Month: November 2018

Juliet Tresgallo

Unit 10: The Condition of Exile

In the past few weeks, we have discussed why Maimonides wrote Guide of the Perplexed for those who possess a high level of intellect and have deeply studied science, philosophy, and Torah. This week, our readings are mainly revolved around Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen, which Maimonides intended to be read by both scholars and those of average intelligence. “The Guide might be said to be a guide for the qualified perplexed; the Epistle to Yemen, in contrast, is a guide for the unqualified perplexed” (Lerner 14). Although it was specifically addressed to Jacob ben Nathanael ibn al-Fayyumi, head of the Jewish community in Yemen, Maimonides asked for it to be copied and distributed to the rest of the community (Lerner 132).

In the Epistle to Yemen, Maimonides addressed the concerns of Jacob with regards to a man in Yemen who claimed to be Messiah. Jacob wrote that the man was modest in that he admitted to his limited knowledge, but Maimonides responded that a true Messiah would not have limited knowledge, since he would be the greatest prophet after Moses (Lerner 126). To emphasize how dangerous it is to believe in false prophets, Maimonides described four stories about Jews believing in false Messiahs, and how each situation ended with the Jews experiencing increased suffering (Lerner 128-131).  Maimonides was shocked that someone as scholarly as Jacob would be swayed by a false prophet when there were no rational proofs to support his belief, and he claimed that it indicated a deeper problem in the Jewish community (Lerner 125).

Yemen, which Maimonides described to have once been a land of peace, Torah study, and abundance, had become a place of persecution and forced apostasy (Lerner 15). During their Exile, Jews were likely to lose faith in God, since their oppression and misfortunes seemed to indicate that God abandoned the Jews (Lerner 123). Because of their doubts, Jews were inclined to turn to astrology and divination to explain their suffering. Maimonides explained that the Yemenite Jews needed to look to the natural world around them instead of the stars (Lerner 22). Only then would they realize that their suffering has natural causes that are direct consequences of their actions and are not merely due to unique formations in the sky. Relying on astronomy allowed Jews to shamelessly pursue their desires without fear of divine punishment.

Surprisingly, Maimonides wrote that the Jews should celebrate their calamities. He believed that hardships were “a source of glory and a great achievement for them before God” (Lerner 110). Maimonides explained that misfortune is a way to test and purify the Jews’ piety. Perhaps misfortunes happen to us in order strengthen our faith in God, as well as a punishment for our sins. Despite tendencies of idolatry, Maimonides wrote in his letter to Obadiah the Proselyte that even our ancestors were idolaters before they left Egypt, but that “whoever adopts Judaism and confesses the unity of the Divine Name, as it is prescribed in the Torah, is counted among the disciples of Abraham our Father, peace be with him” (Twersky 475). It is easy to believe in God if everything in one’s life goes according to their wishes, but it becomes much more difficult if one’s life is full of suffering. When facing obstacles, will we hold onto our faith in God and His promise to redeem us, or will we turn away from God in search of more immediate answers?

What can be done to prevent Jews from believing is false prophets? According to Maimonides, it is very important for Jews to strengthen each other’s faith in God and the Torah. The elders should teach the youth, and those of high intellect should teach the commoners (Lerner 23). Jews in Exile are more prone to be swayed by false prophets and by other religions, so it is vital that they spend their time learning Torah. I found it interesting that according to Maimonides, Judaism is simply a physical representation of the true meaning of divine law that is limited by human understanding, while other religions are altered versions of Judaism, and are therefore even more limited and imprecise (Lerner 20).

Maimonides described how an ignorant person can easily recognize surface features but not understand deeper meanings. He used a metaphor of a statue that resembles a man but does not contain man’s inner complexity gifted to him by God. “Man’s interior contains true wonders and matters attesting to the Creator’s wisdom: The distension of his nerves in his muscles and their ramification, and the joining of his sinews and points of their connections, the intertwining of their ligaments and their manner of growth, the structure of his bones and the joints, the egress of his pulsating and nonpulsating blood vessels and their branching out, the setting of his limbs into one another, the open and concealed parts, every one of them in the appropriate measure, form, and place” (Lerner 105). This detailed metaphor made me wonder if one of the reasons that Maimonides chose to become a doctor is because he believed that we should study God’s creations to gain a better understanding of Him, and surely man would be the best creation to deeply study.

Maimonides wrote that anyone who claims to overwrite or change the commandments is obviously a false prophet, since the laws of Moses are eternal and unchanging (Lerner 116). He also wrote that Jews should not try to predict the future or the End of Days like other religions, since disconfirmations of our predictions will only cause us to lose faith in God. The true Messiah will be the only one to predict our future (Lerner 115). He will appear in the land of Israel and will not be recognized until God reveals him to be the Messiah (Lerner 127). By this statement, it makes sense that Jews should not attempt to predict when the Messiah will come or who he will be, since it is written that it will be impossible to recognize him. It seems as though when the Messiah arrives there will not be any doubt that he was sent by God, so any speculation about his identity is pointless. If one thinks he may have found Messiah, then the fact that he is not completely certain is a clear indication that he is not the true Messiah.

Despite all of this, Maimonides gave his own prediction of the End of Days, 4970 years after Creation, even though this proved to be false after that time had passed (Lerner 125). Maimonides claimed that Saadyah, who also predicted the End of Days inaccurately, went against the prohibition in order to unify the Jews and to strengthen their belief in God. Maimonides would probably justify his transgression similarly to how he justified writing down the Oral Torah in the Mishneh Torah. It is clear that he wanted to reignite the passion of the Jews in Exile for learning Torah and serving God.

What do you all think? Do you believe that Maimonides was right to provide his own prediction for the End of Days, after arguing against doing just that? Do you think it is possible for Jews to have a continued belief in Messiah without attempting to predict when he will arrive and who he will be?

 

 

Noah Brooker

Unit 8: Learning How to Read

Maimonides’ introduction to The Guide of the Perplexed,begins with the establishment of its purpose. However, with close examination, the reader can see that the entire introduction is rife with contradictions. Maimonides states that the guide seeks to explain equivocal terms or obscure parables, but he also makes clear that people are “unable to explain with complete clarity and coherence even the portion that (one) has apprehended.” (Twersky, 239). Additionally, Maimonides references that, ‘proper explanation,’ would lead to both “a state of perplexity,” and deliverance from perplexity. Then, in discussing the structure of the guide, Mamonides mentions chapters “in which there will be no mention of an equivocal term” (Twersky ,241), but then explains how a reader of these chapters might find that “the contrary of the truth is sometimes believed” (Twersky, 241) because of presence of the equivocality of terms.

I personally found that the more closely I read the introduction, the more I could identify contradictions, which, left me feeling… perplexed.

Maimonides also lists seven causes for contradiction or contrary statements, in general, and then identifies two (the fifth and seventh) that appear in his treatise:

5. “The fifth cause arises from the necessity of teaching and making someone understand.” (245).
6. “The seventh cause: in speaking about very obscure matters it is necessary to conceal some parts and to disclose other.” (Twersky, 245).

The necessity of teaching requires that obscure matters, be addressed by the teacher, but only to provide a basic understanding of that matter so that it can be used as a premise for others. To facilitate discussion, contradictions are necessary for the procession of certain discussions, however, those contradictions must never be revealed to ‘the vulgar.’

So, the introduction of the guide consists of several contradictions, explanation for those contradictions, and then the acknowledgment that those contradictions are concealed from the many. The brilliance of this introduction, then, is that it shows the nature of the guide rather than explicitly saying what it is. Maimonides says that the reader is supposed to gain an explanation/understanding of the terms and parables in Jewish works, while acknowledging that explaining these things is essentially impossible. Maimonides also states that contradictions exist and are necessary in his work, while simultaneously insisting that those contradictions must not be revealed to most people. It appears Maimonides intends to explain the purpose and ‘nature’ of his treatise by establishing these contradictions, which I believe indicates that the existence and purpose of the guide is to make known these contradictions to the people who can identify them. In this sense, then, Maimonides seems to ‘encourage’ perplexity, so long as it is ‘guided’ towards the true reality of God.

 

In chapter seven of “Maimonides, Life and Thought,” Moshe Halbertal addresses the issues of the stated purposes and contradictions in the guide. He explains that “the genuine addressee of the treatise will understand on his own what he needs to understand and what he properly may understand.” (277). This indicates that a level of self-understanding is necessary, which only partially elucidates the guide because it does not directly reveal the nature of that self-understanding.  However, the fact that the understanding can come “on his own,” is telling. First, it implies that proper ‘understanding’ is not communicable because of the limitations of language: “that language is defective in the most fundamental structure of its sentences, made up of subject and predicate.” (298). Therefore, to convey an understanding of God through language would be nearly impossible, as the necessity for object and action defies the Unity of God. Furthermore, trying to explain God as anything other than ‘one,’ is also akin to heresy because any adjectives that might be used in this endeavor “impairs not only the pure concept of unity but also the sublimity of God and his absolute otherness from the world.” (298). I believe that self-understanding, then, involves one’s certainty in the unity of God. This partially explains the contradiction of the purpose and intent of the guide itself: If one has not established for themselves the unity of God, he/she will be perplexed in attempting to understand the nature of God. If one wants to believe in God, he/she will become satisfied with a false understanding of God. If one holds a steadfast belief in the idea of the unity of God without learning matters of science and philosophy, he/she will lack the ability to appreciate the significance of what it means for God to be one. However, with the absolute belief in the unity of God and knowledge of human science, one can use the guide of the perplexed to contemplate God without getting ‘lost.’

I think this is reflected in Halbertal’s interpretation as well. In describing Jacob’s ascent and descent of a ‘ladder’ as an example of the proper pursuit of knowledge of God, Halbertal summarizes that, “at the top of the heavenward ladder, a person realizes that the only thing he is able to apprehend is God’s movement within reality, and in the wake of that realization, he returns to reality as an active participant.” (311). Here we see that the highest point of knowledge comes with a precise understanding of our inability to ‘know,’ and that we can observe the workings of God through being in the world.

 

In Abraham Socher’s commentary on Amos Funkenstein’s analysis of Maimonides’ historical reasoning, we can see a more comprehendible rationalization of Maimonides’ unique method. It is clear, now, that “the strangeness and opacity of such biblical religion is precisely a result of its historical success in eradicating all but the faintest traces of the cultures with which it was engaged.” (pg. 13). Maimonides understands the necessity of tradition and observance, but disagrees with the notion that any innate quality of these aspects of religion can by itself lead one to truth. Maimonides is likely aware as well, that while most people are incapable of discerning God’s truth, they will still attempt to understand God. With this knowledge, Maimonides had to address the needs of both ‘continuing’ and ‘understanding’ religion. To do this he essentially had to conceal the truth from the people that are not already aware of it.

 

My question for discussion revolves around Maimonides’s insistence that people do not speak about the guide. I do not doubt that Maimonides was aware that people would break this rule, but my confusion surrounds the reason for the rule itself. On one hand, because it is impossible to transmit one’s understanding through language, it makes sense that Maimonides would encourage people not to attempt to do so. On the other hand, with the notion that “silence is praise,” it seems that the prohibition of discussion is because discussion of God is inherently heretical (language issue). So, when Maimonides says not to speak of his guide, does he do so to: protect the truth? Imply truth by reiterating the impossibility of describing God? A mixture of both? Or something completely different?

 

Ben Jungreis

Unit 7: Understanding Laws (cont.)

Chapter 27 of Part III of The Guide of the Perplexed establishes an overall rationale for the commandments. It opens with a declaration by Maimonides: “The Law as a whole aims at two things: the welfare of the soul and the welfare of the body” (Twersky 314). These two parts, the body and the soul, are the two parts which man must seek to perfect. Maimonides holds perfection of the soul as more important, calling it the “ultimate perfection”. First, Maimonides explains what it means for each part to be healthy. Bodily health is gained through improving the way people live and interact with each other, it is really societal health. A healthy soul is gained through “the multitude’s acquiring correct opinions” as far as they are capable (Twersky 314). Galston points out that there is only a small resemblance between the states of health and perfection for the two parts. Maimonides explains that the first perfection (the body) must be achieved before perfection of the soul can be because the needs of the body must be met so one can pursue the learning needed for the ultimate perfection. This first perfection is gained through fulfilling the basic human needs, such as food, shelter, and cleanliness. However, Maimonides caveats: “this cannot be achieved in any way by one isolated individual” (Twersky 315). Maimonides believed that this goal could only be achieved by those in society, or as Maimonides puts it “a political association” (Twersky 315). Galston interprets the text as indicating that the society necessary for bodily perfection allows more freedom and independence between individuals than the society which creates bodily health, so the two states (health and perfection) may not be able to coexist. As for the soul, its health can be obtained by acquiring “correct opinions”, whereas its perfection is obtained by becoming rational through knowing as much about all beings as one can. The two states are connected, unlike for the body. In the beginning of chapter 28 Maimonides asserts that the correct opinions that stem from health are necessary before achieving the ultimate perfection. Chapter 27 ends with Maimonides asserting the power of “the Law of Moses” to bring about both perfections.

Chapter 28 begins by outlining what correct opinions are, which is everything associated with believing in God. Maimonides gives examples: “His unity, His knowledge, His power, His will, and His eternity” (Twersky 316). The examples listed are explained to be end goal, which one can only reach by first having many other opinions. The commandments only describe which opinions should be your end goals, not the others that allow you to get there.  According to Maimonides the opinions one must gather first must be of “the numerous kinds of all the theoretical sciences” (Twersky 317). Since opinions seems to mean knowledge of something, this means that one must understand the sciences before one can gain an understanding of God, an idea that Maimonides has presented before. Maimonides then continues by describing beliefs that the commandments prescribe in order to promote “political welfare.” Maimonides uses the example of fear: you must have the belief that God is angry with those that disobey his commandments so that you fear His wrath and do not disobey.

Maimonides draws from these rules about beliefs and opinions three purposes for commandements: abolishing wrongdoing, promoting good relationships by improving people’s’ “moral quality”, or teaching someone an opinion that leads to either of those. If it has one of these purposes then it has clear utility. You do not have to wonder why it exists, like the commandment which forbids murder. Maimonides says the commandments which have controversy over their purpose are those that do not meet one of those three criteria for clear utility, such as the prohibition on mixing meat and milk. He says that these commandments to do not appear to be related to the “welfare of the soul.” However, Maimonides assures the readers that even these seemingly purposeless commandments do have a purpose, and they fulfill one of his three purposes, and that he will explain how in a later chapter. Galston points out that chapter 28 takes the reader from the belief that all commandments must be believed for their own sake, to understanding that some commandments have a utility that improves life, to the realization that all commandments have this utility in some way. Don Seeman points out that understanding the utility of God’s Laws is necessary to love Him, a love that is achieved only through deep understanding.

Chapter 32 of The Guide of the Perplexed begins with Maimonides explaining how God shaped the human body, giving each part utility, likening it to how He also put purpose into every commandment. Maimonides shows how various commandments mandated and prohibited different kinds of worship with the purpose of ending idolatrous practices. This achieves what Maimonides calls God’s first intention: the understanding of God and not worshipping another god besides Him. He then comes to the question of why we have free will, why did God not simply makes us naturally inclined to be obedient to Him instead of creating a system of rewards and punishments? Maimonides says that God could make us naturally follow His commandments, but He clearly does not want to do that or the “sending of prophets and all giving of a Law would have been useless” (Twersky 332). In this chapter Maimonides lays out how God’s restrictions on idolatrous practices, such as restricting sacrifices to the Temple, were done to achieve what he calls God’s first intention. Maimonides rationally explains the purpose of commandments which seem to have no purpose, fulfilling his promise of an explanation from chapter 28.

Don Seeman’s article on The Guide of the Perplexed argues that Maimonides’ reasons for the commandments are Aristotelian in nature, and that his “pleasure-inducing contemplation of both nature and divine commandments should be considered analogous to Aristotle’s pleasure-inducing contemplation of both kosmos and human virtue” (Seeman 305). Maimonides breaks with many of his predecessors by arguing that all commandments are rational, and argues that saying some commandments have no rationality implies God is not perfect. Seeman writes: “Maimonides insists that any conception which is premised on the idea of a God who acts without purpose would impugn divine perfection” (Seeman 302). Seeman explains that Maimonides never substitutes faith for rational explanation when it comes to the purpose of the commandments. Seeman says that the purpose of the The Guide of the Perplexed is to show the reader how God’s Laws all have a rational purpose so that people can understand them (therefore understand God) so that they can truly love God.