R. Yosef Kapach's signature on a Jerusalem Rabbinical Court document together with R. Ovadiah Yosef and R Waldenberg. |
INTRODUCTION:
Rabbi Yosef Kapach[1]
(1917-2000) is widely considered to have been a world authority on Maimonidean
texts. He compiled what is today regarded as the most accurate publication of
Rambam’s Mishneh Torah - working as he did, not from printed versions
but from manuscripts written in Rambam’s own hand.
R. Kapach produced a 23 volume edition of Mishneh Torah
with his own extensive notes which compare - for the first time - each concept
and ruling in the Mishneh Torah, to Rambam’s ideas on the same topic but
taken from his other writings. The work also includes an anthology of about 300
additional commentaries as well. This allows the student to acquire a well-rounded overview of Rambam’s thoughts instead of just reading them in a vacuum.
[For more on R.
Kapach’s fascinating story, see The
Search for the Most Accurate Maimonidean Texts, and A Traditional School of Yemenite
Rationalism.]
Rabbi Kapach was highly respected and served for some
decades on Israel's highest religious court.
Besides his impressive
credentials, R. Kapach had some very interesting – some would say controversial
- views on a number of pertinent and important issues affecting contemporary
Judaism.
In this article, we will look at some of these matters
through the eyes of one of his students, Professor Tzvi Langermann from Bar
Ilan University, who refers to R. Kapach (Kafah) as “mori Yusuf”, my
teacher Yosef.[2]
R. KAPACH’S VIEW ON TALMUDIC SCIENCE:
Scattered amongst the non-legal sections of the Talmud
(0-500 CE) are many ancient statements that were once considered to have been innovatory
science, but in the fullness of time have subsequently been replaced by more
accurate scientific assumptions.
The modern student of Talmud today is faced
with the dilemma of either choosing to disregard modern science in favour of
the Talmudic version, or to discard the current science. The choice becomes more than academic when general science
crosses over into practical medical science.
Some claim that whatever is recorded in the Talmud is
sacrosanct and is therefore not subject to alteration or review under any
circumstances.
[NOTE: Our discussion is only concerned with scientific and
non-Halachic issues, and it must be taken as obvious that no one is
suggesting tampering with actual Halacha.]
Regarding Talmudic science, R. Kapach took a forthright and
unabashed position. He followed a rationalist approach which he inherited from
his grandfather R. Yichya Kapach – and openly and boldly claimed that the Talmudic
statements on science, simply reflected the science of its day; and therefore
was not part of the orally transmitted tradition from Sinai!
Thus, when the Talmud spoke of Halachic matters,
those would have been part of the ancient oral tradition going back to Sinai.
But the scientific, historical and medical matters recorded in the Talmud were
merely a reflection of the general views of the world at that time, and were
not, in his view, to be regarded as ‘holy’.
THE HELIOCENTRIC VS THE GEOCENTRIC THEORIES OF THE
UNIVERSE:
Regarding the matter of whether the sun revolves around the earth
(which many contemporary Orthodox Jews still steadfastly maintain to be the
truth) or whether the earth revolves around the sun, R. Kapach clearly maintained
that the earlier belief that the sun revolves around the earth was not
something that had its roots in Sinai. Therefore that assumption was not
something one had to bend over backwards to try and support.[3]
R. Kapach writes:
“On the contrary... [the
Talmudic scientific views are][4]
due either to ...[the Sages’][5]...understanding
and conclusions, on the basis of the astronomy of their day, or else they
received it from the non-Jewish scholars...
It is important to know that
this is the situation, because in our own day these concepts have changed from
one extreme to the other.
Some things that were once the
absolute truth have been totally destroyed.
If someone who does not know
their source imagines that their source lies in a tradition of the Sages, he
could make the same mistake with regard to things that really are a tradition
of the Sages, ‘from person to person,’ and that are fundamental to Judaism.
Therefore, it is good to know
the truth, so that if these [old astronomical ideas] are refuted, as they have
indeed been refuted, it does not matter at all, and the matter has no bearing
at all on the Jewish faith.”[6]
Langermann refers to the “danger of sanctifying the
scientific claims of the rabbis” and echoes his teacher’s fear that:
“[w]hen discerning persons
realize that these claims are wrong, as they surely will, they may be led to
reject the entire tradition.”
THE SAME MUST BE SAID OF RAMBAM’S SCIENCE:
Interestingly, although an avowed Maimonidean, R. Kapach
said that the same applied to the relatively more recent science as recorded
within his beloved Rambam’s writings (1135-1204). Rambam also wrote on
scientific and medical matters as they were understood during his time, but he did
not expect his readers to retain them in light of more accurate discoveries and
developments he knew would take place in the future.
[Again, of course, the
purely Halachic writings of Rambam like those of the Talmud continue to
retain their obvious authority.]
Concerning his teacher’s view, Langermann writes:
“Thus those assertions that
have since been disproved, or at least rejected by the consensus of the
scientific community, are wrong, plain and simple, and may be jettisoned.”
IGNORE THEIR CONTENT BUT RESPECT THEIR INTENT:
Even though R. Kapach completely rejected the since
disproved Talmudic and Medieval science which he never regarded as ever being
part of the authentic Torah tradition, he nevertheless emphasized something
Rambam said that is often overlooked:
Rambam explained that although much of Talmudic science had
been displaced even in his day, nonetheless it is not an indictment against the
rabbis of the Talmud because it still shows how they:
“made it their business to learn thoroughly
the science current in their own time.”
The sages were interested in science!
And the content
of their scientific conclusions is not the crucial issue – what is important, is
that they attempted to understand the science of their day to the best
of their ability! Their intent was more important than their content.
R. Kapach maintained that if the Sages attempted to
understand science, then there is no reason for us not to do the same today.
WHAT ABOUT DAAT TORAH?
Some might argue that if a great rabbi, especially a
Talmudic authority, pronounces on any issue, his verdict is not only final but
he is actually speaking on behalf of the Torah itself (if not G-d Himself).
This hypothesis is common and is known as Daat
Torah.
[For more on Daat Torah see Contemporary
Daas Torah – Protecting or overstepping the Boundaries?]
According to this view, whatever the Talmudic Sages said, must certainly be Daat
Torah and their views on science and medicine must of necessity be correct.
While many do assume this position, certainly in the view of
Rambam, such a notion could not ever be entertained.
Professor Menachem Kellner, considered an authority on
Maimonidean thought, writes that according to Rambam:
“Truth is absolute and objective; there can thus be
no such things as intellectual (or spiritual) authority per se.
Statements are true irrespective of the standing of
the person making them.
Maimonides could thus have no patience for the sorts
of claims to rabbinic authority which underlie the contemporary doctrine
of da’at
Torah (charismatic rabbinic authority) in its various
permutations.”
KODESH AND CHOL – RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR STUDIES AT
SCHOOLS:
When it came
to the much debated issue of religious and secular studies at Torah schools -
relating to whether secular studies should be allowed at all and if allowed to
what extent - R. Kapach was, to say the least, completely outspoken.
Some schools
allow equal time allocation for both subjects while others only permit a
minimal amount of secular literacy, and almost everyone only allows the secular
to take place at the end of the learning day[7], and
only permit the science that does not contradict their version of the Torah.
However, Langermann
writes that his teacher:
“...Rabbi Kafah was quite
distressed by this attitude.
In his view, the very
dichotomy between ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ subjects, a self-evident truth in the
mind of so many Jews, is misguided. In this matter as in just about every
other, the rabbi's outlook was grounded in the thought of Saadia Gaon and
especially Moses Maimonides.
Following their lead...Rabbi
Kafah drew a sharp distinction between blind belief and true conviction...
A scientific education is a
sine qua non for the attainment of sound convictions. Only the precise,
impartial, critical, and rigorous method of the sciences can lead to this type
of conviction. In addition, the strongest indications of the truth of the existence
of God and other basic principles come from the investigation of the world of
phenomena; and their investigation is the province of science.
The conclusion to be drawn
from all of this is that science, too, should properly be classified as
limmudei qodesh, sacred studies.
Thus there is a first-class
religious obligation (‘a mitzvah from the Torah’) to study science.”
And if that wasn’t controversial enough, he continues:
“Moreover, the rabbi held that
much of what is generally taken to be limmudei qodesh is anything but holy.
He disliked the intricate
analysis of purely hypothetical legal problems, something that many consider to
be the acme of Torah study....
He listed the following
sciences as obligatory: logic, astronomy, natural science (biology, zoology,
physics), medicine, and language.”
In a similar fashion, Menachem Kellner writes:
“... Maimonides imports science...
into the very heart of Torah.
Indeed the twentieth century’s
leading Maimonidean, Rabbi Josef Kafih, went so far as to deny the possibility
of secular studies (limmudei hol) for Maimonides: if a discipline yields
truth, it is not secular.
One who has mastered what Maimonides calls (in the
Introduction to the Guide of the Perplexed) the legal science of the Torah
(i.e. the Talmudist) is thus inferior to one who has mastered the secrets of
the Torah, i.e. the person who understands physics and metaphysics...
An enthusiastic Maimonidean such as Jacob Anatoli
(thirteenth century) understood the implications of this clearly: in his eyes a
scientifically trained Gentile is superior to a punctilious Jew who has no
scientific training.”[8]
This is one of those views that will either resonate
innately withn - or utterly repel - the Reader. There is no middle ground here.
While some might scorn Rambam - and by implication, R.
Kapach - for these views, others would laud them for their ‘wisdom to develop
them and the courage to voice them.’
IMPACT OF SUCH VIEWS:
Either way, the impact of R. Kapach’s thoughts has been
minimal despite his being recognized as one of the great authorities on
Maimonidean texts and thought.
“Many of these ideas were developed
by Rabbi Kafah in a short article which, though reprinted several times and
translated into English, seems to have had little or no impact.”
R. Kapach was fatigued and frustrated by the attitude of the
establishment and:
“...concluded that without
some common ground of belief shared by the participants, argument or discussion
is pointless.
Hence he would dispute with
other Maimonideans with fury and passion; but he limited himself to dry
exposition when writing for those whose world-views were far-removed from his
own.”
He seemed to have resigned himself to the fact that his was a
battle he could never win, having already witnessed his grandfather’s futile campaign
to rid his fellow Yemenites of their belief in magic and theurgical mysticism.
Menachem Kellner acknowledges that hardly anyone took notice
of R. Kapach’s views, and adds that the same was true of Rambam himself:
“None of these positions had much impact on Judaism
after Maimonides, and many people today who revere his memory and devote
themselves to the study of his Mishneh Torah would probably deny that he held
them...”[9]
Besides R. Kapach’s negligible influence on the contemporary
study curriculum at schools, some of his students like Langermann, appear
reluctant to even share some of their teacher’s other views on other issues.
So, for example – whether Langerman felt he didn’t quite understand his
teacher’s interpretation in a certain matter or whether he was simply reticent
to express it – he writes:
“If I understood him properly,
Rabbi Kafah may have gone even farther in his interpretation of Maimonides, but
I cannot say more on this subject.”
Why could he not say more on the subject?
ANALYSIS:
Some admittedly highly subjective questions follow:
Why is it that our (teenage) children can come home from
school having been taught the most extreme midrashim
and tacitly expected to take them literally – yet others can’t fully express
the views of someone like R. Kapach?
Why can respectable organizations publicise and advise with
impunity, all sorts of almost theurgical activities which are purported to heal
and save – yet others can’t teach correspondingly radical views as put forth in
commentaries such as Rabbeinu
Nissim of Marseilles?
How can some peripheral, mystical and magical concepts be
openly taught as if they were core Torah values – yet one
hundred thousand pages of Rav Kook have been withheld from us?
Why are some of the normative, balanced and rational
notions which Judaism is also rich in, often denied, ignored, suppressed or relegated
to some vague category of non-authoritative status - and those that wish to
study and teach such matters are compelled to do so apologetically!
Not everyone has to adopt these notions, and the masses probably
never will, but at least they should be presented as equal and legitimate
alternatives - which they, being rooted in Rambam surely are - for those who seek
them.
A whole new generation might find it easier to come back to Judaism.
‘Hilkach Nimrinhu leTarvaihu' ...Therefore let
us express both (world-views)!
Or have these ideas been so repeatedly driven underground to
the extent that they have, ironically, become a new hidden tradition of sod
and nistar and secrets of Torah?
[1]
Also known as Kafach, Kafih or Qafih.
[2]
“Mori Yusuf”: Rabbi Yosef Kafah (Qafih) (1917-2000), by Y. Tzvi Langermann.
[3] Many,
including the Lubavitcher Rebbe, had written in defence of the earlier hypothesis.
He based his arguments around the theory of relativity.
[4]
Parenthesis mine.
[5]
Parenthesis mine.
[6] R.
Kapach’s commentary to Mishneh Torah, Yesodei haTorah, ch.3.
[7] The
Lubavitcher Rebbe supported this notion based on the verse ‘kol hachelev lahaShem’,
where the ‘fat’ or best part of the day was to be dedicated to Kodesh.
[8]Kafih J. Cross-roads: Halacha and the Modern World. Alon
Shvut: Zomet; 1987. Secular Studies in the Rambam; pp. 109–16.
[9]
From Moses to Moses by Menachem Kellner.