On the Sages and Righteous Among the Nations and the 7 Commandments of the Children of Noah

If I understand his words correctly, he is trying to argue that the virtue of the Hasid is the lower virtue and the sage is the higher virtue. He literally reverses the meaning of Maimonides’ words. It is not reasonable in my opinion as an interpretation of Maimonides’ words, neither interpretative nor speculative.
And this is what Maimonides says there:
Anyone who accepts the seven commandments and is careful to do them is one of the righteous among the nations of the world, and has a share in the world to come, and he should accept them and do them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah, and we were informed by Moses our Rabbi that the sons of Noah were commanded to do them before, but if they do them out of a decision of conscience, he is not a resident alien and is not one of the righteous among the nations of the world, nor one of their sages.
We see that if a person acts out of a decision of opinion, this is the lower degree. And if a person acts out of a command, this is the higher degree. Rav Kook’s interpretation is extremely strange. Regarding your question of how one can expect from them, Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman asked this in a collection of essays, and in his opinion, this can be achieved by wondering about our world, which indicates that there is a Creator and that there must be a revelation. Then the Gentile should begin to search for where and to whom the Creator revealed himself, and come to Israel and hear from them that there is a Torah and that it contains a commandment regarding the seven commandments.
But it is easier to accept it through their traditions (Christian and Muslim). And it is true that there are quite a few Gentiles who will be babies who were captured because they have never heard of revelation and did not take it seriously. And they are of course rapists, unlike the words of the Rabbis who see them as criminals (because they were supposed to understand and discover this from the search and the like).
——
my father:
Just to emphasize that Rav Kook’s version in Rambam is the correct one – it says “except for their sages” and not “and not for their sages.” This is the case in all the accurate versions, for example:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/e508.htm
——
Rabbi:
Indeed, I simply copied from the Responsa project. But my words stand.
——
Diego:
But that’s the whole difference: “except for their sages” and not “and not for their sages.” The Rambam writes that: The virtue of having wisdom among the nations is a very low virtue (according to the value of spiritual virtues, it is a low virtue) and that the Rambam believes that the wisdom makes a person successful much more than the righteousness of leadership and that the virtue of wisdom is greater than God’s will, and that he stands on a holy level. And here is the clear interpretation of the virtue of the sages of the nations compared to the righteous among the nations. Is it possible to understand it differently?
——
Rabbi:
Hello Diego. I did not understand your question. You claim that the Hasid is necessarily the lower virtue. I did not understand Maimonides in this way, and I certainly do not see a necessity for it. Simply put, it is the opposite. The phrase “not from among the Hasids but from among the Sages” seems to indicate that the Hasid is a higher virtue. A Hasid does not mean that he is not wise, since the people of the land are not Hasidic. Rather, it means that beyond wisdom and morality (= wise), he also has correct religious leadership (= Hasidic).
Regarding the importance of the commandment, see also Rambam in Hal. 77:36.
——
Diego:
Hello Rabbi,
My question is directed at the statement “Rav Kook’s interpretation is extremely strange,” truly an unusual and bold interpretation, because it seems that he “literally reverses the meaning of Maimonides’ words.” Because “simply put, it is the opposite,” but the Rabbi emphasizes at the end of his words:
“And even if the words of the Rambam were to be as they are (meaning the simple, accepted interpretation that the mercy of nations that have done so because of the commandment is the highest virtue… that is apparently not the direction of the Rabbis…)… because the measure of the Awvab… is that special measure that the divine advantage that our holy Torah has is bestowed upon those who keep it (this sentence places the emphasis on the side of fulfilling the commandments… only – that is how it sounds –) and there are other virtues that every good thing can bestow, but this is not called the Awvab (other virtues… holiness? As he writes at the beginning of his words) and in that advantage it comes from the power of the Torah and adapts itself to those who accept it with the holiness of its faith… and this does not at all exclude other virtues that are drawn to every philosophy in its own way.” (This is the full version).
In a nutshell, this sounds like: There is a simple interpretation, generally accepted, that can be accepted if you don’t want to delve into the depth of Maimonides’ words…
It seems that the change in versions makes all the difference. After all, it changes the reading of the entire halakha:
“Anyone who accepts the seven commandments and is careful to do them is one of the righteous among the nations of the world, and he has a share in the world to come, and he should accept them and do them because God, the Blessed, commanded them in the Torah, and we were informed by Moses our Rabbi that the sons of Noah were commanded to do them before, but if they do them because of the decision of reason, then he is not a resident alien and is not one of the righteous among the nations of the world, nor one of their sages. [Rambam, Laws of Kings, Chapter 8 – Halacha 11]
How do we understand the second part of the halakha, in the sentence that opens with “but if he does” (which indicates another possibility, but we do not know here whether it is positive or negative) “because of the decision of the mind” (higher or lower?) This is not a resident alien and is not from the Righteous Among the Nations, nor from their sages (and the word “and not from…” gives all the weight and tilts the entire sentence to the negative side, meaning this person is not a resident alien, nor a Hasid, nor a sage… but he simply follows his own small private opinion, which cannot even be defined by a pronoun, in that, later when we clarify and accept the correct version “except from their sages,” the impression is already created and one can be convinced that their sages are disrespectful and of lesser virtue). But if we accept the correct version from the beginning and conclude with: This is not a resident alien and not one of the Righteous Among the Nations, but rather one of their sages (the whole weight changes, and now he is not a resident alien, nor a Righteous Among the Nations, but a “wise man”), then it seems that the Rabbi, understanding what the meaning of “wise man” is, explains the halacha to us. To this I asked, is it possible to leave the words of the Rabbi as a strange interpretation, with all their audacity?
thanks PS: It seems to me that in this context, “pious” = one who weighs morality before wisdom, “wise” = one who weighs wisdom before morality. [Regarding correct religious leadership, it seems that this can apply to both a pious and a wise person, regardless of their inclination toward morality or wisdom.]
——
Rabbi:
Hello Diego.
I don’t see why changing the version fundamentally changes the relationship between a follower and a wise man. What changes is only whether the one who acts out of a decision is wise or not.
Even in this version of “except” (which is probably more accurate), a wise man is still less than a Hasid: “except (only) among their wise men” is minority language. I didn’t understand your comment/question: If there is audacity in any interpretation, does that exclude it from the strange rule? On the contrary, audacity is an interpretation that goes against simple understanding, no? Regarding the definitions, as far as I understand, a “chassid” is both wise and a servant of God, as opposed to a wise man who does the right thing but does not serve God.
Maimonides does not refer here at all to wisdom in the sense of knowing the wisdom. He is comparing here two ways of performing mitzvot. Incidentally, this is the meaning of the term “wisdom” in other places in his writings. As such, the laws of “de’ot” do not deal with opinions but with virtues and behavior (and this too has sources in the literature of the Sages).
——
Diego:
Hello Rabbi, I recently read Pat’s Letter to the Rabbis for the first time, and I was surprised by his commentary on the Rambam on the sages and Hasidim of the nations of the world, and so my questions are an attempt to understand Rav Kook. (The change in version seems to me to affect the interpretation, but it is true that it can still be understood either way.) It is clear that the accepted understanding of the Rambam (and that was also my tendency to understand) is that the Hasidim is superior to the sage.
But Rav Kook turns it around, and that is what I am trying to find out (also through an attempt to change the definition of Hasid – wise, in this context). Do you have an explanation (or direction of explanation) for Rav Kook’s interpretation? thanks.