Maimonides himself writes explicitly that the revelation at Mount Sinai was not sight in the sensory meaning of the word—that is, they did not see God, or in fact anything else mystical. The only empirical experience there was a single great sound, and nothing more. And it clearly follows from his words that all the people of Israel “received” there was recognition of His blessed existence—which according to the above interpretation means recognition of the supremacy of intellect, and a shaking off of all the superstitions and customs of the idolaters. And the same is true of all the other prophets: there is no sensory experience for the prophet such as hearing a voice or seeing some sort of image. And the visions that are brought in the books of the prophets are basically parables through which the prophet illustrates his personal attainments.
In addition, Maimonides explains very well the purpose of the commandments you mentioned: not eating pork because of health and environmental effects that come from raising pigs, redeeming the firstborn donkey as an expression of gratitude (specifically a donkey, Maimonides explains, because it was the most common domestic unclean animal), and likewise waving the lulav.
In short, for all those commandments that we call statutes, whose reasons we do not understand, Maimonides gives logical reasons. Almost all of them are explained as commandments opposite to what was accepted in that period, in order to uproot the irrational superstitions of the idolatrous nations of that time.
I intentionally want to know what Maimonides himself thought, because he is the only one who presents a full and completely rational front, from A to Z, of Judaism.
Thanks, and more power to you.

And what is the “rational and consistent from A to Z” reason for the commandment of the showbread? Hint: Guide for the Perplexed, Part III, chapter 45.

These explanations are not convincing at all. Maybe regarding the main point of the commandment—but why should I spend all my money in order not to receive some kind of health effect from pigs?

To Haim: I did not understand why you keep asking after Rabbi Michi explicitly answered you that a Jew’s Judaism is not necessarily based on what Maimonides (or any other Jewish thinker) did or did not understand about revelation and the revelation at Mount Sinai, but on how each and every Jew weighs the matter for himself and reaches the conclusion that God was revealed at Sinai and gave the Torah. Isn’t that so?

Moreover, I cannot answer you as to what Maimonides thought, because I do not know. I do not deal with what this or that person thought (without, of course, meaning any disrespect to Maimonides).
I will only comment on your terminology: if at Mount Sinai something was revealed to them, then it seems that there was some sort of source that revealed it to them. How exactly was this revealed specifically there and specifically at that time to the entire people, all the same thing? Without some external source? Everyone’s intellect was suddenly corrected together by mass hypnosis? You understand that this is not serious. The fact that there was no physical sight there does not mean there was no revelation there. The revelation was not by video but by audio and by a transmission to the heart. So what?
By the way, at the end of the laws of Kings, Maimonides writes that commandments must be observed because of the command at Sinai and not because of rational determination. How does that fit with the godless rational religion that you are describing in his name?

To be honest, your whole description of Maimonides’ doctrine is bizarre. He devotes quite a few chapters to describing divinity (positively or negatively), and its ways of operating (over whom He exercises providence and over whom He does not). Is he talking about a fiction? And the commandment to believe in Him (positive commandment 1)—does that mean to cleave to intellect? This is nonsense.

Haim—how does a concept create a sound? Or perform thousands of miracles?

To the Rabbi: seemingly the approach to the whole subject of faith should be intellectual and rational, as I’m sure you agree with me, because otherwise Judaism has no particular advantage over Christianity, Islam, and other ideas. And as I understand it, the only strong proof for the truth of Judaism is the revelation at Mount Sinai and the mass testimony that has been passed down through the generations. Of course, this does not apply to proving the existence of some higher power, or even an entity with intellect and design, which can be proven philosophically regardless of tradition.
Rather, regarding Judaism itself, which is based on the testimony of Sinai, certainly one must carefully examine what exactly that testimony says. Therefore, if indeed the revelation was by a “transmission to the heart,” as you explain (a term similar to mass hypnosis), then the validity of the whole testimony is somewhat undermined, since there is no clear definition of the object of the testimony. And therefore one cannot treat this testimony as a general testimony, for each person will define inner revelation differently.
And the reason it matters to know what Maimonides specifically wrote is because one must receive the tradition from somebody, and to the best of my knowledge there is no one who describes exactly what was heard and seen there in such detail as Maimonides.
And he himself describes prophecy in general, and the prophecy of the masses at Sinai in particular, as purely sensory perception. Admittedly a very advanced and profound perception of reality, to the point of seeing the future—but still sensory perception based on reason and powerful imagination. That is what he writes explicitly!
And to Moshe: I did not say that a concept creates a sound. I said that the understanding that seemingly emerges from studying The Guide for the Perplexed (at least one possible understanding) is that one can describe all of Judaism in materialist terms, especially in light of Maimonides’ words on the reasons for the commandments (P.S. Maimonides indeed explains the prohibition of eating pork, meat and milk, and creeping things as due to health reasons), for all of them have a logical and acceptable reason without using any mystical explanations. Therefore, the impression one gets 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 The Guide for the Perplexed think about this.

Haim—what do you mean by “concept”?
Second—are you aware how many people in the world eat abominations, pigs, crawling creatures, and are perfectly healthy?
Do you know how many people wear shaatnez and are healthy?
Do you know how many people eat meat with milk and are healthy?

A concept, simply put—like physics, which is a concept that defines the whole body of the material sciences. My claim is that one can understand from Maimonides’ words—since he addresses all aspects of Judaism in a rational and material way, and also defines God through the special method of negating attributes, whose meaning is admittedly hard to understand, and all the more so to explain—that the plain sense of his words seemingly suggests, again with full reservation, that he means a concept representing the logic that would optionally emerge from taking into account all the facts that exist in the world.
Again, this is not my own idea, but my understanding of Maimonides’ words.
As for Moshe’s question, that is a question to direct to Maimonides, not to me. Maimonides explicitly writes at the end of the third part of The Guide for the Perplexed that eating pork was forbidden by the Creator for health reasons. As for shaatnez and meat with milk, there is another reason. Its essence is to separate the Jewish people from the customs of the surrounding nations. See there.

All right, Haim, all that remains for us is to explain Maimonides and smooth over the corner by saying that every transgression brings diseases—to us—even if non-Jews are allowed what is allowed. As for the concept you defined: I think that if Maimonides thought that God is a concept defining the whole body of the material sciences, then you are claiming that according to Maimonides He has a body.

Moshe, a concept does not have a body. Just as the number 5 has no body and physics has no body, even though it defines the material sciences, “physics” itself has no body. And Haim wants to define God as a logic that takes all possible facts into account in order to draw conclusions (if I understood correctly).
But Maimonides tries at the beginning of the second part to prove the existence of God. And there he defines the First Mover. A concept is not a mover and not the cause of anything, and there is no possibility or need to “prove” its existence.

But suppose I understood you correctly, that you said a concept is a logic that takes every fact into account… and how does that logic create things without inventing matter?

To A.H. and Moshe: both of you are really asking the same question. Namely, if according to my understanding Maimonides defines the Creator’s existence as a concept, how can one attribute to Him properties of an entity, such as will, thought, anger, love, and so on—and worship Him?
Well, if indeed God is the comprehensive logic of the facts of the world in their material sense, then the essence of the Torah is to uproot from the root any worldview that includes mystical content of any kind. In plain Hebrew—idolatry. And indeed Maimonides explains at length that the axis of the Torah (his phrase) revolves around uprooting superstitions and mystical content that were common at the time the Torah was given. And all the commands of the Torah are not commands of an entity, so there is no point in asking how “He” commands. Rather, they are commands intended to engrave rationality in the heart of the people. By the way, those commands that seemingly indicate some relation to mysticism, such as sacrifices, were, according to Maimonides, intended to “soften” the acceptance of the Torah among a people steeped in that type of ritual.
As for the question why one needs to prove that He exists: if you notice, Maimonides does not address such a possibility at all! And that is because we are speaking about a concept, whose existence indeed does not need to be proven.
Maimonides does address different views of Muslim and philosophical sects regarding the question of how God is expressed in the world and what His essence is. And according to the explanation being proposed here, what this means is: how the world works and what sort of logic compels what. This is not vague wording, because if one studies there, it becomes clear that a large part of those views about “the essence of God” with which Maimonides disagrees actually define the behavior of matter, such as the view of the mutakallimun (some Muslim sect) who hold the reality of the “particle” (= atom), whom Maimonides attacks, and so on.
Therefore, references to the creation of the world also do not mean that logic “created” the world, but that it is governed according to it. Again, this is only a tentative idea. Hopefully all this is not a waste of time.

That is obvious. My question was: why does Maimonides try to prove the existence of God if He is just a concept? Let him just define it, and that’s it.

Now I saw that you addressed this. But it is not correct. In the second part, chapter 1, he does indeed try to prove it. And see at the end of chapter 74 of the first part: “And once it has been established for them by these proofs etc., it follows necessarily that it has a maker who originated it, and purpose, and will, and choice.” That is certainly not a concept. (Even if Maimonides does not accept their proofs, he does not dispute the definition of God.)

Hi dear Haim,

You really are wasting time, because God is an entity and He possesses logic, as it is written: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and of course He also governs by means of it.

The important verse: “You shall keep My statutes and My ordinances, which a person shall do and live by them; I am the Lord”—this teaches us “and live by them,” meaning according to them.

Dear A.H., although Maimonides does indeed refer to an entity that has free will, despite what you wrote, you can see that when Maimonides refers to the views of those sects that were common in his day, only then does he speak about such an entity—not when he comes to discuss the essence of God according to our view.
When Maimonides discusses the essence of God according to the view of Jewish tradition, he makes a great effort to explain that will, knowledge, and all the various attributes ascribed to God in the Torah, the Prophets, and the Sages are not to be taken literally. That is, these are not attributes in their ordinary meaning, the kind we are used to attributing to entities, but something entirely different.
Those attributes that are ascribed to God in the Torah and by the Sages are an illustration of the modes of governance within which the world operates. This view fits perfectly with the idea proposed here (again, with great reservation), that God is a concept defining the logic that takes all possible facts into account.
By the way, according to this idea, a great many questions are solved—such as the question of knowledge and free choice, the question why there is suffering in the world if God is absolute good (according to the above definition, the all-encompassing logic is itself the absolute good), and more.
P.S. I would be glad 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 with the verse “and live by them,” and how it is connected to the discussion.
I would be glad if you would elaborate.

I meant two things:
1. 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 if we agree on the two things I wrote, learned from that verse—and it is not relevant what Maimonides thought, or what you think he thought, about the Creator.

And again, I did not explain why you are evading the issue: how can it be that you openly agree that God indeed exists according to your approach as a concept, so there is no need to prove His existence, and on the other hand we are arguing… what Maimonides thinks—what comes out of that?

A. It is very important what Maimonides thought. Maimonides’ books are a foundation of halakhic ruling and Jewish outlook over many generations. And personally it is important to me to know Maimonides’ view on such important matters, which are principles of faith—not only because Maimonides is the central halakhic decisor (for all communities; the model of the Mishneh Torah is a basis on which nearly all decisors rely), but mainly because Maimonides is the only one who addresses these matters, which are the very heart of our faith, in a systematic and comprehensive way.
B. I never “openly agreed.” I proposed an idea. You can accept it, and you can reject it, by means of a convincing argument. I am in favor of open discussion on any topic without limits, so long as it is conducted at an intellectual level and in a respectful way—without dogmas and predetermined assertions.
C. What comes out of it?! These are the foundations of our faith. It matters to me to know what I believe in and what I am acting for.

Haim: sorry to tell you, but you are making a grave mistake. For in matters of faith and fundamental outlook, Maimonides has no authority, for example, over against his antithesis—Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, who did not hesitate to dispute Maimonides sharply on the matters you are raising [which did not detract one bit from his fear of Heaven]. This is in addition to earlier medieval sages who also disagreed with Maimonides on these matters (such as Rabbi Hasdai Crescas and others), which proves what anyone with a head on his shoulders knows: that our faith as Jews is not necessarily based on what Maimonides or Rabbi Nachman of Breslov believed (or any other Jewish thinker), without Heaven forbid disparaging them, but first and foremost on the testimony we received about the revelation at Mount Sinai and the experience of revelation then—while Maimonides / Rabbi Nachman etc. may help us conceptualize that revelation, not the other way around!

Of course, all this does not apply to matters of practical Jewish law, where as is known there is a formal authority (at least) to obey the sages of Israel throughout the generations, as is known regarding the sealing of the Talmud.

I understand you, Haim. It is true that it is important to understand what Maimonides thinks, but do you assume in advance that everything he said, or everything any rabbi or sage said, is completely true? Such a thing is impossible. Only the Torah of God is completely true, because it is a divine source.
I suggest that despite everything you have shown from Maimonides’ thought that God is a concept, you should study the principles of faith that he wrote. I am sure everything will fall into place.
No one said that if you do not believe what he thought then you are a heretic—Heaven forbid.

A. To Moshe and Shimon: both of you are making the same claim. Well, I did not write that Maimonides—or any other thinker, however important—has any absolute authority. Therefore his personal opinion is not binding, so long as he does not express it in the form of a decree, in which case it is a completely different story.
B. That Torah, which is absolute truth, about which Shimon writes, is subject to different interpretations; therefore it is important to know what Maimonides thinks about it, because without him I personally do not presume to understand it on my own. It is important to emphasize that the views of the other great Torah sages are also very important for understanding the matter. But what can I do—Maimonides is one of the only ones who goes into such detail on this specific issue.
C. I do not know what Rabbi Nachman claims in the present matter; one cannot just hang everything on him alone and throw out the other views that exist on the subject. It is important to understand things deeply.
D. The testimony we received at Mount Sinai is also subject to interpretation. Can you describe in detail what exactly happened there? Therefore we need the traditions and understandings of Maimonides and those like him. As Shimon wrote, to help us understand that revelation.

Even though you multiplied your points, you skipped over the main thrust of what I said: it is true that it is important to understand what Maimonides thinks, but do you assume in advance that all his words, or the words of any rabbi or sage whatsoever, are absolutely true? Such a thing is impossible. Only, only, only, only, only, and only the Torah of God is absolutely true, because it is a divine source. Is that clear?

I suggest that despite everything you have shown from Maimonides’ thought that God is a concept, you should study the principles of faith that he wrote. I am sure everything will fall into place. Have you looked at them?

Let me ask you: if a rabbi tells you something that is not acceptable to you, but is accepted by most of the public—will you do what that rabbi told you? Yes or no? Please elaborate!
The same question, but now regarding a commandment that the rabbi interpreted according to his opinion—will you do it even if it is not understood by you in that way, despite the fact that many do observe it according to his words…

Like the first question, but now not only one halakhic decisor ruled something unacceptable to you, but almost all the leading sages of the generation did—would you obey their ruling?

Dear Haim: I am glad that our views are coming closer and that we understand each other better. Regarding Maimonides’ position, I wanted to recommend to you a short article by Professor Shalom Rosenberg (who is considered, among other things, one of the experts in Maimonides’ view in particular and in 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—does it speak to you? I’d be glad to hear.

Shimon—it seems to me Haim is just being argumentative. If he were serious, he would answer seriously and not just attack heavily.

Hey Moshe, the truth is that at first I thought like you too, but then feelings of regret and guilt came over me lest I be suspecting upright people unjustly, since I do not test kidneys and heart, and one must judge every person favorably, and try, with God’s help, that no stumbling should come about through us. What do you think?

He is not answering seriously, if he is answering at all… You cannot judge him favorably in this, because I already refuted his arguments for his idea that Maimonides thought God is a concept.
And when I tried to get to the depth of Haim’s opinion—and backed him into a corner—he got a bit provocative, made a big blow-up, and then disappeared.

This is not about the person but about the opinion he presented. We are not judging him and not discussing him at all, but his words. We analyzed the matter according to the current situation. I like opinions that come from independent thinking more than opinions that are repeated from others without personal examination before being voiced.