his argument – fate deemed by astrologers is brutish. Of course, the Torah is rooted in devine providence while the philosophers’ arguments are rooted in chance – but how different are the two, really, if “everything depends upon ‘the will of Him who spoke.'” Is it not ‘chance’ if the “will of Him” defines the fate of the Earthly man – a being unable to comprehend His designation. Additionally, is speaking of “spheres and stars” not a more ‘direct sensory experience’ than “speaking of angels?” (Lerner) Moreover, all pieces were quite clearly synchronized in terms of Maimonides’s grounding in philosophical interpretation of the Torah in order to salvage the “fall” of the Torah’s traditions and spiritual intimacy of the time – specifically concerning “misplaced divine honor” ( Seeman).
Sam, you did a good job of summarizing the readings and giving good insight to particular themes. Building on top of your summary, I wanted to reiterate one idea that I saw through multiple texts – the concept of idolatry. A Maimonides Reader is where I was first introduced to the idea of worshipping many profits rather than the one God. What really stuck out to me here is when the text states, “the honored and revered Name of God was forgotten by mankind, vanished from their lips and hearts, and was no longer known to them” (Twersky 72). At this point in time, human beings were so caught up with the prophets they had been worshipping, particularly their statues and other edifices, that they completely left the real creator, God, out of the picture. When Maimonides introduces us to Hukkim, the less rationale and more specialized laws, I thought of Abraham and the example used in the text. It took up to forty years to realize the true story of God, and it shows that not everyone is fit to comprehend Hukkim. Professor Seeman, in his work Honoring the Divine as Virtue and Practice, cites Moses as another example of someone who could better comprehend these laws compared to other human beings. Seeman states, “He was differentiated in his mind from other existents” (Seeman 203). I saw similar themes in Maimonides’ Letter on Astrology. The relationship between these two texts is that they both speak of the rules, profits, and the process of worshipping. Firstly, I want to talk about what Maimonides said regarding books. He first says that “fools have composed thousands of books of nothingness and emptiness”(Twersky) and that people waste their time not only reading these books but believing them as well. According to Maimonides, “all the things that man finds written in books, he presumes to think of as true – and all the more so if the books are old”. Maimonides uses a very critical tone toward human beings, characterizing them as gullible and of lesser intelligence for falling for these false prophets and not being able to comprehend the one creator we have that makes the Earth spin.
This was a very well done and concise summary of the readings. I was pleased you brought up the point as seeing the laws on idolatry as Hukkim. I think the importance of context plays a huge role in our understanding of these laws. For example, without context of its ancient Mesopotamian practice, a common man will find it hard to grasps how studying astrology can lead to idolatry worship, and it’s the same people that lack this understanding that leads them to the temptations of such practices. From my understanding, those Maimonides claimed intellectually immature or had some knowledge deficit are those that lacked metacognition (Maimonides, p. 72).
There is virtue in constantly examining one’s belief before holding whatever assumption or claim to be true. From the story on Enosh, Mimaoneds reveals how even the smallest fallacies lead to huge implications on the beliefs we hold to be true and it’s this disability of lack of judgment that limits our understanding on the importance of laws such as those concerning idolatry. I also found it extremely fascinating how Maimonides distinguish astrology as a form of pseudoscience. In the “Letters on Astrology”, he dismisses the subject as being mere superstition that has no scientific basis. It’s interesting how relevant these statements are to our current society, seeing that the majority still view astrology and horoscopes as being based on scientific fact.