<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
There is an apparent contradiction in the position of the Rambam
regarding belief in Gd's physicality.<br>
<br>
Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:7): <span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";">Minim are
those who say G‑d doesn’t exist, or
that the world has no ruler, or that it has a ruler but there are two
or more
divine entities, or that there is one divinity but that he has a body
and
physical attributes, or denies that G‑d was the First Cause and Rock of
the
universe or worships the stars or anything other than G‑d because he
views it
as an intermediately to G‑d. Whoever belongs to one of these five
categories is
a Min.<br>
<br>
Raavad(Hilchos Teshuva 3:7):</span><b><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";">): </span></b><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";">Contrary to
the Rambam
assertion, a person who believes in G‑d but thinks that G‑d has a
physical body
is not called a heretic. There are a number of sages who are greater
and better
than the Rambam who hold this mistaken view—because they take literally
the
misleading Biblical verses and esoteric medrashim</span><br>
<br>
<p class="quote"><b><span style="">Rav Elchonon Wasserman</span></b><span
class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style=""><span style=""><!--[endif]--></span></span></b></span><b><span
style="">(Explanations
of Agados #2): </span></b><span style="">The view of the Rambam is
that a person who believes G‑d is
physical is a heretic. The Raavad commented: “There are greater and
better
people than the Rambam who erred in this issue because of mistakenly
accepting
the literal meaning of verses and agada.” I heard in the name of Rav
Chaim
Brisker that the Rambam views that there is no such thing as
inadvertent
heresy. Irrespective of how a person arrives at a mistaken belief, the
fact is
that he believes something which is heretical. Furthermore, it is
impossible to
be a member of the Jewish people without proper faith. Rav Chaim used
to say
that “a nebach apikorus (mistaken heretic) is also a heretic.” It would
appear
that he must be correct since all heretic and idol worshippers are
mistaken.
Obviously there is no one more mistaken than one who sacrifices his son
for
idol worship and yet he is subject to capital punishment. However, this
approach is problematic since a baby also doesn’t have proper faith and
yet he
is part of the Jewish people. Furthermore, a person who was denied
proper
education (tinok shenishbah) is allowed to bring a sacrifice to
atone—without
being labeled as a heretic (Shabbos 68b). Thus from these two cases it
would
seem that the Torah exempts an unwitting error also in the realm of
beliefs?
This can be answered by what we mentioned previously—the foundation
principles
of faith are obvious and no intelligent person could accept heretical
beliefs.
It is only because a person wants to reject his obligations to G‑d that
he
rationalizes that religious beliefs are not correct. Therefore, there
is no
such thing as an inadvertent heretical belief. On the other hand, if a
person
doesn’t intend to rebel against religion but mistakenly thinks
something sinful
is permitted by the Torah—then this is truly inadvertent. Perhaps this
is what
the Raavad meant that the person erred “because of misunderstanding
verses and
agada.” In other words, the person erred not because he wanted to
reject
religion but because he mistakenly accepted the literal meaning of
religious
texts. Thus, the Raavad would classify him as someone who mistakenly
says a sin
is permitted according to the Torah and therefore inadvertent heresy
does
exist… The Rambam on the other hand seems to feel that one could not
err in
thinking that G‑d has a body and that if he was serious about his
religion it
would be obvious to him that the texts cannot be taken literally…<br>
</span></p>
<p class="quote">However the Rambam [trans. Shlomo Pines] in Moreh
Nevuchim (1:26):<b><span style=""> </span></b><span style="">You
know their dictum that refers in inclusive fashion to all the kinds of
interpretation connected with this subject, namely, their saying: The
Torah
speaketh in the language of the sons of man.The ‘meaning of this is
that
everything that all men are capable of understanding and representing
to
themselves at first thought has been ascribed to Him as necessarily
belonging
to God, may He be exalted. Hence attributes indicating corporeality
have been
predicated of Him in order to indicate that He, may He be exalted,
exists,
inasmuch as the multitude cannot at fIrst conceive of any existence
save that
of a body alone; thus that which is neither a body nor existent in a
body does
not exist in their opinion.<br>
</span></p>
<p class="quote"><span style="">Rambam thus states that the Torah
describes G-d in physical terms because the masses can not accept the
existence of a non-physical G-d. Thus the Torah itself has to teach the
masses heresy - which according to the Rambam means that they will lose
their Olam HaBah.!? <br>
</span></p>
<p class="quote">Prof. Marc Shapiro discusses this issue p 68-70. and
asserts that Rambam held that for the masses this was the inevitable
starting point from which they had to be educated to proper belief.
This is the view of the standard commentaries to the Moreh Nevuchim of
Abarbanel, Shem Tov and Efodi.<br>
</p>
<p class="quote">I would appreciate other sources that acknowledge the
Rambam's apparent contradiction and how they reconcile it. It is clear
that the Raavad, Rav Chaim, and Rav Elchonon did not understand the
Rambam requiring a two step processes starting with heresy. Assuming
that in fact the Rambam felt that inherently that heresy is the
starting point of all - does this mean that the Rambam agreed with the
Ramban - that proper service of Gd requires acts of "bribing Satan"
e.g., the scapegoat on Yom Kippur? In other words how does this
understanding of the Rambam manifest itself in other aspects of avodas
haShem?<br>
</p>
<p class="quote">gmar chasima tova</p>
<p class="quote">Daniel Eidensohn<br>
<span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="quote"> <br>
<span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style=""><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>