Answer

If I understand him correctly, he is trying to argue that the level of the pious person is the lower level, while the wise person is a higher level. He is really turning Maimonides’ meaning upside down. It does not seem plausible to me as an interpretation of Maimonides, neither exegetically nor conceptually.
And this is Maimonides’ wording there:
Anyone who accepts the seven commandments and is careful to observe them is among the pious of the nations of the world and has a share in the World to Come—provided that he accepts them and performs them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah, and informed us through Moses our teacher that the descendants of Noah had already been commanded regarding them. But if he performs them because of rational decision, he is not a resident alien, and is not among the pious of the nations of the world, but rather among their wise men.
We see that if he performs them because of rational judgment, that is the lower level. And when he performs them because of the commandment, that is the higher level. Rabbi Kook’s interpretation is extremely unusual.
Regarding your question of how one can expect this of them: ask that to Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman in Kovetz Ma’amarim. In his view, one can arrive at this through wondering about our world, which testifies that there is a Creator and that there must have been revelation. Then the non-Jew has to begin searching where and to whom the Creator revealed Himself, and arrive at Israel and hear from them that there is a Torah and that it contains a command regarding the seven commandments.
But more simply, one can accept this through their own traditions (Christian and Muslim ones). And in truth, it is likely that there are quite a few non-Jews who are like captured infants, because they never heard of revelation or never took it seriously. And they are of course under compulsion, unlike Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman, who sees them as sinners (because they were supposed to understand and discover this through the search, as above).
——————————————————————————————
Avi:
Just to emphasize that Rabbi Kook’s version in Maimonides is the correct one—one should read “but rather among their wise men,” not “and not among their wise men.” That is how it appears in all the accurate versions, for example:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/e508.htm
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Indeed, I simply copied it from the Responsa Project. But my point still stands.
——————————————————————————————
Diego:
But that is the whole difference: “but rather among their wise men” and not “and not among their wise men.” After all, Rabbi Kook writes that: the level of “they have a share in the World to Come” is a very low level (that is, relative to spiritual levels, a very low level), and that Maimonides holds that intellectual attainments perfect a person much more than moral propriety in conduct, and that the level of wisdom is very great, and it goes without saying that he has a share in the World to Come, but rather he stands on a holy level. And here this is the clear interpretation of the status of the wise among the nations as opposed to the pious among the nations. Is it possible to understand it differently?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello Diego. I did not understand your question. You are claiming that necessarily the pious person is the lower level. I did not understand Maimonides that way, and I certainly do not see any necessity for that. In the plain sense it is the opposite. The expression “not among the pious, but among the wise” seems to imply that pious is a higher level. “Pious” does not mean someone lacking in intellectual attainment, for an ignoramus is not pious. Rather, his intent is that beyond intellect and morality (= wise), he also has proper religious conduct (= pious).
As for the importance of commandment, see also Maimonides, Laws of Idolatry 3:6.
——————————————————————————————
Diego:
Hello Rabbi,
My question is aimed at the statement, “Rabbi Kook’s interpretation is extremely unusual.” It really is an unusual and bold interpretation, because it does seem that he is “really turning Maimonides’ meaning upside down.” Because “in the plain sense it is the opposite,” but Rabbi Kook emphasizes at the end of his remarks:
“And even if Maimonides’ words are taken in their plain sense” (that is, the simple and commonly accepted interpretation, that the pious among the nations who do them because of the commandment are on the higher level… which apparently is not the direction Rabbi Kook takes…) “for the measure of the World to Come… is that special measure which the divine superiority possessed by our holy Torah grants to those who observe it” (this sentence places the emphasis on the side of commandment-observance alone—or that is how it sounds) “and there are other levels that any good thing can confer, but that is not called by the name ‘World to Come’” (other levels… holiness? as he writes at the beginning of his remarks) “and that particular superiority comes through the power of Torah, and attaches itself to one who receives it in the holiness of its faith… and this in no way negates other levels depicted by every philosophy according to its way.” (That is the full version.)
Bottom line, it sounds like this: there is a simple interpretation, accepted by most people, which one can accept if one does not want to descend into the depth of Maimonides’ words…
It seems that the textual variant makes all the difference. After all, it changes the reading of the entire halakhah:
“Anyone who accepts the seven commandments and is careful to observe them is among the pious of the nations of the world and has a share in the World to Come—provided that he accepts them and performs them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah, and informed us through Moses our teacher that the descendants of Noah had already been commanded regarding them. But if he performs them because of rational decision, he is not a resident alien, and is not among the pious of the nations of the world, and not among their wise men. [Maimonides, Laws of Kings, chapter 8, halakhah 11]
How are we to understand the second part of the halakhah, in the sentence beginning with “But if he performs them” (which shows another possibility, though we do not yet know whether it is positive or negative) “because of rational decision” (a virtue or a deficiency?) “he is not a resident alien, and is not among the pious of the nations of the world, and not among their wise men” (and the phrase “and not among…” gives all the weight and tips the whole sentence to the negative side, meaning this person is not a resident alien, not pious, not wise… he is simply following his own small private opinion, to the point that he is not even granted a title. Then afterwards, once one clarifies and accepts the correct version, “but rather among their wise men,” the impression has already been made, and one can be persuaded that “their wise men” is said dismissively and denotes a lesser level). But if one accepts from the outset the correct version and ends with: “he is not a resident alien, and is not among the pious of the nations of the world, but rather among their wise men” (all the weight changes, and now he is not a resident alien, not pious, but rather “wise”), then it seems that Rabbi Kook, in understanding what “wise” means for Maimonides, is explaining the halakhah to us.
So my question is: can Rabbi Kook’s words still be left in the category of an unusual interpretation, despite all their boldness?
Thank you.
P.S. It seems to me that in this context, “pious” = one whose emphasis on morality comes before intellectual attainment, and “wise” = one whose emphasis on intellectual attainment comes before morality. [As for proper religious conduct, it seems that could apply to both the pious and the wise, regardless of whether one’s tendency is toward morality or toward intellectual attainment.]
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello Diego.
I do not see why the change of version fundamentally changes the relationship between pious and wise. What changes is only whether one who acts because of rational decision is wise, or not even that.
Even in this version of “but rather” (which is apparently the more accurate one), still the wise person is below the pious one: “but rather (only) among their wise men” is language of limitation.
I did not understand your comment/question: if there is boldness in some interpretation, does that remove it from the category of unusual? Quite the opposite—boldness is an interpretation that goes against the simple understanding, isn’t it?
As for the definitions, to the best of my understanding, a “pious” person is both wise and a servant of God, as opposed to a wise person, who does the right thing but is not serving God.
Maimonides is not talking here at all about wisdom in the sense of knowing intellectual truths. He is comparing here between two ways of performing commandments. By the way, this is also the meaning of the term “wisdom” elsewhere in his writings. Similarly, the laws of “character traits” do not deal with opinions but with traits and behavior (and this too has sources in the literature of the Sages).
——————————————————————————————
Diego:
Hello Rabbi, not long ago I read letter 89 of Rabbi Kook for the first time, and I was surprised by his interpretation of Maimonides regarding the wise and pious among the nations of the world. So my questions are an attempt to understand Rabbi Kook. (The change in version seems to me to affect the interpretation, though it is true that one can still understand it either way.) It is clear that the common understanding of Maimonides (and that was also my own tendency) is that the pious person is superior to the wise one.
But Rabbi Kook reverses it, and that is what I am trying to clarify (also through trying to redefine “pious” and “wise” in this context).
Do you have an explanation (or a possible direction for an explanation) of Rabbi Kook’s interpretation? Thank you.