Prof. Menachem Kellner is working on a book on Maimonidean universalism and would like your help. He has published previously on this topic, in his Maimonides on Judaism and the Jewish People and Maimonides’ Confrontation with Mysticism, but this book contains new material.
Prof. Kellner has asked that we use the power of the internet, we crowdsource, to find particularist passages in Rambam’s writings, those that can be seen as indicating that he thought Jews are intrinsically distinct from (and superior to) Gentiles. This is, understandably, contrary to the way many read Rambam’s general approach. That is what it makes it so interesting.
Here are eight such sources Prof. Kellner provided (some from a secondary source) to start the exercise:
Mishneh Torah
1) Hilkhos Teshuva II:10
2) H. Issurei Bi’ah XII:4-10
3) H. Issurei Bi’ah XIX:17
4) H. Matenos Aniyim I:1-2
5) H. Chovel u-Mazik V:10
6) H. Avadim IX.8
Commentary on the Mishnah
7) Bava Kama IV:3 (in connection with H. Nizkei Mammon VIII:5 and Melakhim X:12)
8) Avos V:18
Please provide additional sources in the comments, and make sure to note when you use secondary material.
Jon Baker cited this well known Halacha from Yad, at the very end of Shemitah VYovel:
“[יג] ולא שבט לוי בלבד, אלא כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם אשר נדבה רוחו אותו והבינו מדעו להיבדל לעמוד לפני ה’ לשרתו ולעובדו לדעה את ה’, והלך ישר כמו שעשהו האלוהים, ופרק מעל צווארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר ביקשו בני האדם–הרי זה נתקדש קודש קודשים, ויהיה ה’ חלקו ונחלתו לעולם ולעולמי עולמים; ויזכה לו בעולם הזה דבר המספיק לו, כמו שזיכה לכוהנים וללויים. הרי דויד אומר “ה’, מנת חלקי וכוסי–אתה, תומיך גורלי” (תהילים טז,ה).
I would suggest that the key to understanding this Halacha are the phrases “לפני ה’ לשרתו ולעובדו לדעה את ה’”, and “ופרק מעל צווארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר ביקשו בני האדם–הרי זה נתקדש קודש קודשים, ויהיה ה’ חלקו ונחלתו לעולם ולעולמי עולמים
Only by living in the means by which a person is “לפני ה’ as defined by the Torah and TSBP “can one reach such an exalted level-not by living a life based on one’s DIY definitions of the same.
“Avi: Perhaps you can explain to me how the sources you cited are relevant.”
Fine, I’ll repeat myself, because I’m nicer than you are.
Stating that a Non-Jew must first become a Jew, and only then may they follow the laws, proves that Jews and non-Jews have an inherent difference. That difference must first be overcome before they are allowed to follow (edit: Or learn) Jewish laws.
“Avi: And I suppose that American citizens and people who are not American citizens are intrinsically different because of formal ciitizenship requirements and the need for a formal cermony.”
No, you suppose wrongly. Which is why the Constitution also applies to Non US citizens who are on US soil, according to the supreme court of the united states. And why any non-citizen can follow and be taught any law in America they wish to learn.
Avi -
Stating that a Non-Jew must first become a Jew, and only then may they follow the laws, proves that Jews and non-Jews have an inherent difference. That difference must first be overcome before they are allowed to follow (edit: Or learn) Jewish laws.
Lawrence rightly points out that in the teshuva Rambam clearly doesn’t learn this way, because he permits teaching Torah to Christians. His objection seems to be not due to an intrinsic difference between Jews and Gentiles but to a fear that they will take it and run, so to speak.
As for following the laws, Rambam writes in a few places (off the top of my head – in Melachim, Milah, and in a teshuva about milah) that they may do the mitzvos and they are rewarded like every אינו מצווה ועושה. This is with the exception of Shabbos though, of course. That might be a good point.
Dov: Indeed, you are correct regarding both your points. That is, indeed, how I understand the responsum. Avi, take note. As for Dov’s second paragraph: “A Noahide who wishes to perform any one of the other mitzovt of the Torah [except for Sabbath] in order to receive a reward in not prevented from doing it in a halakhic fashion.” Why the Sabbath is different is a good question. But the onus of proof is on Avi to show that it has anything to do with intrinsic differnces. I realize that Avi is nicer than I, since he says so, but I think he fails to understand that there is a difference between intrinsic differences between members and non-mmebers of a particular community and legal differences stemming precisely from membership or non-membership in that community. Moreover, how a non-member becomes a member of a community does not indicate, in my view, that there is any intrinsic difference between him and a member.
The irony, here, is that conversion has always been seen as being problematic for those who claimed that there are intrinsic differences between Jews and non-Jews. And here Avi, strangly, wishes to convert it into a strong point! Don’t you get it, Avi? Intrinsic differences, precisely because they are intrinsic, can NEVER be overcome! At least the particularists could recognize a problem when they saw one.
Steve: I am not quite sure what you are seeking to prove by quoting the end of Shemittah ve-Yovel. That text, of course, is a classic proof for the universalists, with its reference to
“kol ish ve-ish mi-kol bai olam,” “any person from all the inhabitants of the world.”
Again, I will repeat myself. Taken out of context, those halachot, give an argument for a particularist reading of the Rambam. If you wanted to selectively quote the Rambam to distort his true views, that is a section you could use.
The fact that you want to say that other sections of the Rambam dispute that reading, then fine, but that isn’t what this posting is about. The fact that Rambam was not a particularist, does not mean that you can’t take his statements out of context to “show” that he was.
As for conversion, there is no such problem. Particularists can argue that people who convert, do so only because they really had a Jewish soul to begin with, and the knowledge of that was lost over the generations. The process of conversion, does not give them a Jewish soul, but confirms to the community that they have one.
Regarding the Halacha at the very end of Shemitah VYovel that was quoted, R’ Charlop in an article in Beit Yitzhak (early 1990′s) makes a similar claim that this halacha doesn’t apply specifically to Jews but would apply to non-Jews as well. When I get home from work I will take a look at the article and try to summarize R’ Charlop’s position here.
Avi: The fact that particularists have to argue that converts have a Jewish soul to begin with indicates that they have problem on thir hands that they are trynig to solve. Note, by the way, Halevi doesn’t make such an assertion.
R’ Charlop’s article is in the Beis Yitzchak from תשנ”ו page 187. He points out that the נושאי כלים on the Rambam don’t bring a מקור for this. R’ Chaim Kanievsky brings מקורות that relate to jews only, implying that he holds that the Rabam is talking about Jews only. R’ Kapach on the other hand says that the Rambam is referring to anyone even non-Jews.
R’ Charlop concludes that the לשון of כל באי עולם should be taken literally and refers to Jews and non-Jews alike.
Marty Bluke: Thanks for the reference. See also Hilkhot Sanhedrin 12:3(9), where the Rambam uses the phrase “baei olam” to clearly refer to all humanity. Perhaps Rabbi Charlop referred to the parallel.
Steve, Prof Kaplan: Perhaps Steve is reading that halacha in a “secrets of the Rambam” sense? As in, even while he insists that korbanos will return, he secretly believes we have evolved past them?
So too here, he seems to require that one who reaches this level be an eved Hashem. A non-Jew can never really be an eved Hashem insofar as he cannot observe Shabbos or learn Torah the way Jews dor. In fact, by violating Shabbos every week he will be reminded that he is a second-class citizen (in-process converts have told me as much). Thus, the non-Jew can’t actually reach this level (without converting). Even a Maimonidean ben-Noach isn’t an eved Hashem. He can only really be an atheist in practice – he has to give up non-Jewish holidays and beliefs, can’t institute his own holidays, but still can’t fully participate in Jewish holidays (aliyah leregel, etc.)
One could argue, in fact, that the whole institution of bnei Noach reinforces Jewish particularism – even though you have given up your old religion, unless you indicate that you really have a Jewish soul and actually convert, you cannot break the glass mitzvah ceiling – you’ll always be a pretender.
that aspect of particularism echoes (prefigures? what’s its source?) Calvinism – by converting, you demonstrate that you had a Jewish soul from the beginning, i.e., you’re one of the Elect, which you demonstrate by good works. But really, since you can’t change the nature of your soul, you’re predestined to be judged as a Jew or a non-Jew.
Jon Baker: Actually, IIRC, there are some scholars, I forget who they are just now, who argue that the Rambam at the end of Shemittah ve-yovel is speaking about a non-Jew who converts to Judaism. The likelihhood of this seems nugatory in my view, but even granting the possibility for argument’s sake, the idea that a convert can reach such a high level serves to suppoort a universalist view.
“The irony, here, is that conversion has always been seen as being problematic for those who claimed that there are intrinsic differences between Jews and non-Jews”
It is my sociological guess that in general those who in the past couple of decades those who have begun to put the biggest barriers to acceptance of gerim are in general those who ahve trouble with theory of conversion because of a particularistic hashkafa. They can’t theoretically oppose the concept of gerim because there is a clear cut halacha of such but they tendto be harsher and less accepting.
“As for conversion, there is no such problem. Particularists can argue that people who convert, do so only because they really had a Jewish soul to begin with, and the knowledge of that was lost over the generations. The process of conversion, does not give them a Jewish soul, but confirms to the community that they have one”
top put it mildly I’ve had problems accepting this type of convoluted reasoning-I am not an expert but isn’t the source of such the Baal Hatanya.
Of course,Prof Kaplan’s response is certainly accurate”Lawrence Kaplan on January 23, 2012 at 7:22 am
Avi: The fact that particularists have to argue that converts have a Jewish soul to begin with indicates that they have problem on thir hands that they are trynig to solve. Note, by the way, Halevi doesn’t make such an assertion.”
“R’ Chaim Kanievsky brings מקורות that relate to jews only, implying that he holds that the Rabam is talking about Jews only. R’ Kapach on the other hand says that the Rambam is referring to anyone even non-Jews.”
Each has their own basic hashkafot RCKanievsky certainlyfrom the insular Chareidi world-R Kapach who studied at the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva was a dayan and was on the Rabbinical Supreme court before the chareidi takeoverwas far from a classical chareidi.
Mycroft: Your last point was too relativist in my view. Here the clear peshat supports Rav Kapach.
R’ Charlop claims that every place in Shas and the Rambam where the phrase כל באי עולם is used it refers to non-Jews as well. In addition to the Rambam in Hilchos Sanhedrin (12:3) he quotes 3 other Rambam’s using this phrase:
Hilchos Teshuva (3:6) כשם ששוקלין עוונות אדם וזכייותיו, בשעת מיתתו–כך בכל שנה ושנה, שוקלין עוונות כל אחד ואחד מבאי העולם
Hilchos Teshuva (6:3) ולמה היה שולח לו ביד משה ואומר לו שלח ועשה תשובה, וכבר אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא שאין אתה משלח… כדי להודיע לבאי העולם
Hilchos Melachim (8,10) וכן ציווה משה רבנו מפי הגבורה, לכוף את כל באי העולם לקבל כל מצוות שנצטווה נוח
Mart Bluke: Thanks for the info. Again, one could claim that the Rambam at the end of Shemitah veYovel is speaking about a non-Jew who converts. But if that is the case, ha-ikkar haser min ha-sefer. I don’t have the time now, but his wording there is extraordinarly interesting.
Shalom,
I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discussion, particularly my friend and colleague Larry Kaplan.
My initial question may not have been clear enough. I have spent a good part of my career arguing that for Rambam the difference between Jew and Gentile is institutional, functional, legal, not what I have called “ontological” – a matter of software, as my friend Danny Lasker puts it, not a matter of hardware. In this Rambam opposes Yehudah Halevi (who is relatively moderate and restrained on the issue), and, following Halevi, Zohar, Kabbalah, Maharal, Hasidut, etc. (i.e., almost all Jews since the Middle Ages, sadly – now you know where I stand on the issue personally). I have explained and defended this position in several articles and in the following books:
• Maimonides on Judaism and the Jewish People. Albany: SUNY Press, 1991.
• Maimonides’ Confrontation With Mysticism. London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilizaton, 2006. (http://www.littman.co.uk/cat/kellner-maimonides.html)
• Science in the Bet Midrash: Studies in Maimonides. Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2009. (http://www.academicstudiespress.com/)
I am now writing a new book, in Hebrew, in which I continue to make the case, this time by providing a very close reading of the first, middle, and final halakhot of the Mishneh Torah. In order to make my argument as strong as possible, I am including in the book a discussion of places in his writings in which it might be thought (incorrectly) that Rambam adopted the view that Jews and Gentiles are distinguished up front, as it were, by some sort of inborn, native, fundamental, “ontological” feature. In this I am revising and updating pp. 250-264 of Maimonides’ Confrontation With Mysticism. In this chapter I explain various (likhora problematic) passages, much in the way that Larry Kaplan suggests in several of his posts.
It is in this connection that I posted my query and I once again thank all those who participated. You have indeed brought a number of texts to my attention which I will have to look at.
The very first post mentions an article and book by Rav Sheilat, shlita. In the book, Rav Sheilat dramatically revises the position defended in the article. In the article he sought to “Halevi-ize” the Rambam; in the book he is much clearer about the fundamental distinctions between them (using a lovely play on words: for Halevi, Judaism is all about “re-iyah” – vision, while for Rambam it is all about “ra’ayah”-proof).
Many thanks,
Menachem Kellner