454) Reconstructing the story of a Maimonidean student:

 

Introduction

This article − based extensively on the research by Dr Reimund Leicht – examines the story of R. Yosef ben Yehuda ibn Shimon, a student of Maimonides (1138-1204).[1] He could not have been an insignificant student because Maimonides chose to dedicate his philosophical work, Moreh Nevuchim (Guide of the Perplexed), to him. Very little is known about Yosef ibn Shimon. However, based on available historical evidence, Leicht reconstructs his life story and shows how he may have played a pivotal role in supporting his teacher during the Maimonidean Controversies that broke out after the passing of Maimonides. We are also presented with a fascinating window into some details about Maimonides the individual, and some of his practical directives about rabbinic independence and not teaching Torah for money. 

449) Maimonides on the authority of the rabbis

A 13th to 14th century manuscript of Moreh Nevuchim from Yemen.

Introduction

This article − based extensively on the research by Professor Menachem Kellner[1] − explores Maimonides (1135-1204) as a democratiser of Jewish law. Maimonides’ theology and worldview have been interpreted in so many ways, many of which are mutually exclusive. The problem is that by just reading his Code of Law, known as Mishneh Torah, he comes across as a dedicated jurist and Halachist. On the other hand, by just reading his Guide of the Perplexed, or Moreh Nevuchim, he emerges as a radical philosopher. Thus, to some, Maimonides is simply a legal Halachist who essentially despised philosophy  (either because they never read Moreh Nevuchim or they claimed it was a forgery). To others, he becomes the Great Philosopher whose deepest thoughts were in grave conflict with normative Judaism. To still others, he becomes a secret mystic who later in his life turns against philosophy and adopts Kabbalah.[2] And there are even those who believe he was a secret Karaite.[3] 

360) Why was The Guide For The Perplexed intended to be a secret document?

 

 

Introduction

 

Rambam (Maimonides, 1135-1204) places tremendous importance on the meaning and usage of words. He dedicates major sections of his Moreh Nevuchim (Guide For The Perplexed[1]) to explain how words are used in the Torah. He believed that most of the rabbinic world during his time misunderstood and misrepresented many basic words, especially those used in relation to G-d. Yet, for some reason, he also wanted this writing to remain hidden. This article explores some readings selected from early sections of the Moreh Nevuchim.

285) UNDERSTANDING THE NEFESH HACHAIM:

The Nefesh haChaim by R. Chaim of Volozhin (1749-1821)

Another Guest Post by Rabbi Boruch Clinton.

This article is meant to somehow become a part of my Finding Tradition in a Modern Torah World project:

https://marbitz.com/home/rabbi-s-r-hirsch/finding-tradition-in-the-modern-torah-world/

Introduction:

Among my many sins, I spent years teaching Torah for a living. During those years I was often forced to confront - both for myself and for my students - why some answers and explanations are more likely true than others. To large measure, I eventually settled on a variation of Occam's razor which, roughly described, states that a problem's true resolution is probably the one which requires the least interpretation. For all intents and purposes, the Talmud does this on nearly every page; rejecting a proof whenever another equally (or more) likely possibility is presented.

I would often apply the tool during debates. To briefly illustrate (based on another of my articles): Is the Chasam Sofer's way of understanding Rabbi Yishmael's interpretation of Deut. 11:14 a possible meaning of the Gemara in Berachos 35b (which the Chasam Sofer insists would only apply within geographic Israel)? Of course. But, given the fact that Rava explicitly applies the Rabbi Yishmael’s position to his students – most of whom surely lived outside Israel – suggests that possible is not synonymous with likely. And derush is not the same as pshat.

242) R. YAAKOV EMDEN’S ‘COGNITIVE DISSONANCE’ WITH REGARD TO MAIMONIDES:

Typical handwritten marginal notes by R. Yaakov Emden,  often containing sharp and outspoken criticism, such as: "This makes no sense",  "I do not know what possessed him, it seems that he was confused", etc. 

 [Sheyarei Knesset haGedola, Orach Chaim, by R Chaim Benveniste 1729.]

INTRODUCTION:

R. Yaakov Emden (1697-1776), also known as Ya’avetz[1] was born in Altona to his father the famous Chacham Tzvi. While living in Altona, he obtained permission from the King of Denmark to own a printing house from which he published many of his own writings. He also dealt in jewellery and real estate. In 1728 he accepted the position of rabbi of the German town of Emden, from which he took his family name.

R. Yaakov Emden is perhaps best known for his attacks against the Sabbatteans who were the secret followers of the then recently deceased false messiah Shabattai Tzvi (1626-1676). 

R. Emden had an interesting relationship with Moses Mendelssohn, the founder of the Jewish Enlightenment Movement or Haskalah, who regarded R. Emden as his teacher referring to himself (in a letter to R. Emden) as: "your disciple, who thirsts for your words."

R. Emden, never one to shy away from controversy, went on to claim that parts of the Zohar were forgeries and could not have been written by R. Shimon bar Yochai as many Kabbalists believed.

But, adding to his very interesting and wide range of views, he also said that he did not believe that Maimonides wrote the famed Moreh Nevuchim, or Guide of the Perplexed. Instead, he claimed it was written by an unknown imposter!

This article deals with R. Emden’s views on the Guide of the Perplexed (hereafter referred to as the Guide).

I have drawn extensively from the writings of Rabbi Professor Jacob J. Schacter from Yeshiva University who wrote the original paper[2] in memory his teacher Professor Twersky.

R. EMDEN ACCEPTS RAMBAM’S LAW BUT NOT HIS PHILOSOPHY:

Five hundred years after Rambam’s passing in 1204, R. Yaakov Emden experienced great angst as to how to deal with the seemingly dual personalities of Rambam who on the one hand wrote a major work on Jewish jurisprudence, the Mishneh Torah; and on the other hand complied an accomplished rationalist and philosophical work, the Guide, which seemed to radically challenge many of the basic belief systems of the religious masses.

Schacter describes R. Emden’s apprehension towards the Guide as follows:

“[W]hile Emden’s assessment of Maimonides’ halakhic contribution was highly favorable, he rejected his philosophical emphasis as nothing less than a distortion of Judaism...

[and] maintained that the implications of Maimonides’ philosophical system posed a real threat to traditional Jewish life...

[and] that he [Maimonides][3]was misled by philosophy and that even he, let alone his followers, could not survive its dangers.”

R. Yaakov Emden himself writes:

“May his Master [God] forgive...Maimonides...

It is possible to speak favorably about him [i.e., Maimonides] in the manner written about King Solomon. Even though he was beloved by God...he too was brought into sin by the foreign woman...

It is therefore no wonder that they caused him [Maimonides] to sin as well, for he was lured by the smooth tongue of an alien woman (Prov. 6:24). He was no better than Solomon.[4]

The ‘alien woman’ in this context refers, of course, to Maimonides’ attraction to rationalist philosophy as expounded upon in his Guide.

This led Schacter to say:

“Emden drew an explicit contrast between the two aspects of Maimonides’ contribution, halacha and philosophy.”

Having made, what R. Yaakov Emden considered to be the clear distinction between Maimonides’ Halacha (Mishneh Torah) and philosophy (the Guide), he even had some sharp things to say about the followers of Rambam’s philosophy. He disparaged “those who call themselves his (Rambam’s) disciples”:

“...because they wasted their days with foolishness and their years with the vanities of the philosophical ideas of the nations of the world...

They cast the normative mizvot of the Torah behind their backs and the study of the Talmud, which was the bread and meat of the great rabbi (in whom they glory) was loathsome to them.”[5]

R. Yaakov Emden, as we shall see from his own writings, adopted two very contradictory positions as to whether or not Maimonides even wrote the Guide in the first place!

POSITION I) - RAMBAM AUTHORED THE ‘GUIDE’:

Here are some sources that indicate that R. Emden took the position that Rambam did indeed author the Guide:

“The rabbi, author of the Guide of the Perplexed, did well...However, his students, the philosophers, would not walk in his ways.”[6]

And again R. Emden wrote:

“We have found that only Maimonides deeply investigated it in his book the Guide, for the sake of his contemporaries. It is appropriate to say that he established it for his generation alone.”[7]

And again in no uncertain terms, R. Emden wrote:

“Maimonides was responsible for an obstacle (for Jews) for he left over a stumbling block for the generations, the Guide of the Perplexed, as is well known.”[8]

According to these sources, it seems abundantly clear that in R. Emden’s view, Rambam authored the Guide.

POSITION II) - RAMBAM DID NOT AUTHOR THE ‘GUIDE’:

But then, astoundingly, on other occasions[9] R. Yaakov Emden went one step further and that was to deny that Maimonides even wrote the Guide at all:

R. Emden wrote:

“This is not the work of the great author among the Jews but one of the philosophers of the generation...

Since he benefitted the masses (with his legal work, Mishneh Torah), for this reason I cannot believe that he was responsible for the abovementioned sinful striking stone.”[10]

R. Yaakov Emden’s strongest denunciation of the Guide is found in his Iggeret Purim:

“...I will not deny that I spoke against the book Guide of the Perplexed, which, in my opinion, was never authored by the same Maimonides who created the book Yad ha-Hazakah [Mishneh Torah][11] in which we glory. Unless we say that as rich as he surely was in wisdom, at that time [when he wrote the Guide] he as poor...

For that book, the Guide, is full of blemish. In truth, it contradicts Torah and faith, more than could be believed...

Verily, it is true that I did not invent the slander about this book. For immediately after its birth it acquired a bad name...

All the true scholars of that generation hated it, despised it, considered it abominable, erased it, and some burned it.

No one selected it except for the heretics...

In any case, we have not found in the records of the wise men of the generations anyone who permitted becoming involved in it.”[12]

In another work, R. Emden writes:

“The book, Guide of the Perplexed, did not emanate from this great author. He [Maimonides][13] could not be responsible for [such] a ruin...

[O]ne can prove [he did not author the Guide] from several places in the book Yad [Mishneh Torah][14] that point with a finger to the disgrace of the would-be-philosophers (mitpalsifim), wise men [only] in their own eyes, with whom he had no portion.”[15]

R. Emden attacks the explanation for the korbanot or sacrifices, as expressed in the Guide, (that the sacrifices were permitted begrudgingly by G-d to the Israelites who had just come out of an idolatrous culture – but this concession was not what G-d really wanted to perpetuate into the future), as ‘incurably mentally deficient’:

“The truth is that when I examine and ponder the rationale of mizvot as suggested by the book, Guide of the Perplexed, my spirit fails me and falls into weakness. Especially [upsetting is] the... reason that he gave for sacrifices...

What person could tolerate [this] . . . , ensnaring the mind in a net, unless one who is incurably mentally deficient or one who abandons himself to nullify what the Men of the Great Assembly wrote, that the world rests on the [Temple] service [of sacrifices][16]. They further state that "were it not for the [daily sacrificial ritual of the] ma'amadot, heaven and earth could not exist.

And what will he do with the verse, [Be punctilious in presenting to Me at stated times] the offerings of food due Me, as offerings by fire of pleasing odor to Me" (Numbers 28:2)?

I wonder if he [ever] looked at it...

Who can garner enough strength...to contain all the madness included in just this [statement] alone?

How is it possible to imagine that the two works [Mishneh Torah and the Guide][17] were written by the hand of one author? For, according to the words of the book, Guide of the Perplexed, all the laws of sanctification - lengthy, detailed, and profound-are tantamount to an act of nonsense...

Had there been found in the book, Guide of the Perplexed, nothing other than this alone, namely, the reason for the sacrifices that it contains, it is enough to condemn it to be burned.”[18]

In another section, R. Emden blames the Guide for misleading ‘hundreds and thousands’ and causing them to leave their faith:

“It is therefore impossible to ascribe the book, Guide of the Perplexed, to Maimonides who was himself meritorious and who brought merit to so many...

There is no doubt in the world that this obstacle of the book, Guide of the Perplexed, misled many from [a proper understanding of] the Torah. Who knows how many hundreds and thousands left the faith because of this?

It is the direct cause of the destruction of many great and mighty Jewish communities and their total eradication from the lands of Spain and France.”[19]

All these statements attesting that Rambam did not write the Guide, are intriguing because they contradict much of his other writings, as we saw earlier, where he does assume that Rambam authored the Guide!

How do we understand R. Emden’s very divergent, contrasting and in fact mutually exclusive views on whether or nor Rambam wrote the Guide?

RECONCILIATION:

This inconsistency in R. Emden’s writing led Schacter to reconcile the matter as follows:

“Although there were a few times when Emden cited that work [i.e., the Guide][20] approvingly, far more often did he oppose it and even considered it to be the epitome of what he considered evil about philosophy...

There is little doubt that Emden knew full well that Maimonides authored the Guide but yet found it necessary to assert repeatedly the contrary because of what he considered the dangers it would effect in the community.”

Thus, as we have seen, R. Emden, who in many places does ascribe authorship of the Guide to Rambam, appears to have known without doubt that that was true. Yet he grappled with the idea of what he considered to be dangerous thoughts as depicted in the Guide, and:

“...this indicates how anxious Emden must have been to salvage Maimonides’ greatness by distancing that extraordinary great figure from having anything to do with what he considered to be the most dangerous, harmful, and deleterious beliefs presented in the Guide.

The philosopher in Maimonides is rejected and discredited; the halakhic master remains sacrosanct and reigns supreme.”

ANALYSIS:

Clearly, R. Emden was torn between two irreconcilable positions and in desperation he declares:

“For it is impossible to bring into agreement the words of these two works [Mishneh Torah and the Guide][21] together, as it is clear to an expert in them.”[22]

It appears that R. Yaakov Emden remained in a type of twilight zone where he didn’t quite know how to deal with Rambam. He knew he couldn’t define this giant of a mind and he obviously knew that his own writings by his own hand concerning the authorship of the Guide were paradoxical if not contradictory.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE:

Although Rabbi Schacter does not use the term, today we might describe the torturous and conflicting approach which R. Yaakov Emden displayed towards Rambam, to be akin to the psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance, which is defined as:

 “[T]he mental discomfort experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person's belief clashes with new evidence perceived by the person. When confronted with facts that contradict beliefs, ideals, and values, people will try to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.”[23]

– IT EXISTS BUT IT DOESN’T:

The more one reads and learns, the more one discovers just how multifaceted Judaism actually is. For some, this is a wonderful thing because he or she can find their niche within this vast and fascinating labyrinth of Torah thought.

For others, nothing can be more terrifying than the discovery that something else may exist outside of the bubble of one’s religious perceptions yet still remain just as equally within the parameters of Halachic Judaism.

When this happens, one either adopts the extreme measure of rejecting the ‘other’ out of hand (something R. Emden - taking all his sources into consideration - ultimately did not do) - or one goes through a softer but perhaps more painful process of cognitive dissonance, where one remains in a state where the ‘other’ exists but at the same time it doesn’t.

This may be the only way to understand R. Yaakov Emden’s writings on Maimonides: He knew that Rambam authored the Guide, but he had to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce his discomfort and therefore he simultaneously denied it.

APPENDIX:

THE APPROBATION OF THE RIZINER REBBE:

The stance which R. Emden took on Rambam was not just an idle academic matter but it made waves within the community with supporters and detractors:

A leader of the Chassidic community, R. Yisrael Rizhin (1797-1850), gave his approbation to one of R. Emden’s books entitled Migdal Oz, reprinted in 1836.

Schacter tells us that when R. Yisrael Rizhin read through the book apparently for the first time only after it was printed, he mentioned that had he known of the author’s view of Rambam, he would never have submitted his approval of the book in the first place.

---

[1] When Yaakov Emden was still a child, he asked his father, the Chacham Tzvi, why he signed his name simply as Tvi, instead of Tvi ben Yaakov. His father responded that Tvi stands for Tvi ben Yaakov.  He similarly suggested to his son that when he grows up and writes books, he should sign his name Ya’avetz for Yaakov ben Tzvi.

[2] Rabbi Jacob Emden, Philosophy and Maimonides, by Jacob J. Schacter. See also: Rabbi Jacob Emden, Philosophy and the Authority of Maimonides, by Jacob J. Schacter.

[3] Parenthesis mine.

[4] Mishneh Lechem on Avot 2:14. All translations from the writings of R. Yaakov Emden are from R. Schacter.

[5] Migdal Oz 25b.

[6] Migdal Oz 23b.

[7] She’ilat Ya’avetz 1:41.

[8] Mishneh Lechem 49a.

[9] Migdal Oz 121b. Mitpachat Sefarim 3, 56, 61, 64.

[10] Mishnah Lechem 49a.

[11] Parenthesis mine.

[12] Iggeret Purim 33a.

[13] Parenthesis mine.

[14] Parenthesis mine.

[15] Eitz Avot on Avot 1:15, 30a.

[16] Parenthesis mine.

[17] Parenthesis mine.

[18] Mitpachat Sefarim 61-62.

[19] Mitpachat Sefarim 61-62.

[20] Parenthesis mine.

[21] Parenthesis mine.

[22] Mitpachat Sefarim 64-65.

^[23] Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. California: Stanford University Press.

240) TWO MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE NOTIONS OF PRAYER:

ONE NATION TWO SYSTEMS[1]:

INTRODUCTION:   

          

In this article, we will analyse two very different approaches to the concept of prayer and the notion of influencing the Infinite One. 

The first, which is the popular approach, emphasizes much engagement in prayer and highlights the effectiveness of man’s ability to influence G-d. 

The second approach which is Rambam’s view, will come as a surprise to many as it counter-intuitively negates much of the ‘default setting’ of the typical religious personality.

I) THE MAXIMALIST[2] APPROACH:

We hear so much about how we can all engage in a personal relationship with G-d, and talk to Him in abundance about anything and the more often we do so the better. There is even a Psalm for everything.

Here are some sources which convey this idea:                                                                                                      

R. Nachman of Breslov writes that Hitbodedut, which is private, personal and informal prayer in any language one understands, is “the highest asset and greater than everything [else].”

Private prayer should be performed:   

 “...using words that evoke favor, placate and conciliate...

Everything that is in his heart he should express and tell to God...

[I]t is a practice that is accessible to all people, from the least to the greatest...and thereby [he will] come to a high level.”[3]

When R. Nachman was ill, he asked his grandson to pray for him. The child asked first to have his grandfather’s pocket watch before he would pray for him. Only after he got what he wanted, did he cry out “Heal my grandfather” and then continued playing with the watch. The other Chassidim laughed at this but R. Nachman rebuked them pointing out that the most powerful prayers are carried out in such ways of absolute childlike simplicity.

R. Nachman continues:

“It is good to turn Torah into prayer. That is, when one studies...he should make it into a prayer...This manner of conversation rises to a very high place...which results in very great delight on high.”

R. Nachman's student, R. Natan, composed 210 private prayers in a collection entitled Likutey Tefilot,  and readers are encouraged to use these inspirational texts as springboards for their personal prayers, and to: "express our personal needs and spiritual yearnings, whether at home, in the synagogue, in the office, in a quiet park or out in the countryside, etc."

Many have the practice today, with the ever-increasing popularity of the Challah Bake, to use the baking experience as an auspicious time to pray for healing, a marriage partner, happy and healthy children and so on, as the spiritual gates are considered to be open at that time. The baking of Challah becomes a conduit for all blessing to the home and different prayers are said with the addition of each of the seven ingredients; with the eighth ingredient - the soul of the baker - being the most effective to facilitate the blessing.

One Challah baking site suggests: 

“When kneading the challah dough with one’s hands, one can mention the names of each person in their family, sending personal prayers to G-d. It is also an opportune time to pray for others who are in need of blessings. From pouring the ingredients through braiding the dough, prayer can be whispered through each step, and the power of these prayers is strong and far-reaching”.

II) THE MINIMALIST APPROACH:

The following extract from Rambam’s Guide of the Perplexed (Moreh Nevuchim), screams deafeningly against all the above.

Rambam writes about the human condition in which man often considers it necessary to define and praise the Infinite One with, ironically, many finite descriptions and characterizations – such as G-d being Great, Kind, Loving etc.

However, the more one thinks one knows and understands G-d, the more one shows how little one understands the concept and nature of the Infinite, because an Infinite Essence cannot be described nor comprehended.

 

Thus, essentially, the deepest way to praise G-d is not even through prayer, but rather through silence.

[NOTE: Of course, Rambam is not negating the Halachic injunction to 'daven' (pray from a siddur) as he believes it is a Torah obligation to do so - as opposed to (ironically the mystical) Ramban, who says daily prayers are of rabbinic origin, and it is only a Torah obligation to pray during times of trouble.]

RAMBAM’S ‘FAVORITE’ TALMUDIC SOURCE:

Rambam bases himself on a Talmudic source[4] which refers to an incident where someone led the prayer service before R. Chanina. This individual began praying with much flamboyant hyperbole and overstatement describing G-d with numerous and various adjectives such as:

“G-d the Great, the Mighty, the Awesome, the Powerful, the Indomitable, the Awe-Inspiring, the Strong, the Fearless, the Steadfast and the Honored...”

R. Chanina waits for him to finish and then asks the worshiper if he has concluded all his praises. Establishing that the prayer session is now over, he asks him why he went to such an exaggerated extent to praise G-d?

Before the worshipper can respond, R. Chanina says that he personally limits himself to just three adjectives to describe G-d – and he uses these expressions almost begrudgingly and only because he has to. This is because they were used by Moshe in the Torah, and thereafter, incorporated into the official (Shmonei Esrei) prayer by Ezra and the Men of the Great Assembly.

Rashi explains that these three adjectives are “Gadol, Gibor and Norah’ (Great, Mighty and Awesome):

R. Chanina then makes the point that overstating one’s prayers is comparable to a king who has thousands of golden coins yet only gets praised for a few specific silver ones. The lesson being that man should not think that he appeases G-d even with very great platitudes.

RAMBAM'S ELABORATION:

Rambam obviously favoured this Talmudic source because he writes:

“Here ends the dictum of this perfect [rabbinic statement]...[It is perfect because had our prayers not been formulated by the Sages, we] should not have had recourse to them in our prayers.”[5]

In other words, were it not for the fact that our Sages obligated us to pray, we would have been even more minimalist in our prayers.

This ‘perfect and well-known’ statement of R. Chanina is Rambam’s favourite rabbinic statement, and he “wishes that all their other statements were like this”:

Rambam lived in a society that was, in his view, unsure where to draw the line between superstition and religion and the populace were dictating spiritual norms and standards to their leadership.

Rambam can’t help but continue:

“Thus what we do is not like what is done by the truly ignorant who spoke at great length and spend great efforts on prayers that they composed and on sermons that they complied[6] and through which they, in their opinion, came nearer to God.”[7]  

In Rambam’s own words, it is only the ‘truly ignorant’ that ‘spend great effort on prayer’.

By saying that these are not things that “we do”, Rambam is clearly differentiating his (and his followers) approach from that of the masses of the “truly ignorant” – an expression he is not averse to using when referring to the mainstream. [See here.]

“For they do not understand those sublime notions that are too strange for the intellects of the vulgar and accordingly took God...for an object of study for their tongues;

[T]hey predicated attributes of Him and addressed Him in all the terms that they thought permitted and expiated at such length in this way that in their thoughts they made Him move on account of an affection...”

Rambam maintains that the intellectually “vulgar” mainstream is unable to understand that they cannot comprehend the Infinite One, and instead they turn spirituality into “an object of study for their tongues” (but not their minds[8]). Thus they overstate their prayers and create and expound on a vast construct of ‘spiritual techniques and technicalities’ in an attempt to create a philosophy - “an object of study” - and try, almost, to bribe and manipulate G-d and “make Him move on account of an affection”.

Rambam, therefore, offers an alternative position:

“Accordingly if you are one who has regard for the honor of his Creator, you ought not to listen in any way to these utterances, let alone give expression to them [i.e. to these philosophies and injunctions to extra prayers][9] and still less make up others like them...and ought not go beyond that which has been inserted in the prayers...

[f]or this is sufficient from the point of view of [Halachic][10] necessity;

[I]n fact, as Rabbi Haninah said, it is amply sufficient...

Solomon...has rightly directed us...: For God is in heaven and thou upon the earth; therefore let thy words be few.[11]”

Thus Rambam suggests that if one is looking for a more realistic G-dly experience as opposed to a formulated or what he considers to be a contrived spiritual one, then Less is More. When it comes to prayer, one should ‘give expression to them” but “not go beyond that which has been inserted in the prayers” and certainly not “make up others like them”.

RAMBAM UNSURE WHETHER TO 'LAUGH' OR 'WEEP':

Rambam even extends his objection to quoting verses of praise from the Prophets!

“They did this especially when they found the text of a prophet’s speech regarding these terms. Thereupon they had full license to bring forward texts that ought to be interpreted, and to take them according to their external meaning, to derive from them inferences and secondary conclusions...

This kind of license is frequently taken by poets and preachers or such as think that what they speak is poetry, so that the utterances of some of them constitute an absolute denial of faith, while other utterances contain such rubbish and such perverse imaginings as to make men laugh when they hear them...and to make them weep when they consider that these utterances are applied to God.”

In Rambam’s system, when we must pray it should be minimalist and not exaggerated beyond that which is prescribed because essentially the deepest way to communicate with the Infinite is through silence.

ANALYSIS:

We have looked at two very different if not extreme ways in which the concept of prayer is dealt with.

One system adopts a More is More approach while the other suggests that Less is More.

As this is not a competition, the intention is not to come up with a ‘winner’ but rather to show just how diverse and complex the various approaches to such a fundamental issue actually are.

Investigation into the sources reveals that these paradoxes surface time and time again - we truly are One Nation with Multiple Systems.

[For more see Rationalism, Mysticism and now Superstition?]

---

[1] A play on "One country, two systems" which refers to the constitutional principle formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the Paramount Leader of the People's Republic of China, for the reunification of China during the early 1980s.

[2] A ‘maximalist’ is also defined as ‘one who favors a radical and immediate approach to the achievement of a set of goals or the completion of a program.’

[3] Likutei Moharan II #25.

[4] Berachot 33b.

[5] Moreh Nevuchim 1:59.

[6] This is most likely a reference to ‘inspirational’ spiritual writings.

[7] Translation is from the Pines edition.

[8] In other words, they create a spiritual theology that ‘sounds right’ and ‘makes sense’ especially for the spiritual seeker, but in Rambam’s view, has no relevance in ‘reality’ because the ‘bridge’ from finite to Infinite is too sublime to attempt to articulate.

[9] Parenthesis mine.

[10] Parenthesis mine.

[11] Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 5:2.