Q&A: Maimonides, Laws of Idolatry
Maimonides, Laws of Idolatry
Question
Hello Rabbi, I came across a ruling in Maimonides that seemed very puzzling to me, and it changed my whole way of viewing Maimonides’ character.
Laws of Idolatry, chapter 2, halakha 3:
“All these prohibitions are about one matter, namely, that one must not turn toward idolatry. Anyone who turns toward it in a way that involves an act is flogged. And it is not only idolatry that one is forbidden to turn toward in thought; rather, with regard to any thought that causes a person to uproot one of the fundamentals of the Torah, we are warned not to bring it to our minds, not to turn our attention to it, and not to be drawn after the imaginings of the heart. For a person’s understanding is limited, and not every mind can grasp the truth clearly. If every person were to follow the thoughts of his heart, he would end up destroying the world because of his limited understanding. How so? At times he may explore idolatry; at times he may speculate about the unity of the Creator — perhaps He exists, perhaps He does not; what is above, what is below, what was before, and what will be after; at times about prophecy — perhaps it is true, perhaps it is not; and at times about Torah — perhaps it is from Heaven, perhaps it is not. And he does not know the standards by which to judge until he knows the truth clearly, and so he comes to heresy. About this matter the Torah warned us, as it says: ‘Do not stray after your hearts and after your eyes, after which you go astray.’ That is to say: let not each of you be drawn after his limited understanding and imagine that his thoughts grasp the truth. Thus the Sages said: ‘After your hearts’ — this is heresy; ‘after your eyes’ — this is sexual immorality. And although this prohibition causes a person to be cut off from the World to Come, it does not carry flogging.”
How does the Rabbi understand Maimonides’ words? Is Maimonides basically claiming that objective inquiry is forbidden? If so, then why did he write The Guide for the Perplexed?
Answer
Even if he had not written The Guide for the Perplexed, this is an obviously unacceptable ruling. I discussed this at length in the trilogy.
See here briefly: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%A2%D7%96
And in greater detail here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%91%D7%99-%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94
Discussion on Answer
But the sages disagree with one another. There are Christian sages, pagan sages, atheist sages, and so on. So the question still remains: which minority of sages should one listen to? A person has to make that decision too.
Thank you very much, Rabbi, for the references. I read them with interest.
Now I have a different suggestion for interpreting Maimonides’ words, and I’d be happy to hear your opinion.
As Maimonides himself knows, there is no authority when it comes to facts. Therefore, if I am commanded to love God, that teaches me that I am commanded to study until I arrive at love of God.
The same applies here: just as in order to love God I must contemplate the world around me, etc., so too in order not to entertain thoughts of heresy I must delve deeply and study until I reach a completely settled state, until I attain (in Maimonides’ language in The Guide for the Perplexed) “a belief that admits of no possibility of rejection.”
And then we can also understand why this is placed under the category of idolatry. Idolatry means attributing exaggerated significance to something lesser; so too here, if after I have studied, clarified, and understood everything, I once again entertain a heretical thought — that is idolatry, because I am giving excessive weight to something that should already be negligible.
But how can I study if I am forbidden to read and reflect on opposing arguments? And why should I obey this command itself if I am not yet convinced that it has any substance?
“Why should I obey this command itself if I am not yet convinced that it has any substance?”
And then the question becomes, “What causes human beings to be convinced?” And then you discover that it varies from person to person.
And the majority are convinced solely by the fact that they know something and are used to it, and for them that is enough to turn it into truth.
Maimonides recognized this psychology, and therefore this is an extremely important ruling.
@Rabbi, the point is that in my opinion this ruling paints a state for us to reach. And how do we get there? Through objective and in-depth inquiry. And then only after we have investigated and examined — the ruling speaks about us. Before that, Maimonides is not talking about someone who has never investigated at all and is forbidden to think heretical thoughts; rather, he is talking about someone who has already examined things and reached a conclusion — for him it is forbidden.
The last verse: no distinctions.
So we’re back to what I wrote. Except that if more thoughts arise in you, you can check again. What is forbidden is only pushing yourself into heresy.
Around me [and not only around me, but perhaps in any random and accidental majority among all the two-legged creatures in the world] there are heaps of fools and a few more heaps of ignoramuses. They are the majority.
There is a minority of thoughtful people who are relatively less biased [or at least aware that they are biased toward a certain side when discussing it].
Maimonides’ approach [and not only his] is that the Torah gives its commandments according to the majority, and ignores rare cases.
If so, Maimonides’ words are excellent, marvelous, absolutely spot-on, grapes with grapes.
The overwhelming majority [the fools and ignoramuses] is obligated to listen to the tiny minority [wise, thoughtful, and relatively honest people] and not try to be smarter-than-smart….
Is there really better advice than this for a good, proper, upright life?