Friday, March 20, 2009

Rambam - Faith & Doubt & the study of Science


Daas Torah: "Why don't we try another dichotomy. If you think his [Rambam] belief that studying of science leads to a greater appreciation of G-d is applicable to all times and all places - than you would conclude that he made a major mistake. On the other hand if you view that he only wrote that for his generation then you would assume that he would have abandoned it in our age when we see being a scientist does not produce a better understanding of G-d than studying Torah."


רפאל I do not think that the Rambam would abandon his view. True, he would be shocked by Chilonim studying Science and not finding G-d. But his directives were for Torah Jews. I submit he would be appalled by the intellectual corruption in today's Yeshiva world, in no small part caused by the ignorance of Science, davka after it gave birth to insights into Creation that are without precedent.

===========================================

I think the above exchange demonstrates the gap between the two sides. The Rambam is pictured by my opponents as the Enlightened Man - fearlessly search for truth without regard for the consequence. Urging all men to drop their blinders and no longer fear the Truth which is contained in Science and Philosophy.

This stereotype is simply not supported by the Rambam's own writings. For example the Rambam says that the Morech Nevuchim was not written for everyone. It was specifically written for those who involved in science and philosophy and were bothered by how to integrate the material. Even so he wrote this work with great care - concealing much of his true views as he writes in his introduction. In fact the Rambam was so successfull in concealing what his views were - as manifest by the apparent contradictions between the Moreh Nevuchim and Mishneh Torah - there is no agreement even amongst academics as to the Rambam's true positions on many issues.

Then we have his letters - one of which describes his abandoment of the study of Torah for science and philosophy. Rav Kapach simply says it is a forgery because it is inconsistent with eveything else we know about the Rambam. Then we have the view that the Rambam says that there is no need to study anything besides the Mishneh Torah. Yet he writes in one of his letters that in his yeshiva there was a traditional study of Talmud.

The false fantasy of the Rambam's espousal of fearless search for truth becomes unraveled with his statement that one is not allowed to study works which leads to questions and possible heresy. He says that even a sincere person who is trying to understand Torah - but concludes a view which is heresy - is in fact a heretic.

The Rambam would not walk into Lakewood and knock the shtenders over with the cry - "Go to college and seek the truth - you have nothing to fear!"

One always has to keep in mind the audience for a particular program

A number of years ago Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm wrote a book "Faith and Doubt" which argued for the positive view of having doubt and having searching questions. However tucked away in a footnote 52 he presents a similar position to the above noting Hilchos Avoda Zara (2:3) which proscribes the study of that which may lead to heresy and hence into doubt. "If one reads the passage in Avoda Zara carefully he will note the author's explanation of and qualifications on his prohibition: the inablity of all kinds of mentality to understand philosophic truth...the emphasis on the fact that this is a general decision to be applied to the masses of people... and to casual unsystematic suty... and the fear that such speculation will be undertaken by those who do not know its fundamental principles and methods... Obviously Maimonides was dealing with two principles which had come into conflict - the duty to know G-d rationally, and the obligation to protect the unsophisticated from spiritual confusion...What, however, if the state of society and culture are such that to follow these rules without deviation would result in wholesale abandonment of faith? Would we be justificed in applying these rules regardless of the effects that were to follow? Obviously not.... In Maimondies' days, most peole were covered by his decision in Hilchos Avoda Zara and the minority of accomplished scholars and sophisticated intellects by the law in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah. That was how the halacha protected the integrity of the faith. Today there may be pockets here and there of those who will live in self-contained communities without any access to the great sources of Western Civilization; for them the same decision holds true without change. But most of us, despite our lack of halakhic expertise and our doubtful philosophic sophistication, are such that doubt is ubiquitous with us and if we do not entertain it yet we surely will be exposed to it before long..."

Thus we must acknowledge and be concerned about the consequence of a particular program of study. If a person comes from a culture where Science is the standard of truth - then it might be important to address the issues as R' Slikin is doing. Then again it might be better to simply teach him that the only truth that matters is Torah. However a person who is in the Chareidi society immersed in learning Torah day and night. It is highly unlikely his yiras Shamayim will benefit from a diet of contradictions of Science and Torah and proposed solutions. There are, however, a minority of Charedi Jews that can benefit and therefore should study these issues. It is simply not for everyone.

11 comments :

  1. "Yet he writes in one of his letters that in his yeshiva there was a traditional study of Talmud."

    Actually, the traditional study of *Rif*, with occasional dipping into the Talmud for greater context.

    KT,
    Josh

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow. This post deserves more than I can type on an eruv Shabbos.

    For now:
    The false fantasy of the Rambam's espousal of fearless search for truth becomes unraveled with his statement that one is not allowed to study works which leads to questions and possible heresy.
    Are you sure?

    This was discussed in a famous exchange in the Torah Umadda Journal and here are some sources for those interested in tzarich izun:
    Rabbi Parnes' article: http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/TU1_Parnes.pdf

    An article in response by Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Berger:
    http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/TU2_Berger.pdf

    An article in response by Dr. Carmy:
    http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/TU3_Carmy.pdf

    Rabbi Parnes's response to those two articles:
    http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/TU3_Parnes.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  3. > The Rambam would not walk into Lakewood and knock the shtenders over with the cry - "Go to college and seek the truth - you have nothing to fear!"

    No, but he might have cried out: Whatsamatter with you people? You can't even speak Hebrew properly, let alone English. Whaddaya mean it's forbidden to work for a living? I wrote about exercise and healthy diet. What's this about cholent? How many of you know how to spell treadmill, let alone how to use one?
    And who's the Ramban guy and why does he have a problem with everything I wrote? Why, I oughtta...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Or is it a risk/reward analysis by community? Do we not cross the street because people are sometimes hit by cars?Do we not engage in commerce even though we may need to deal with people who may not be at our ethical level? The choice of Lakewood is an interesting example given the Rambam's well known feelings about taking money for learning.

    I suspect the Rambam would say - I gave you the general rules, go figure out how to apply themin your time and place.

    KT
    Joel RIch

    ReplyDelete
  5. All of this was discussed in the Torah U-Madda journals ages ago. There is nothing new to say about it, and the blogpost is merely a rehash of old cliches about the Rambam. Thanks to Baruch above for the links.

    Read the articles. They clearly prove, not as the blog owner would suggest, that non-charedi Jews do not understand the Rambam or wrongly fail to take his limitations seriously. Rather, what it shows is that the charedi view of the Rambam (represented in the articles by Rav Parnes) is only one side in the age-old debate for the past 800 years over this question: Who really was the Rambam?

    The current charedi view is nearly identical to one of the two extreme positions on this question held during the times of the rishonim. Actually, it most resembles the least likely of the two extreme views held back then about the Rambam. It is not far from the medieval position that the Moreh was a forgery in whole or in part, or that it should be interpreted kabbalistically. The opposite view, that the Rambam was a closet Aristotelian who secretly even denied things like creation, that in some ways he might not truly have believed in his own 13 principles of faith, is not necessarily true but has far more evidence to back it up from the Rambam's own writings than does the charedi view.

    The mainstream view, both amongst the rishonim and people today who read the Rambam seriously, is that the Rambam's quest for truth was extraordinary and that he wanted to share it widely as possible. See for example the intro to Shemonah Perakim. He realized, however (and even stressed) that each person must be educated at his own level. That is why he ditched citing his sources for Shemonah Perakim.

    Lest any charedi reader take this as Maimonidean permission for charedi teen boys not to take full matriculation exams and continue on to university, the exact opposite is true: The Rambam would certainly have forcefully condemned a charedi leadership that trains its populace to value *not* searching for the truth, *not* getting a well-rounded education, and *not* accepting the truth from whoever said it.

    In other words, the Rambam demanded that each person be *educated* at his own level, not kept in darkness! The very notion of "Daas Torah", that "gedolim" either define the truth or pasken it, that "gedolim" decide what truths can be read or considered or believed, and that the truth can even be "paskened" to be outside of the pale for Torah Jews, would have been anathema to the Rambam. Or at least to the non-charedi version of him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Then we have his letters - one of which describes his abandoment of the study of Torah for science and philosophy. Rav Kapach simply says it is a forgery because it is inconsistent with eveything else we know about the Rambam.

    Please specify which letter you are referring to and where it can be found. Thanx

    ReplyDelete
  7. Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...



    Please specify which letter you are referring to and where it can be found. Thanx

    Letter to Yonason of Lunel

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is this the quote that Rabbi Kapach accused of being forged?
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp004.htm
    In a letter addressed to R. Jonathan, of Lunel, he says: "Although from my birth the Torah was betrothed to me, and continues to be loved by me as the wife of my youth, in whose love I find a constant delight, strange women whom I at first took into my house as her handmaids have become her rivals and absorb a portion of my time."

    Please confirm.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...

    Is this the quote that Rabbi Kapach accused of being forged?
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp004.htm
    In a letter addressed to R. Jonathan, of Lunel, he says: "Although from my birth the Torah was betrothed to me, and continues to be loved by me as the wife of my youth, in whose love I find a constant delight, strange women whom I at first took into my house as her handmaids have become her rivals and absorb a portion of my time."
    ===============
    yes

    ReplyDelete
  10. Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...

    Okay, now where does Rabbi Kappach deny it?
    ===============
    I saw it in Crossroads - which is the English version of Techumin.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.