Category: Maimonidean Wisdom

Is God punishing the Hatians for its sins?

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Is nature or God punishing the Haitians for its national sins? It all depends who one asks. Pat Robertson blames the Haiti earthquake on a pact the Haitians made with the devil sometime in the early 19th century:

Pat Robertson, the evangelical Christian who once suggested God was punishing Americans with Hurricane Katrina, says a “pact to the devil” brought on the devastating earthquake in Haiti. Robertson said on his “700 Club,” and that “They got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.’ True story.  And so, the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal.’ ” Native Haitians defeated French colonists in 1804 and declared independence. “You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other.”

How accurate is Robertson’s theory? Well, the Haitians did not rebel against Napoleon I, but actually rebelled against his nephew Napoleon III, whose reign didn’t start until 1852. The story is a total fiction. Moreover, if God has such a short fuse, why didn’t the Creator bring on an earthquake immediately after the Haitians  made this alleged “pact” with the Devil?

Of course, if such a God is determined to expunge sin and sinners, why doesn’t God go after bigger fish to fry, e.g., Iran or North Korea? Robertson’s penchant for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time is hardly Christ-like, but instead reflects a hardness of heart worthy of Pharaoh; how can one witness so much human misery on such a mass scale and blame an impoverished nation for bringing upon itself the judgment of the Almighty? If the crime of blasphemy has any spiritual significance today, one could argue that Pat Robertson’s ill-timed remark may qualify because he sullies the Name of his Creator by portraying God as such a ruthless power.

Now, the members of the 700 Club aren’t the only ones coming out with such pronouncements of prophetic doom and gloom. Earlier this morning, I read an article that appeared in the Washington Post, where a Vodou priest named André Pierre, blames the earthquake on the Haitians lack of reverence and mistreatment of  Mother Nature. Pierre explains:

“The first magician is God who created people with his own hands from the dust of the earth. No one lives of the flesh. Everyone lives of the spirit.” We humans live in the material world, and other spirits–called lwa, or mystères, “mysteries”–dwell in the unseen realm. God created the spirits to help govern humanity and the natural world. The ancestors and the recently dead are with them. Unfortunately, there are far too many recently dead crossing over to join the spirits this week. When you cut a tree, in Vodou, you are supposed to ask the tree first, and leave a small payment for the spirit of the tree. For years nobody has asked, or listened, or paid the land when making policies or laws in Haiti. Farmers have given up since imported rice undercut their local prices. Whole villages left the provinces, and migrated to the capital, leaving the land behind and swelling the capital city to bursting. The people running the country–from within and from without–have abused Our Mother. She is doing what is natural, like a horse throwing a rough rider.”

Similar to Robertson, Pierre believes that the Nature (instead of the biblical God) is punishing its inhabitants for a variety of environmental sins. Frankly, both approaches seem to overlook the fact that God does not control everything that happens in this world. Natural law operates in a capricious manner, but God does expect us to ethically act on behalf of those who suffer.  In a world that often experiences brokenness on a global scale, we are each responsible for the welfare of our neighbor. The old KJV translation of the Bible still says it best:

“The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29). In other words, human beings are better off focusing on what is directly in front of them; speculating about hidden matters is not something anybody should engage in.  The ancient Judaic philosopher Ben Sira (ca. 2200 B.C.E.) offers prudent advice to those who think they understand the mind of God:

“What is too sublime for you, seek not, into things beyond your strength search not. What is committed to you, attend to; for what is hidden is not your concern. With what is too much for you meddle not, when shown things beyond human understanding. Their own opinion has misled many, and false reasoning unbalanced their judgment. Where the pupil of the eye is missing, there can be no light; and where there is no knowledge, there is no wisdom” (Sirach 3:19-24).

Did Maimonides really believe in a physical resurrection or not?

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Maimonides’ position on the soul is very complex and this subject remains of the more controversial topics of Jewish intellectual history. Certainly in his commentary to the Mishnah, Maimonides includes the belief in bodily resurrection among the basic tenants of faith listed in his famous Thirteen Articles of Belief.

However, in Maimonides’ most mature work, the philosophical tract known as “The Guide to the Perplexed,” the great philosopher stresses the belief in the soul’s immortality and says nothing about physical resurrection.

One might wonder: How consistent is Maimonides? Actually, one could answer that it all depends upon the specific target audience he was trying to educate. For traditionalists, Maimonides endorses the standard orthodox beliefs that everyone knew. This point is visibly clear in his famous essay on Resurrection where he defends himself against the accusation he “denied the existence of physical resurrection.”

Many scholars doubt whether Maimonides was really being truthful when he composed his letter; others think the text may have been a forgery. On the other hand, Maimonides sometimes expresses sentiments that he would never publicly endorse;  the belief in resurrection could be one such example.

Maimonides reveals his most personal theological views regarding resurrection in his Guide to the Perplexed–not so much by what he says, but by what he does not say! If I understand Maimonides correctly, I think he never really denies resurrection; rather, he gives it a new understanding. Resurrection simply means that the soul is reborn into the world of Eternity after the body perishes in this world.

Maimonides’ sophisticated grasp of anthropomorphism and his rejection of scriptural literalism strongly indicates that the greatest Jewish philosopher of the medieval era also viewed resurrection as a metaphorical truth. One must remember that Maimonides was the first Jewish thinkers to engage in a process of de-mythologizing Scriptures, which often speaks in mytho-poetic language that can best be understood as metaphor.

If this conjecture is correct, Maimonides’ view certainly fits a more modern way of viewing faith;  briefly stated, resurrection does not suspend the laws of nature, rather, it refers to a metaphysical  journey where the soul returns to its original state of being. Physical death does not have the final word on the soul’s existence.  By the same token, Maimonides (and especially Gersonides after him) generally interprets supernatural miracles of the Bible in naturalistic terms. Natural law within the universe remains inviolate. Continue reading “Did Maimonides really believe in a physical resurrection or not?” →

Maimonides’ famous Responsa on “Converting for the sake of marriage”

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Maimonides once wrote in his Responsa about a certain Jewish man who was living with a non-Jewish maid-servant. The man was suspected of having a sexual liaison with this woman.  The Beit Din found out about this–what was the man to do? Remove the woman from his house?

In response to this question, the Rambam stated that technically according to the law, the woman should be forced out–period. After it learned of his wrongdoings, the beit din was required to exert all its power to have the Jewish master free her and then marry her. However, the Talmud tells us that if a Jewish man has an immoral affair with a gentile woman, he must free her and not marry her (Yevamot 24b).   Maimonides  arrives at a different conclusion from the Talmud and judged in such cases that the man should free her and marry the maid.

What is the reason given by Maimonides?

“Such a position,” maintained Maimonides, “is Halachicly warranted since it is necessary to make things easier for repentents  (Takanat HaShavim).” Maimonides then cites the verse: “It is time for the Lord to act, for your law has been broken.” (Psa 119:126). In other words, there are times when it is necessary to relax the halacha for the greater good of the Jewish people. The Rambam concludes “May the Lord forgive us of our sins.”

Maimonides’ Practical Advice: On Feigning Apostasy . . .

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Maimonides’ famous Iggerot Hashmad (“A  Letter Concerning Apostasy”) was written in the year 1160 during a time when Almohades Muslims were forcing people everywhere to recite the Muslim Creed. Failure to comply meant execution.

One rabbinical scholar in Fez, Morocco exclaimed that any Jew who publicly uttered the Moslim confession–regardless whether they in truth practiced Judaism incognito—could no longer be considered a Jew. Outraged by this rabbi’s insensitive rabbinical response, Maimonides wrote a letter, where he demonstrates how this Moroccan rabbi  was seriously mistaken.

Such a view of martyrdom was in Maimonides’ eyes,  a misrepresentation of Judaism ‑‑ and could only push Jews away from Judaism. The mere utterance of a meaningless formula could NEVER render a Jew an apostate. In addition, the Talmud mentions how even some of its greatest Sages–Rabbis Meir and Eliezer (cf. Avodah Zara 18a)–feigned apostasy in order to save their lives.

“Even heretics,” Maimonides argues, “were worthy of reward for a single act of piety. Those who practice the mitzvot secretly are even more worthy of reward despite the circumstances of their forced conversion.” In summary, Maimonides succeeded in saving an entire Jewish population by keeping the door to their faith open for them to return.

In contrast, the Tosafists (a school of medieval French commentators to the Talmud) refused to follow such a halachic interpretation. They held that in the case of idolatry one should be slain and not transgress, “even in the presence of one person.”

Maimonides held on to an unusual attitude: so long as a person is alive and breathing, there is always hope that an ember of faith, if aroused will turn back into a mighty flame!

A Controversial Subtext to Maimonides Epistle

Maimonides’ liberal attitude toward the Jew who was forcibly converted to Islam may have an interesting subtext. Some Jewish and Muslim scholars (see the Islamic Encyclopedia for the bibliography) think that Maimonides was forced to convert to Islam as a child. However, at the first opportunity to return to his faith, and returned he did.

The source for this claim derives from an accusation a Muslim visitor to Cairo from Fez, who allegedly remembered Maimonides as a Muslim when he lived in Morocco. Thirty years later, the Muslim acquaintance was traveling through Egypt and was surprised to discover that Maimonides had become Egypt’s most distinguished rabbi. Outraged, the Muslim denounced him to the authorities as an apostate.

However philosopher and historian Allan Nadler observes:

“Maimonides practiced the time-honored medieval Islamic tradition of Taqiyya, or prudent dissimulation, by dressing and behaving like a Muslim publicly, perhaps occasionally presenting himself at a mosque, while remaining an observant Jew during the darkest period of Almohad persecution, which forced Jews to dress in hideous costumes and resulted in thousands of forced apostasies and deaths. There is simply no credible evidence that Maimonides converted, let alone that he was a “practicing Muslim.”

Why is Abel’s sacrifice accepted, while Cain’s is rejected?

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

4:4 וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם־הוּא מִבְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן  — and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions—In contrast to the Scripture’s silence with regard to Cain’s sacrifice, considerable detail is lavished on the quality of Abel’s offering. First of all, he offered his “firstlings,” which the Torah would later view comes from the best of one’s flock. Second, he offered the animals’ fattest parts, i.e., he sacrificed his choicest animals.

Note that Abel does not just offer the firstborn of his flock; he also offers even the very best of his flock—even if the animals weren’t necessarily the firstborn. Third, the verse intimates a clever pun in the words: וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם־הוּא (wüheºbel hëbî´ gam-hû´) — “he also brought himself.” A literal translation of the text indicates that Abel realized that the true sacrifice reflects the inner person and the heart of the person offering it.

But why was Cain’s sacrifice rejected? The Torah does not explicitly say, but the absence of detail spent describing Cain’s sacrifice indicates that it must have been quite ordinary. Even if his sacrifice was no less exemplary than his brother’s, it is also possible that his attitude marred the quality of the sacrifice.