חדש באתר: NotebookLM עם כל תכני הרב מיכאל אברהם. דומה למיכי בוט.

Q&A: The Commandment Not to Stray After the Thoughts of the Heart into Heresy

Back to list  |  🌐 עברית  |  ℹ About
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

The Commandment Not to Stray After the Thoughts of the Heart into Heresy

Question

Maimonides writes in the laws of idolatry (chapter 3?) that the commandment not to stray after the thoughts of the heart refers to matters that are the opposite of the Torah, which one may not think about—and his words are explained in the Sefer HaChinuch at the end of the portion of Shelach.
My question is: how does Maimonides himself, who wrote the Guide for the Perplexed, explain this commandment, since it would seem to indicate the opposite? And how does this fit with the things found here on the site’s homepage in the name of the Maharal and Rabbi Kook about the honor of religion in considering these matters?
Thank you very much

Answer

Search here on the site for “Do Not Stray.” In my opinion, he wrote this for the masses, on the assumption that for someone who accepts it, it is good that he should act that way. Someone who understands that there is no way to forbid such a thing in any case will not listen to him anyway.

Discussion on Answer

Shachar (2024-11-05)

It seems to me that one could suggest a different approach: someone who does not yet have settled choices in matters of faith, and is still perplexed, like many people—for such a person Maimonides composed the Guide for the Perplexed. As far as such a person is concerned, not only is it permitted, but one must explore thoughts that are contrary to the Torah in order to clarify the truth of the Torah—after all, his commitment to the Torah is not yet clear to him.
But someone for whom the truth of the Torah has already been clarified in one way or another, and who is only looking to see whether perhaps there is really something to other paths that are contrary to the Torah—that is the case of the prohibition derived from “Do not stray.”

Michi (2024-11-05)

That’s the obvious suggestion, but it isn’t plausible. What if doubts arise for me and I want to examine them?

Shachar (2024-11-05)

If doubts arise, then one is obligated to examine them. But when no doubts arise, and there is only a drive of curiosity—“maybe if we dig around we’ll find cracks”—or to investigate other religions and sects without any doubts in my faith

Michi (2024-11-05)

That is of course possible, though still not plausible. It does not seem plausible to me to forbid examining a rational argument. It is more plausible that what was forbidden was listening to preaching, not arguments.

השאר תגובה

Back to top button