Musings on Maimonides: 130713 - Introduction to GftP

Shalom:

Musings on Maimonides
6 Av 5773 [13 July 2013]
Introduction to Guide for the Perplexed

During the introduction in Guide for the Perplexed RaMBaM (Maimonides) gets off into two subjects; prophecy and how to teach.  RaMBaM feels, as did his mentors, that teachers should never give the truth of the scriptures to more than one person without cloaking it the obscurity of metaphors and allegories, much like the Christ taught the masses with examples (called parables in the New Testament) while he taught his disciples more directly.  It comes from the adage, "The Ma'aseh Bereshith must not be expounded in the presence of two."

The other principle that he covers is also covered later in a chapters on prophesy.  RaMBaM feels that prophesy is a gift from HaShem BUT that HaShem gives true prophesy only to those who have studied hard and long and have proven themselves worthy of the gift.  RaMBaM says that prophesy comes in several forms, all of which may be akin to flashes of lightning that light up the darkness of our lives.  That person is able to see through the veil of darkness for a moment much as person is able to see in a moonless night when lightning flashes across the plains of Jericho.  But, to each prophet is given only what that person needs as a prophet.  RaMBaM describes it as follows :

• A flash of lightning where a person gives a prophesy once and never gives another. (Num 11:25)
• Many flashes of lighting so that a long vision is seen or a few really long flashes separated by many years wherein the prophet is given many visions over the years.  This is similar to the prophets of old, like Isiah or Jeremiah or Daniel.
• For some, such as Moshe, the lightening is continuous and night seems like day.  Indeed, the skin of his face shone during the day.  (Ex 34:29)
• For others it flickers as the light of a rotating sword in candle light.  Just now and then as a candle in the wind.

 But, even for these, HaShem does not give anything unless that person is prepared.  And even if prepared, that person may never see through the night in a single prophesy.  Indeed, many aspiring prophets during the days of Samuel prepared diligently but never received the gift of prophesy.

Now, you might ask, why would the sages not want to divluge the truths of scripture plainly and openly rather than cloaking them in riddles and allegories?  Why did the Christ do this?  Simple.  Because we have been taught from the scripture to do this:

• Hosea 12:10 - "I hae also spoken in similies by the Prophets."
• Ezekiel 17:2 - "Put forth a riddle and speak a parable."
• Ezekiel 21:5 - "Does He (meaning HaShem) not speak parables?"
• Proverbs 1:6 - "To understand a proverb and figurative speech, the words of the wise and their dark sayings..."
• Midrash, Shir ha-shirim Rabba; "To what were the words of the Law to be compared before the time of Solomon?  To a well the waters of which are at a great depth, and though cool and fresh, yet no man could drink of them.  A clever man joined cord with  cord, and roope with rope, and drew up and drank.  so Solomon went from figure to figure, and from subject to subject, till he obtained the true sense of the Law."

There is a parable of the Sages:  "If a man loses in his house a sela, or a pearl, he can find it by lighting a taper worth only one issar.  Thus the parables in themselves are of no great value, but through them the words of the holy Law are rendered intelligible."  This is the way of Maimonides and the Sages of the past.  But RaMBaM chose to break with tradition and write some books wherein he disclosed some of the truth to the world; not all of it but just a glimmer of the truth.  A crack in the Temple Wall but he leaves it up the reader to dig out the rest of the truth.  For example, he may give the meaning of a word, but he leaves it up the reader to disclose the truth of the meaning of the word.

An example this is given:  Solomon once said, "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in vessels of silver."  (Proverbs 25:11)  The word maskiyoth, the Hebrew equivalent for "vessels," denotes "filigree network" , meaning things in which there are very small apertures, such as are frequently wrought by silversmiths.  These are called in Hebrew maskiyyoth, or literally, "transpicuous", from the verb sakah, meaning "he saw",  a root word which occurs also in the Targum of Onkelos, Genesis 36:8, because the eye penetrates through them.  Thus Solomon might be interpreted to say, "Just as apples of gold in silver filigree with small apertures, so is a word fitly spoken."  Not quite word-for-word from RaMBaM but close.

<Begin my personal commentary.  Skip if you like.>

In the Targum and other writings you will note that scripture interpretation sometimes takes off into wild and unruly directions that often seem conflict with the original meanings.  Personally, I hold that ANY interpretation given by anyone should NEVER conflict with the plain meaning that is given.  When HaShem says, "Do NOT commit adultery." then no interpretation can ever be given that would permit adultery under any circumstances.  Period.  End of discussion.  HaShem has said that neither you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your wife, nor your man servant, nor your female servant, nor any of your slaves, nor your ox, nor your ass, nor stranger within your gates shall do any work on the Shabbos.  So, in my house, we do no work on the Shabbos.  Nothing.  We do not go to movies, we do not eat out at restaurants, we do not go to ball games, we buy nothing, we do no commercial business whatsoever.  But, we might go to the rifle range since it is a club and is supported totally by dues of the members and there are no paid employees - none.  We go to Shabbos services on Friday evening or Saturday morning or both.  We enjoy meals together that are Kosher.  We enjoy movies and snacks and the company of friends and family.  My son might even go play music with his friends.  But no work whatsoever.  No studies for school, no studies for work, reading only of TaNaKh or reading books and/or magazines for pleasure.  TV is permitted but usually we watch movies or TCM just to be on the "safe side" and not so that we are the cause of others having to work.

When HaShem says, "You shall not light a fire on Shabbos." that means that you shall not light a fire on the Shabbos.  Period.  End of discussion.  Now, some have said that turning on a light switch causes a fire in light bulb.  Others say that the bulb does not burn and is not consumed and is, therefore, not a fire.  That is between them and HaShem.  Personally, I hold to the second opinion that the bulb glows but is not consumed, that throwing the switch is not work, that since the bulb is "ignited" from another glowing source that the fire has not been "lighted" but ignited from anther source and therefore scripture has not been broken.  However, there are times when I do not turn on lights because I feel that if I do that it might be breaking the commandments.  Maybe...  But if and when I do turn on the switch, I never feel guilty afterwards since I do not think that turning on the switch is a sin.  Strange, huh?  I have learned to live it.

All of the last two paragraphs to say this:  RaMBaM had to rationalize in his day just as we have to rationalize in our day.  The commandments of HaShem were give to LIVE BY and so we shall.  We shall follow all of the ones that are humanly possible.  Those which we cannot follow, such as stoning those who commit adultery or who use the name of HaShem in vain, we will leave for HaShem to punish.  But we do not have to fellowship with those persons in the synagogue, our version of the Temple of HaShem today, until those person repent of their sins and return to the commandments of HaShem, blessed be His Name.

<And, so ends my personal commentary.>

Maimonides felt that there are seven causes of inconsistencies and contradictions that have to be met an any literary work.  These are listed here:

1. The author collects opinions from various sources but does not give credit to those various sources nor mention the names of the other authors.  Because of this, various conflicting opinions may be stated but the reader does not know which author said which.
2. The author holds first one opinion and then another that conflicts with the first.  
3. Some passages should be taken literally and some figuratively but the author is never really clear which is which.  This leads to seemingly conflicting statements that, while not meant that way, might seem that way to the normal reader.
4. The premises are not fully stated in conflicting statements leading to apparent contradictions that are not really contradictions but only contradictions in appearance.
5. The teacher assumes that the student understands a theorem or clause that is given in a class but does not fully explain that theorem  or clause.  If the teacher does not go back and explain then the student is left in a confused state of mind.
6. The contradiction is not immediately evident but only becomes evident over time and with a series of premises and through later studies.  The larger the number of premises the larger the  probability that this will happen.
7. The author, or teacher, has to introduce metaphysical problems that can be disclosed only partly at the time.  Later these are discussed more fully and may seem, to the student or reader, contradictory but, in reality, are complementary.  The author, or teacher, must endeavor, by concealing the fact as much as possible, to prevent the uneducated reader from perceiving the seeming contradiction.

RaMBaM says that, "Inconsistencies occuring in the Mishnah and Boraitot are traceable to the first caue.  You meet frequently in the Gemara with passages like the following:- 'Does not the beginning of the passage contradict the end? No; the beginning is the dictum of a certain Rabbi; the end that of another' ; or, "Rabbi (Jehudah ha-Nasi) approved of the opinion of a certain rabbi in one case and gave it therefore anonymously, and having acceptated that of another rabbi in that of another in the other case he introduced that view without naming the authority.' ; or 'Who is he author of this anonymous dictum?  Rabbi A.' 'Who is the author of that aragraph in the Mishnah? Rabbi B.'  Instances of this kind are innumerable."  [Note: I did not obtain permission for this quote but I am sure that the original author, RaMBaM, would not mind.]  There are many more instances of seemingly apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in Talmud and Gemara but you need to read these for yourself.

Next week we shall begin with Part I and hopefully get through the first few chapters.  I went over the page hits and, so far, nobody is looking so I do not have much to worry about on screaming comments.  I seem to be writing for self-edification.  But, that is good too.  :-)

Shalom
Yaakov On