Trust in God

The subject of trust really should be studied from the Duties of the Heart and the מדרגת האדם by the Alter of Navardok --Joseph Horwitz.
It is highly relevant.


In Quantum Mechanic sight makes  a bounda


I should mention that there is an idea about trust in God without effort in Duties of the Heart and מדרגת האדם  and the Gra even though it seems not to be a requirement. That is one can work all day and come home with exactly the same thing as if he had sat and learned Torah all day. But one can work all day if he really wants to. But it will not get him anything more than if he had sat and learned Torah.

I am not sure what to say about this except that I did this for  few years and it does work.


I am pretty sure that many people have never even heard of this idea of trust with no effort. But it is right in Proverbs 3:5 in the commentary of the Gra

In any case I have an expanded idea of what it means to learn Torah based on the Rambam who considers מעשה בראשית and מעשה מרכבה to be one part of learning Talmud. Some think that means mystic things but I don't think that is how the Rambam intended it. He defines what these terms mean in the beginning of the Mishna Torah and in the Guide.

In any case I had a great and important subject to discuss today. But it is so vast and my small mind has a great deal of trouble understanding it. But at least I wanted to share what little I may merit to understand of the Talmud.


I think Chaim Soloveitchik has an idea about obligations that are on land of a borrower that provide the basis for the argument on "borrowed and borrowed and then bought."
Also I think his idea provides the basis for the argument between the two answers of Tosphot in Bava Metzia page 157 and the Tosphot in Bava Metzia page 14b. And if I am right then we can also say thus there is a relation between the sugia in Bava Metzia and borrowed and borrowed and then bought.

If I would have energy I would present the idea of Reb Chaim. Then the idea of לווה ולווה וקנה and show their relation, and then the Tosphot in Bava Batra.


But before I can do that I wanted to discuss one answer of Tosphot in Bava Batra. The Talmud gives a case  where you have a lender and borrower and a first buyer and a second buyer from the lender. The borrower defaulted on the loan. The lender goes to the first buyer and gets as much of the field needed to cover the loan. Then the first buyer goes to the second buyer to collect his loss. But he also put work into the field. for that he can only collect from the seller, not the second buyer.
"Why is there a second field?", Tosphot asks. In Bava Metzia Tosphot has only one answer. The first field was designated to pay for the loan. In Bava Batra the first answer of Tosphot is that the lender was required to go after the first field. That shows once obligation is on something it get first attention even if later obligations come on it subsequently.
)  ב''מ קי: ב''מ י''ד: בבא בתרא קנז: הסוגיה פה הוא בב''מ יד: ובבבא בתרא קנז: יש מחלוקת בין תוספות בב''מ ותוספות בבא בתרא. המחלוקת תלויה בסברת רב חיים הלוי מבריסק. הסברא היא זאת: לפי דעת הרמב''ם, המלווה והלוקח חולקים את השבח בגלל ששיעבוד שניהם עובר דרך הלווה. אבל המלווה גובה את כול השבח שגדל ממילא בגלל ששיעבודו חל על הקרקע בעצמו ישיר, ולא דרך הלווה [שהוא המוכר]. (זאת אומרת שאחר שהשיעבוד חל על השדה, הוא נשאר שם, ואינו שם בגלל המשכה של כח המוכר.) זאת היא סברת תירוץ הראשון בתוספות בבא בתרא קמז: במצב שלנו איפה שהמלווה גובה את הקרקע מן הלוקח, אף על פי שיש קרקע אחרת ללוקח השני. הסיבה היא ששיעבודו חל על הקרקע בעצמה. מצד השני, תירוץ השני ותוספות ב''מ יד: אוחזים שאם יש לוקח שני, המלווה צריך לגבות ממנו בגלל ששיעבודו הולך דרך המוכר, ואינו חל על הקרקע בעצמה. ועכשיו מחלוקת שני שתירוצים היא מחלוקת ראשונים. שהסברא של תירוץ הראשון היא שיטת הרמב''ם לפי פירושו של רב חיים ברמב''ם. והרמב''ן והראב''ד חולקים על הרמב''ם.  ותירוץ השני ותוספות בב''מ יד: הולכים לפי שיטת הראב''ד והרמב''ן.
ואין להקשות על זה מדברי הרמב''ן שכתב שהמלווה אומר: "ארעאי [הקרקע שלי] השביח", בגלל שכוונת הרמב''ן היא שבגלל שיעבודו על הלווה הקרקע נחשב שלו [של המלווה]. [והשיעבוד בא דרך הלווה.]

תוספות ב''מ יד: תוספות  בבא בתרא קנ''ז יש דיון של מלווה לווה ולוקח. הלווה אינו משלם והמלווה גובה מלוקח הראשון ולוקח הראשון גובה מלוקח השני. תוספות שואלים איך זה יכול להיות שלוקח הראשון יכול לגבות את הקרן משועבדים? למה יש משועבדים ללוקח שני.זאת אומרת אחר ההלוואה הלווה קנה עוד שדה ומכרו ומשם לוקח הראשון גובה קרנו. תירוץ הראשון של תוספות שלמרות שיש לוקח שני, המלווה גובה מלוקח הראשון. תירוץ השני הוא ששדה הראשון הוא אפותיקי. זאת אומרת שאם הוא היה משועבד, המלווה היה צריך לגבות מלוקח השני. נראה  לבסס את הטענות בין  בוויכוח על "לווה וללוה וקנה".  בדין של "לווה ולווה וקנה" יש סיבה טובה  לומר שיעבוד הראשון נופל על השדה ושיעבוד השני אינו יכול לבטלו. זה בגלל ששיעבוד הראשון חל על הלווה ראשון ומן הלווה הוא חל על השדה ושיעבוד השני צריך להמתין בתור. בדין שלנו בבבא בתרא קנ''ז,  שיש שני שדות שנמכרו. ואחד נמכר לפני האחר. יש סיבה דומה לומר שהוא צריך ללכת אחרי שדה הראשון שנמכר בגלל שנשתעבוד ראשון. תוספות ב''מ יד: ותירוץ השני של תוספות בבא בתרא מחזיקים שיותר מסתבר שכל השיעבוד חל על שדה השני כל זמן שלא נמכר. וגם אם נמכר אין סיבה ידועה שהשיעבוד היה צריך לחזור לשדה הראשון. והדין דומה לגביית כתובה שגובים ממה שנמכר אחרון.

Somehow I think I might have made it clearer but that is the best I can do right now.

What I am trying to do is to make a triangle. I was to show Reb Chaim gives a יסוד foundation principle that underlies the two different subjects and by that to show bot subjects are related.

I believe the USA surrendered its freedoms to a socialist dictatorship of a Muslim, 8 years ago. But it did not start then. It occurred to me that the problem was not the administration. Rather it is that there is a sizable number of Americans that simply despise everything that the USA stands for.


 I have another reason to think that the USA administration at this time is not very good. Let me ask you. Are you prepared for war? Are you prepared for nuclear destruction? We are actively arming improving Iran's nuclear capabilities under the present agreement. Would Ronald Reagan have agreed to arm our enemies in exchange for a piece of paper? Would a Republican president agree to arm people that are shouting for our destruction every day? Do you really think that Iran is just bluffing when they call for the destruction of the USA ever day? And best of all the USA has encouraged at every turn the rise of a hostile Islamic Empire that is just as much set of the destruction of the USA as Iran. To top that off the Muslim USA president has engaged in actively bringing radical Muslims to the USA to undermine the very fabric of America.


Are you willing to bet your life that people whose very religion demands your destruction are merely bluffing?

And how many American would die in an Iranian first strike? About 80 million. Think about that while you remember these are not people that the fear of retaliation can bother. They look forward to it.  All the better to get their 70 virgins.



The major thing that makes me upset with the government in the USA really did not start with the present administration. And it not the fact that it was so different from when I was growing up.
 Sure it was a wholesome and decent world back then. What makes me upset about the USA is a erosion of Freedom. Socialism got inside of everything. Now to some degree I understand why this happened. It takes a kind of special kind of people to be able to function as a democracy. When the influx of barbarians and savages made democracy and freedom impossible the USA government and police responded in kind to start to control things.

To some degree it has been a the successful  attempt by the Democrats to turn the USA to socialism and away from freedom. But if the people themselves had stood up against it it never would have happened. [And it was not all the fault of the Democrats either. There is enough guilt to go around]

But it is not too late to turn the clock back.

So to expand on this a little more. The issue is not that I am so against Socialism. It is rather the corroding of the Jewish-Christian Values values upon which the USA was founded I think made socialism inevitable.
And the cure is simple. People need to learn Torah values. Simple as pie. That would be a two pronged approach. First Jews need to learn Torah the Oral and Written Torah.  Next is Christians to get back to traditional Christian Values. Now I am not Christian. But just off hand the first step I would think would be for Christian people to start learning Augustine and Aquinas. But that is just a guess. There might be better things out there for Christians but I am not sure what they might be. I for one have never heard of anything better. The end result of this double approach would be hopeful that people would get back to good wholesome values. Things that politics can't change then would change internally.

For Jewish people learning the whole Talmud might seem hard at first. But in fact all you need to do is to do a half page a day with Tosphot and the Maharsha. That in itself should not take more than about 40 minutes per day.  It gives you plenty of time to go surfing and skiing.

Tosphot bava metzia 14 bava batra 157

What I wanted to discuss today was Tosphot. Also to draw a diagram about the situation. And then to discuss something that is hard to understand--that is to ask a question.We have a lender a borrower who is also the seller and a the first buyer and the second buyer. Also two fields. The first field was bought by the first buyer and the second by the second buyer. The lender collects from the first buyer because the borrower did not have any money. And the first buyer collects from the second buyer.
Tosphot in Bava Metzia says let us prove from this that "What I will buy" is not obligated.
This proves that nothing else will account for the existence of the second field to this Tosphot until he comes up with a different reason אפותיקי. This shows that since we know what I will buy is obligated then the lender would have had to gone to the second field. There are many possible reasons why there might be a second field. (1) The lender had to go to the first field. (2) The lender had a choice. (3) The second field was bought after the loan was collected. It is this last one which I want to concentrate on. Tosphot holds none of these reasons are valid. So neither is the last one. This shows Tosphot in Bava Metzia must hold that the lender must always go after which ever field was sold last.
This all is what the Maharshal says. The reason I think that Tosphot holds this is because of Tractate Ketubot in which the regular way  a Ketubah is collected is that we go after what was sold last.

What is bothering me here is we are assuming the first field was owned by the borrower at the time of the loan and the second was bought by the borrower after the loan. The reason for this seems clear. The second one is only collected because of what is written in the document so its obligation is weaker. But this seems to contradict what we just said that the normal way of collected  a loan is to go after what was sold last.

Or you could say the entire braita means the opposite. That is, that the lender goes after the second field and the second buyer goes after the first field. You could answer that perhaps the first was collected before the second buyer bought his field. But what if it was owned at the time the second buyer bought his field? Maybe it would not change anything?
But this last two paragraphs are a side issue for the moment. I think they are important issues but I don't know how to deal with them. And they are at any rate not the reason for this essay.


What I wanted to mention which I think is important is that in Bava Batra Tosphot clearly says that even if the "what I will buy is obligated" still there is a reason why there could be  a second field. That is the second one was bought after the original loan was collected. This is the idea of the Maharsha about what Tosphot says there and it seems to me to be implicit in Tosphot. But this is directly opposed to Tosphot in Bava Metza where we just got done saying that even if the loan had been collected and then the second field was bought still the lender would have had to have gone after the second field for any more debt.
The Maharshal I think wants to say that the Tosphot in Bava Batra agrees with the Tosphot in Bava Metzia but the Mahrasha says that was only because his version of Tosphot was not accurate.
In plain English I want to say this is an argument between the two Tosphot and not just between the Maharsha and the Maharshal.
 I mean no matter what you think is going on in Bava Batra but for sure the Maharshal is right about what Tospot is saying in Bava Metzia.

__________________________________________________________________________

What I wanted to discuss today was תוספות. Also to draw a ציור about the situation. And then to discuss something that is hard to understand, that is to ask a question. יש מלווה and a לווה who is also the מוכר and  the first לוקח and the second לוקח. Also two שדות. The first שדה was bought by the first לוקח and the second by the second לוקח. The מלווה collects from the first buyer because the borrower did not have any money. And the first buyer collects from the second buyer.
תוספות in בבא מציעא says let us prove from this that מה שאקנה אינו משועבד.
This proves that nothing else will account why the lender did not collect from the second field  in the opinion this תוספות until he comes up with a different reason אפותיקי. This shows that since we know what מה שאקנה is משועבד then the lender would have had to gone to the שדה השני. There are many possible reasons why there might be a second שדה. Maybe the מלווה had to go to the first שדה.  The lender had a choice of which field to go to.  Maybe the שדה השני was bought after the גביית החוב. It is this last one which I want to concentrate on. תוספות holds none of these reasons are valid. So neither is the last one. This shows תוספות in בבא מציעא must hold that the מלווה must always go after whichever field was sold last.
This all is what the מהרש''ל says. The reason I think that תוספות holds this is because of מסכת כתובות in which the regular way  a כתובה is collected is that we go after what was sold last.

What is bothering me here is we are assuming the שדה הראשון was owned by the לווה at the time of the loan and the שדה השני was bought by the לווה after the הלוואה. The reason for this seems clear. The second one is only נגבה because of what is written in the document so its שיעבוד is weaker. But this seems to contradict what we just said that the normal way of גביית חוב is to go after what was sold last.

Or you could say the entire ברייתא means the opposite. That is, that the מלווה goes after the second field and the second buyer goes after the first field. You could answer that perhaps the first was collected before the second לוקח bought his field. But what if it was owned at the time the second buyer bought his שדה? Maybe it would not change anything?
But this last two paragraphs are a side issue for the moment. What I wanted to mention which I think is important is that in תוספות בבא בתרא clearly says that even if the מה שאקנה משועבד still there is a reason why there could be  a second field. That is the second one was bought after the original loan was collected. This is the idea of the מהרש''א  about what תוספות says there and it seems to me to be implicit in תוספות. But this is directly opposed to תוספות in בבא מציעא where we just got done saying that even if the loan had been collected and then the second field was bought still the lender would have had to have gone after the second שדה for any more debt.
The מהרש''ל I think wants to say that the תוספות in בבא בתרא agrees with the תוספות in בבא מציעא but the מהרש''א  says that was only because his version of תוספות was not accurate.
In plain English I want to say this is an argument between the two תוספות and not just between the מהרש''א and the מהרש''ל.

 יש מלווה ולווה שהוא גם מוכר ולוקח הראשון ולוקח השני. גם שני שדות. השדה הראשון נקנה על ידי לוקח הראשון  והשני על ידי לוקח השני. המלווה גובה מקונה הראשון, כי ללווה לא היה כסף. והקונה הראשון גובה מהקונה השני.
תוספות בבא מציעא אומר תנו לנו להוכיח מזה שמה שהאקנה אינו משועבד
זה מוכיח ששום דבר אחר לא יהווה סיבה מדוע המלווה לא יגבה מהשדה השני לדעת זו של תוספות עד שהוא מגיע לסיבה שונה, היינו אפותיקי. זה מראה כי מאחר שאנו יודעים מה שאקנה הוא משועבד, אז המלווה היה צריך ללכת לשדה השני. יש הרבה סיבות אפשריות שאולי יש שדה שני. אולי המלווה היה צריך ללכת לשדה הראשון. אולי היה למלווה בחירת לאיזה השדה ללכת . אולי השדה השני נקנה לאחר גביית החוב. זו האחרון שאני רוצה להתרכז בה. תוספות מחזיקה לא  אף אחת מהסיבות הללו תקפים. אז גם לא האחרון. זה מראה תוספות בבא מציעא חייב להחזיק שמלווה חייב תמיד ללכת אחרי  השדה שנמכר אחרון.
זה כל מה שאומר מהרש''ל. הסיבה שאני חושב שתוספות מחזיק זה בגלל מסכת הכתובות שבו הדרך הרגילה שכתובה נגבה היא שאנחנו הולכים אחרי מה  שנמכר אחרון. מה שמטריד אותי כאן אנו מניחים שהשדה הראשון היה בבעלות של הלווה בו בזמן של ההלוואה והשדה השני נרכש על ידי הלווה לאחר ההלוואה. הסיבה לכך נראית ברורה. השני הוא רק נגבה בגלל מה שכתוב במסמך כך שהשיעבוד שלו הוא חלש יותר. אבל זה נראה סותר את מה שאנחנו אמרנו שהדרך הרגילה של גביית החוב היא ללכת אחרי מה שנמכר אחרון. או שאתה יכול לומר כל ברייתא אומרת את ההפך. כלומר, שמלווה הולך אחרי השדה השני והקונה השני הולך אחרי השדה הראשון. אתה יכול לענות על זה אולי הראשון נאסף לפני לוקח השני קנה שדהו. אבל מה אם זה היה בבעלות של לוקח בראשון בזמן הקונה השני קנה השדה שלו? אולי זה לא היה משנה משהו? אבל שתי הפסקאות האחרונות זה הן בעיה בצד לרגע. מה אני רוצה להזכיר שאני חושב שחשוב הוא שבתוספות בבא בתרא אומר בבירור שגם אם מה שאקנה משועבד עדיין יש סיבה למה יכול להיות שיש שדה שני. זה השני נקנה לאחר ההלוואה המקורית נגבה. זהו הרעיון של מהרש''א על מה תוספות אומרים שם.  אבל זה עומד בסתירה ישירה לתוספות בבא מציעא שבו  אמרו כי גם אם ההלוואה שנאסף ולאחר מכן בשדה השני נקנה עדיין המלווה היה צריך ללכת אחרי השדה השני בשביל מה שנשאר מן החוב . מהרש''ל רוצה לומר שהתוספות בבא בתרא חולקים עם תוספות בבא מציעא אבל מהרש''א אומר שהיה רק בגלל הגרסה של תוספות שלו לא הייתה מדויקת. בעברית פשוטה שאני רוצה להגיד זה ויכוח בין שני תוספות ולא רק בין מהרש''א ומהרש''ל

Rav Elazar Menachem Shach gives an answer to the Rambam in Shabat that I think I must have considered at some point on my own but  for some reason I did not pursue the idea to the end.
I have known that some kinds of work on Shabat have intention as part of their definition. That you see in writing and erasing. [Writing does not depend on intention, but erasing does.] Also in tearing. So when I saw in a mishna in Tractate Shabat that catching animals requires intention as part of the definition of the work, I thought I had an easy "ready to go" answer for the Rambam in Laws of Shabat 10:17. But I forgot about it because I got sidetracked by other issues.

And in fact I did! But I did not know that I did. I was just today that my learning partner opened up the book of Rav Shach [the Avi Ezri]and told me how Rav Shach answers that Rambam that I realized that I had [past tense] a great answer for the Rambam but was too dumb to realize it at the time.

To some degree I have an excuse. I was interested in Tosphot and I am still trying to figure out what Tosphot is thinking about this whole thing. Also I was looking at Reb Chaim Soloveitchik and trying to figure out how he answers the Rambam and it is definitely not what Rav Shach says.[The Chazon Ish wrote that  question the answer of Reb Chaim in his emendations at the end of the Chidushei HaRambam that my learning partner was also wondering about..]

In any case  I might as well just tell you the bare facts of the situation.
Tracate Shabat 107 on side a has the statement of Shmuel that pressing a boil to get out the pus and catching a snake so that it does not bite are permitted on Shabat.  It is that famous statement of his that everywhere where the mishna says not liable it means not liable but still forbidden except in three cases where it means permitted.

That is side a. On side b we have three different versions of some statement by Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav. One is pressing a boil is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda would say it is liable because of work done not for its own sake.

Shmuel goes like Rabbi Yehuda and still says pressing a boil is permitted. And so is the case to the Rambam. This seems like a direct contraction. Tosphot {Shabat 103} says Shmuel was reporting the opinion of Rabbi Shimon but he himself did not hold that way. The Rambam however says work done not for its own sake is liable and pressing a boil and catching a snake so it does not bite are allowed on Shabat.

Rav Shach brings the statement of Raba in Shabat page 146 that making an opening is liable only if it is to bring in and take out. So we have a simple answer for the Rambam. Certain kinds of work have intention as part of their definition. Making an opening is one and catching an animal is another. Without that intention you don't have work at all. Doing them without that intention is not the same as other kinds of work that intention is not part of the definition. So pressing the boil without intention of bring in and out and catching a snake so it does not bite are not work at all.They are not simply work with an alternative intention but nothing at all.
And that means even Rabbi Yehuda would say they are permitted. And this explains why on page 107 b in Shabat that there are different versions of what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav--that is because each version does not agree with the other one.

However the version that says pressing a boil is only the opinion of Rabbi Shimon obviously holds that intention is not a part of that particular kind of work.

The Rambam's statement itself is this: piercing a boil in the way of doctors is forbidden and liable. But not in that way is permitted. 10:17 Laws of Shabat.

I have to say that I am impressed with Rav Shach. And though it was Reb Chaim Soloveitchik who started the revolution in understanding of the Rambam, I think Rav Shach was the tip of the sword.

In any case I can't claim credit for this idea. I had all the pieces and I definitely had the answer when it came to piercing the boil. And I also suspected the capturing of the snake so it should not bite is not a work at all. But to put the pieces together to answer the Rambam, Rav Shach  gets the credit.

Music For the Glory of the God Of Israel

q37 [q37 in midi]  [I  can not find q37in a  nwc format]

q42 [q42 in midi]  [q42 in nwc]  Q41 [q41 in midi] [q41 in nwc] q40 [q40 in midi] [q40 nwc] q43 [q43 in midi]  [q43 nwc]  q44 [q44 midi] [q44 nwc]


n87 [n87 midi] [n87 nwc ]

Exodus 4 [Exodus 4 in midi] [Exodus 4 nwc]

Black Hole  [Black Hole midi] [Black Hole nwc]
Mathematics [Mathematics midi]  [Mathematics nwc]
n96 [n96 in midi]  [n96 nwc]

b32 [b32 midi]  [b32 nwc]


b100 b100 midi b100 nwc

b98 [b98 midi] [b98 in nwc]
CHS [chs in midi]  chs in nwc
For Orchestra orchestra midi  orchestra in nwc

Divine Simplicity. I thought to give a brief account of this, along with Creation ex Nihilo.

The שכליים העליונים [the higher intellects]  came up in conversation with my learning partner and so I thought to repeat here some of the ideas. He had seen this in the Ramban [Nachmanides]. Of course this is common in the Middle Ages. That is a medieval adaption of Plato's higher ideas that is referring to angels.
Mainly the Ramban [Nachmanides] and most medieval thought  is Neo Platonic. That is until the Rambam [Maimonides] and then Aquinas.  The reason for the switch was I think a lot due to Divine Simplicity. Medieval thought could deal with higher intellects, but not intellect in God. Plotinus himself  had no problem with this, but from Jewish and Christian perspective this introduced a plurality in God that was unacceptable.
And the neo Platonic perspective also easily slipped into Pantheism.

What happened was people got tired of trying to account for the Torah based on Plotinus. Finally the Rambam [Maimonides] simply made a break for it and went straight to Aristotle. Aquinas followed.

Along with this Creation something from nothing had been a problem from a Neo-Platonic perspective also. Again the Rambam held it was best accounted for by Aristotle's' First Cause. The Ari side steps the issue by starting everything from the אור אין סוף Infinite Light. I noticed this right at the beginning of my study of the Eitz Chaim. [The light is a creation. Then everything emanates from the light. That is what the verse refers to in "Let there be light." That according to Saadia Gaon and the Rambam is creation from nothing.]

 The Guide itself is kind of a codification of the faith of the Torah --monotheism. And I think it is impressive because it presents the Faith of the Torah as one coherent compact structure. Nothing  compares with the Guide in giving a rigorous and logically sound structure for the Torah world view.

So just to recap. The faith of the Torah is that God is one. There is no plurality in Him. He is not a composite. He has no ingredients. And He made the world from nothing.

Now Creation something from nothing was always an important aspect of Torah. The first to state it in this way was Augustine. But the Rambam [Maimonides] said it was the foundation of the entire Torah. And he devoted Vol II of the Guide to showing this.

[The Guide itself I have to admit is a hard read. In a practical sense what I do and recommend to others is the books of Medieval Ethics, Musar which give the best account I know of about how to live as a decent human being.] Musar has an advantage of being understandable more so than the Guide, and also it does not have the sort of modernist, feel-good, psychologized versions of Torah that are so common today.
In the morning prayers we have a section describing the  Incense in the Temple in Jerusalem. It says if they had put a certain ingredient in it it would have been irresistible. But they did not put it is because the Torah said not to. Attempts to make the Torah more attractive only bastardize it.
The way people bastardize the Torah is by adding ingredients that the Torah says not to add.
It is a true principle that Achronim [authorities after the Shulchan Aruch] are lightweights compared to the Rishonim [Mediaeval Authorities]. But even among the Rishonim there are few that compare with the Rambam.  Maybe none. In any case, to dismiss the Guide as misguided requires a good degree of incompetence and stupidity. But that is not as bad as ignoring, it as if it is irrelevant to Torah thought. That takes more than stupidity. That takes downright intentional deception.]