Maimonides’ view of God

Maimonides himself writes in a commentary that the revelation at Mount Sinai was not a vision in the sensory sense of the word, meaning that they saw God or in fact any other mystical thing. The only empirical experience there was a single, loud voice. And it is clearly implied from his words that all that the people of Israel “received” there was the recognition of His reality, which according to the above interpretation means the recognition of the superiority of reason, and the renunciation of all the superstitious beliefs and customs of the Achaemenids. The same is true of all the other prophets; the prophet does not have a sensory experience such as hearing a voice or seeing a sight of any kind. And the visions that are given in the books of the prophets are merely parables in which the prophet illustrates his personal perceptions.
In addition, the Maimonides explains well the purpose of the commandments you mentioned, not to eat pork because of the health and environmental effects that stem from raising pigs, slaughtering a donkey as a sign of gratitude (specifically a donkey, the Maimonides explains because it was the most common animal among the other impure domesticated animals), and waving a lullav.
In short, for all those commandments that we call laws, the meaning of which we do not understand, the Maimonides brings logical reasons, most of them explained as commandments that are contrary to what was customary at the time, in order to eradicate those irrational superstitions of the pagan peoples of their time.
I would like to know what the Maimonides himself thinks, since he is the only one who presents a complete and completely rational front from A to T of Judaism.
Thank you and best wishes.

And what is the rational and unified reason from A to T for the commandment of the Bread of the Presence? Hint: Leviticus 3:5

These explanations are not convincing at all. Perhaps regarding the gist of the mitzvah, but why would I spend all my money to not receive any health benefits from the return?

Chaim: I didn't understand why you continue to make it difficult even after Rabbi Michi explicitly replied to you that the Jewish Judaism is not necessarily based on what Maimonides (or any other Jewish thinker) understood or did not understand regarding the revelation and the status of Mount Sinai, but rather on how every Jew, and every Jew in his own right, considers the matter and comes to the conclusion that God revealed Himself at Sinai and gave the Torah. Isn't that right?

Furthermore, I cannot tell you what the Rambam thought because I do not know. I am not concerned with what someone else thought (without disparaging the Rambam, of course).
I will just comment on your terminology, if something was revealed to them at Mount Sinai, then it seems that there was some source that revealed it to them. How exactly was the same thing revealed there and at that very time to the entire nation? Without any external source? Everyone's minds were suddenly corrected together by mass hypnosis? Do you understand that this is not serious. The fact that there was no physical evidence does not mean that there was no revelation. The revelation was not on video but in audio and transmitted to the heart. So what?
By the way, in the Book of Kings the Rambam writes that one must keep the commandments because of the commandment at Sinai and not because of the final judgment. How does this fit in with the rational religion devoid of God that you describe in his name?

In fact, your entire description of the Maimonides' teaching is delusional. He devotes quite a few chapters to describing God (positive or negative), and His ways of behaving (who He watches over and who He does not). Is he talking about fiction? And the command to believe in Him (Acts 1) means to adhere to reason? This is nonsense.

Life – How does one create a sound? Or perform thousands of miracles?

To the Rabbi: Apparently, the approach to all matters of faith should be intellectual and rational, as you will surely agree with me, otherwise Judaism has no priority whatsoever over Christianity, Islam, and other ideas. And in my understanding, the only strong evidence for the correctness of Judaism is the status of Mount Sinai and the mass testimony that has been passed down through the generations. Of course, this is not about proving the existence of any higher power, or even a being with intelligence and planning, which can be proven philosophically without regard to tradition.
But regarding Judaism itself, which is based on the testimony of Mount Sinai, it is certainly necessary to carefully examine what exactly the testimony says. Therefore, if the revelation was truly by a “send to the heart” as you explain, (a term similar to mass hypnosis), the validity of the entire testimony is somewhat undermined, since there is no clear definition of the object of the testimony, and therefore it is impossible to treat this testimony as a comprehensive testimony, since everyone will define internal revelation differently.
And the reason it is interesting to know what Maimonides actually writes is because one must accept the tradition from someone, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no one who describes what exactly they heard and saw there in such detail as Maimonides.
And he himself describes prophecy in general and the prophecy of the masses at Mount Sinai in particular, as a purely sensory perception. Admittedly a very advanced and profound perception of reality to the point of foresight, but still a sensory perception based on logic and strong imagination. That is how he writes explicitly!
And to Moses: I did not say that a concept creates a sound. I said that the apparent understanding that emerges from studying the book Moreh Nevokuhim, (at least one of the understandings) is that all of Judaism can be described in materialistic terms, especially in light of Maimonides' words on the reasons for the commandments (NB Maimonides does explain that eating pork and meat with milk and vermin is forbidden, for health reasons.) That all of them have a logical and acceptable reason without the use of any mystical reasons. Therefore, the impression obtained from Maimonides' descriptions of God does not rule out an explanation that this is a concept, again, with all due caution. I wanted to know what others who have studied Moreh Nevokuhim think about this.

Haim – What do you mean “concept” ?
Second thing – Are you aware of how many people in the world actually eat pork and are healthy like that?
Do you know how many people wear shatanez and are healthy?
Do you know how many people cook meat in milk and are healthy?

A concept, simply put, like physics. Which is a concept that defines the entirety of material sciences. My argument is that it can be understood from the words of the Maimonides, who refers to all aspects of Judaism in a rational and material way, and also defines God in a special way of negating virtues, the meaning of which is indeed difficult to understand, and difficult to explain, but from the simplicity of things it appears, and again, with all reservations, that the reference is to a concept that represents the logic that optionally comes from considering all the facts that exist in the world.
Again, not my idea, but my understanding of the Maimonides' words.
Regarding Moses' question, this is a question that should be addressed to the Maimonides. Not to me. The Maimonides explicitly writes at the end of part three of Moreh Hanebuchim that eating pork was forbidden by the Creator for health reasons. Regarding Sha'tnaz and meat in milk, there is a different reason. And its main purpose is to separate the people of Israel from the customs of the regional peoples. It will be mentioned there.

Good afternoon, it remains for us to explain the Maimonides and round the corner by saying that every transgression brings diseases, for us, even if what is permitted is permitted for the Gentiles. Regarding the concept you defined, I think that if the Maimonides thought that the Maimonides was a concept that defines the entirety of material sciences, then you claim that it has a body according to the Maimonides.

Moshe, a concept is not a body. Just as the number 5 has no body and physics has no body even though it defines the sciences of matter, ”physics” itself has no body. And Chaim wants to define ’ as logic that considers all possible facts in order to draw conclusions (if I understood correctly).
But Maimonides tries to prove at the beginning of the second part the reality of ’. And there he defines the primary motive. A concept is not a motive or a reason for anything and there is no possibility or need to “prove’ its existence

But let's assume that your understanding is correct, that you said that a concept is logic that takes into account every fact... and how does this logic create things without inventing matter?

To Lach and Moses: You are both asking essentially the same question. That is, if, in my understanding, the Maimonides defines the reality of the Creator as a concept, how is it possible to attribute to Him the qualities of an entity, such as will, thought, anger, love, etc., and to worship Him.
Well, if He is truly the all-encompassing logic of the facts of the world in their material sense, then the essence of the Torah is to uproot from the root any view that includes mystical content of any kind. And in Hebrew, tzacha is – idolatry. Indeed, the Maimonides explains at length that the axis of the Torah (as he puts it) revolves around the issue of uprooting the superstitions and mystical content that were prevalent at the time the Torah was given. And all the commandments of the Torah are not commandments of an entity, so there is no point in asking how “He” is a commandment. Rather, they are commandments intended to instill rationality in the hearts of the people. By the way, those commandments that ostensibly indicate a reference to mysticism such as offering sacrifices were, according to the Rambam, intended to ”soften” the acceptance of the Torah among a people who were steeped in this type of ritual.
Regarding the question of why it is necessary to prove that He exists: If you notice, the Rambam does not address such a possibility at all! And this is because we are dealing with a concept whose existence does not indeed need to be proven!
The Rambam does address various views of Muslim sects and philosophies regarding the question of the expression of God in the world and His essence. And the explanation offered here, the interpretation of the words is, how the world works and what logic would require what. This is not a vague formulation, since it will become clear to those who read it that a large part of those views on the ”essence of God” The Maimonides disagrees with those who define the behavior of matter in general, such as the view of the "Metkalmin" (a certain Muslim sect) who believe in the reality of the "particle" (=atom), which Maimonides attacks, and more.
Therefore, the reference to the creation of the world does not mean that logic "created" the world, but that it is governed by it. Again, this is just an idea offered with reservations. Hopefully, all of this is not a waste of time.

It's clear. I asked why Maimonides is trying to prove the reality of the ” if it's just a concept? Let him define it and that's it.

Now I see that you addressed this. But that is not true. In the second part, chapter 1, he does try to prove it. And see in the first part, the end of chapter 1: “And since we will have them in these proofs, etc.’ we must necessarily assume that He has a doer who has renewed it, an intention, and a choice object.” This is certainly not possible. (Even if Maimonides does not accept their proofs, he does not dispute the definition of God)

Hey dear Chaim

You are really wasting time because God is a being and He is the one who has reason as written in Genesis, God created the heavens and the earth and of course it is also governed by Him.

The important verse: “And you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which a man shall do and live by them, I the Lord ’ ” – teaches us “and live by them” that is, according to them.

Dear Rabbi, although the Rambam does refer to a being that has free will, despite what you wrote, you will notice that when the Rambam refers to the views of those sects that were prevalent at his time, only then does he speak of such an entity. And not when he comes to discuss the essence of God according to our view.
When the Rambam discusses the essence of God according to the view of Jewish tradition, he strives to explain that the will, knowledge, and the multitude of attributes attributed to God, in the Torah, the prophets, and the sages, are not as they are. That is, these are not attributes in their usual sense, which we are accustomed to attribute to entities, but something completely different.
These attributes, which are indeed attributed to God in the Torah and the sages, are an illustration of the ways of leadership within which the world operates. This view is completely consistent with the idea proposed here (and again, with great reservations), that God is a concept that defines the logic that takes into account all possible facts.
Incidentally, according to this idea, many questions are resolved. Such as the question of knowledge and choice, the question of why there is suffering in the world if God is absolute good (for the above definition, universal logic is the absolute good), and more.
PS. I would be happy if the Rabbi would also join the discussion and express his opinion on the matter.

Dear Moshe, I was unable to understand what you wanted to explain in the verse “and live in them”, and how it relates to the discussion.
I would be happy if you could elaborate.

I meant two things:
1. It is to recognize that there is an existing Creator who created us.
2. He commanded us to keep His commandments so that we may live by them.

Indirectly, there is no point in arguing whether we agree with the 2 things I wrote that were learned from the same verse, and it is irrelevant what the Maimonides thought or you think the Maimonides thought about the Creator.

And again, I did not explain why you are evasive, how is it possible that you agree publicly that He does indeed exist according to your system in the concept, so there is no need to prove His existence, and on the other hand we are arguing.. What does the Maimonides think? Answer, what comes of it?

A. It is very important what the Rambam thought. The books of the Rambam are the foundation of Jewish jurisprudence and outlook for many generations. And personally it is important to me to know the Rambam's view on such important issues that are the tenets of faith, not only because the Rambam is the central posak (for all denominations. The model of the "strong hand" is the basis on which almost all poskim rely.) but, and especially because the Rambam is the only one who addresses these issues, which are the heart of our faith, in a systematic and comprehensive manner.
B. I never "agreed publicly". I proposed an idea. You can accept it, and you can reject it, by convincing argument. I am in favor of an open discussion on any topic without borders, as long as it is conducted on an intellectual level, and provided that it is conducted in a respectful manner. Without dogmas and preconceptions.
C. What comes out of this?! It is about the foundations of our faith. It is important for me to know what I believe and what I am working for.

Chaim: I'm sorry to tell you, but you are sorely mistaken. After all, in matters of faith and fundamental outlook, the Rambam has no authority, by way of example, over his antithesis - Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, who did not hesitate to strongly disagree with the Rambam on the matters you raise [which did not harm his fear of God in any way]. This is in addition to previous sages in the Middle Ages who also disagreed with the Rambam on these matters (such as Rabbi Hasdai Karshakash and others), which proves what everyone with a brain knows: that our faith as Jews is not necessarily based on what the Rambam or Rabbi Nachman of Breslov believed (or any other Jewish thinker), without, God forbid, disparaging them of course, but rather faith is first and foremost based on the testimony we received about the situation at Mount Sinai and the experience of revelation then - When Maimonides/Rambam Nachman, etc., may help us conceptualize that revelation – and not vice versa!

Of course, everything I said does not concern matters of practical law, for then, as is known, there is formal authority (at least) to obey the sages of Israel for their generations, as is known regarding the signing of the Talmud.

I understand you, Chaim, it is true that it is important to understand what the Maimonides thinks, but do you assume that all his words or the words of any rabbi or sage are completely true? Such a thing is impossible. Only the Torah of the Lord is completely true because it is a divine source.
I suggest that you, despite everything you have shown about the Maimonides' thought, which is understandable. To review the principles of faith that he wrote. I am sure that everything will fall into place peacefully.

No one said that if you do not believe in what he thought then you are a heretic - Proverbs.

A. Moses and Shimon, you both make the same claim. Well, I did not write that the Rambam or any other thinker, no matter how important, has any absolute authority. Therefore, his personal opinion is not binding, as long as he does not express it in the form of a decree, and then that is a completely different story.
B. The same Torah that is absolute truth, about which Shimon writes, is subject to different interpretations, therefore it is important to know what the Rambam thinks about it. Because without him, I personally do not pretend to understand on my own. It is important to emphasize that the opinions of the other Torah greats are also very important for understanding the subject. But what can I do, and the Rambam is one of the only ones who elaborates on this specific matter.
C. I do not know what Rambam claims about Didan, it is not appropriate to rely only on him and throw away the other opinions that exist on the subject. It is important to understand the depth of things.
D. The testimony we received at Mount Sinai is also subject to interpretation. Can you describe in detail what exactly happened there? That is why we need the traditions and understandings of Maimonides and his ilk. As Shimon wrote, to help us understand that revelation.

Although you skipped over the main points of my statement: It is true that it is important to understand what the Rambam thinks, but do you assume in advance that all his words or all the words of any rabbi or sage are completely true? Such a thing is impossible. Only only only only only the Torah of God is completely true because it is a divine source. Is that clear?

I suggest that you, despite everything you have shown about the Rambam's thought that God is understood. Read the principles of faith that he wrote. I am sure that everything will fall into place peacefully. Have you read it?

Let me ask you, if a rabbi tells you something that is not acceptable to you but is acceptable to the majority of the public - will you do the commandment that the rabbi told you. Yes, no, please specify!

The same question, but now regarding a mitzvah that the rabbi interpreted according to his opinion - will you do it even if it is not understood by you in the same way, and even though many do observe it according to his words…

Like the first question, but not only did one rabbi rule something that was unacceptable to you, but it was acceptable to almost all the great men of the generation. Would you obey their orders?

Dear Chaim: I am glad that our views are getting closer and we understand each other better. Regarding Maimonides”s position, I wanted to recommend to you a short article by Prof. Hello Rosenberg (who is considered, among other things, to be an expert on Maimonides' position in particular and Jewish philosophy in general) here at the link: https://musaf-shabbat.com/2015/10/30/%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%9B%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%92%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%96%D7%A0%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%92/
What do you think, do you connect with things? I would love to hear

Shimon - It seems to me that Chaim is just a tease. If he were a serious guy, he would answer seriously and not just attack heavily.

Hi Moshe, the truth is that at first I thought the same as you, but then I felt remorse and guilt because I was being unreasonable and that I wasn't examining the kidneys and heart, and we need to judge each person on their merits, and try to make sure that nothing goes wrong under our control. What do you think?

He doesn't answer seriously if he answers at all.. You can't judge him on his merits because I've already dismissed his claims to his idea that the Rambam thought that the ’ is a concept.
And when I tried to get to the bottom of Chaim's opinion - and pushed him into a corner, he teased a little to make a fool of himself and then disappeared.

This is not about a person but about the opinion he presented, we are not judging him and we are not discussing him at all but his words. We analyzed the matter according to the current situation. I like opinions that stem from independent thinking more than opinions that were said by others and without self-examination before I voiced them.