Friday, February 11, 2005

Aristotle and Maimonides

When the Jewish People were offered the Torah on Mount Sinai, they responded, “We will do and we will understand.”

But what is more important, unquestioning doing or meaningful understanding?

The two parashiot that refer to the giving of the Torah are Yitro and Mishpatim. Yet there is a difference between them. Whereas Yitro primarily discusses the Great Sound and Light Show that occurred on Mt Sinai, and the Revelation of G-d as He spoke the Ten Commandments, Mishpatim mainly deals with the intricacies of Jewish civil law. Indeed, Mishpatim is the foundation of the major Talmudic tractates Bava Kama, Bave Metzia, Bava Batra and Sanhedrin upon which the entire body of Jewish jurisprudence is based. Now although everything that is stated in these tractates is Divinely inspired, and we are mandated to follow them as if they were given directly by G-d, it was human beings who, based on the Torah’s rules and principles, created this awesome body of work.

The reason why the Jewish sages of old were able to develop the relatively small parasha of Mishpatim into an entire legal framework is because it was based on sound logical principles. This is different to the commandments of Kashrut, or Shatnez and Impurity, which we accept as Divine decrees, but which we don’t truly understand. (In Torah terminology, laws that lend themselves to human understanding are called mishpatim; those that don’t are called chukim.)

So put it in another way: Yitro deals with G-d’s gift of the Torah, whereas Mishpatim deals with the Jewish People’s understanding and development of it (or at least of those parts of Torah that are humanly accessible.)

Interestingly, parashat Mishpatim is the eighteenth parasha of the Torah, whereas parashat Yitro is the seventeenth.

Is there perhaps some significance in this?

The Lubavitcher Rebbe points out that eighteen – chai – refers to life, whereas seventeen is the gematria of tov – good.

The ultimate good is G-d, as is understood from the English word for G-d.

Life, on the other hand, refers to something that you can grasp, something that you can understand, something that you can really enjoy - to the extent that it becomes part and parcel of you. It is interesting that the Hebrew word for taste is the same as the Hebrew word for reason – Taam. If you understand something it has taste. It is, as we say in Yiddish, gishmak! And it is certainly alive.

However at the beginning of Mishpatim there is a Vav, meaning AND. The AND connects the two parshiot of Yitro and Mishpatim. Rashi points out the deep significance of this. Don’t think that your understanding can be independent of G-d. Rather just as you acknowledge the Divine Source of those laws that you don’t understand, you must similarly acknowledge the Divine Source of those laws that you do understand. It is just that in some cases G-d has allowed His Wisdom to be understandable by us, and in some not. It all however comes from the same source – G-d.

This is an important principle not only in understanding the source of Jewish Civil Law, but in understanding both the greatness and limitations of human understanding.

The Hebrew word for Wisdom is Chochmo. And the Kabbalists point out that this word contains within it two words: Koach Mah, literally “The Power of What”. To be truly wise, one has to have the power to see beyond Wisdom, to stand in amazement and wonder as you are overwhelmed by the “What”. And to understand that Wisdom itself is sourced in that which is above it.

Even mathematicians now acknowledge that there are certain things that they just have to accept, as they can never be proven. In Chassidic Philosophy we find it stated that the hanachot rishonot - the axioms - of any scientific discipline are beyond logic and can never be proven. This is an indication that intellect and logic has a source beyond itself.

Early in the twentieth century there were philosophers – Bertrand Russell among them - who were very uncomfortable with this. They just did not want to accept that there were things beyond human comprehension in as an exact a discipline as mathematics. However the German mathematician Kurt Godel proved it once and for all. (You can read about all about this in Simon Singh’s amazing best-seller, Fermat’s Last Theorem).

Both Aristotle and Maimonides were great philosophers and both believed in G-d. But as Rabbi Sholom Ber of Lubavitch points out there was a big difference between them. He explains it by way of a metaphor. Belief in G-d is a non-dimensional point. Logic is the circle drawn around that point. Maimonides commenced with the point and drew the circle around it. The centre was clear and the circle even and beautiful. Aristotle commenced with the circle and tried to reach the point. The circle was uneven, and he never truly reached the centre.

Accepting that there is something beyond our logic, being able to stand in amazement at the awesome WHAT, not only humbles us and centres us in Truth, it enables us to think clearly and logically as well. When, however, we commence with logic that is devoid of belief in the hope that we will work it out for ourselves, even should we be as wise as Aristotle, both our logic and our faith will be flawed.

Let us return to our original question. What is more important; the unquestioning doing or the meaningful understanding?

Both of course. This is why the angels placed two crowns on the head of every Jew at Sinai – one for Naaseh – we will do and one for Nishma – we will understand.

However that wise generation of Jews understood that the Naaseh must always come before the Nishma. For it is in the Naaseh that the Nishma is ultimately rooted.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi,

I came across your post by way of a search for Maimonides and Godel. I am very interested in Maimonide's epistemology, and how it can be informed by Godelianism. I would first off say that while Germat's Last Theorem is a great book, a better book for understanding Godel is 'Incompleteness" by Rebecca Goldstein. Secondly, I do not know if Godelianism necessarily implies that there are things which lie beyond human comprehension, but just beyond the limits of science. One could argue that faith is within the realm of human comprehension, thus making the bases of the axioms fall within the human intellect. I would very much like to dialogue with you on this matter. If you'd like, I can be reached at ang2108 [at] columbia [dot] edu. (Don't want the spammers to pick up my email address.)

Best,
Adam Goodkind

Adam Goodkind said...

Hi,

I came across your post by way of a search for Maimonides and Godel. I am very interested in Maimonide's epistemology, and how it can be informed by Godelianism. I would first off say that while Germat's Last Theorem is a great book, a better book for understanding Godel is 'Incompleteness" by Rebecca Goldstein. Secondly, I do not know if Godelianism necessarily implies that there are things which lie beyond human comprehension, but just beyond the limits of science. One could argue that faith is within the realm of human comprehension, thus making the bases of the axioms fall within the human intellect. I would very much like to dialogue with you on this matter. If you'd like, I can be reached at ang2108 [at] columbia [dot] edu. (Don't want the spammers to pick up my email address.)

Best,
Adam Goodkind

Anonymous said...

Hi,

I came across your post by way of a search for Maimonides and Godel. I am very interested in Maimonide's epistemology, and how it can be informed by Godelianism. I would first off say that while Germat's Last Theorem is a great book, a better book for understanding Godel is 'Incompleteness" by Rebecca Goldstein. Secondly, I do not know if Godelianism necessarily implies that there are things which lie beyond human comprehension, but just beyond the limits of science. One could argue that faith is within the realm of human comprehension, thus making the bases of the axioms fall within the human intellect. I would very much like to dialogue with you on this matter. If you'd like, I can be reached at ang2108 [at] columbia [dot] edu. (Don't want the spammers to pick up my email address.)

Best,
Adam Goodkind