Maimonides and his synthesis between Faith and Reason

I have not done enough work on Maimonides to say much. Some of the main points were already brought up by Dr Kelley Ross and Sunwell that he is an arch type Kant Friesian. That is with the source of knowledge of universals being from non intuitive immediate knowledge. My personal question at this point is how to deal with the differences between Hegel and Kant and where to place Maimonides in regard to their differences. But the Middle Ages opens up a whole new range of possibilities in this regard. What I mean is the differences between Aquinas and Scotus also invites thought in regard to Maimonides.What was he thinking in terms of Human Freedom? Was he more like Aquinas or Scotus? There are plenty of mysteries about Maimonides that still require thought.
The main things I find important about Maimonides are his synthesis between Faith and Reason [which was shared by most other great people during the Middle Ages]. But it is his particular approach which especially fascinates me. An approach that I am still puzzled by and also enthralled with.

Rosh haShanah page 15 side B. An answer for a question I asked on Tosphot

Background. An אתרוג is unlike other fruit. It stays on the tree after it is already ripe. Thus we do not know if to go by the time of לקיטה for מעשר or the time of חנטה.  For vegetables we go by the time of לקיטה. For fruit in general we go by the time of חנטה. But the אתרוג is a doubt.רבה says an אתרוג coming from the seventh to the eight year is obligated in laws of the seventh year, but not מעשר. From the sixth to the seventh year, it is not obligated in anything. אביי asked on this. In ראש השנה , תוספות suggests that רבה can answer אביי that he is going like רבן גמליאל. I asked on this in my notes, that would simply put the question of אביי on the end of the statement of רבה. The answer to my question is this. If רבה is holding like רבן גמליאל that means the אתרוג is obligated in laws of the seventh year. That is because it ripened in the seventh year. My question was that the same אתרוג ought to be obligated in מעשר because for מעשר ,רבן גמליאל goes by the time of חנטה.
The answer is simple. כולם נכנסים לשדה שלו ואתה רוצה שיהיה חייב במעשר? I mean to say that even though it is already the eight year, but because he had to make the אתרוגים free and available to the public, so they are still coming into his field to take the אתרוגים. And in that case there is no way he could be obligated in מעשר.


) ראש השנה ט''ו: אני רוצה להציג שאלה על תוספות. תוספות אומר רבה היה יכול לענות אביי ולומר שהוא הולך כמו רבן גמליאל. אני שואל שזה היה שם את השאלה של אביי בחזרה לסוף הדין של רבה. (1) רק כדי להציג את הרעיונות הבסיסיים כאן: רבן גמליאל אומר לאתרוג אנחנו הולכים לפי הזמן של חנטה לערלה רבעי ושביעית וזמן לקיטה למעשר. רבי אליעזר אומר שאנחנו הולכים לפי הזמן של חנטה לכל דבר. רבותינו באושא החליטו שאנחנו הולכים לפי הזמן של לקיטה לכל דבר. (2) רבה אמר אתרוג של שישית שנכנסה לשביעית אינו מחויב בביעור ולא במעשר. אתרוג של השנה השביעית שנכנסה לשמינית מחויב בביעור אבל לא במעשר. (3) אביי שאל, הסיפא של רבה הוא בסדר כי הוא רוצה להחמיר, אבל מה לגבי הרישא? זה בסדר שהוא פטור מביעור משום שאנחנו הולכים לפי זמן חנטה, אבל מה לגבי מעשר? אם הולכים לפי חנטה, אז הוא צריך להיות מחויב במעשר. (4) רבה ענה: כולם נכנסים לשדה שלו ואתה רוצה שהוא יהיה מחויב במעשר? כמו חולית של ים לגבי אבדה. (5) תוספות אומרים שיש לרבה יכולת לענות שהוא הולך כרבן גמליאל. (6) השאלה שלי היא שזה היה זורק את השאלה של אביי בחזרה על הסיפא במקום הרישא.




רקע כללי. אתרוג הוא בניגוד לפירות אחרים בזה שהוא נשאר על העץ אחרי שהוא כבר התבשל. לכן אנחנו לא יודעים אם ללכת לפי הזמן של לקיטה עבור מעשר או הזמן של חנטה. עבור ירקות הולכים לפי הזמן של לקיטה. עבור פירות  אנחנו הולכים לפי הזמן של חנטה. אבל האתרוג הוא ספק. רבה אומר אתרוג שמגיע משישית לשנה השביעית אינו מחויב בכל דבר.  משביעית לשנה השמינית מחויב בחוקים של השנה השביעית אבל לא במעשר. אביי שאל על זה.  תוספות עולה כי רבה יכול לענות לאביי שהוא הולך כמו רבן גמליאל. שאלתי על זה שזה יעמיד את השאלה של אביי על סוף לדוח של רבה. התשובה לשאלה שלי היא זו. אם רבה מחזיק כמו רבן גמליאל, אז האתרוג מחויב בחוקים של השנה השביעית. זאת משום שהוא התבשל בשנה השביעית. השאלה שלי היא שאותו אתרוג צריך להיות מחויב במעשר משום שבמעשר רבן גמליאל הולך לפי הזמן של לקיטה. התשובה היא פשוטה. כולם נכנסים לשדה שלו ואתה רוצה שיהיה חייב במעשר? אני מתכוון לומר כי למרות שהוא כבר  שנה השמינית , אלא בגלל שהוא היה צריך לעשות את אתרוגים זמינים לציבור, ולכן הם עדיין באים לתוך שדהו לקחת את האתרוגים. ואם כך, אין דרך שהוא יכול להיות מחויב במעשר



This answer occurred to me  today as I was looking over my notes on the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah

This is clearly what Tosphot was trying to say, but for some reason I did not understand Tosphot until today.

Rosh Hashanah page 15

Background. Rosh Hashanah page 15


Raba says an Etrog coming from the seventh to the eight year is obligated in laws of the seventh year but not maasar. From the sixth to the seventh year it is not obligated in anything. Abyee asked on this.



In Rosh Hashanah, Tosphot suggests that Raba can answer Abyee that he is going like Raban Gamliel.

I asked on this in my notes that would simply put the question of Abyee on the end of the statement of Raba.
The answer to my question is this.
If Raba is holding like Raban Gamliel that means the Etrog is obligated in laws on the seventh year.That is because it ripened in the seventh year. My question was that the same Etrog ought to be obligated in masaar (tithes) because for maasar (tithes) Raban Gamliel goes by the time of picking.
The answer is simple. כולם נכנסים לשדה שלו ואתה רוצה שיהיה חייב במעשר? [People are coming into us field to take fruit, and you want him to be obligated  to give tithes?!] That is: the same answer Raba gave, he could also have given if he was going like Raban Gamliel. Just the time period is different. The way Tosphot is understanding things is that even if people are coming into his field in the eight year just to get the etrogim, that also is enough to make him not obligated in tithes for the etrogim. It is kind of a subtle point that Tosphot is making.

I mean to say that even though it is already the eight years but because he had to make the etrogim available to the public so they are still coming into his field to take the etrogim. And in that case there is not way he could be obligated in Maasar.

One measure of mysticism brings ten measures of delusion. In the Ashkenazic world all mysticism is from the Sitra Achra (Shadow Realm) [with the exception of the Gra].

That Occult and Mysticism are  bad things seems to be getting to be a fundamental of faith.

I would not go that far.  To me it seems there were genuine mystics like Rav Isaac Luria, the Reshash [Rav Shalom Sharabi] and Rav Yaakov Abuchatzaira.
However the tendency seems to be clear. That one measure of mysticism brings ten measures of delusion.

It is too bad that there does not seem to be an accurate measuring stick or test to tell the authentic from the counterfeit.
The basic difference clearly is that in the Ashkenazic world  all mysticism is from the Sitra Achra (Shadow Realm) [with the exception of the Gra]. But the Sephardi world is not far behind. Most any involvement with mysticism nowadays is guaranteed to be from the Sitra Achra.

[On the other hand I might mention what Reb Shmuel Berenbaum [the rosh yeshiva of the Mir in NY] told me when I asked about earning the writings of the Ari (Isaac Luria). He said, "First finish Shas." ["Shas" means the Talmud.] I said "I did." Then he said "Then do it again." And to some degree there in fact seems to be some benefit to learning the Ari for people that have gone through the proper stages of preparation. This is in fact stated clearly in the writings of the Ari himself. I should mention I feel that I gained a lot by learning the central book of the Ari, the Eitz Chaim, before going to Israel. And the attitude of Rav Yaakov Abuchatzaira is clearly positive towards the Ari. But this all seems to be predicated on the idea of having done Shas a few times before hand.]

Reb Israel Salanter. Civilization needs certain unifying factors.

 The basic approach of Reb Israel Salanter is much more significant than most people realize. It contains the seed of the new future. The modern world as is seen clearly is in the decay of post modernism. There is no unifying factor as faith was during the Middle Ages. But the Middle Ages still provides the seeds of the future. The books of Ethics written then.

[Civilization needs certain unifying factors. Though faith was certainly that factor during the Middle Ages, that faith needs some kind of synthesis with later developments. The Middle Ages got a lot right--much more than we admit today. But still there were areas that were naive.]
One important insight of the Middle Ages was the synthesis of Faith and Reason. They knew very well that religious fanaticism is poison. But they also knew the need for faith and morality based on the Torah. [The Middle Ages had  a great idea what to do with religious fanatics-- lock them up in some institution where they can do their thing without bothering anyone else.]

[ In the Middle Ages synthesis of Faith and Reason meant (more or less) Torah with Neo Platonic thought. The tilt towards Aristotle happened almost towards the end of the Middle Ages. Both Maimonides and Saadia Gaon were Neo Platonic.]

[I was never that much into the mind set that looked down on the Middle Ages. But going to yeshiva in NY was even for me a eye opener. The son of Rav Freifeld [Moti Freifeld] told me "Rishonim can not be wrong. Achronim can be wrong."] ["Rishonim" means mediaeval authorities. Achronim means authorities from the Beit Yoseph and after-including the Beit Yoseph (Rav Joseph Karo)]
Besides that it always was (and still is) the basic emphasis of all authentic Litvak yeshivas to emphasize rishonim.

[From where this idea of the superiority of the modern age over the Middle Ages is not clear to me.--To some degree it seems to be a result of realizing the advances of the Renaissance and later on advances in the natural sciences. But the Renaissance is not the same things as the Enlightenment which seems to have gotten almost everything wrong. "What is Enlightenment?" is Kant's famous question. The simple answer is, "Everything that tries to undermine faith. It was a movement directly specifically to bringing down Throne and Altar."
But within the context  realizing the importance of rishonim [medieval authorities], I find some acharonim [later writers] to be of great benefit. Mainly I am thinking of Rav Shach and the Maharsha.
[But there are also some more  achronim I found helpful, e.g. the Pnei Yehoshua, Reb Chaim Soloveitchik. ]

Reb Israel Salanter

(1) To me it seems clear that Reb Israel Salanter was right about starting what is called the Musar Movement. The thing is today it needs modifications. I mean to say that not only has it changed a lot from the original idea, but also the original idea needs modification.
(2) The original idea was really defined in the Letter of Musar [אגרת המוסר]. The idea was the importance of everyone learning books of Ethics from the Middle Ages. [Rishonim].
(3) The modification I suggest is that it should include the Guide of the Rambam and the אמונות ודעות (Faiths and Knowledges ) of Rav Saadia Gaon.
(4) Another modification is the "משגיח" really needs to be dropped. [The person that in yeshivas gives the "Musar Shmooz". [Musar Talks] These are mainly just rosh yeshiva "want-to-be"s.

Maybe people need somewhere to go for spiritual advice--but that is never a mashgiach.

In yeshiva, I talked with the rosh yeshiva himself, Reb Shmuel Berenbaum, not the mashgiach.
(Also descendants of Rav Yaakov Abuchatzaira are good to go to for advice.)
(5) Outdoor and survival skills contributes a lot towards good character--learning to work as a team. Thus a part of Musar ought to be camping and survival skills in nature.

"Does knowledge of God come through knowledge of nature?" To Hegel you would have to say yes, but visa versa also.

I think Hegel can best be understood as a synthesis of the schools of thought that preceded him.  Though in my own mind I have in general thought of Hegel as the continuation of Aristotle, but now I realize he is  a lot more comprehensive than that.

One thing I noticed is that he wants to answer a problem that arose in the Middle Ages. "Does knowledge of God come through knowledge of nature?"



This provides a lot of insight into Hegel. Hegel is thinking that by knowledge of the Divine come knowledge of nature. [Not that he would put it that way, but rather "Absolute Spirit".] But Hegel is also using the idea of dialectics to go from nature up to the Divine also.

[This is to me very similar to Dr. Kelley Ross's "Ontological Un-decidablity."]


My own feeling about this [I mentioned many times] is on the side of Maimonides. That is that knowledge of Physics and Metaphysics is a prerequisite to come to love and fear of God.
The most obvious reason is that knowledge of nature provides constraints against religious delusions. This is not the reason why the Rambam considers it a prerequisite but still you can see its obvious advantage. Just too many religious people think of themselves as being super holy and super smart simply by the fact of their adherence to certain rituals.
I do feel however I gained the experience of Absolute Spirit in Safed after a few years of being in in the Mirrer Yeshiva in NY. And that was at a time I was doing only Torah learning [i.e. the Old Testament and the Talmud [Gemara Rashi Tosphot]].