The reasons for the commandments and the thinking of Israel
Hello Rabbi,
Thank you very much for the conversation we had. It really helped me with my trip to Greece in particular and my development in general.
I am taking a class on the philosophy of the Rambam, and we talked about the reasons for the commandments (the laws in them) – whether they were chosen randomly and the reasons are subjective (Leibovitz) or whether there is a real, objective reason from God. I have read articles that disagree on how to understand the Rambam, but I am interested in the reasons for the latter – why would we say that there is a real reason? This requires proof.
I am currently in a lecture and its topic is whether every mitzvah should be directed to God. The Rambam states that every blessing, prayer, and sleep should be truly directed toward your personal improvement toward the rank of prophet. Why does he have to say this? Or did the Rambam also write this in a general way, and not mean it specifically?
Thank you very much.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
I'm not that well-versed in the literature of thought, nor do I see much value in it. Even if Maimonides says something, it doesn't really matter to me if I want to say something different (at least in the field of thought, and a little less so in Halacha).
Most of these arguments are empty of substance and say the same thing in different words, or are just raising their own opinions. So why is it important to learn this?
Why say that there is a real reason for the commandments? Maimonides himself writes in the Book of Mormon that every rational person acts for some purpose, and therefore it is unlikely that God, the Holy One, does not do so. This makes Him lesser (=less rational) than His creatures.
It is quite clear that the reasons, even if we find such, are formulated in our language and in the world of our concepts and thinking. Therefore, one must distinguish between the question of the reasons for the commandments in our system and the question of why in the first place such a system was created with such reasons within it (a kind of dilemma of the A'Vithifron, which in my opinion is also imaginary). For example, one can say that the reason that one should help others is because then they will feel better. But there is still the question of why he was created so that if he is helped he feels better. He could have been created so that if he was beaten he would feel better (masochist).
Also with regard to the intentions of actions, it seems to me that the Rambam assumes in several places that it is appropriate to do only valuable things. This does not mean that there is a prohibition on doing other things. For example, in his commentary on Pa'a Ma'avot, he distinguishes between five types of speech, among which is speech that is permissible and has no interest. We see that there are permissible words that are not prohibited even though they are not beneficial. And yet it is best if we refrain from it. Who argues with that? It seems simple to me.
And again, if you need to do something else to ventilate or rest, then there is a benefit to that. This argument is also empty in my opinion, like most of these arguments.
The art of Israeli thought researchers is to create issues and debates where there are none. They take words and do not ask what they mean exactly, and present them as if there are two conflicting positions here. But when they delve into the meaning and the basic assumptions, they discover that either there is no debate (they say the same thing, or they talk about different things) or they are simply saying things that have no clear meaning. This is a general characteristic of Israeli thought research, and even more so of Israeli thought researchers in academia. In my opinion, the majority are a complete waste of time. A few of them are engaged in matters of taste.
All the best,
Michi
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
So regardless of Rambam – what is the answer to Euthyphro's dilemma? Did God define the commandments randomly (and can God's irrationality be excused by saying that He needed to define something else, otherwise how is it different from any other social law, and/or in order to increase His authority over us) or do they have a reason and we must work to find it. The question is directed at the commandments that are without a reason (laws) only – the commandments with a social reason do not matter to me because God had to create the world in some way and if helping a person was by beating him, then there would also be room for this question. Isn't that so?
The question greatly changes our attitude towards the mitzvot.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I think that here too it depends on which level you ask. If you ask whether the matter depends on him, of course it does. In other words, the reasons for the commandments are not imposed on him, and before the world was created he could have created it in any way he saw fit. He could have created a world in which the commandments given to us or commandments in general are irrelevant (think of a world with people with a character or essence completely different from ours). But once the world was created as it is (and we are in it), it is very likely that the commandments have reasons in terms of this world (such as the example of the help I gave to others regarding morality). Therefore, here too the arguments are usually imaginary. We can only think within our own frame of mind. Therefore, I feel that these discussions are a bit pointless. We have no tools to reach a meaningful conclusion because we are imprisoned in our own forms of thought, and the foundation of these questions lies in the world beyond us (what was around God before there was a world and its forms of thinking and values).
Even if the purpose of the commandments is to build his authority over us (which I am not inclined to accept), it may seem bad in our eyes. But he doesn't need it for himself, and therefore perhaps it is only beneficial from our perspective. But as mentioned, these are rather speculative assertions and we have no real tools to reach a conclusion about them.
In passing, I would like to say that there is a strange phenomenon in these discussions. When an argument is raised such as if He created the world for some purpose, He must reveal Himself to tell us what the purpose is for us (the manufacturer's instructions), many respond that this is His personification. Who said He is built like us? We impose our ways of thinking on Him. But when we discuss the purpose of the commandments, some of the difficulties themselves stem from the personification (for example, the pursuit of honor and status is wrong, what does He care if we slaughter from the neck or the nape of the neck, etc., and here too we are examining Him according to what is accepted among humans).
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer