Q&A: The prohibition of "Do not stray" in Maimonides
The prohibition of "Do not stray" in Maimonides
Question
Hello and blessings,
In your fourth lecture on dogmatics (I’ve listened to the first half so far), you argue that the straightforward understanding of Maimonides’ words about the prohibition of “do not stray” is lacking in logic. And when they asked you what, then, is the explanation of Maimonides’ words, you said that perhaps this is a policy for the masses, etc., but that for an intelligent person there is no meaning to a prohibition against investigating and reflecting, etc.
I wanted to suggest another explanation and hear your opinion about it: perhaps Maimonides’ words are addressed to a person who believes in God and in the tradition, etc., but who has some kind of urge, amusement, enjoyment, and curiosity to take an interest in other doctrines. And regarding him, the prohibition “do not stray” is stated (and the logic is that there is a prohibition in the very object of studying idolatry). From this it follows that the prohibition can indeed be actualized, since from the outset it is not addressed to a person who is in doubt, for then, as the Rabbi rightly argued, the prohibition is meaningless, to the point that it almost has no conceptual sense.
What do you think?
Answer
Possible, but strained. Beyond the fact that if he becomes convinced, then that will be his position, even according to my suggestion Maimonides would not have had to qualify his words, but according to your approach he would have had to.
Discussion on Answer
Regarding the beginning of the above discussion, I already wanted to ask at the time (and forgot, and now remembered because of your compliment about how well I know my way around your writings), that seemingly this very suggestion was already stated about Maimonides by none other than you—see Column 576. And see also Column 6, in a less decisive form, regarding Maimonides. And see also your suggestion in Truth and Not Stable, p. 368. Have you now retracted those interpretations of Maimonides (you didn’t mention this at all in the lecture nor in the current responsum), or do you not see yourself as having reached a decision?
*So as not to leave the page blank, I’ll also mention the very short article “To Explore and to See: On Two Conceptions of Reality,” which is also relevant to our discussion.
Too bad there are no icons here. 🙂
If I said that, then I am indeed retracting somewhat. It sounds strained to me in Maimonides himself, and also not conceptually correct (because if he becomes convinced, then he is convinced).
[I just wanted to add that maybe this also fits with the accepted idea that in the past idolatry was a kind of lust, as we find that the Sages “nullified” this evil inclination. Meaning, it was somewhat like matters of sexual modesty (although it really is a bit hard to understand exactly how that worked), and according to this my suggestion is perhaps even a little more understandable.]