The Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies

Walking with History Edited By Bradley Shavit Artson and Rabbi Patricia Fenton In Memory of Harold Held and Louise Held, of blessed memory

The Held Foundation Melissa Held Bordy Joseph and Lacine Held Robert and Lisa Held

Published in partnership with the United of Conservative , the , the Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs and the Women’s League for . UNIT 5: MEDIEVAL THOUGHT Rabbi Shai Cherry, Ph.D.

“In the beginning” - It may be counter-intuitive, but “In the beginning” is an appropriate opening for an essay on Jewish thought in the . This opening phrase of the Book of Genesis first entered the vocabulary of English speakers in the 1380s, with John Wycliffe’s translation of the Bible into English. The words were “canonized” in the English language in 1611 with the publication of the Authorized King James version of the Bible. What is so interesting about these three words as the translation of the very first word of the , b’reishit, is that for , the translation is a medieval innovation! As we will see, during the entire rabbinic period, which dates from the 1st century destruction of the to the Muslim conquest of the early 7th century, there was not one single Jewish voice that claimed that the first word of the Torah meant what some medieval Jewish thinkers understood “b’reishit” to mean. We will survey the three emerging genres of medieval Jewish thought - Bible commentary, philosophy and mysticism, in order to appreciate the gloriously inconsistent ways in which our ancestors understood the Torah’s opening utterance. We’ll also peek into the world of halakhic or Jewish legal codification to see how a few thinkers contended with the less savory side of creation. The animating question behind our investigation is: What is the relationship between Torah and truth?

Bible Commentary (Parshanut) Among the novel intellectual and literary endeavors of the Middle Ages was the creation of a running commentary on the Bible. During the rabbinic period, collections were compiled that connected biblical verses to contemporary ideas of the time, but there was little systematic attention paid to explicating the flow of biblical verses within the context of the Bible itself. Put differently, rabbinic Midrash tended to exploit individual verses or phrases for the purpose of the darshan, the creator of a midrash. By the Middle Ages, for a variety of reasons, there was an increased interest in understanding what the Torah meant in its own terms.1

The first word of the Torah, as it turns it, is not so easy to understand or to translate. Moreover, as we will discover, different translations come with dramatic philosophical and religious implications. Saadiah Gaon (882-942) was one of the very first Jews to bring a philosophical lens to the Torah. Saadiah, who was born in Egypt and spent most of his life in the academies of Babylonia, penned one of the first translations of the Torah into and one of the first running commentaries on the Torah. Saadiah offers a one word interpretation of b’reishit in his commentary: ba-rishonah.

Saadiah has sidestepped two grammatical problems of the Hebrew. Ba-rishonah tells us, much like the Wycliffe and the King James Bibles, that “In the beginning” created the heavens and the earth. Even looking only at the English transliteration, one can see that the Torah begins with b’ while Saadiah changes it to ba. Saadiah’s change is equivalent to adding the definite article, thus changing the meaning from “In a beginning” to “In the beginning”. The Torah might better be translated here as “In a beginning”. The end of the word b’reishit is problematic too, since it almost always indicates that b’reishit itself introduces another noun, as in: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of (reishit) knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). Combining the problematic prefix and suffix of b’reishit, one might arrive at the following translation: “In a beginning of….” But, since the word after b’resihit is not a noun but a verb, the translation of b’reishit is very tricky. Saadiah preserves the Hebrew root of b’resihit (resh, aleph, shin – as in rosh, or head) and smoothes out the bumps of the Hebrew grammar.

In ’s philosophical work, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions (933), he defends, for the first time in (!), the concept of creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing. Saadiah was heavily influenced by

1 Shai Cherry, Torah through Time: Understanding Bible Commentary from the Rabbinic Period to Modern Times. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2007, pp. 18ff.

ZIEGLER SCHOOL OF RABBINIC STUDIES 46 MEDIEVAL THOUGHT

the Muslim philosophical theology called Kalam. Ancient Greek philosophy tended to reject providence and divine intervention as traditionally maintained by Judaism and Islam. Kalam argued that Greek philosophy erred in its metaphysical assumption that the world was eternal and operated solely according to immutable laws of nature. Kalam, and Saadiah here is a prime example, predicated its religious philosophy on God having created the universe and thus on God’s ability to intervene in creation to reward the righteous and to punish the wicked. If the universe were eternal as Aristotle had suggested, then the laws of nature could not be altered to wield the carrot and stick that traditional religion relied upon for obedience.

How does this philosophical argument relate to the first word of the Torah? Here’s the Jewish Publication Society’s translation of the Torah’s first two verses: “When God began to create heaven and earth—the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—God said, ‘Let there be light’”.2 None of the elements between the dashes (verse two) is described as having been created by God. That’s how the world was when God began creating in Genesis 1:1. An entirely reasonable interpretation of the Hebrew is that those elements were eternal and that God fashioned those eternal elements into the heaven and the earth. (That is precisely what is described in one of Plato’s dialogues,Timeaus .)

For Wycliffe and King James, when the curtain of creation rose for the very first time, there was nothing on stage. God created everything out of nothing. But the Hebrew suggests that when the curtain went up, there were a few elements chaotically swirling around on stage. Those elements circumscribed God’s freedom. God had to work with the materials at hand, not ones God created for the express purpose of our world. The Jewish Publication Society’s translation qualifies divine omnipotence—maybe God can’t create the world out of nothing? Saadiah is unwilling to flirt with an eternal world or even with the existence of eternal elements because of the implications these ideas would have for divine power and providence. He preemptively translates the Torah’s first word in such a way as to sidestep that theological pitfall. As we will see, a far more famous biblical commentator, , did not share Saadiah’s concerns.

Although Rashi was born in 1040, more than 150 years after Saadiah, he lived in a Christian Europe where Greek philosophy had not yet penetrated Jewish intellectual circles. In some of Rashi’s late Bible commentary, one sees the influence of the Christian Crusades which began in 1096, but the vast majority of his commentary consists of excerpts from earlier rabbinic material from the and Midrash. Although Rashi does not seem to be familiar with Saadiah’s Bible commentary, he explicitly rejects Saadiah’s interpretation of the verses at the beginning of Genesis. Rashi explains that since the Torah did not begin with the word ba-rishonah, the Torah’s account of creation is not to be understood chronologically. Rashi tacitly admits that the Torah does not reveal when, or if, God created those elements listed between the dashes, that is, in Genesis 1:2.

Philosophy Yeshayahu Leibowitz, a 20th century disciple of the great medieval philosopher Moses (1138- 1204), unpacked the implications of the Torah’s opening verse as follows: “The world is not God—the negation of atheism and pantheism”.3 For those in the philosophical tradition who trace their intellectual lineage to Aristotle, God and the physical world are radically separate. God is beyond the metaphysical mehitzah (partition), which renders God, in classical theological terms, transcendent. In Maimonides’ words, “There is no association between God, may he be exalted, and what is other than he” (The Guide of the Perplexed

2 JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2000. 3 Yeshayahu Leibowitz, “Religion and Science in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Era,” in Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992, p. 140.

ZIEGLER SCHOOL OF RABBINIC STUDIES 47 MEDIEVAL THOUGHT

[1190], Book I, Chapter 61). In Maimonides’ presentation of Judaism in an Aristotelian key, God loses the familiar intimacy (immanence) of the biblical and rabbinic God. For Maimonides, philosophy/science is the source of truth and the key to reading the Torah. When Maimonides claims the elements inside the dashes are earth, air, water and fire, he takes his cue not from the Torah, which does not mention fire, but from Aristotle’s four elements.4

Maimonides recognizes, as had Saadiah, the stakes of the dispute between creatio ex nihilo and the philosophical preference for the eternity of the world. According to Maimonides, were Aristotle correct, it would “destroy the Torah in its principle, necessarily give the lie to every miracle, and reduce to inanity all the hopes and threats that the Torah holds out” (Guide, Book II, Chapter 25). If God is radically and exclusively transcendent, as Aristotle maintains, then God could not reward the righteous with rain or punish the wicked with drought, as we read in the second paragraph of the Shema (Deuteronomy 11:13-21). Although Maimonides suggests that we should accept creatio ex nihilo because the eternity of the world has not been proven and its proof would destroy the Torah, he offers three hints that he, himself, might not believe increatio ex nihilo:

1) In the introduction to his Guide of the Perplexed, he tells his readers that he will not always be truthful in order to protect the sensibilities of the masses;

2) “Whoever prefers one of the two opinions because of his upbringing or for some advantage is blind to the truth” (Guide, Book II, Chapter 23);

3) Maimonides did not believe that Jews were rewarded with rain or punished with drought. He held that these threats of reward and punishment were included in the Torah as a concession to the who couldn’t imagine a different religious system than what they’d experienced in Egypt (Guide, Book III, Chapters 30 and 32)!

Regardless of Maimonides’ true beliefs, his agenda of creating a Judaism that was as compatible with philosophical thought as possible was not universally appreciated. Portions of the Jewish intellectual elite continued to be attracted to philosophy, but another worldview soon surfaced that challenged philosophy on almost all issues.

Mysticism Although elements of mysticism can be found in the Torah and in , the specific language of Jewish mysticism known as emerges in full force with the in 13th century Christian . (A Sufi-inspired mysticism is already found in the 11th century with Bahya ibn Pakuda’s Duties of the Heart.) The Kabbalists accepted Maimonides’ contention that God was radically transcendent, but they also believed that God was radically immanent within creation. Just as French and Spanish Catholics had an intensely personal relationship with God through and Mary, so, too, did the French and Spanish mystics through Kabbalah. In Kabbalistic parlance, the Ain Sof, or infinitude, is that aspect of divine essence that is beyond all human comprehension. Yet, God chose to reveal divine characteristics through the emanation of the ten sefirot, or hubs, which channel the flow of divine energy. The sefirotic system is activated by Jewish mystics performing the commandments with the proper intention. While in the philosophical worldview, nothing humans do can affect God, for the Kabbalists, the free flow of divine energy in the sefirotic world, which eventually trickles down into the physical world, is completely dependent on human, i.e. male Jewish mystics’, actions. In this system, God and Jews are in constant interaction.

4 The Guide of the Perplexed, Book II, Chapter 30.

ZIEGLER SCHOOL OF RABBINIC STUDIES 48 MEDIEVAL THOUGHT

Maimonides had understood the Torah to be written on two levels, one for the philosophical elite and another for the masses. Both levels served important purposes. For the Kabbalists, the outer garb of the Torah was often degraded; only the inner meaning was prized. The Zohar’s reading of the first verse of the Torah alerts its readers that the Torah is a mystical and cryptic code of divine self-disclosure: B’reishit, with the sefirah of reishit, [Ain Sof] created God. Allow me to translate. Through or with the second of the 10sefirot , which is sometimes called reishit, the “highest” sefirah, which itself is connected to and embedded within Ain Sof and is therefore unknowable, totally hidden, and unmentionable, that force created/emanated God, a name sometimes given to the third sefirah. B’reishit bara Elohim is kabbalistic code for the first and ineffablesefirah creating or emanating the third sefirah, God. Thus, the Torah describes how God was created, not those things created by God! For the mystics, the God we “see” in the Torah is only one aspect of God that has been emanated in a process of divine unfolding from that which is beyond our ken. So, don’t mistake “God” for God.5

Yesh m’ayin, something from nothing, was how the Jewish philosophical tradition described God’s creation: there was absolutely nothing, God created, and then there was something. God used no eternal elements that were combined into material reality. Before creation (although time was one of the created things), God was alone. The Kabbalists understood thatyesh , creation, was from Nothing with a capital N. Ayin, Nothing, is one name for the firstsefirah which is embedded within the Ain Sof. The Kabbalists are suggesting that all material creation, yesh, garbs divine energy that pulses from divine Nothingness, m’ayin.6 The universe is an emanation of God’s overflowing divinity that cascades in some mysterious manner from pure energy to seeming physicality.7 Thus, in a real, albeit attenuated, way, how we relate to one another and to the planet is how we relate to God. That’s why how we behave matters to God.

Halakhah / Jewish Law In the Talmud, there is far less concern for legal codification than there is for legal reasoning. After the close of the Talmud and the talmudic academies in Babylonia, a new genre of emerged that attempted to systematically codify the breadth of Jewish law. The late medieval mystic and halakhist Joseph Caro compiled the Shulkhan Arukh in 1563 from the 11th century code of Rabbi , the 12th century of Maimonides, and the 14th century work of Rabbenu Asher. On most issues, Caro adopted the halakhah according to two of his three sources. Although Maimonides begins his code with a philosophical discussion of God and God’s role in creation, neither Alfasi nor Rabbenu Asher treat such theoretical issues. Nevertheless, the halakhah is concerned with the works of creation, even those not specifically mentioned in Genesis.

The Talmud, for example, directs a woman to wash her hands before feeding a baby to prevent an evil spirit from endangering the baby’s health (Yoma 77b). Maimonides, a physician, preserves the emphasis on good hygiene but without attributing the need for washing to demonic activity.8 Another passage in the Talmud warns against cooking meat and fish together, in order to avoid leprosy, according to Rashi (Pesakhim 76b). The Shulchan Arukh codified that (Yoreh Deah 116:2), and also obligated one to wash his hands between eating meat and fish for the same reason (Orah Hayyim 173:2). Maimonides avoids discussion of such silliness altogether.9 Here’s how one 17th century commentator disposed of that halakhah: “It is possible that nowadays there is not a great danger, since we have seen several things mentioned in the (Talmud) as dangerous due to an

5 See Daniel Chanan Matt, Zohar: The Book of Enlightenment. New York: Paulist Press, 1983, pp. 49f. and notes. 6 Daniel C. Matt, “Ayin: The Concept of Nothingness in Jewish Mysticism,” in Lawrence Fine,Essential Papers on Kabbalah. New York: New York University Press, 1995. 7 The Kabbalists employ a Neoplatonic framework for their theological assertions. 8 Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Shevitat Asor 3:2. 9 See his general attitude towards superstition in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 11:16.

ZIEGLER SCHOOL OF RABBINIC STUDIES 49 MEDIEVAL THOUGHT

evil spirit, but now there’s no harm because nature has changed and, also, everything depends on the nature of the lands”.10 It’s not that our Talmudic ancestors were wrong, heaven forefend, but nature changes, and besides, demons are local phenomena.

Conclusion The challenge and glory of Judaism is its honesty and its commitment to multiple ideologies. Rashi, Saadiah, Maimonides, and the Kabbalists had gloriously inconsistent approaches (vis-à-vis one another) to Torah and truth—yet, they all dedicated their lives to living out their understanding of God’s will as mediated through the Torah and rabbinic tradition. Concerning the Torah’s first verse, Rashi allowed the Torah to speak in its own voice, while Saadiah, Maimonides, and the author of the Zohar played the ventriloquist to further their own religious agendas.

Upon encountering theologically problematic verses like the ones which open Genesis, the of the Talmud were wont to say, “If the Torah hadn’t been explicit, our mouths could never utter such a thing”.11 The rabbis, along with Rashi, tolerated theological tension better than many medievals. If we now believe that the world was created in a Big Bang, do we need to read that 20th century theory into our ancient Near Eastern Torah?12 Or, can we admit that the Torah’s opening creation myth is not to be read as a science text?

Can we employ glorious inconsistency and agree with Maimonides on some issues and the Kabbalists on others, or leave the question of God’s participation in creation open for the individual to decide for herself? Let me go out on a Conservative limb and posit that leprosy is now and has always been unrelated to the consecutive and uninterrupted consumption of meat and fish. It’s not that nature has changed; it’s that the Talmud got the medical science wrong.

The Talmud says that God’s seal is truth.13 Whether it is about the composition of the Torah or the evolution of humanity, our challenge as Jews is to apply the truth, as best we can determine it, to the glory of God.

10 Magen Avraham (Rabbi Avraham Abele ben Hayyim ha-Levi Gombiner c.1637-1683), on Orah Hayyim 173:2. 11 See, for example, Megillah 21a in the Babylonian Talmud, and on the matter of creation, Midrash Genesis Rabbah, 1:5. 12 See, e.g., Gerald Schroeder, Genesis and the Big Bang, New York: Bantam Books, 1990, and my critique of such folly in ”Crisis Management via Biblical Interpretation: Fundamentalism, Modern Orthodoxy, and Genesis,” in Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, ed. Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006, 166-187. 13 Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 69b.

ZIEGLER SCHOOL OF RABBINIC STUDIES 50 WWHistory Ch.5 Medieval Thought: Texts and Questions I have highlighted texts in which I have changed something. I have not highlighted to show justifying. In Hebrew paragraphs, I’ve highlighted those in which an actual Hebrew word has changed. UNIT If5: only MEDIEVAL the title of THOUGHT a text is highlighted, – TEXT 1 then I changed something in the title, but not in the text itself. WWHistory Ch.5 Medieval Thought: Texts and Questions 1) 1) בראשית   ב:ג וַ ְ י בָ רֶ ךְ אֱ    לֹהִ ים אֶ ת יוֹם הַ שְּׁ בִ י עִ י, ַ ו ְ י קַ דֵּ שׁ אֹתוֹ כִּ י בוֹ שָׁ בַ ת מִ כָּ ל מְ לַ א כְ תּ וֹ, אֲ שֶׁ ר בָּ רָ א - - -                                        אֱ ל ֹ  ִ ה י ם לַ עֲ שׂ וֹ ת. Genesis 2:3    Genesis Genesis2:3 2:3 th AndGenesis God 2:3blessed the 7th day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all his work, And God blessed the 7th And GodAnd blessed God the blessed 7th day and the made 7 day it holy, and because made on it itholy, he rested because from all on his it work, he rested which Godfrom created all his to work,make. which God crcreatedeated to makemake.. רש"י: בראשית ב:ג .which God created to make       אשר ברא אלהים  לעשות: המלאכה שהיתה ראויה לעשות בשבת כפל ועשאה בששי...      RashiRashi’s on on Genesis Genesis 2:3 2:3 Rashi onWhichRashi’s Genesis God on2:3 createdGenesis to 2:3 make : The work that was fit to be done on , he doubled Which God createdth to make: The work that was fit to be done on Shabbat, he doubled Which GodandWhich createddid God it on to created make:the 6 thThe day.to make:work that The was work fit to that be wasdone fiton toShabbat, be done he doubledon Shabbat, and did heit doubledon the 6th day. and did it on the 6th and did it on the 6 day.   כלי יקר  :בראשית   ב:  ג    אשר  ברא אלהים    לעשות: לפי שהשבת מורה על בריאת יש מאין ודוקא מאותה              בריאה שבת, אבל מבריאת  יש   מיש לא   שבת כי כמה נטיעות קולטות וצומחות בשבת. וכל הנבראים   שבששת ימי   המעשה   נבראו כדי לעשות מהם יש מיש ...על כן         נאמר " אשר ברא אלהים לעשות  "שבראם כדי לעשות מהם  יש מיש דבר יום ביומו.  ומכלל זה אנו למידין שהשבת  מופת על בריאת יש מאין...                            Kli Yakar (1550-1619) on Genesis 2:3  Which GodKli Yakarcreated (to1550 make:-1619 Since) onShabbat Genesis points 2:3 to creatio ex nihilo, it is this manner of creation from which God ceased,Which but God he did created not cease to from make: formation Since fromShabbat what pointshad already to creatio been created ex nihilo out, ofit nothing,is this manner because Kli Yakar (1550-1619) on Genesis 2:3 there areKli plants Yakar that (1550-1619) continue to absorb on Genesis and grow 2:3 on Shabbat. All of creation on the first six days was created ofWhich creation God fromcreated which to make:God ceas Sinceed, Shabbatbut he did points not ceaseto creatio from ex formatio nihilo, nit fromis this what manner had in orderalreadyWhich to continue God been makingcreated created something to outmake: of from nothing,Since them Shabbat because after the points firstthere six to are days.creatio plants That’s ex that whynihilo thecontinue, itverse is this says, to mannerabsorb “which God createdof creation to make”. from For whichGod created God ceased,them [out but of nothing]he did not in ordercease to frommake formationfrom them fromsomething what fromhad andof creation grow onfrom Shabbat. which God All ceased,of creation but onhe didthe notfirst c easesix days from wasformation created from in whatorder had to somethingalready in their been own time.created And outfrom of this nothing, we derive because that Shabbat there is aare sign plants of creatio that ex continuenihilo. to absorb contand inuegrow makingon Shabbat. something All of creationfrom them on theafter first the 6 daysfirst sixwas days. created That’s in order why to the continue verse says,and grow “which on Shabbat.God created All of to creation make”. onFor the God first created 6 days themwas created[out of nothing]in order toin continueorder to making something from them after the first six days. That’s why the verse says, “which makeGod created from them to make”.something For from God something created them in their [out own of nothing] time. And in orderfrom this to make we derive from thatGod Shabbat created is to a make”. sign of Forcreatio God ex created nihilo them [out of nothing] in order to make from them something from something in their own time. And from this we derive that Shabbat 1.is According a sign of tocreatio Rashi , exwhat nihilo does, for the if Torah it weren’t, teach us what in this would verse be? the meaning of the expression, God “ceased from all his work that God created to make”? 2. According to Kli Yakar, what does the Torah teach us in this verse? 1. According to Rashi, what does the Torah teach us in this verse?

2. According to Kli Yakar, what does the Torah teach us in this verse? STUDY QU3. ESForTIONS each commentator, what does the last word, la’asot (to make), refer to? • According3. For to Rashi,each whatcommentator, does the Torah what teach does us in the this last verse? word, la’asot (to make), refer to? • According4. This to Kli biblical Yakar, what passage does the is Torahincluded teach inus ourin this Kiddush verse? on Shabbat. Which interpretation do you find more meaningful for your Shabbat? Why? • For eachyou commentator, find more meaningfulwhat does the for last your word, Shabbat? la’asot (to make),Why? refer to?

• This biblical passage is included in our Kiddush on Shabbat. Which interpretation do you find more meaningful for your Shabbat?WWHistory Why? Ch.5 Medieval Thought: Texts and Questions

ZIEGLER SCHOOL OF RABBINIC STUDIES 51 3. For each commentator, what does the last word, la’asot (to make), refer to?

4. This biblical passage is included in our Kiddush on Shabbat. Which interpretation do you find more meaningful for your Shabbat? Why? 3. For each commentator, what does the last word, la’asot (to make), refer to?

4. This biblical passage is included in our Kiddush on Shabbat. Which interpretation do you find more meaningful for your Shabbat? Why? WWHistory Ch.5 Medieval Thought: Texts and Questions

MEDIEVAL2 ) THOUGHT – TEXT 2 רמב"ם הלכות תשובה י:ו דבר ידוע וברור שאין אהבת הקבQuestions" ה and נקשרתTexts בלבו של:Thought אדם עד Ch.5 Medieval שישגה בה תמידWWHistory כראוי ויעזוב כל מה שבעולם חוץ ממנה, כמו שצוה ואמר "בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך" 2) (רמב"םדברים ו:ה). הלכות אינו תשובה יאוהב: והקב"ה אלא בדעת שידעהו, ועל פי הדעה תהיה האהבה אםדבר מעטידוע מעט וברור ואם שאין הרבה אהבת הרבה.הקב "לה פיכך נקשרת צריך בלבו האדם של ליחד אדם עד עצמו שישגהלהבין בה ולהשכילתמיד כראוי בחכמות ויעזוב כל ותבונות מה המודיעיםשבעולם לו חוץ את ממנה,קונו כמוכפי כח שצוה שיש ואמר "באדם בכל להביןלבבך ובכל ולהשיג נפשךכמו" (דבריםשבארנו ו:ה). בהלכות אינו יסודי אוהב הקבהתורה."ה אלא בדעת שידעהו, ועל פי הדעה תהיה האהבה אם מעט מעט ואם הרבה הרבה. לפיכך צריך האדם ליחד עצמו להבין ולהשכיל :Torah בחכמות Mishneh ותבונות, (1135-1204המודיעים לו את ,Maimon קונו h benכפי כח Moshe שיש Rabbi באדם ,Rambamלהבין) ולהשיג כמוMaimonides Hilkhot Teshuvah 10:6 heart שבארנו a person's בהלכות to יסודי attached התורה.It is known and clear that the love of God does not become Maimonidesuntil ( Rheamb isa mengrossed, Rabbi Mos inhe ith always,ben Maim andon, 1135-1204), abandons everything Mishneh Tora in hthe: H iworldlkhot Texcepteshuvah for 10:6 it, as It is knownwasMaimonides and command clear that (edRambam, the “ withlove ofall God Rabbiyour does heart Moshe not andbecomeh with ben attached all Maimon, your to soul” a person’s 1135 (Deut. -heart1204) 6:5). until, Mishneh he is engrossed Torah: in it always,OneHilkhot and onlyabandons Teshuvah love everythings God 10:6 through in the worldthe k nowledgeexcept for it, with as was which commanded he knows “with h imall, yourand heart the loveand with will all your beItsoul” is according known (Deut. 6:5).and to clearthe knowledge that the love – if ofa littleGod [knowledge]does not become a little attached [love], and to ifa aperson's lot, a lot heart. One onlyTherefore,until loves he God is engrossed througha person the mustin knowledge it always, devote with andhimself which abandon heto knowscomprehends everything him, anding thein the thelove wisdomworld will be except according which for make toit, theass knowledgehiswas – creatorifcommand a little [knowledge]knowned “with to aahimll little your, acc[love], heartording and and if to awith lot, the aall lot.person your soul”’s ability (Deut. to 6:5). understand, as we Therefore,explainedOne a onlyperson lovein mustHils k Godhotdevote Yesodei through himself Ha the to- Torah.comprehendingknowledge with the which wisdom he whichknows makes him ,his and creator the loveknown will to him, according be according to the person’s to the abilityknowledge to understand, – if a little as we [knowledge] explained in aHilkhot little [love], Yesodei and Ha-Torah if a lot,. a lot. Therefore, a person must devote himself to comprehending the wisdom which makes we רמב"asם הלכות ,understand יסודי to התורהability דs’:יבhis creator known to him, according to the person בזמן שאדם מתבונן בדברים האלו ומכיר כל .Torah-הברואיםHa ממלאךkhot Yesodeiוגלגל in Hil ואדם כיוצאexplained

בו ויראה חכמתו של הקב"ה בכל היצורים וכל הברואים, מוסיף אהבה למקום רמב"ותצמאם נפשו הלכות ויכמה יסודי בשרו התורה ד:לאהוב יבהמקום ברוך הוא...

בזמן שאדם מתבונן בדברים האלו ומכיר כל h 4:12הברואים Ha-Tora ממלאך Yesodei וגלגלHilkho tואדם :Torah כיוצאMishne h בוand the ויראה ,man חכמתו,the spheresשל הקב, "הthe בכל ,all the 4:12 creationsהיצורים Torah-וכלYesodei and recognizes Ha הברואים, Hilkhot things מוסיףTorah: these אהבה considers למקוperson םWhen a Mishneh his soulthe ותצמא angels, and נפשו ,of theGod ויכמהtocreations, his love בשרו he all adds the לאהוב ,creations המקום and all the recognizesברוך Ones inהוא like, andWhen he sees a the person wisdom considers of the Blessed these Holy... thing will thirst spheres, and his fleshman, willand yearn the tolike, love and God, he blessed sees bethe he. wisdom of the Blessed Holy One in all the creations, he adds to his love of God, and his soul will thirst and his flesh will yearn to loveMishneh God, Torah:blessed Hilkhot be he. Yesodei Ha-Torah 4:12 When a person considers these things and recognizes all the creations, the angels, the spheres, man, and the like, and he sees the wisdom of the Blessed Holy One in all the creations,1. According he toadd thes firstto his text, love how of doesGod, oneand fulfillhis soul the mitzvahwill thirst of and loving his God?flesh will yearn to love God, blessed be he.

1. According to the first text, how does one fulfill the of loving God?

STUDY QUESTIONS • According to the first text, how does one fulfill the mitzvah of loving God? • The 2nd text is usually interpreted to mean that one must study physics and metaphysics in order to know, and thus love, God. Do you believe that science and philosophy are the (exclusive) vehicles through which to love God? • What are the advantages and disadvantages of calling the study of science and philosophy a commandment?

ZIEGLER SCHOOL OF RABBINIC STUDIES 52 2. The 2nd text is usually interpreted to mean that one must study physics and metaphysics in order to know, and thus love, God. Do you believe that science and philosophy are the (exclusive) vehicles through which to love God?

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of calling the study of science and philosophy a commandment? MEDIEVAL THOUGHT – TEXT 3

WWHistory Ch.5 Medieval Thought: Texts and Questions 3) תיקוני זוהר תקונא שתין ותשע, דף קיד:א ווי לון לבני נשא טפשייא אטימין לבא סתימי עינא, דעלייהו אתמר "עינים להם ולא יראו" (תהילים קטו:ה) בנהורא דאורייתא! אלין אינון בעירן דלא מסתכלין ולא ידעין אלא בתבנא דאורייתא דאיהי קליפה מלבר ומוץ דילה דאתמר בהון: מוץ ותבן פטורין מן המעשר. דחכימין דאורייתא מארי דרזין זרקין תבנא ומוץ דלבר ואכלין חטה דאורייתא דאיהי מלגאו.

TikkuneiTikkunei Zohar (c. Zohar1300), (c.Tikk 1300)un 69,, Tikkunpage 114 69,a page 114a Alas forAlas those for fools those whose fools minds whose are closed minds and are whose closed eyes areand shut, whose of whom eyes it isare said, shut, “They of whomhave eyes it butis they do said,not see” “They (Ps. 115:5) have theeyes light but of theythe Torah! do not They see” are (Ps. animals, 115:5) who the do lightnot see of orthe know Torah! anything They except are the strawanimals, of the Torah, who which do not is thesee outer or knowhusk or anything the chaff, except of which the it is straw said: chaffof the and Torah, straw arewhich exempt is thefrom ma’aser/taxouter [because husk orthey th aree chaff, worthless]. of which The it sages is said: of the chaff Torah, and the straw mystics, are throw exempt away from the straw ma’aser and chaff,/tax which are[because external, andthey eat are the worthless].wheat of the Torah,The sageswhich isof internal. the Torah, the mystics, throw away the straw and chaff, which are external, and eat the wheat of the Torah, which is internal.

1. As Rabbi Cherry explained in his essay, Jewish mystics believed that divine unity was contingent upon Jewish men performing commandments with the proper intention. What do you think of that, and how do you feel about it? Is there a way this can be true for us today?

2. Many hold that the externals of Torah are, in large part, legal. Do you agree? If so, what could our text mean when it says that Jews who focus exclusively on that external level are fools?

3. How can we best train or educate ourselves to see “the light of Torah” today?

STUDY QUESTIONS • As Rabbi Cherry explained in his essay, Jewish mystics believed that divine unity was contingent upon Jewish men performing commandments with the proper intention. What do you think of that, and how do you feel about it? Is there a way this can be true for us today? • Many hold that the externals of Torah are, in large part, legal. Do you agree? If so, what could our text mean when it says that Jews who focus exclusively on that external level are fools? • How can we best train or educate ourselves to see “the light of Torah” today?

ZIEGLER SCHOOL OF RABBINIC STUDIES 53 MEDIEVALWWHistory THOUGHT Ch.5 Medieval – TEXT Thought: 4 Texts and Questions 4) WWHistory Ch.5 Medieval Thought: Texts and Question s   4)                 Shulkhan Arukh (Rabbi Joseph  Karo,   1488-1575), Orah   Hayyim 55:11   A transgressor who transgressed a communal decree or who transgressed any Shulkhan Arukh (Rabbi Joseph Karo, 1488-1575), Orah Hayyim 55:11 Shulkhantransgression, Arukh if he (Rabbi has not Joseph been excommunicated,Karo, 1488-1575), h Orahe may Hayyim be counted 55:11 in the of A transgressor who transgressed a communal decree or who transgressed any transgression, if he has not been Aten. transgressor who transgressed a communal decree or who transgressed any excommunicated,transgression, he may if be he counted has not in beenthe minyan excommunicated, of ten. he may be counted in the minyan of ten.                                        MishnahMishnah Berurah Berurah (Hafetz H ayyi(Hafetzm, Ra Hayyim,bbi Israel Rabbi Meir H Israela-Kohen Meir, 1839-1933), Ha-, co 1839-1933)mmentary on S  hulkhan Arukh Orah Hayyim 55:11 Even if the transgression was a capital offense [he may be counted in a minyan]. And Even if theMishnah transgressionreason Berurah is that was it’s (Hafetza capital written Hayyim,offense with regard [he Rabbi may to beIsrael Akha counted n:Meir “Israel in Ha a-Kohen,minyan]. sinned” And1839-1933)( the reason 7:11). is thatEven it’s written Eventhoughwith regard if hethe sinned, totransgression Akhan: he “Israel is still wassinned” a , a capital(Joshua and his offense7:11). holine Even [hess though endures.may be he counted sinned, he in is astill minyan]. a Jew, and And his holinessthe endures. reason is that it’s written with regard to Akhan: “Israel sinned” (Joshua 7:11). Even though he sinned, he is still a Jew, and his holiness endures. 1. Look at the story of Akhan in Joshua chapter 7. How does the Hafetz Hayyim use the

biblical text to make his point? 1. Look at the story of Akhan in Joshua chapter 7. How does the Hafetz Hayyim use the 2. Is holiness an inalienable quality of Jews? Of non-Jews? What do these texts say? biblical text to make his point? How do you feel about that? 2. Is holiness an inalienable quality of Jews? Of non-Jews? What do these texts say? How3. Think do youabout feel your about synagogue. that? Are there transgressions that would cause someone to be excluded from the minyan? What are they? What standard of proof is required to say 3.that Think someone about has your transgressed? synagogue. Are there transgressions that would cause someone to be excluded from the minyan? What are they? What standard of proof is required to say that someone has transgressed?

STUDY QU ESTIONS • Look at the story of Akhan in Joshua chapter 7. How does the Hafetz Hayyim use the biblical text to make his

point? • Is holiness an inalienable quality of Jews? Of non-Jews? What do these texts say? How do you feel about that? • Think about your synagogue. Are there transgressions that would cause someone to be excluded from the minyan? What are they? What standard of proof is required to say that someone has transgressed?

ZIEGLER SCHOOL OF RABBINIC STUDIES 54

WWHistory Ch.5 Medieval Thought: Texts and Questions MEDIEVAL THOUGHT – TEXT 5 5) שמונה פרקים לרמב"ם: sהקדמהWWHistoryWWHistory Ch.5 Ch.5 Medieval Medieval Thought: Thought: Texts Texts and and Questions Question ודע, שהדברים אשר אומר בפרקים אלו...אינם דברים שבדיתים מעצמי ((5ולא5  שמונה פרושים פרקים לרמבשחדשתים".ם : אמנם הקדמההם ענינים לקטתים מדברי חכמים...ומדברי ודע, הפילוסופים...שהדברים ושמע אשר אמת אומר ממי בפרקיםשאמרה. אלו...אינם דברים שבדיתים מעצמי ולא פרושים שחדשתים. אמנם הם ענינים לקטתים מדברי חכמים...ומדברי הפילוסופים...ושמע אמת ממי  שאמרהEight Chapters of the Rambam: Introduction. And take note: the things I say in these chapters…are not new concepts that I have Eight Ch apters of the Rambam: Introduction Eightinvented.Eight Chapters Chapters They are of of thean the anthology Rambam: Rambam: from Introduction Introduction our sages ... and the works of philosophers...Hear And takethe note: truth the from things whoever I say in said these it. chapters…are not new concepts that I have invented. They are an anthologyAndAnd from take take our note:sages... note: the theand thingsthe things works I I say sayof philosophers...Hear in in these these chapters chapters…a the… trutharere fromnot not new whoever new concepts concepts said it. that that I I have have invented. invented. They They are are an an anthology anthology from from our our sages sages... andand thethe workworkss of of philosophers philosophers.... HearHear ספר החינוך מצוה ת .thethe truth truth from from whoever whoever said said it. it האומר למי שראוי ליורשו נכסי לך ואחריך להקדש...היורש זוכה בנכסים ויש לו ספר למוכרן החינוך ולעשות  מצוה בהןת כל חפצת נפשו. האומר למי שראוי ליורשו נכסי  לך ואחריך להקדש...היורש זוכה  בנכסים     ויש לו Sefer Ha-Hinukh, The Book of Education (Anonymous, late 1200s), Precept 400 Sefer Ha-Hinukh, The Book of Education (Anonymous, late 1200s), Precept 400  theלמוכרן the heir ownsולעשות בהן  Temple”, כל  to theחפצת נפשו.If someone said to an eligible heir, “My property goes to you and afterwards If someone said to an eligible heir, “My property goes to you and afterwards to the property and he may sell it or do anything he wants with it. SeferTempleSefer Ha Ha-Hinukh,”, -theHinukh, heir owns The The Bookthe Book property of of Education Education and he may(Anonymous, (Anonymous, sell it or do late lateanything 1200s), 1200s), he Precept wantPrecsept with 40 400 0it . If If someone someone said said to to an an eligible eligible heir, heir, “My “My property property goes goes to to you you and and afterwards afterwards to to the the Temple1.Temple”, Think”, ofthe the some heir heir owns ideasowns the andthe property propertypractices and and which hehe may mayoriginated sell sell it it or oroutside do do anything anything the Jewish he he want wants tradits with withion it andit.. are now accepted by Jews. What might we bring in now to enrich contemporary Judaism?1.1. ThinkThink of of somesome ideasideas andand practicespractices whichwhich originatedoriginated outside outside thethe JewishJewish tradittraditionion andand are are now now accepted accepted by by Jews Jews.. What What might might we we bring bring in in now now to to enrich enrich contemporary contemporary Judaism?2.Judaism? The Book of Education elucidates the of Rambam’s list, in the order of their appearance in the Torah. As heirs of medieval Judaism/s, which of these STUDY QU ES TIONS 2.strategies2. TheThe BookBook would ofof EducationyouEducation like to elucidatesbequeathelucidates to thethe the 613613 next commandmentscommandments generation? Why? ofof Rambam’sRambam’s list,list, inin thethe • Rambam tells us to “Hear the truth from whoever said it”. Think of some ideas and practices which originated outsideorderorder the of Jewishof their their tradition appearanceappearance and are inin thethenow Torah. Torah.accepted AsAs by heirsheirs Jews. ofof m Whatmedievaledieval might JudaJudaism/s, we ismbring/s, in whichwhich now oftoof theseenrichthese • Saadiah Gaon - using religious philosophy to interpret Torah contemporarystrategiesstrategies Judaism? would would you you like like to to bequeath bequeath to to the the next next generat generation?ion? Why? Why? • Rashi - separating Torah from science • The Book•• of EducationSaadiaRambam Saadiahh elucidatesGaon Gaon- using - - us usingsciencetheing 613 religious religious commandments to interpret philosophy philosophy Torah of Rambam’s to andto interpret inter transforming list,pret inTorah Torah the order the ofstudy their ofappearance in the• Torah.• AsRashiphiloso Rashi heirs - of phy-separating separatingmedieval and science Judaism/s, Torah Torah into from from which a mitzvahscience science of these strategies would you like to bequeath to the next generation? Why? •• RambamZohar Rambam - reading - -using using the science science Torah to toas interpret interpret a cryptic Torah Torah code and describingand transforming transforming God’s the innerthe study study world of of, • Saadiah Gaondismissingphiloso philosophy - usingphy religious muchand and science science of philosophy the Torah’sinto into toa a mitzvah interpretmitzvah plain sense Torah , seeing the physical world as a garb • for the continuously flowing energy of and within God • Rashi• - separatingZohar Zohar - -Torahreading reading from the the science Torah Torah as as a a cryptic cryptic code code describing describing God’s God’s inner inner world world,, dismissing dismissing much much of of the the Torah’s Torah’s plain plain sense sense,, seeing seeing the the physical physical world world as as a a garb garb • Rambam - forusing for the the science continuously continuously to interpret flowing Torahflowing and energy energy transforming of of and and the within within study ofGod God philosophy and science into a mitzvah • Zohar• - readingHalakhah the Torah/Jewish as a cryptic law changing code describing and adapting God’s inner to world, new circumstandismissing muchces ofand the Torah’s plain sense, understandingsseeing the physical of world reality as a garb for the continuously flowing energy of and within God • Halakhah /Jewish law changing and adapting to new circumstances and understandings of reality 3. In the previous question, Rabbi Cherry applied The Book of Education’s ruling about • In the inheritedprevious question, property Rabbi to Judaism Cherry applied itself whenThe Book he ofasked Education’s us to considerruling about what inherited we would property keep to Judaismfrom itself our when medieval he asked us ancestors to consider and what what we would we keep might from disca our medievalrd. Discuss ancestors this and in what light we of might Deuteronomydiscard. Discuss 33:4: this in light of Deuteronomy 33:4: .             Moses commanded us Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of . Moses commanded us Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.

ZIEGLER SCHOOL OF RABBINIC STUDIES 55 NOTES

______Published in partnership with the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the Rabbinical Assembly, the Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs and the Women’s League for Conservative Judaism.

15600 MULHOLLAND DRIVE • BEL AIR, CA 90077

©2012