On the first commandment: How to command to believe in oneself
Hello.
I just wanted to clarify what I wrote in the email.
This is what you told me:
There are two different suggestions here.
1. To make knowledge solid means to examine and deepen, which is roughly what I said in the lesson. But still, if my conclusion is that there is no God, it cannot be said that I have abrogated a positive commandment. According to this, as I answered a question asked me in the lesson, rabbis who say not to examine faith intellectually are inciting the abrogation of a positive commandment.
2. You suggest that this is just a definition and not a mitzvah. But I said in class that this is what I also thought (that it is a definitional mitzvah, like the Rambam does in verse 6), and Pixler corrected me for my mistake, because the Rambam listed this as part of the sixty eternal mitzvot that a person always fulfills. It is impossible to fulfill a definitional mitzvah.
And the clarification:
1) I don’t know if it’s exactly the same thing. According to you, the problem is: How can a commandment check whether it actually exists?
What I wanted to say is that there is a difference between knowing that there was a Mount Sinai event and that there is a legitimate mitzvah and between (investigating in order to) know that this mitzvah is, as the Maimonides says, an ale and a sabah and it applies to all who are present.
2) My suggestion is regarding the Thirteen Principles. For example, someone who does not believe in the coming of the Messiah is an Epicurus. The Principles are not commandments.
- I didn’t understand your suggestion and the difference.
- Was this said regardless of your first discussion? The problem is that the attitude towards Epicurus requires sanctions that are not simple. I doubt to what extent such a person deserves sanctions.
Thank you for your answer.
1) I will try to explain.
According to your system.
– Who commanded the first act? God.
– Who is the first act addressed to? Every Jew, including those who do not believe in God.
– What does the first act require? To examine whether God does indeed exist.
– How is it possible that someone who does not believe in God would be obligated to obey the demand of the first act? There is no answer.
According to my system.
– Who commanded the first act? God.
– Who is the first act addressed to? To Jews who: (i) believe in God in some way that makes it necessary to obey Him (ii) and believe that He did indeed command the first act. And this includes those who do not believe in God as the Father and the Son and that He acts on all who are present.
– What does the first act require? To examine whether the God in whom I believe has all these qualities: "as the firstborn and the last and that He acts upon all who are present."
– How is it possible that someone who does not believe in God would be obliged to obey the requirement of the first act? The question does not exist according to my system.
2) In class, you asked: How is it possible that Rambam commanded to believe in the facts of the Thirteen Main Principles?
I only said that the Rambam does not command in the Thirteen Main Principles, he only defines.
I did not understand how this relates to the sanctions imposed on heretics? If someone came to the conclusion that it is a command to kill every polluting human being, and killed such a human being. Then the killer is liable to death even though he killed after a cold judgment that convinced him.
Epicurus in rape remains Epicurus…
1. I understand. But according to you, it turns out that there is a mitzvah that does not apply to all Jews. This is very unlikely. One can speak of someone who does not believe as a rapist, but not as someone who is essentially exempt from any mitzvah. This is not similar to the mitzvahs that apply only to priests or only to men, since this is defined in the body of the mitzvah. Beyond that, there is no hint of this limitation in the words of the Maimonides himself.
2. Maybe I am wrong, but I do not remember asking it that way, since I do not recognize a mitzvah to believe in the 13 main commandments. It does not appear in the list of mitzvot. It is not like a mitzvah to believe, which is a positive mitzvah. Therefore, with respect to the main commandments, your words are more acceptable in principle, except for the issue of sanctions. And as for the body of your words, if a person has come to the conclusion that he must kill, he is truly not evil. And indeed, he does not deserve death either, since he is rapist in his mind (saying it is permissible). It is plausible that they will take care of him to protect us from him, but there is no room for sanctions against him. What's more, with regard to morality, the assumption is that every person understands that he is obligated, and therefore the presumption is that he is indeed evil until proven otherwise, and therefore this is a purely hypothetical discussion. In contrast, with regard to heretics, there are guidelines that are clear sanctions (such as lowering and not raising), and there, in my opinion, there is no room for a similar assumption (that every person believes and understands that there is a God and that the principles are correct).
1) So I need to clarify my statement further.
You are right that it is unlikely that one act would only address a certain type of Jew without mentioning such things.
This is what I meant:
– Question 1: Who is the Book of Mitzvot addressed to? Or, in other words: What are the minimum requirements for the mitzvot to apply to me?
– A1: It seems to me that these two conditions are necessary and sufficient: (a) believing in God in some way that makes it necessary to obey Him (b) believing that He did indeed command the mitzvot. And this includes someone who does not believe in God as the Father and the Son and that He acts on all who are present.
Therefore, for the first act to apply to me, it also requires conditions (a) and (b), being one of the mitzvot. And this is not something specific to this act.
– We will call the set of conditions (a) and (b) “act number zero.” Trivial note: This act cannot be contained in the Book of Commandments but it enables the book.
– Q2: So, what about all this and the first act?
– A2: Now two points. (i) The first act requires me to investigate to find the true attributes of God, who is the commandment in whom I believe (necessarily, conferatur T1). (ii) It is likely that the Rambam begins his book with this act. "Act number zero" enabled the book and the first act continues it naturally (act 0).
– Q3: So what about a person who does not believe in God? We have no claim against him?
– A3: Not exactly. I think we have no halakhic claim. But it is possible that there are other kinds of claims (reasonableness, social, etc.). But that is a deviation from the topic.
2) I hear you. It is likely that I misunderstood you in the lesson.
I hope that is clear enough.
1. So you have further deepened the difficulty. According to your words, all the commandments are not binding on those who do not believe (without assumptions A and B). This is absolutely absurd. They are binding on every Jew, except that if he has not done them, he is a slave (and in my opinion he cannot do them without faith).
You are right. I got the concepts confused.
Let me explain:
You asked two questions about the first act of the Rambam.
Q1) Since it is impossible to be obligated to believe in something, how do you understand the first act (which requires believing in God)?
Q2) Why do you think the first act is irrelevant?
– If I believe in God, there is no benefit to this obligation.
– If I don't believe in Him, then this life will not change anything.
I am only suggesting that the first act requires that we investigate in order to understand that God is "the source and the ancestor and that He acts upon all that exists." Therefore, we have solved the problem of Q1): The obligation is to investigate. We have also solved the problem of Q2): I can believe in God in some form that makes it necessary to obey Him, but not exactly in the form of the Rambam (that God is "the source and the ancestor and that He acts upon all that exists"). And this is the requirement of the first act.
And this is likely the explanation. To whom did this act (I am the "God") first apply? To the generation of the Exodus. It turns out that they believed in God in some way that made it necessary to obey Him, but they had no idea what "He arose and went forth and that He acts upon all who are present" meant. Apparently, according to Maimonides, this is what was required of them when God said "I am the "God" your God" (although it is not easy to read...).
This act is addressed to every Jew of every generation, not just those who left Egypt. As I wrote, it is unlikely that this act is addressed to a different group than the rest of the acts. But things have already become clear, and the distance between us is now very small.
I didn't say he was addressing only those who had emigrated from Egypt. He was addressing them for the first time.
Indeed, the distance between us is small.
Thank you very much for dedicating your time to me.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
