Fichier de travail :
- ../DUMP-TEXT/Anglais/2_Meaning/52.txt
Forme voulue :
- (meanings?|significations?|senses?(\b))
Définition :
- Signification, ce que quelque chose veut dire.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The object of the above passage is therefore to declare, that the perfection, in which man can truly glory, is attained by him when he has acquired--as far as this is possible for man--the knowledge of God, the knowledge of His Providence, and of the manner in which it influences His creatures in their production and continued existence. Having acquired the knowledge he will then be determined always to seek loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, and thus to imitate the ways of God. We have explained this many times in this treatise.” (MN 3:54)
The ethics of the perfected man take on a completely new aspect. They no longer are self-serving, insuring a well-ordered society so that he can dedicate himself to contemplation, but rather understanding God’s ways, emulating Him and partaking in His work. Thus the same ethical act, the same Mitzvah, is performed in different contexts by different people, depending on their level of sophistication. We will return to this important point later in the discussion, but what is important now is to understand that Rambam’s ethics have an ultimate goal that goes beyond the egotistical. Giving alms to a pauper will have different meaning to different people. Some will do it because they see themselves in the same spot and want to be treated similarly hoping that others will emulate them should they be in need, while others do it because it makes them feel good to help another. Some feel guilty having so much while another lacks everything. Others do it because their religion promises
good things in exchange. Rambam’s Jew does it because it is part of the process that is necessary to allow for the development of a person that knows God, who will then do the same act with the understanding and deep knowledge that giving this Tzedakah IS emulating Him. In Rambam’s Judaism, everything we do is with that goal in mind.
--
The following types of people have no share in the World to Come, and are cut off, destroyed and excommunicated for ever on account of their very great sins and wickedness. An infidel; a heretic; one who denies the Torah; one who denies that there will be a Resurrection; one who denies that there will be a Redemption; one who converts from Judaism; one who causes a lot of people to sin; one who withdraws from communal ways; one who publicly sins in a defiant way like Yehoyakim did; an informer [against Jews]; one who instills fear in the congregation but not in the Name of God; a murderer; one who relates lashon Harah; and one who pulls back his foreskin [in order to cover his brit Mila].
It would be interesting to analyze in detail the commonality, if there is one, of those listed as forfeiting their Olam Haba. However looking at the list we get a clear sense that they relate to incorrect ideas about either God, society or the Jewish people. The striking thing however is the presentation. Rambam, basing himself mainly on the Mishna in Sanhedrin, does not say that one who believes in x, y and z will attain Olam Haba. The presentation takes a negative stance. One who has incorrect ideas whose actions under regular circumstances would be seen as righteous in the eyes of the divine judgment, is now found wanting. That again confirms that the Mitzvah act itself, as long is it is not based on an incorrect notion, is enough to warrant Olam Haba.
To understand the relationship of doing a Mitzvah with Olam Haba, we must first discuss the different categories of Mitzvot and their goal, how and why ethical and moral Mitzvot are different from general ethics and morality and finally the relationship of Olam Haba and our own physical existence. As you can see, this subject is far from exhausted and I plan to develop these ideas.
--
שנתבונן ונסתכל במצוותיו ופעולתיו, כדי שנשיגהו ונתענג בהשגתו תכלית התענוג - וזוהי האהבה המצווה [עלינו].
The third Mitzvah is that we were commanded to love Him. [Meaning] that we should contemplate and look into His commandments and His actions so that we apprehend Him, thus experiencing [lit: enjoying] the ultimate enjoyment through that apprehension of him. That is the love that we were commanded.
And to clarify, Rambam, after citing a series of verses, continues,
--
Rambam in MN 3:51 describes this experience by Moshe, Aharon and Miriam.
“The more the forces of his body are weakened, and the fire of passion quenched, in the same measure does man's intellect increase in strength and light; his knowledge becomes purer, and he is happy with his knowledge. When this perfect man is stricken in age and is near death, his knowledge mightily increases, his joy in that knowledge grows greater, and his love for the object of his knowledge more intense, and it is in this great delight that the soul separates from the body…. The meaning of this saying is that these three died in the midst of the pleasure derived from the knowledge of God and their great love for Him. When our Sages figuratively call the knowledge of God united with intense love for Him a kiss, they follow the well-known poetical diction, "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth" (Song 1:2). This kind of death, which in truth is deliverance from death, has been ascribed by our Sages to none but to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. The other prophets and pious
men are beneath that degree: but their knowledge of God is strengthened when death approaches.”
--
A person that worships [God] for the sake of love, is not involved in Torah and Mitzvot nor following the paths of wisdom, because of anything else in the world, not fear of bad things happening nor to gain good things. The only reason he does Truth is that it is Truth. The good things will generally come at the end.
In upcoming posts, I would like to explore the meaning of Mitzvot as Truth.
Posted by David Guttmann at 6:18 AM Links to this post
--
“People were occupied with these layers of rind and thought that beneath them there was no core whatsoever”, because the ideas were well hidden and not because there are so many other statements in the Talmud that have only rinds, as implied by YL. But to make matters worse when we turn to chapter 59 from where “rubbish and such perverse imaginings” was lifted and transplanted here, we see that Rambam was talking about Piyuttim and not Aggadot and Midrashim of the Rabbis. In that chapter, Rambam tells us that it is not permissible to develop our own attributes for God especially when we pray. We must limit ourselves to what the Rabbis have taught us based on their readings of the prophetic writings.
“We cannot approve of what those foolish persons do, that are extravagant in praise, fluent and prolix in the prayers they compose, and in the hymns they make in the desire to approach the Creator. They describe God in attributes which would be an offence if applied to a human being, for those persons have no knowledge of these great and important principles, which are not accessible to the ordinary intelligence of man. Treating the Creator as a familiar object, they describe Him and speak of Him in any expressions they think proper; they eloquently continue to praise Him in that manner, and believe that they can thereby influence Him and produce an effect on Him. If they find some phrase suited to their object in the words of the Prophets they are still more inclined to consider that they are free to make use of such texts--which should at least be explained--to employ them in their literal sense, to derive new expressions from them, to form from them numerous variations, and
to found whole compositions on them. This license is frequently met with in the compositions of the singers, preachers, and others who imagine themselves to be able to compose a poem. Such authors write things which partly are real heresy, partly contain rubbish and such perverse imaginings, so that they naturally cause those who hear them to laugh, but also to feel grieved at the thought that such things can be uttered in reference to God.” (MN1:59)
--
יגדיל תורה ויאדיר.
It is one of the Law’s fundaments of faith, that if an individual had executed [even] one of the 613 precepts of the Law, in a proper and satisfactory manner, without associating with it some mundane designs at all, but did it for its own sake, as [an act of] love … that person has gained the rights to the life in Olam Haba. Rabbi Hananya teaches that the great variety of precepts ensures that during the entire course of one’s life one would have had the opportunity to perfectly fulfill [at least] a single precept thereby gaining the right for the soul to remain. The question [and answer] of Rabbi Hananya ben Tradyon (TB Avodah Zara 18a) points to this fundament. He asked whether he has [rights] to the life in Olam Haba. The answerer [r. Yossi ben Kisma] said to him, “did you do any act?” Meaning, did you perform a Mitzvah satisfactorily?” He answered that he had the opportunity to perform the Mitzvah of Tzedakah in the most complete [perfect] way possible, and
therefore gained the right to the life in Olam Haba. The meaning of the verse is; God wants to bring righteousness to the Israelites He therefore made the Law great and glorious.
According to Rambam, the Mishna is teaching that the purpose of all the precepts is so that a person has the chance to fulfill at least one Mitzvah in his lifetime in a “proper and satisfactory” manner. He defines “proper and satisfactory” not as punctiliousness in its performance, but with the proper intent: “without associating with it some mundane designs at all, but did it for its own sake, as [an act of] love”. What exactly does that mean? As usual, the answer can be found elsewhere in Rambam’s works. “Associating with it some mundane design” is defined in Hilchot Teshuvah 10:1:
--
A person that worships [God] for the sake of love, is not involved in Torah and Mitzvot nor following the paths of wisdom, because of anything else in the world, not fear of bad things happening nor to gain good things. The only reason he does Truth is that it is Truth. The good things will generally come at the end.
Note that three things, Torah, Mitzvot and paths of wisdom are all Truths. In this context, being involved in Torah and Mitzvot should be read in the popular sense, in that Torah is the ontological understanding as well as it contains the practical laws while Mitzvot means following them and acting according to these laws, the 613 Mitzvot. What exactly does Rambam mean when he says that Mitzvot ARE Truth? As I have discussed many times in past posts, Rambam seems to see the Mitzvot as utilitarian, a tool to help us reach our goal of knowing God, rather than Truth itself. Rambam already presented this idea in his introduction to Chelek, the 10th Perek of the tractate Sanhedrin.
פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת סנהדרין פרק י
--
Professor Loberbaum proceeds to try to prove his thesis that Rambam lost respect for Aggadot, as he grew older. Rambam in his introduction to the Moreh describes the metaphors and allegories found in the prophetic texts. He first quotes a Midrash from Shir Hashirim Rabah where the Rabbis describe the processes Shlomo Hamelech used in his metaphors.
“Again, Solomon begins his book of Proverbs with the words, "To understand a proverb and figurative speech, the words of the wise and their dark sayings" (Prov. 1:6); and we read in Midrash, Shir Hashirim Raba, 1:1); "To what were the words of the Torah 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 rope with rope, and drew up and drank. So too Solomon went from figure to figure, and from subject to subject, till he obtained the true sense of the Torah." So far go the words of our Sages. I do not believe that any intelligent man thinks that "the words of the Torah" mentioned here as requiring the application of figures in order to be understood, can refer to the rules for building Sukkot, for preparing the Lulav, or for the law of the four trustees.”
The Midrash presents Shir Hashirim as a prophetic parable. It is teaching us how to read the parable. It offers different metaphors which suggest that we need to be careful how we read these parables and how we decipher them. The metaphor in this segment of the Midrash describes how at times a systematic approach is required, where every component, the ropes and the cords are attached and by slowly following the clues in proper order, we can grasp the intended goal – the difficult and hidden idea. Rambam quotes another metaphor the rabbis use to describe how one reads a prophetic parable.
“What is really meant is the apprehension of profound and difficult subjects, concerning which our Sages said, "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." These likewise are the words of our Sages; consider well their statement that the internal meaning of the words of the Torah is a pearl whereas the external meaning of all parables is of no value in itself. They compare the hidden meaning included in the literal sense of the simile to a pearl lost in a dark room, which is full of furniture. It is certain that the pearl is in the room, but the man can neither see it nor know where it lies. It is just as if the pearl were no longer in his possession, for, as has been stated, it affords him no benefits whatsoever until he kindles a light. The same is the case with the comprehension of that which
the simile represents.”
Some prophetic parables contain filler which are unimportant and one should not try to explain every detail of it. The metaphor describes the relative value of the light and the pearl where one is a tool to find the other, the important item. Rambam adds a little to the Midrash by introducing the furniture that fills the room that is a co-conspirator with the darkness in hiding the valuable pearl. In other words although the candle lights up the room, one still has to clean away the valueless furniture before finding the pearl.
Rambam then describes a type of metaphor also found in the prophetic writings where there are dual meanings where both are important, though one may be of greater importance than the other may. In other words, once the reader has grasped what the parable is trying to teach, he may encounter a double meaning where the external teaches important matters but is only like silver in comparison to the gold found in the deeper meaning.
“The wise king said, "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in vessels of silver" (Prov. 25:11). Hear the explanation of what he said: The word maskiyoth, the Hebrew equivalent for "vessels," denotes "filigree network"--i.e., things in which there are very small apertures, such as are frequently wrought by silversmiths. They are called in Hebrew maskiyyoth (literally "transpicuous," from the verb sakah, "he saw," a root which occurs also in the Targum of Onkelos, Gen. 26:8), because the eye penetrates through them. Thus, Solomon meant to say, "Just as apples of gold in silver filigree with small apertures, so is a word fitly spoken."
See how beautifully the conditions of a good simile are described in this figure! It shows that in every word which has a double sense, a literal one and a figurative one, the plain meaning must be as valuable as silver, and the hidden meaning still more precious: so that the figurative meaning bears the same relation to the literal one as gold to silver. It is further necessary that the plain sense of the phrase shall give to those who consider it some notion of that which the figure represents. Just as a golden apple overlaid with a network of silver, when seen at a distance, or looked at superficially, is mistaken for a silver apple, but when a keen-sighted person looks at the object well, he will find what is within, and see that the apple is gold. The same is the case with the figures employed by prophets. Taken literally, such expressions contain wisdom useful for many purposes, among others, for the amelioration of the condition of society; e.g., the Proverbs (of Solomon),
and similar sayings in their literal sense. Their hidden meaning, however, is profound wisdom, conducive to the recognition of real truth.”
Clearly, Rambam is not talking here about the parable itself but about what was deciphered by either the reader or the prophet in describing his vision. He tells us that one must not stop at the first teaching one grasps because many times there are dual meanings, where a deeper ontological or metaphysical idea is also present.
For some reason YL sees these descriptions of prophetic writings as a criticism of how the Aggadot are different. He contrasts the “good simile” in the last example with the ones before where there is some fluff in the parable. He is confusing the description of a parable with a description of the result one gets once the parable is deciphered. Furthermore, YL somehow reads this whole discussion to refer to Aggadot, though a careful read of the quotations above clearly show they are ALL describing PROPHETIC parables. Rambam is at first quoting Midrashic metaphors that describe the prophetic parables and then quotes Shlomo Hamelech who describes the results of the deciphered parables as having more than one meaning – silver and gold. I reread the section several times and for the life of me cannot see what YL sees there. I leave it to the reader to decide.
z2There is one more purported “proof” that I will discuss before summarizing and opining.
--
“As regards the four species [the branches of the palm tree, the citron, the myrtle, and the willows of the brook] our Sages gave a reason for their use by way of Aggadic interpretation, the method of which is well known to those who are acquainted with the style of our Sages. They use the text of the Bible only as a kind of poetical language [for their own ideas], and do not intend thereby to give an interpretation of the text. As to the value of these Midrashic interpretations, we meet with two different opinions. For some think that, the Midrash contains the real explanation of the text, whilst others, finding that it cannot be reconciled with the words quoted, reject and ridicule it. The former, struggle and fight to prove and to confirm such interpretations according to their opinion, and to keep them as the real meaning of the text; they consider them in the same light as traditional laws. Neither of the two classes understood it, that our Sages employ biblical texts
merely as poetical expressions, the meaning of which is clear to every reasonable reader. This style was general in ancient days; all adopted it in the same way as poets [adopt a certain style]. Our Sages say, in reference to the words, "and a paddle (yated) you shall have upon your weapon" [azeneka, Deut. xxiii. 14]: Do not read azeneka, "thy weapon," but ozneka, "thy ear." You are thus told, that if you hear a person uttering something disgraceful, put your fingers into your ears. Now, I wonder whether those ignorant persons [who take the Midrashic interpretations literally] believe that the author of this saying gave it as the true interpretation of the text quoted, and as the meaning of this precept: that in truth yated, "the paddle," is used for "the finger, "and azeneka denotes "thy ear." I cannot think that any person whose intellect is sound can admit this. The author employed the text as a beautiful poetical phrase, in teaching an excellent moral lesson, namely this: It
is as bad to listen to bad language, as it is to use it. This lesson is poetically connected with the above text. In the same sense you must understand the phrase, "Do not read so, but so," wherever it occurs in the Midrash.”
Rambam is referring to a series of Derashot recorded in Vaykra Rabah 30:8-16 about the reason for taking the four kinds – Arbe’a Minim. The first derasha explains how Etrog is connected with the words used to describe it in the Torah, Pri Etz Hadar, and the same for the remaining three. Thereafter, the Midrash discusses possible symbolism in the Mitzvot, such that the four Minim represent different aspects of God, the three patriarchs and Yosef, the four matriarchs and so on. All the Midrashim use the verse as an exegetical device for their ideas. All these references are far from Peshuto Shel Mikrah, the plain meaning of the text. Rambam explains that these types of Midrashic texts are recordings of sermons or sermon types of Aggadot that use a poetic type of presentation. The Rabbis wanted to teach how one should look at Mitzvot and use them for connecting with the transcendental, get in touch with Judaism’s basic tenets and in general teach Hashkafic and ethical concepts,
using the text as a tool to impress or as a mnemonic device. The rabbis are not explaining the text but use it as a tool to make their point, which may have nothing to do with the text. As an extreme example, much more distanced from the text than the ones in Vaykra Rabah, Rambam quotes the one about stuffing your fingers in your ears when confronted with prohibited talk. Clearly, the verse is not talking about it and the Rabbis just used it as a device to make a totally unrelated point. Rambam uses this opportunity to describe and explain a certain common type of Midrashic text amongst many other types of such texts.
YL however wants to take this a step further. In the Pirush Hamishna in the introduction to Chelek Rambam also presented three opinions about Derashot: Those who insist on literalness, those who denigrate and the third group, the correct ones, those who see in them great depth and philosophical teachings. If we set them parallel with the three groups Rambam enumerates here, the third correct one is parallel to the ones who understand the exegetical method of teaching unrelated issues using the verse. YL contrasts Rambam’s description of the correct approach in Chelek as philosophical and of great depth while here he describes it as poetical and not the real meaning of the text. In other words in Chelek the Rabbis teach a deep and true concept as opposed to here, where they distort the true meaning of the text. Furthermore, Rambam describes them as “derashot”, public sermons, that are directed to the masses and not of great depth. He therefore claims that again we see a
change of heart about Aggadah that is consistent with the supposed change in the introduction to MN we discussed in the previous post. YL does note that the presentation here is milder than the one in the introduction. There, according to YL’s understanding, Rambam was quasi insulting to the Rabbis while here he seems to praise their “poetical talent”. He therefore discovers a “Halachik” impact in these Derashot, which are the reason Rambam is more careful. He does not want to weaken our regard to Halacha! He is also trying to protect Halachik exegesis which when one would insist that it is the meaning of the text, would lose its legitimacy.
If I am correct, and I am convinced I am, that YL misread Rambam in the introduction to MN, as I have shown in the preceding post, this whole argument has no leg to stand on. In addition, my read of the Rambam above is unquestionably correct. Rambam, typical and true to form, sees the complexity of the Derashot. Aggadah is a term that covers many different non-Halachik writings of the rabbis. Some have deep philosophic import and teach very complex issues from observations about our universe and environment to the ontological and metaphysical. They however also contain many ethical and moral teachings; these probably make up the great majority of the Aggadic texts. Some of these were indeed public sermons and used different types of devices to impress upon the listeners. To impress and make sure the teaching is absorbed and remembered they used the text in a non-literal way. To insist that Rambam is monochromatic and his comments are generalized to all Aggadot is disingenuous. I
--
In the introduction to the Moreh, Rambam writes,
“In our commentary on the Mishna we stated our intention to explain difficult problems in the Book on Prophecy and in the Book of Harmony (Commentary according to Pines). In the latter we intended to examine all the passages in the Midrash which, if taken literally, appear to be inconsistent with truth and common sense \!/ Attention ! Mon dictionnaire me dit que cette forme ne correspond sûrement pas au sens recherché ! Mais je peux me tromper... \!/, and must therefore be taken figuratively.”
Rambam was planning two separate treatises, one dealing with the books of the Prophets and a separate one dealing with the rabbinical exegesis. In fact, in his introduction to Perek Chelek as part of his discussion of the seventh Ikar, he writes:
--
So, in his youth (he was in his twenties when he wrote the Pirush Hamishna), Rambam had plans to write three books; one on Aggadah, one on the books of the prophets and one on the fundamental issues of Judaism. What happened to those plans?
Continuing the introduction to MN Rambam explains that as he started the project of explaining the Midrashim he faced a dilemma. He could not fully explain the real meaning of those Midrashim because that would thwart the original intent of keeping them secret. As further consideration he writes,
“We have further noticed that when an ignoramus among the multitude of Rabbanites reads these Midrashim, he will find no difficulty; inasmuch a rash fool, possessing no knowledge of the properties of things, will not reject statements which involve impossibilities. When, however, a person who is both religious and well educated reads them, he cannot escape the following dilemma: he takes them literally and thereby questions the abilities of the author and the soundness of his mind. He is doing thereby nothing which is opposed to the principles of our faith. Or he will acquiesce in assuming that the passages in question have some secret meaning, and he will continue to hold the author in high estimation whether he understood the allegory or not.”
YL points out Rambam’s surprising statement that by questioning the abilities of the author and the soundness of his mind, the religiously intelligent “is doing thereby nothing which is opposed to the principles of our faith”. He further contrasts it to Rambam’s statement on the same issue in his introduction to Chelek, twenty-five years earlier about these same people.
--
which makes him human: his soul, creativity and spirit.
Reliance on one’s logic, the ability to think freely, applies in all matters even when confronted with oral or written words, no matter who the author is. This does not mean that an authoritative text that one does not understand should be dismissed. It means that if it is authentic and authoritative and does not make sense, it must have been misunderstood and needs further investigation. The Torah is truth and is not afraid of it. When honestly and thoroughly investigated, it stands up to all scrutiny. Such fear of thinking is an insult to Torah as if it has to hide from truth and has to be accepted on faith.
Shabbat Shalom.
--
When one speculates about God without [secular] knowledge and without Torah, one develops in one’s mind a dark image, full of emptiness and confusion. When that person now turns to divine worship based on this previous empty concept, man slowly loses the splendor of his existence, because he becomes attached to empty and confused ideas. When this goes on for several generations, it is inevitable for Kefirah to show itself culturally[1] with the goal of eradicating the memory of God and all the trappings of God worship. But ultimately, what is it eradicating? It is eradicating nonsensical and hopeless ideas that truly interfere between man and the light of the true God. It is upon these destroyed ruins trampled by Kefirah, that God’s supreme wisdom builds its temple! (Shemona Kevatzim volume 1, page 31).
Rav Kook again amazes. Without the combination of the two, Torah and a good understanding of the environment, a person develops a distorted picture of God and in turn, a false concept of divine worship. One has to have a good understanding of reality and combining that knowledge with a correct understanding of the ontological teachings of Torah, one may develop a correct notion of God and His worship. Without that, religion descends into the dark ages losing its spark. Human thought cannot be suppressed. With time, people rebel against mind-numbing and irrational thought and rituals. They blame religion and the worship that it entails for this obscurantism. The reaction of the establishment is to ostracize and evict these miscreants. But what are these revolutionaries battling? They are not attacking truth, but nonsense and misunderstandings of the Divine. By cleansing society from this misdirection, a new sublime and true religion, based on Truth and a proper notion of the divine
resurges. Rav Kook is describing the sociological process and internal upheavals of how true religion develops. He has an unbounded and optimistic view of human nature. What others see as a negative he has a broader and longer view and sees as constructive.
--
in the USA to that in other countries, our higher cost, I am convinced is directly attributable to our malpractice law. Approaching the problem from that point of view would not interfere with the free market and the open system we are used to. It would affect the judicial system, which is where the government should be active. Free market and a fair justice system foster great economies. Leave the markets to its participants and afford them an attractive playing field by putting in place fair laws.
Some will argue that reducing the threat of malpractice would foster negligence and carelessness by health care providers. That to me is nonsense. A free market will take care of it if the information channels are open. The government could play a role in monitoring and publicizing outcomes at each provider. A provider will not afford too many mistakes. He would have no patients very fast.
Once cost have been brought down and insurance rates are now affordable, a much larger portion of the population will be able to afford purchasing insurance. The government then can step in by providing a safety net for the few who could not for whatever legitimate reason, afford it. Medicare and Medicaid costs would rapidly decline and maybe some of the savings could go towards closing the social security gap.
--
It has to do with how Rambam understands the relationship of man to God. One of the great problems the traditional or to be more accurate, popular approach to religion has, is that it is seen as fantasy that makes people feel good rather than being the truth. When I am told that I have to believe in God, that He controls everything, directs everything that happens, that by doing Mitzvot I induce Him to make good things happen to me and to others and if they do not happen it is because I did not do the Mitzvah well enough, I get an urge to become an atheist. I see it as an escape for the helplessness we feel in our attempt to control our lives, as the opiate needed to calm our insecurities. I see prayer for the sick, Tehilim, Mi Sheberach et al, the way it is popularly understood, in the same vein. It is this distorted thinking, distorted in my view though it may work for others, that leads to the obnoxious and ridiculous explanation of the holocaust as punishment for lack of
religiosity between the wars. It is this type of thinking that leads to the rejection of the State of Israel and all the nonsense we observe in our community including the latest Chilulei Hashem that keep on surfacing endlessly and that are so painful and difficult to observe. Unfortunately, these events are not surprising. The popular understanding of religion, unfortunately encouraged by our leaders, is responsible for the big discrepancy between the religious and ethical life of so many of our coreligionists. After all if I am zealous enough by observing every Chumra, I daven thrice daily, say a long Shemona Esreh and yell out Amen Yehei Shmei Raba with full force etc…, God must look at me with favor and no bad can befall me even if I steal, rob etc… especially from a goy! Isn’t there a mitzvah of Lo Techanem in their case?
This thinking is not exclusive to Judaism; it is the norm in all religions. The Richard Dawkins of this world have therefore a very good argument in their rejection of religion, seeing it as anti-science and a pure fantasy developed by fertile imaginations. According to my understanding of Rambam, he probably would agree (I am saying this tongue in cheek – it would be a travesty to place him in the same camp as Dawkins). Rambam’s understanding of Judaism is that it came into existence to reject and counter this kind of religion. Idolatry saw the gods as entities that when treated right would serve humankind. Give them the proper bribe and in return, your crops will flourish, sicknesses will be healed and all good things would happen. Judaism teaches that God is not in man’s service. Man is obligated to serve God. (See the second Parsha of Shema). Religion is the search for an answer to the ultimate existential questions, why are we here? Is there a meaning to our existence?
Does humankind have a role to play in the whole of existence? If yes, what is it? What is good and bad? What is right and wrong? How do I, an individual, do what is right? What is our obligation to ourselves, to our surroundings, to the whole of existence and ultimately to God? In short, what is the ultimate Truth?