The prohibition of questioning regarding the tenets of faith

I am very happy to hear that you agree with me on this subject.
I noticed that there is support for your words in the words of the Rambam himself, when he said: “And he does not know the qualities that he will discuss until he knows the truth about his enemies, and he finds himself in the hands of the Minut”.
Perhaps this means that the prohibition only applies to those who do not know the ways of inquiry through which one can reach the truth – as you said.

Indeed.
Here is an excerpt from a book I am currently writing that attempts to present current theology:

Conclusion: The meaning of the prohibition of reading in external books
In the parshas of Tzitzit, the Torah commands us (Numbers 15:39): “And you shall not turn after your heart and after your eyes”. And this is what the Sages demand (Bavli Berakhot 12:2):
Contemplating a transgression and contemplating idolatry, as it is written after your heart, is a sin, and so it says, "He said, 'A villain in his heart is not God after your eyes.' This is contemplating a transgression, as it is said, 'And Samson said to his father, "Take her for me, for she is right in my eyes. You are harlots.' This is contemplating idolatry, and so it says, 'And they commit adultery after their husbands.'"
And in truth, the jurists bring this into the law. For example, the Rambam in the Book of Commandments, 147, writes:
And the 7th commandment is that we are warned not to follow our hearts until we believe opinions that are the opposite of the opinions that the Torah requires of us, but our thinking is shortened and we set a limit for it. It will stand with Him, and He is the commandments of the Torah and its warnings. And He said, “May He be exalted” (Ps. 8217; Tzitzit) and you shall not follow your hearts and your eyes.
And the language of My book, and you shall not follow your hearts, is a kind of sin, as it is said [Ecclesiastes 7] And I find the woman who is a snarl and a curse, and after your eyes, this is harlotry, as it is said [Judges 14] And Samson said to his father, “Take her for me, for she is upright in my sight.” Wanting to say this is harlotry, continuing to pursue carnal pleasures and desires, and constantly preoccupied with them:
If so, there is a prohibition here to believe in opinions that are the opposite of the opinions that the Torah requires of us. This is an obligation on beliefs and opinions, in direct contradiction to what we said above.
Furthermore, we find in the halacha the expansion of this prohibition. For example, Maimonides in the Book of Idolatry, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, writes:
2. Many books have been compiled by idolaters concerning their worship, and what is the essence of their worship and what are their deeds and laws. The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us not to read those books at all, nor to meditate on them or on any of their words, and even to look at the image of the form is forbidden, as it is said, “Do not turn to idols,” and in this matter it is said, “And lest you inquire of their gods, saying, ‘How do they worship?’ Do not inquire of their way of worship,’ even though it is not a fact that this causes one to turn to them and do as they do, as it is said, “And I will do so also.”
3. And all these enemies are in one matter, and that is that he should not turn to idolatry, and whoever turns to it in the way in which he does an act is defective, and it is not idolatry alone that is forbidden to turn to it in thought, but rather any thought that causes a person to uproot the main principles of the Torah. We are warned not to bring it to our hearts, and we will not distract ourselves from this, and we will think and be drawn to the thoughts of the heart, because a person's mind is short, and not all opinions can attain the truth over his ignorance. And if every person follows the thoughts of his heart, he will be found destroying the world according to his short-sightedness. How can he sometimes turn to idolatry and sometimes think specifically about the Creator, whether He is or not, what is above and what is below, what is ahead and what is behind, and sometimes about prophecy, whether it is true or not, and sometimes about the Torah, whether it is from heaven or not, and does not know the standards by which to judge until he knows the truth over his ignorance and finds himself coming to terms with it? And the Torah warned about this matter, and it is said in it, "Do not turn after your hearts and your eyes, which are harlots," meaning that each of you will not be drawn to another. His short-sightedness and the idea that his thinking grasps the truth, so the sages said, "After your heart is a vice and after your eyes is a whoredom," and even though it causes a person to be troubled by the world to come, there are no scourges in it.
In other words, there is also a prohibition on reading external books and engaging in foreign wisdom and opinions. Once again, it seems that this is an attempt to command and control thoughts and decision-making in the area of faith.
These prohibitions are absurd on their face. How is it possible to prohibit a person from checking whether his opinion is correct? After all, if his opinion is not correct and the Torah does not obligate him, then he has no obligation to obey its instructions. And similar to what I noted above, would it be conceivable that there would be justification for the idolater to continue to cling to his erroneous path because his (erroneous) religion forbade him from checking it. But beyond that, it is clear that engaging in books of thought enriches and expands the mind, and also deepens the faith itself, even if their conclusions differ from those of the traditionalists. Therefore, it is unreasonable in my opinion (even if it is logically possible) that the Torah would prohibit this for anyone who wants it.
Therefore, even if I could find no reasonable interpretation of these commandments, and even if they were to come directly from the mouth of the Almighty and be agreed upon by all the prophets and poskim throughout the generations, I have no doubt that they are null and void, and not binding in any way. But since I value the sages and the poskim as wise men who certainly did not miss this argument (we saw above that the sages and poskim were aware of it and made use of it), and certainly that God Almighty does not fall into such stupid logical errors, it is clear that there is no such prohibition. And if there are poskim who think there is – they are simply mistaken. So what is the meaning of “And you shall not transgress”? Here we must take the field of interpretation into our own hands and use it. First, the Rambam is talking about idolatry, and it is possible that from his point of view this is nonsense on the face of it, and not about other books on philosophy and thought. After all, the Rambam himself dealt with such books quite a bit. But the Rambam here is talking about any reflection that leads to uprooting the main principles of the Torah, and this is not just idolatry. And don't the books of Aristotle, who advocated the primacy of the world, uproot the main principles of the Torah? The Rambam must have read them and dealt with them a lot.
The simplest and most logical interpretation is that these commands are addressed only to someone who has already reached conclusions and has no intellectual need to examine them, and what he deals with on these subjects is only because of his evil instinct that is looking for a way to escape his halakhic and Torah obligations. Perhaps there is a reason to prohibit such a person from reading literature that presents other opinions, and to command him to hold to certain beliefs. All this only after he is truly convinced, and his turning to foreign channels is only the result of an instinct that incites him to find an opening to escape his obligations. Beyond that, as the Maimonides himself notes, the fear exists mainly in those who have not studied the principles of philosophical thinking and are likely to get confused and reach incorrect conclusions. Those who want to examine seriously should first study philosophical thinking, and then examine. The prohibition is only to do so recklessly.
To be honest, since this is a simple and logical argument, I did not really look for anyone who interprets things this way (because even if there is no such person, this is my interpretation).[1] But it seems to me that even if there really is no such interpreter at all, the reason for this could be the fear of opening an opening for people who do not need the things and will simply use them as an opening. The assumption is that people who really need this clarification will not ask the poskim whether to do so or not, and rightly so. If so, perhaps the rabbis felt they could afford to leave things as they are. But as mentioned, even if someone is not convinced by these interpretive arguments, it does not matter at all. I do not obey such a prohibition, and it does not matter who said it and whether he intended to do so or not.
Tashbaz in his commentary on Pirkei Avot, Magen Avot, p. 2 Me’d writes:[2]
And from this [know what you will answer] we used to allow ourselves to learn those wisdoms.
In light of what we have seen here, it is certainly possible to understand that he is also talking about the Epicurus within us and not just about the questions of a stranger. The meaning is that when a person wants to ascertain the truth, he certainly has no prohibition against engaging in arguments and books that help him do so, without any restrictions on authors or content.
It seems that this can also be seen in the verse itself: “And do not turn after your heart and after your eyes,” and the Sages insist that the eyes and the heart are the spies of evil (see Yalkut Shimoni, Etchanan Remez, Yerushalmi Berakhot P’15 and similar passages). The meaning of these words is that we are forbidden to turn, that is, to walk blindly (to let something lead us) after the eyes or the heart. These are passions and emotions, and what is supposed to lead us is the mind. Intellectual inquiry, therefore, is permitted and desirable, while biases or a tour following a lousy “tour guide” are forbidden.

[1] For a comprehensive discussion, see Rabbi Prof. Yehuda Levi, Sha’arei Talmud Torah, Olam Sefer HaTorahni, Jerusalem 1989, page 7.

[2] See additional sources in Yehuda Levi’s aforementioned book, p. cit., and in Chapter 4 ibid.

1. “Beyond this, as the Maimonides himself notes, the concern exists mainly with those who have not studied
the principles of philosophical thinking and may become confused and reach incorrect conclusions. Whoever wants to
investigate seriously, let him first study philosophical thinking, and then let him investigate. The prohibition is only
to do so recklessly” Aristotle was not educated?2. “And do not the books of Aristotle, who advocated the primacy of the world, uproot most of the principles of the Torah? Maimonides
certainly read them and dealt with them extensively”. There are very reasonable interpretations that the Maimonides left this opinion as legitimate

M.W.,
I just saw this reference. Something went wrong here and I don't understand your comment 2.
Regarding 1, if I understood correctly you are asking how it can be said that Aristotle did not pay for his wisdom. But who said he did not pay for his wisdom? He did pay for his wisdom and was wrong.

There is a slightly more subtle explanation of the prohibition of "and you shall not turn aside," which, in my opinion, is a bit more precise; the prohibition is not for those who approach matters out of consideration and a desire to clarify the truth, but for those who approach matters out of frivolity and desires for deviation and breach. (I do not mean deviation and breach in the conventional sense, but only in parallel with it, meaning a deviation of the mind to search for breaching boundaries by digging through books of foreign works and distant theologies.)
My feeling is that it is impossible to limit the practice to those who have studied logic and philosophy, first because more tools are always needed to examine every approach, and mainly because even those who have not studied have indirect ways of investigating the truth (there still remains a problem with people who do not have the tools for this either).
If this is the correct interpretation, there will be a question about what about a person who is interested in investigating the truth but also has the forbidden pleasure of "and you shall not turn." This is a question of boundaries that exists in many other places (slander for the benefit of your enemy), as it seems to me that the answer depends on the proportion of the importance of the examination versus the degree of mental deviation.

I didn't understand the comment. This is actually what I wrote in my two posts here. Maybe you only took the quote from M”u that he commented before you. But look again at what I wrote.

Regarding your question about two intentions, it should be linked to several issues that deal with two intentions. In sacrifices “for the sake of Pesach and for the sake of Shelomim” and many more. See, for example, a similar discussion (although not identical. It talks about two actions and not two intentions, but it can be discarded) in the section Yoav O”H 6’ 28.

And also the discussion of the latter on two issues in the texts regarding rape and desire (see Anzi”t E’ ‘rape’).

“Even if there was an explicit prohibition in the Torah with a voice from heaven directly from God Himself”which everyone forbids from clarifying my position, I do not recognize this prohibition and will not listen to it”
If the prohibition was directly from God Himself (and thus includes the understanding/belief/knowledge that God exists and what He is) then the source of the obligation is already clear (except if the consideration is about the obligation to God) and in any case the prohibition is valid.

For example: Let's say God reveals himself to me and tells me that he forbids me to think that the Messiah will not come or to contemplate/read, etc. in a way that would lead to such a thought. The prohibition is valid and I do not see a logical problem in it

The other side of the coin: If I have a fear that there is no God and therefore I find it necessary to investigate and check whether this is indeed the case or not, no commandment would prevent me from doing so. That is what I said.
As a rule, it is possible for me to believe and be obligated to and fulfill the commandments, but I still find it necessary to check myself to see if I am wrong. In such a situation, the fact that there is a commandment, even if I am obligated to the commandments, should not prevent me from doing so.

Why is it not possible for there to be a commandment that places the commandment in the choice of all or nothing, meaning that the commandment is addressed to someone who is already convinced to a large extent and wants to check further to see if he turns out to be wrong, and tells him that if he continues to check, he is thereby losing the work of the faith on the side that the principles of faith are true. Since this side is primary in his eyes, then the right thing to do is to obey it, and perhaps there is no logical contradiction here.

I don't see any difference. It's the same absurdity. No method can forbid me from testing itself. It doesn't matter what I think about it at the moment. Of course, someone can arbitrarily forbid me from testing it (if he offers me a game on condition that I don't test it. If you don't want to, don't play, but the conditions of the game are that you don't test it). But when someone offers me a system of thought that is judged in terms of right or wrong, and in particular that I am forced to obey, he cannot forbid me from testing it. That's ridiculous.

Hello, since I read the second book in the beautiful trilogy by Rabbi Abraham (definitely the best book I have read in recent years, and I have read a lot), several questions came to my mind (and I believe that more will come to my mind) in connection with the chapter dealing with the study of external wisdom (Part 3).
Your bewilderment, Rabbi Michi, can be summarized in the following points:
A. The contents of thought that Maimonides speaks of are facts (whether there is a God, and who is that God, etc.). There can be no commands and no authority whatsoever with respect to facts. If there is a certain fact, I cannot be commanded, nor is there any authority over me to think or believe differently.
B. How is it possible to forbid a person from checking whether his opinion is correct? After all, as long as he has not made a decision that the Torah binds him, he has no obligation to obey its instructions. According to this, an idolater would also be justified in continuing to cling to his erroneous path because his religion forbade him to examine it.
C. How is it possible that reason is the basis for my faith and commitment on the one hand, but is forbidden to use when it comes to dealing with these issues? If we eliminate the use of reason, then there is also no basis for accepting faith, since it is made from my entire intellectual understanding that this is the right and necessary thing.
D. In addition to these, one must add the fact that dealing with books of thought enriches and expands the mind and also deepens the faith itself, even if the conclusions of these books differ from the traditional ones.

I would like to offer the following solution, which I believe is the simplest solution:
We are talking about a person who believes in the Torah and the mitzvot and fulfills their words. Now, he wants to look at various heretical books and we are practicing because we hold the correct opinions, so we tell him not to look at these opinions because they can confuse you and lead you to erroneous beliefs because you are not smart enough to understand that your belief is the correct one and they can only confuse you.
Example: A child who recognizes his parents as his parents and now there is someone who tries to convince him with various conspiracy theories – that his parents are working on him that he is their child, etc. The parents command him not to talk to that person.
This is not a commandment about thinking, but a commandment about reading books and reflections that lead us to such conclusions, and therefore in order not to reach such conclusions we are forced to remove such thoughts from ourselves and not read such books. Just as we must remove from our thoughts thoughts about women so as not to reach the point of committing adultery or having sex with a woman in a way that is not halakhically permissible.
Thus we have solved the first difficulty. The second difficulty is also solved, since it is a commandment upon the believing person.
The fourth question is not really difficult, and the second question is also true. Regarding a person of another religion who is forbidden to examine his religion, from his point of view, he will be treated as a kind of captive baby…

I would love to hear your opinion (:

In my opinion, this does not solve the main difficulties. A person who wants to reexamine his position after having formed a position must do so. And is forming a position only allowed once in a lifetime?
And treating a member of another religion as a captive baby is of no use. And can a person be forced to be a captive baby? He wants and needs to form a position and you force him to be a captive baby. Clearly unacceptable.

Hello again,
I claim that there is no difficulty at all. Indeed, one should not formulate a position by raising hypotheses and conjectures that would cause me to question my faith. The reason for this is so that I do not arrive at erroneous beliefs. You are allowed to think within a very specific framework and not criticize this framework. It may sound bad, but it is quite understandable, since from the point of view of the Jewish faith and believers – this must be true and to start thinking that maybe not and maybe otherwise, these are actually thoughts that are contrary to the truth and a person can believe them – and this is a mistake. Just like in the parable with the parents who forbid their children to talk to a person who tries to make them think that they are not their parents.

Regarding the baby who was captured, I did not exactly understand the rabbi's objection to my words. The rabbi argued that to the same extent we cannot bring a lawsuit against a person who belongs to another religion who was forbidden to check. And I claim that this is indeed the case – We will not sue him, and God will not sue him if he finds himself in a framework that prohibits him from thinking differently.
Again, from the perspective of the Jewish person, the system that prohibits him from testing does not advocate that he should be a baby who has been captured, but rather that it is certain that it is the correct belief and prohibits him from testing so that he does not reach erroneous beliefs, since people can be confused and make mistakes in their conclusions.

I would like to point out that I am seeking to clarify this issue because it is quite important to me, and therefore I would like to thank the rabbi for the past – that he addressed my words, and I would like to ask him to continue to express his opinion in the future.

Aryeh, you don't seem to have understood my argument. I didn't come to defend him from punishment. I came to say that the punishment is not what's important here. It's just an expression of the situation in itself. My argument is that there is no way to determine that a person will have a captive baby. Not because moving won't exempt him from punishment, but because a captive baby is always a defense for punishment and not a guideline for how to behave in the first place. By the way, this is why in my opinion every such person bears responsibility for his decisions (like the people of ISIS, who also claim that this is the belief and are forbidden to examine it). If he decides to be a captive baby, that's his problem and his own responsibility.

By the way, I also don't accept that this is how it is from the perspective of Jewish tradition. Although, even if it were so, I wouldn't accept it (as stated above, even from the mouth of God Himself, I wouldn't accept it).

The fact that the system (who is the system?) is sure that it is right is its own business. In order to behave in a certain way, I am the one who needs to be sure that she is right. Therefore, I categorically do not accept any prohibition on checking and forming a position myself. As far as I am concerned, such a prohibition is written on ice.

And if I am somehow 80% sure that the system is right, and I am offered to read a new argument that I, from the outside, estimate has a chance of convincing me of, say, only 10%, then would you also put a light line on such a gamble? (Ignoring for now the claim that an action when there is a flaw in his heart is not a significant action and that he is essentially a covert infidel, etc. The system only commands action and ignores the motive).

I will definitely ignore it. It's not a matter of chances. The prohibition against examining arguments has no meaning.

The question - on the one hand, Maimonides forbids meditating, lest it be incorrect, on the other hand, Maimonides himself studied the books of Aristotle and the books of Ezekiel [Hatzaabi], Cardingo's words explain the interpretation of the prohibition, but, it is clear that there cannot be such a prohibition, the "simple interpretation" that it is supposed to be for someone who is convinced explains the prohibition of reading books, not a prohibition of "meditating",
My opinion is that when one wants to test claims, it is certainly permissible, and at any stage of life, but one must not reach 100% in this, and therefore the Torah commands one to move from reason to emotion! That is, that in my heart I will believe 100%, if when a person prays to God He says to himself, "Wait a minute, maybe there is no God, I pray on the side that there is a God." This is ridiculous, because he is not truly praying, and if he has clearly come to the conclusion that the Hasbara gives that supposedly there is a God, it is forbidden not to think heretical thoughts in his heart, because "Rahmana liba ai", and there is no heart of 80%, evidence that the prohibition is stated as a prohibition on the heart, not on the mind!
I would be happy to hear the Rabbi's opinion.

I disagree. It is always permissible to test arguments. And if I have internalized something on the emotional plane, can I not be wrong again? At this point and onwards, is there no need to formulate a position? Maybe I was wrong?

I emphasized that it is always permissible to check claims at any stage in life.
In the conclusion of everyday life, one should be with 100% and not state that ’I believe 80%’, just as when I hug my mother I don't think only 99% that she is my mother, although if I want to check I will check.

The opposite. Once you believe from 1% knowledge then your heart contains 1% of its contents.
Import is the whole heart. That is. After you know everything you can know.

According to the rabbi, if he had received orders to slaughter his son, would he have refused, not because of the difficulty, but because of the illogicality of the matter?

I don't know. Until I find myself in such a situation, I won't be able to know. I might doubt that God is the one who demands this of me. Or I might doubt whether it is right to obey Him because it is bad. I have written here more than once about the illogicality of criticisms of Abraham's binding covenant from the mouth of someone who has never experienced a direct divine revelation and command.

A- The fact that the Rambam himself did read the books of “You shall not be deceived” is not difficult, because according to the Rambam, the prohibition is in two ways, either simply to read to know how to work with it and to be deceived, and then there is a fear that it will continue, and the prohibition is also if one reads books in order to test the truth of his religion, and after all, the Rambam did not read them as a inquirer and test the truth of the faith, but in order to know what to answer, and to “understand and instruct”, so in fact also someone who reads in order to know what to answer the heretic in him, when that is more, it is true that one should only read the books of those who answer their words, and only if that is no longer helpful, their books too.
And it should be added to the second way, that the Maimonides, in his speech about the books of "You shall not be deceived", meant books whose purpose is to distance one from religion, such as the sites of Yaron Yadan and the like, whereas the books of Aristotle and the like do not have this purpose.

Although I doubt whether I would agree to such a prohibition (and indeed, you mentioned this doubt elsewhere), because what would a person whose creativity/intellect tickles his fancy, saying, "How is it possible for a wise person like so-and-so to claim that religion is nonsense, and his heresy is the logical one?" I would go and examine his words and claims. It does not bother him to the extent that he is going to blaspheme, but simply to the extent that he feels that he is not real enough in that he is staying with what was born, he does not see any problem with his religion, he trusts what he knows and has heard so far without going into their books/sites, so in fact here is where it gets tricky. He is in a dilemma as ordinary as all desires, whether to listen to his instinct and take a beloved from a prominent people or to listen to his enemy, and even if the owner of the matter has room to divide, the divine and even wise command is already understood, because he/they prefer to give such a prohibition, and thereby save the majority of his believers, even though he will lose/punish Rabbi Michai and his ilk, than to give freedom to investigations, and to remain only with Rabbi Michai and his ilk.

B - And to tell the truth, I have deviated here, Nima is the most even Our main difficulty is that even those who already have doubts should understand the divine/sage logic of prohibiting investigation, because a risk was taken here (which was indeed unfair to one side, and the Maimonides already said in the Mo”n) in which the Creator/sages understood that by prohibiting them from investigating, they would remain more in the religion (although some would actually fall away from it), than a situation in which he would allow investigation.

And according to the Mo”n 3:34,
where the Maimonides states that at any given time there will be people for whom keeping the commandments and laws will not add to their well-being, and will even cause them harm.

And these are his words:
What is also necessary for him to know is that the Torah will not look at a foreign matter, and the Torah will not be like the small matter. But whatever he wants to teach him from knowledge or a measure, or a useful deed – Indeed, he will be guided by the things that are in the majority, and will not look at the matter that is little, nor at the harm that will come to one of the people because of that lesson and that Torah leadership… and according to this observation, it is also not surprising that the intention of the Torah is not to be fulfilled by every person, but it will necessarily be necessary for the reality of people that that leadership will not be fulfilled… but the Torah leadership must be absolute, inclusive of all, and even though it is suitable for some people and not suitable for others; because if it were according to the people – the loss would fall on everyone, and ”you would give things to the two classes”.

In any case, given that this is indeed the explanation, a person like you (or like me?), will have to rely on the words of R’ Elai, what will a person do, etc.