Comments on Rationalist Judaism: Rambam on Reasons for Mitzvos

I just read that chapter of Moreh Nevuchim again. ...

2010-10-29T02:34:56.276+02:00

I just read that chapter of Moreh Nevuchim again. I see the chukim similar to traffic lights. The color of the traffic light has no intrinsic meaning. There is no reason why red can't mean go and green can't mean stop. If you didn't have the law saying red means stop and green means go, traffic lights would have no use.

Similarly, with chukim. If Hashem didn't command them, they would be meaningless.

OK, but this contrast you point out between them d...

2009-07-17T04:47:08.815+03:00

OK, but this contrast you point out between them doesn't seem to be behind what you wrote at http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2009/06/reasons-for-mitzvos.html

"One of the differences between rationalist and non-rationalist schools of the thought is the issue of reasons for mitzvos. This is sharply brought to light when one compares the following comments of Netziv with Rambam. ... The contrast is remarkable!"

Correction: the Netziv seems to hold that we can g...

2009-07-16T22:54:12.682+03:00

Correction: the Netziv seems to hold that we can give secondary reasons, but not primary reasons. Whereas Rambam holds that we can give primary reasons.

He didn't think that there is any concept of &...

2009-07-16T18:11:13.520+03:00

He didn't think that there is any concept of "God's deepest thoughts" here. Rather, the mitzvos have a clear purpose. Whereas Netziv held that one can never give ANY genuine reason for a mitzvah, just insights to make them easier to observe.

"M'ohd amkoo mach'sh'vosecha"...

2009-07-16T04:48:19.372+03:00

"M'ohd amkoo mach'sh'vosecha"
If the Rambam felt that he was giving the /ikkar/ reasons, then it's as if he is claiming that he knows God's deepest thoughts. That's why I think he was saying the former, not the latter. And it appears to me that the Netziv never said to completely avoid offering sound reasons for the mitzvos, just that you mustn't think that you've got the /ikkar/ reason (as per his words you pasted). That's why I don't see them contradicting each other.

I'm sorry if I'm just repeating myself. I'm not sure if I said anything new here.

He would say the latter. But even the former would...

2009-07-12T17:37:39.804+03:00

He would say the latter. But even the former would contradict the Netziv.

Which of the following do think the Rambam would s...

2009-07-12T15:12:18.313+03:00

Which of the following do think the Rambam would say:
"I provide very good reasons for almost all the commandments."
or
"I provide /the ikkar/ reasons for almost all the commandments."

If the former, then is there a contradiction between him and the Netziv?

What exactly is the position of non-Rationalists?...

2009-07-08T08:38:26.490+03:00

What exactly is the position of non-Rationalists? How do they disagree?

Does Rambam hold that the internal truths can be inculcated even if the actor is unaware of the message? It would seem so, because even a hok that can not be understood still is intended to convey a message, right?

Pliny - "Maybe some expansion of Netziv'...

2009-07-07T18:25:45.824+03:00

Pliny -

"Maybe some expansion of Netziv's ideas will show a closer jiving with the Rambam."

You are welcome to check it - I did not see any such thing.

"In one case it says "a reason" and in the other it says "the reason." I wonder how much there is to make out of that."

It's a translation, and a poor one at that, so I don't think you can make anything out of it without checking the original Arabic.

Richard -

"What does this have to do with Rationalism?"

This is the very definition of it (at least in medieval times).

"In Moreh, Rambam writes extensively how the purpose of Mitzvaot are to forge a connection between humans and G-d, when a person stops thinking about G-d for one second, part of the connection is lost, etc.
Is that also rationalistic?"

Yes.

Matt -

Thanks for the reference, that's grea!

The only difference between chukkim and mishpat...

2009-07-07T15:27:24.595+03:00
The only difference between chukkim and mishpatim is that it is often more difficult to figure out how chukkim do this.

One might ask: Doesn't this distinction seem accidental? Isn't it odd that the Torah would identify chukim as an entirely different class of mitzvos, simply because their reasons are harder to figure out?

The best answer I have seen for this question was given by Rabbi Joshua Maroof, in his post Hukkim and Mishpatim. Although I highly recommend reading the whole post, here is the main idea:

I believe that the concept the Rambam is identifying here is of crucial significance for a proper understanding of the Torah in general. Human beings have an intuitive sense of good and bad and right and wrong when it comes to matters of material importance. There is no question in our minds that these issues are very real and very serious. For this reason, all societies have laws that regulate commerce, prohibit murder and theft, and generally protect the physical welfare of their members. These laws - mishpatim - have a purpose that is manifestly obvious to the nations of the world, precisely because the values that mishpatim promote - i.e., material values - are acknowledged as significant by all people, everywhere.

This is what makes the hukkim seem so mysterious. Any search for a mundane explanation of hukkim would necessarily be in vain. This is because hukkim are not designed to promote the material welfare of the Jews and cannot be fathomed in that context. On the contrary, hukkim serve to facilitate intellectual and moral growth alone. Whether it is through restricting our instinctual gratification or directing our minds to the perception of God's hand in nature, the hukkim serve to move us closer to the philosophical goal for which we were divinely chosen.

From the perspective of the committed Jew, the hukkim are the very lifeblood of a meaningful, grounded, spiritually attuned existence. Yet they are rooted in ideals and principles that seem otherworldly and even counterintuitive to an outsider. Precisely because the benefit of hukkim cannot be explained in terms that make sense to a materialistic person, they are scorned and derided by the nations of the world. . . .

Now we can fathom why the Rambam extols the hukkim above the mishpatim. Safeguarding the physical welfare of society is the most basic aim of any legal system; indeed, for most legal systems, it is the only aim. The Torah shares this objective and legislates mishpatim accordingly. However, with its introduction of the hukkim, the Torah demonstrates its uniqueness as a guide to human life. The hukkim do not enhance our mastery or our enjoyment of the physical world per se. If anything, they stand in the way of the endless pursuit of instinctual gratification and material wealth; indeed, their whole function is to contradict our natural inclination to measure goodness and substance in physical terms. They require us to pull our energies away from the concrete and channel them into the intellectual, metaphysical and transcendent . . . hukkim ask us to break free from the narrow confines of the pragmatic and make the pursuit of knowledge, wisdom and sanctity our highest priority.

What does this have to do with Rationalism? Ramba...

2009-07-07T03:13:10.837+03:00
What does this have to do with Rationalism?

Rambam didn't say the only reasons for Mitzvot are the reasons that can be understood by man.

In Moreh, Rambam writes extensively how the purpose of Mitzvaot are to forge a connection between humans and G-d, when a person stops thinking about G-d for one second, part of the connection is lost, etc.

Is that also rationalistic?

"Some of the (philosophers) hold that the com...

2009-07-06T11:27:56.081+03:00
"Some of the (philosophers) hold that the commandments have no object at all; and are only dictated by the win of God. " -- whim?

OK, now that the typo is out of the way, may I ask you to provide a more detailed quote from the Netziv on the topic. So far you provided just a couple of lines. Maybe some expansion of his ideas will show a closer jiving with the Rambam.

In addition, I noticed something about the Rambam's words, as the translation goes:
"Thus these three principles suffice for assigning a reason for every one of the Divine commandments." vs.
"I will [first] explain the reason of each class, and show its undoubted and undisputed object, and then I shall discuss each commandment in the class, and expound its reason."

In one case it says "a reason" and in the other it says "the reason." I wonder how much there is to make out of that.