You characterize the Rambam's approach to Torah Shebichtav as Grammatical-Logical. Yet the Ralbag employs a lot more than grammar and logic in his perush. Moreover, our analyses of Torah Shebichtav are typically deeper and more philosophically sophisticated than a "grammatical" reading a la Ibn Ezra.
How would you precisely characterize the Maimonidean approach to reading Tanach?
R Sacks:
Thank you for R. Maroof for the welcome, you and R. Rapoport have been extremely helpful in getting me into the blogosphere. I am really enjoying it- though it will take a while for me to adapt my thinking strategy to its format.
R. Maroof notes,correctly, that "the Ralbag employs a lot more than grammar and logic in his perush". The reason for this is, that if it is to develop, the Soul must be initiated in the grammatical/ logical method via its pre-existing familiarity with Emes as experienced in the real world- i.e. the phenomenon of observation. The absolute centrality of sensory experience is shared by Rambam himself and both of his Nosei Kelim the Ralbag and Ramchal.
For Rambam the centrality of sensory experience is most easily seen in his Model of the soul in Shemone Perakim. It is of course repeated in the Mishne torah's (Yesodai Torah Perek 4) characterization of the Tzelem Elokim depicted in Braishis as well.
יד [ח] נפש כל בשר, היא צורתו שנתן לו האל. והדעת היתרה המצויה בנפשו של אדם, היא צורת האדם השלם בדעתו; ועל צורה זו נאמר בתורה "נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו" (בראשית א,כו), כלומר שתהיה לו צורה היודעת ומשגת הדעות שאין להם גולם, עד שיידמה להן. ואינו אומר על צורה זו הניכרת לעיניים, שהיא הפה והחוטם והלסתות ושאר רושם הגוף, שזו תואר שמה.
For Ralbag this centrality of experience is seen in the introduction to Shir ha-Shirim as well as in the perush of Adam ha-rishon as I hope to post soon.
For Ramchal the centrality of experience a la Adam ha-rishon is the foundation of "Derech Tevunos" as I showed in my posts.
Adam ha-Rishon's naming of his environment is the metaphor by which to understand the Maimonidean method of reading Tanach. Like Piaget, and NLP the Maimonidean approach is to view reading as a tool of the Soul's processing of observational data. As Adam observed then processed his sensory model of his world so should our reading be an aid in processing our model of the world. Today because of the mis-education we receive in school, the inyanim of language and logic are viewed as be as a formal world somehow disconnected from sensory experience. I think this is what R Maroof refers to as 'the grammatical approach" a la Ibn Ezra. This approach is a prison from which the Soul must be redeemed. It is not what Ibn Ezra intended, but it is the use to which most readers today put his commentary nonetheless. Logic and grammar should be viewed as tools the soul uses to process its experience of features of real world things exactly as Ramchal points out.
The core issue we need to resolve in the way we process our experience of the world lies in our relationship to the “good”. In theory we believe in a “good” that is consistent with the truth of the laws of Creation. We do not believe in our power to alter gravity or any physical law. In practice however, our desire for freedom is precisely such a denial. Our experience of a world in which we smoke as we please, eat as we please, spend as we please or in general live as we please is de facto a denial that the general laws of Creation apply to its human part. The first objective of the torah is to properly alert the student to the tension embodied in the notion of “Tov” in the real world vs our experience. This alerting is best expressed in the work of the Ralbag.
Peyrush ha-Ralbag consists of:
A) An introduction to the torah
B) An introduction to principles in sefer Breisheet
C) A division of the Torah text into story units or halakim whose reading is guided by a peyrush operating at three logical levels: 1) a glossary biur hamilot 2) a thematic summary biur divrei ha-sippur and 3) an articulation of principles toaliyot.
Exemplifying Maimonidean reading in Perek 1 of B’raishis
Intro before account
The principle to be dealt with in the sippur is “Tov”. The account gives terms in which the student can reflect upon the tension between an imaginary freedom to choose any life tov one pleases vs the Creation tov of Maase Brayshees. Clearly, the account of Creation is ordered to preclude our predisposition to arbitrarily act on our belief in a freedom to create our own vision of tov safely tucked away from our theoretical knowledge. The Torah accomplishes this by describing man's life tov in a story context in which it is clearly but another instance of the laws of Creation “Va-yar Elokim Ki Tov".
Account of First Sippur In B’raishis (1:1-2:4)
The story describes the first stages of the coming into being of Creation. In essence this Creation is “melacha” the production of a system of interrelated substances out of material base that is by nature indeterminate or pure potentia. The story describes melacha first with a large all encompassing focus on the entirety of shamayim and aretz (“the big picture”) then narrows its focus to the aretz alone (“the small picture”).
Though merely a special case of becoming of ohr, nonetheless aretz gets special attention as the life environment of man. Aretz “becomes” through a series of steps logically ordered to a distinct end point or tachlit - man. This series is composed of tovs - the “actualized” sub-systems of creations that emerge from the potentia of matter.
It is critical to note that the principle of ohr is embedded in a description rooted in sensory experience.
1) The relation of Earth and sun (i.e. the solar system needed for sunlight atmosphere) (meoros hagedolim limoadim vishanim etc) is described pictorially.
2) Earth and water and other inanimate elements (principle of occupation of space-quantity in certain manner quality needed for constituent material parts or substatrum) for animate entities vegetation (principle of growth), animal (principle of purposeful locomotion) and man (principle of rational motion) are presented pictorially.
The First toaliyot Principles are discerned by the Student’s Nefesh in these very pictorial descriptions.
Intro:
The principle of ohr and its application that an independent human freedom to choose his life tov is in contradiction to theoretical knowledge emerges from reflection on the pictorial accounts.
Principle: All tov’s in Creation are result of ohr principles
Definition: Man’s tov is part of tov’s in Creation
Conclusion Man’s tov is result of ohr principles
Obviously that which results from ohr principles is discovered like any other law through torah research and is not created or freely chosen by the whims of man.
Please read the first post on Ramchal and Ralbag in light of this comment. I hope you see them in a new light.
6 comments:
Dear Rabbi Sacks,
Thank you for posting all this important material in the blogoshere!
I missed how you extracted from this halacha in the Rambam - the centrality of sensory experience.
It is certainly clear from Shmone prakim.
"For Rambam the centrality of sensory experience is most easily seen in his Model of the soul in Shemone Perakim. It is of course repeated in the Mishne torah's (Yesodai Torah Perek 4) characterization of the Tzelem Elokim depicted in Braishis as well.
יד [ח] נפש כל בשר, היא צורתו שנתן לו האל. והדעת היתרה המצויה בנפשו של אדם, היא צורת האדם השלם בדעתו; ועל צורה זו נאמר בתורה "נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו" (בראשית א,כו), כלומר שתהיה לו צורה היודעת ומשגת הדעות שאין להם גולם, עד שיידמה להן. ואינו אומר על צורה זו הניכרת לעיניים, שהיא הפה והחוטם והלסתות ושאר רושם הגוף, שזו תואר"
Rambam states that the soul is a tzura distinct from the animal Nefesh. A Tzura emerges by utilizing a potential in a material. The material here is the animal psyche of man whose sensory apparatus is utilized by the Soul to realize itself.
The centrality of sensory experience is clear. However, I do not see how this point is central to the Rambam's model of the soul. Additionally, your inference from the Rambam does not jump out at me - it is, of course, true.
R. Maroof notes,correctly, that "the Ralbag employs a lot more than grammar and logic in his perush". The reason for this is, that if it is to develop, the Soul must be initiated in the grammatical/ logical method via its pre-existing familiarity with Emes as experienced in the real world- i.e. the phenomenon of observation. The absolute centrality of sensory experience is shared by Rambam himself and both of his Nosei Kelim the Ralbag and Ramchal.
So is your answer to R' Maroof that the Ralbag, in addition to employing logic and grammar provides us with observation? I do not understand your answer.
For clarity's sake let me run some biur milot by you:
1) grammatical method refers to proper grasp of the subject and predicate as conveyed by language - this method would employ all of the appropriate language arts.
2) logical method the art of arriving at the abstractions pointed to by the subject/predicate conveyed by language.
Now, wouldn't that cover everything the Ralbag does in his peirush? Isn't the centrality of observation just part of true logic (as seen in the Ramchal)?
I hope this comment was not too convoluted and disorganized.
R. Rapoport: So is your answer to R' Maroof that the Ralbag, in addition to employing logic and grammar provides us with observation? I do not understand your answer.
Isn't the centrality of observation just part of true logic (as seen in the Ramchal)?
The centrality of observation is, as the word "centrality" implies, the heart and soul of logical method.
Ramchals point is that all logic, indeed all thought, emerges from a careful step by step emergence from observation. This emergence is described in great detail in Ralbag's intro to shir hashirim, in general outline in Shemone Perakim and implied by the Mishne torah.
What Ralbag and Ramchal offer is not observation, but rather a step by step method of processsing observation to see Emes in it. I cannot emphasize this point enough. If the grammatical logical method is to be Maimonidean, this path of step by step emergence from observation must be followed.If we miss this point we will miss everything.
The proper processing of observation is a transformative experience. It was for this reason I gave the example of 9/11 for insight. The insight, at least for me, of the concrete reality of an idealogical enemy such as al Qaeda was a world changing event, a transformation in the way I processed my world. I simply did not have a real world notion for such a thing in my map of the world. Sure I had heard of Amalek, but this was an abstraction, not a reality. But surely the notion of idealogical enemy committed to the use of all means is an abstraction as well?
It is a very different type of abstraction. It is an abstraction born of considering real experience.
It is in order to maintain this transformative unfolding of sensory based thought that the Torah begins with descriptions of features of the observable world. The names of the animals are rooted by Adam in observation and description of features.
It was in this methodical emergence from observation that Adam transformed his sense of place in the world. He considered the sexual features of animals. He considered his own sexual features. He felt curiosity about why he was different then animals.
The resulting insight shook him up- it changed the world he saw around him. No longer did he experience a world in which there was an animal with a disconnected mind. There was a world with a mind that operated through a body. It was the first of a long series of realizations based upon observation Adam was intended to make.
The torah stories function in this same way. They offer transformative descriptions of features in the world. We must focus on these descriptions and consider what transformations in our sense of our place in the world they are intended to facilitate. The abstractions born of this process are then able to be further utilzed by the grammatical / logical method.
I certainly agree that observation is "the heart and soul of logical method" - I have enough experience to know that. My question was on your proof-texts - it seemed that you were saying that this was the very point Rambam was trying to make in those texts. This does not seem to be so - as you have said before, this is probably because the centrality of observation to logical method was obvious in his day - it would be like telling a builder that he need building materials in order to build his house.
The one who seems to be stressing this point is the Ramchal - quite possibly, as you have said, because of the need to counter his Scholastic environment.
I did not mean in an way to minimize how important it is to stress the centrality of observation - that it is in fact "the heart and soul of logical method". I was imprecise when I said, "Isn't the centrality of observation just part of true logic".
The centrality of being Mashkif results from our vulnerability to fantasy. For Maimonideans the danger of fantasy is not only appetitive, in the sense of satisfying attractions to pleasurable objects like a movie. It is even more dangerous in theoretical matters in attraction to theories based in formality. This is called the kat ha-midabrim-the sect of talkers- by the Rambam. The formalistic talk of these people was grammatical, and in a sense had logical form, but lacked its soul-rootedness in real world experience. This problem of the existence of midabrim, above almost everything else, was Rambam's diagnosis of the disease of the soul.
Note also Ramchal in paragraph three that I will post soon where lack of commitment to experience is characterized as falling into fantasy(chet).
It is therefore clearly demonstrated that the Emes of real world things is not obvious and apparent to us. There is clearly a phenomenon of “error”- falsehood appearing to us be true and the mind clearly lacks the power to always target Emes and never yachtee (root chet fantasize and miss the mark of Emes). Clearly it is entirely possible for the mind to wander off the path without noticing.
Seeing that this is the case, it is obvious that one should find guidance and instruction, with the aim of strengthening ones attachment to proper path and never systematically go astray. That way, if on occasion one happens to be be careless, when one is carefully mashkif, one will be able to recognize ones error and return to the proper path.
Post a Comment