[Avodah] The Rambam's Hedgehog (was: A Modern Orthodox Hedgehog)

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:32pm GMT, R Eliyahu Gerstl responded to RGP's
thesis:
> I would propose that rather than Torah **U**Madah that the Rambam's
> concept of Madah as an important part of Torah rather than as an adjunct
> to Torah should be considered and that his form of Deveikut should be
> considered as the "hedgehog" being sought.

> The latter means that Madah is part of "Talmud" (Lehavin davar me-toch
> davar) which is the third of the tripartite division of Torah learning:
> Tanach, Mishnah (halachah) and Talmud...

I don't see two points here in the Rambam, Yesodei haTorah 2:1-3 and
Hil' Talmud Torah 1:11.

In YhT the Rambam defines ahavas H' and yir'as Hashem in terms of a
thirst to know about G-d. Because, as I wrote above (in response to
RHM), it seems to me the Rambam defines his "deveiqus" (as REG puts it)
as an intellectual unity.

    "What is the way to love Him and feel yir'ah for Him? When a person
    contemplates His Actions and His Creations, which are nifla'im
    gedolim, and sees His Chokhmah in it... immediately he love, praises,
    glorifies, and mis'aveh ta'avah gedolah ot know the sheim hagadol..."

First, in TT 1:11, the shelish betalmud is halachic dialectic --
"... until he knows what are the iqar of the midos [shehaTorah nideshes
bahen] and how to extract what is assur and what is mussar, andthe like,
from what he studied from the oral tradition."
Not aggadita. We do find aggadita included with Mada in YhT 2:2 as the
means to ahavas veyir'as Hashem. Different mitzvos than TT.

To skip to the end of this post too because I want to respond to it
together with the above:
> This may in fact be a type of non-mystical Chassidus i.e. focusing
> on love of HKBH and wishing to "partner" with Him (an element also of
> HIrschianism) but reaching that point of intense love and devotion by
> a different route. That is an authentic route taken by many role models
> in our history.

What neo-Chassidus shows is that the Mod-O Jew is looking for some
experiential / emotional Judaism.

But in any case, I don't think the Rambam's parallel to deveiqus is a
major element in today's hashkafic discourse. Too cerebral, too much
aimed only at the academic.

I also amnot sure the Rambam's hashkafah was particularly popular among
Chazal either.
> Please see the Morah Nevuchim 3:54

To me, the core thought of this last pereq of the Moreh is his ranking
of the 4 types of perfection the gemara expects of a navi -- wealth,
health, intellect and middos. The Rambam flips the last two, not
only in the order he presents them, but the Rambam is clear that these
are asvending types of perfection. That only intellectual perfection is
a permanent refinement of the most core part of the self:

    The fourth kind of perfection is the true perfection of man: the
    possession of the highest, intellectual faculties; the possession
    of such notions which lead to true metaphysical opinions as regards
    God. With this perfection man has obtained his final object; it gives
    him true human perfection; it remains to him alone; it gives him
    immortality, and on its account he is called man. Examine the first
    three kinds of perfection, you will find that, if you possess them,
    they are not your property, but the property of others; according
    to the ordinary view, however, they belong to you and to others. But
    the last kind of perfection is exclusively yours...


And as REG also quoted:
>         ...[T]he perfection, in which man can truly glory, is attained by
>         him when he has acquired--as far as this is possible for man--the
>         knowledge of God, the knowledge of His Providence, and of the
>         manner in which it influences His creatures in their production
>         and continued existence. Having acquired this knowledge he will
>         then be determined always to seek loving-kindness, judgment,
>         and righteousness, and thus to imitate the ways of God. We have
>         explained this many times in this treatise.

Really, more so than middos and character?

And so I thought for decades, until I saw RYBS said differently. Not that
I understand how RYBS reaches that concludion, given how much of pereq
54. And the opening chapters of the Moreh about how the eitz hadaas
messed up the pursuit of knowledge by introducing precondition steps;
the definition of nevu'ah as an overflow from the Active Intellect;
3:18 where he defines a homo sapien's personhood in proportion to their
knowledge, so that a person receives hashgachah peratis is proportional
to yedi'ah; and 3:51 and the castle garden metaphor at the start of the
Moreh's closing section.

Really, it seems to be a recurring theme throughout the Moreh Nevuchim.


BUT RYBS understands this section of 3:54 as saying that even yedi'ah
isn't the end of the human endevor, chesed, mishpat and tzedaqah are.
Looking at pereq 53:
   This chapter encomapsses the meanig of three sheimos that needs
   explaining: chesed, mitzpat, and tzedaqah.

And so on, until:
   We have shown that "chesed" refers to gemilus chesed gamur, and
   "tzedaqah" to any good that one does because of the loftiness of
   middos, to thereby complete one's nefesh, and "mishpat" sometimes
   has an outcome of neqamah, and sometimes tov.

   We already epxlained how distant attributes are [from theology][
   that any attribute one attributes to the Deity yisbarakh
   in the books of nevi'im is an attribute of action. ...

And then the Rambam returns to this idea later in 54.

    The navi does not content himself with explaining that the knowledge
    of G-d is the highest kind of perfection; for if this only had been
    his intention, he would have said, ... He says, however, that man
    can only gain praise for himself in the knowledge of G-d and in the
    knowledge of His "Ways and Attributes", which are His actions, as
    we have shown (MN 1:54) in expounding the passage, "har'eini na es
    Kevodekha" (Exod. 38:13). We are thus told in this passage that the
    Divine acts which ought to be known, and ought to serve as a guide
    for our actions, are, ch??es, mishpat, antzedaqah." Another very
    important lesson is taught by the additional phrase, "ba'aretz." It
    implies a fundamental principle of the Torah; it rejects the theory
    of those who boldly assert that God's providence does not extend
    below the sphere of the moon, and that the earth with its contents is
    abandoned, that "azav H' es ha'aretz" (Yechezqeil 8:12). It teaches,
    as has been taught by the greatest of all wise men in the words,
    "Lashem ha'atez umloa'ah" (Shemos 9:29), that His providence extends
    to the earth in accordance with its nature, in the same manner as
    it controls the heavens in accordance with their nature....

And so on. So far, all about knowledge of HQBH. Even chesed, tzedaqah
umishpat are about knowing *Hashem's* HZu"M, and that there is hashgachah
in this world.

And then, this:
    The navi thus, in conclusion, says, "ki ba'eileh chafatzti, ne'um H'"
    i.e., My object [in saying this] is that you shall practise HZu"M
    the earth. In a similar manner we have shown (MN 1:54) that the
    object of the enumeration of H's 13 Middos is the lesson that we
    should acquire similar attributes and act accordingly. The object
    of the above passage is therefore to declare, that the perfection,
    in which man can truly glory, is attained by him when he has acquired
    -- as far as this is possible for man -- the knowledge of God, the
    knowledge of His Providence, and of the manner in which it influences
    His creatures in their production and continued existence. Having
    acquired this knowledge he will then be determined always to seek
    HZu"M, and thus to imitate the ways of G-d. We have explained this
    many times in this treatise.

So, the purpose of all this knowledge is to know what to emulate.

And yet the perfection of the knowledge is a greater perfection than
the perfection of the middos one acquired by emulation?

What am I missing?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 One who kills his inclination is as though he
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
Author: Widen Your Tent      you must know where to slaughter and what
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv