Sanhedrin 141

Albert Ringer writes that I pointed out that Rambam's view on the coming into being of Torah might be more problematic to us. He continues:

However it seems to me that one could interpret Maimonides words to mean that the way torah reached us is beyond history ("No one but Moses can know the true nature of that contact").

I respond:

When Rambam writes that "no one but Moses can know the true nature of that contact" he is referring to the verbal content of Torah. He has stated that God dictated, as it were, the whole Torah to Moses. Since this statement involves a gross anthropomorphism Rambam is quick to point out that he did not mean thereby to indicate that God "spoke" the words to Moses – i.e. that God is possessed of a throat, voice box, vocal cords etc. What he means (he says) is that God "communicated" the verbal content of the Torah to Moses through some form of "contact". But, "no one but Moses can know the true nature of that contact" – and therefore it is futile to speculate. Thus far Rambam. Contrary to what Albert is suggesting to us, Rambam is quite clearly advocating a view that the verbal content of the Torah – each individual word as such – was communicated to Moses by God. It is not concerning the nature of the content of the Torah that he is uncertain but concerning the means of communication of that content. For anyone who accepts the so-called "documentary hypothesis" in any form whatsoever Rambam's view of Torah min ha-shamayim creates a difficulty. The view of the overwhelming majority of Conservative Jews who are knowledgeable on this topic and have made their views known to the general public in writing is anchored to the "documentary hypothesis" in some way or other. That is why I wrote that "Rambam's view on the coming into being of Torah might be problematic to us".

Albert Ringer continues:

The point Rambam seems to make might be that there is no difference in Torah between the more abstract parts, open for philosophical inspection, and the more material oriented parts, they each come from God:

I am in complete agreement with Albert here: since Rambam accepts that the verbal content of Torah has been communicated to us from God through the agency of Moses, for him "there is no qualitative difference between a verse" whose content seems to be mundane and a verse whose content seems to be theologically sublime: "it all comes from God and it is all God's perfect, pure and holy Torah of truth". However, I do not understand how Albert thinks that this view of Rambam will solve the problem of Torah min ha-shamayim that Rambam has created for us.

Albert concludes:

A large part of Maimonides' writings have as their subject the problems of interpretation of the more 'basic' language of Tanakh. Speaking of God's limbs is perplexing to the student of classical philosophy.

I respond:

"Speaking of God's limbs is perplexing to the student of classical philosophy" – and that is why Rambam devotes the greater part of the first section of Moreh Nevukhim (The Guide for the Perplexed) to "explaining" that the anthropomorphic content of the bible must not be understood literally.

Zackary Berger writes:

It seems that you are inconsistent in your use of the Rambam. When he conceives of tekhies hameysim solely in terms of spiritual resurrection (in the Guide) you're with him, and you bring him as support for such a view; but his later espousal of bodily resurrection (in the Shmone Perakim) you term a response to contemporary critics. However, when the Rambam brings literal transcription a condition for Torah min hashomayim, you reject it out of hand as extra-Talmudic. But so is any claim of (solely) spiritual resurrection, right? It seems we Conservatives only follow Rambam's shito when it serves our purposes…

I respond:

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was "using" Rambam. He is probably the most illustrious rabbinic personality in post biblical times and therefore, when his statements differ significantly with classical Jewish thought or have engendered a significant development, it seems necessary to elucidate. It just so happens that Rambam's view on olam ha-ba is the one that has influenced all succeeding generations, including Conservative Jewish thought, even though it is the complete opposite of what seems to be Talmudic thinking on this topic. However, I was not "recommending" his view: I was only trying to be a teacher whose task it is to bring to the notice of the students important and significant statements. Whether I (or you) agree with them or not is immaterial to this purpose.

Zackary's message contains a factual inaccuracy that I feel I should point out less someone interpret my polite silence as endorsement.

Rambam's response to the criticism of his contemporaries as regards his views concerning olam ha=ba is to be found in his "Essay on Resurrection" [Ma'amar Teĥiyyat ha-Metim] (and not as Zachary wrote). The criticism was vociferous and hardly couched in polite academic language! Rambam was excoriated for having introduced a completely new philosophy of the afterlife which was directly contrary to accepted teachings up to that point. This essay has always been very embarrassing for me to read: despite the fighting words, Rambam does in fact try an elegant extrication of the kind we are so familiar with today from politicians when caught out by the communications media in some inconsistency: "My words have been misunderstood", "I have been quoted out of context", and so forth. "How can you possibly say that I think thus when I have explicitly said the opposite?" is a recurring theme – which did not succeed in pulling the wool of obfuscation over the eagle eyes of his critics. Anyone reading Ma'amar Teĥiyyat ha-Metim will be no more certain of Rambam's true views than he was before!

It is precisely because Rambam is so illustrious a rabbinic personality that I feel that it is incumbent upon me to point out any of his teachings that seem to create a difficulty for Conservative thought, since this study forum is dedicated to "study in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism".

Lest I be misunderstood let me clarify that Rambam is one of my few great rabbinic "heroes" – but that does not prevent me sometimes disagreeing with him!

John Wekselblatt writes:

With regard to the resurrection of the dead; an orthodox reb tells me that for him the bones will take on flesh (and I guess be clothed) according to the Gemara. He also indicates that, again for him the Ramĥal, on this point is as interesting as the Rambam. What does the Ramĥal say?

I respond:

The orthodox rabbi that you have quoted is following the pre-Maimonidean take on this (as I explained in the original Shi'ur). While the Talmudic statements are clear their meaning is not always so. I do not think that we would be very wrong if we were to guess (as Sa'adyah Ga'on states explicitly) that the pre-Maimonidean view was that people remain dead in their graves, but that at some unidentified time in the future the dead will be physically resurrected for final judgment, when some will be consigned to hell and others to paradise.

Ramĥal is the sobriquet of Rabbi Moshe Ĥayyim Luzzatto [Italy, 18th century CE]. He was a prolific writer on many topics of Jewish esotericism – he even claimed that some of his kabbalistic writings were dictated to him by a "voice"! His most famous work is Mesillat Yesharim [The Path of the Upright], which is a moralistic treatise – an exhortatory guide to people who wish to reach moral perfection from the Jewish point of view. John does not relate to which of Luzzatto's many writings the rabbi was referring, so I cannot explain. Since I guess that the rabbi was probably referring to Mesillat Yesharim, I am at a greater loss, since Ramĥal's only reference there to teĥiyyat ha-metim is in Chapter 26 where he explains that leading a life of holiness leads to Resurrection.

Discussion on these topics is now closed. Next week we shall continue with the next mishnah of our chapter.

Shabbat Shalom to everybody.