Introduction to Rambam Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah Chapter 3

We are about to embark on the third chapter of Rambam's Mishna the laws of the fundamentals of and this chapter is quite unique in which the Rambam following what he said earlier that our path to real love and awe of the creator leads through seeing the divine wisdom. which is infinite that is embedded in creation and therefore the Rambam said I want to share principles about various aspects of our cosmos. The Rambam now continues to set forth the astronomical system or some basic ideas of the astronomical system as a continuation of the previous chapter. Before we actually begin inside, I think it's important to give somewhat of a brief introduction. It's quite noteworthy that the classic commentators of the Rambam's Mishna are silent in this chapter. Kas Mishna, Rabio, Caro, Magishna, Mishna, Mus Ret, the classic commentators, you do have what's called the pirish. The pir is a commentary on this section of the Rambam and you have a few references from the migdalo but besides that most of the commentators have not said anything. In fact this chapter of Rambam every chapter of Rambam came under microscopic scrutiny. This chapter of Rambam, however, came truly if there was a chapter that was scrutinized under a microscope or I should say in this case with a telescope, pun intended, it was this chapter of Rambam. Two major issues that has confronted many commentators, Jewish commentators throughout the ages concerning this chapter of Rambam. I will outline very briefly The first issue is as the Rambam himself says this is the system known as myious the work of creation. Previous chapters one and two was a system known as myava which means the workings of the chariot understanding the divine relationship with creation. But this chapter 3 and four is myious the work of creation. The Rambam himself says quoting a Mishna that these are secrets and one has to know when to communicate them, how to communicate them, to whom to communicate them as he will discuss at the end of the chapter and in chapter 4. If so, the question is how can the Rambam then turn this chapter in which he's discussing myasious into what Rabio Ergus he was one of the great mystics cabalists and philosophers and authorities Rabio Ergus of the 18th century he has a s called Shmerunim and there he quotes other commentators saying Arisatalian arisatalian physics that is mys. That is the secret of creation of the work of creation that our sages were talking about. It seems like that the Rambam is just giving a description here of the way the Greeks understood astronomy in their time including in the Rambam's time in the 12th century and he's giving a summation of that system of astronomy. Rabio Ergus quotes quite a few Jewish philosophers, mystics, cabalists who say this is the mice. This is basically the secrets of creation that the sages were talking about and they limited and restricted how it should be taught and how it should be communicated. Basically the Greek system of physics Aristotle systems aris Aristo Aristotle system. That's question number one. Question number two is a lot of the ideas and the facts, the scientific facts that the Rambam articulates seems to be contradictory or completely inconsistent with what modern science, cosmology, astronomy and physics has come to learn over the centuries since Damba. How does one deal with it? In other words, some of it or mo much of it or some say most of it is inconsistent with reality. How do we confront this? A lot of ink has been spilled on this question. I should mention also a very brief but wonderful introduction by Rabelo Tower who translated the Rambam into English in the Misnayian publishing house and other articles and essays that were written about this. And briefly there are two approaches. Approach number one which you will read about in books, essays, articles, websites, hear lectures about is don't hold the sages accountable for the fact that they embraced and reflected scientific knowledge the way it was taught in their times. The function of the Rambam or all of the sages throughout the generations is not to serve as scientists and astronomers and cosmologists. It's to serve as sages of terra wisdom and terra law. Yeah. When they spoke about science, they adopted the scientific method and the scientific knowledge. In fact, the way it was understood in their time. If in other times as as generations follow that wisdom becomes abso theories are dismissed into the dusbin of history, so be it. It doesn't con it doesn't pose any serious existential theological intellectual problem in terms of Judaism. The Rambam clearly quotes. He says that the Greek scholars wrote many books about this. He's going to say later in this chapter. So he read those books and he followed that system of astronomy. Today astronomy is understood in a completely different fashion. So be it. And they would continue to argue. I'm paraphrasing. I'm just developing this this line of thought which is very popular and common among many scholars. They would say what's the Rambam trying to do here? He's not trying just to teach astronomy objectively. Is that what he's trying to do? Giving you a class in science. This is a book of a book of Jewish law. The Rambam is trying to impress upon a person the infinite wisdom that's embedded in creation. Whatever model of astronomy you use, whatever model of cosmology you use, whatever level of science or physics you have known in the 12th century or in the 21st century, one thing is very obvious that the laws of nature are rational. What's obvious is that there is a system. What's obvious is that the mathematical probabilities that all of this happened randomly is [snorts] highly highly highly unlikely and mind staggering in the faith that it just happened by mistake and it all worked out with such perfect harmony and synchronization. Just the fact that our planet can support life and that's just our planet. Never mind when you study the whole cosmos beginning with the solar system which the Rambam discusses here. So fine there was the model the geocentric model in the Rambam's days and the helocentric model contempor in the contemporary times or hundreds or thousands or millions of other differences. So those are all variations of how the human mind through the instruments that it has at that time can grasp reality based on its perspective. And we know that today's theories might also be dismissed by future discoveries and by future instruments that we may develop that today we simply have no access of of finding certain truths about reality. That's what science is. Science is science never speaks in absolutes. If it speaks in absolutes, it's not science. Science is always seeking the truth using the instruments available for scientists and cosmologists and physicists. The the instruments that they have using those instruments trying to develop workable theories that are as consistent with truth as they can see at the time. Hence scientific theories come and go constantly. That is the nature of science. So what do you want from the Rambam? Raman was presenting a elegant model of the universe the way he understood it at the time based on the scientists and astronomers at the time. Today we have a different model of the universe. So be and in fact the elegance only grows the intricacies and the genius and the infinity of it and the fact that all the laws of nature coming together and [snorts] the systems only become more impressive as time progresses. As I mentioned in the previous class, that's one way of looking at it and therefore don't be bothered by any discrepancies by what seems to be inaccurate, inconsistent, not true, etc. There's another approach that you will also hear and read in different books here different lectures and that approach is a very different approach. I say opposite approach that approach is the Rambam was writing. The sages in the Talmud are transcribing tra is true. The fact that scientists say this is not the case. We don't look at that. Tyra is immutable. There's divine inspiration here. It's absolutely authentic. It doesn't change with the ages. So science says, "But now they discovered this, they discovered that. Don't even look at it. It's irrelevant to us. We can disregard it." We have one parameter of what truth is and that is what it says in the tra. Every other theory, I don't care if a thousand people believe it, a million people believe it or 7.7 people believe it. This view says what the TA says is true. The Rambam says there a certain model. This is how it is. Other people disagree with it. All of most scientists say that's not the case. So they say so we don't even have to consider it or look at it. We don't look at science. You see why I say this is the exact opposite approach of the first approach I said. And basically this approach is saying that the works of our sages are completely representative of eternal truth. And therefore the conclusions of science don't compete with it. They're only theories. Theories come and theories go. theories are subject to change in the changes in the light of new observations and the end statement the final statement has not been written yet. Two very different and opposite approaches. Which one should we embrace in our in our class today? What would you say? Now, I think truth be told, I'm presenting to you and trying to be as objective as possible, presenting to you different streams of thought within the Jewish world. And I'm by the way talking about even within the what you might call orthodox observant Torah world, you'll have these two streams of thought. You know, I speak to people, scholars, different different perspectives, and they're often very very emphatic about the authenticity of their view. Obviously, each one of these views leaves us with a u a gaping void, right? Or something that nags at us. Something is it leaves us discontent. And we understand why. The second view although it has an advantage that it never affects Tyra the laws of Tyra the perspectives of Tyra remain steadfast and completely immutable and untouchable really by dismissing anything in science that contradicts it. It still poses I think two major challenges. Challenge number one is what do we do with all of the scientific progress? Just to tell a thinking person, especially a student of science, ignore it, dismiss it, it really robs so many intelligent people from the ability to be able to appreciate. We force people into a corner and say, you know, either choose this or choose that, but they can't both coexist. Maybe it works for some people, but we deprive maybe a whole generation and certainly hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people who are students of science, who are students of physics, who cherish science, who adore physics and cosmology and astronomy etc. All the all the branches of science and we like almost deprive from them deprivives them from the ability to learn raam or to learn gamar or learn other things wherever there's a contradiction. Is that really our duty? Is that really the ultimate authentic Jewish approach? Is the only way of embracing TA is if it we have to literally pit it against science and be they become mutually excus exclusive. Maybe not always but at least frequently or certainly not infrequently. That's that's problem number one. Problem number two I would argue is even deeper. Is it not only that we're doing an injustice to science? Is it maybe that we're also doing an injustice to to Judaism? Because maybe by completely ignoring science, we deprive ourselves from the ability to actually understand in a much deeper way. Perhaps the injustice that's perpetrated is also towards TA because it boxes in Judaism into a view that is very absolute which is nice but also maybe very narrow maybe sometimes even primitive. Maybe our Judaism remains very superficial because we keep on our glasses that may be ancient and primit and ancient and therefore there is the test of time which is nice but it also may be primitive. Perhaps all of the developments of science, the scientific method, scientific progress, even if there may be mistakes and science only speaks in terms of theories, but perhaps they can allow us to expand our perspective and see much more depth, maybe untold layers of depth in the wisdom of articulated in the literature of our Which now brings me to the second approach. The second approach also leaves us wanting even though some people I know are emphatic uh fans are great fans of this approach. But it basically [snorts] opens up a very serious general question of how mistaken can the sages have been? So you'll say well when it comes to science they were just reading what it said in the literature of the time or what they heard from scholars at the time and therefore it could be a mistake. Okay but there's also a lot of statements that they derived from various verses in the tra different interpretations. So we have to ask the question did they really profess the ability to be so erroneous and where does that stop? Because you could say maybe they made mistakes about other things just like they can be deceived by the science of the time even though it's completely not true. Maybe they made different types of mistakes, especially when they come to certain conclusions based on their logic, based on their deductions, based on how they read the Tanakh, and then you say, "Oh, the whole thing is a mistake. Maybe there's a lot of other mistakes." That's I think a fundamental issue with this approach. It becomes especially problematic with a book like Mishna. This is not just a book on astronomy, a book of philosophy like the guide to the perplexed. This drama articulated in his introduction that this is from his perspective the ultimate book of Jewish law. In fact, the complement the second to you read the you read the and you have the whole. Wow. And the Rambam says meaning the Rambam is telling you that every word of this book is part of Jewish law which is eternal, timeless and immutable. as he himself is going to say later in true the Rambam wrote that he's teaching us principles in order to be able to appreciate God's wisdom but he goes on to articulate those principles the Rambam could have said go study the principles about the world and you'll figure out God's wisdom he doesn't do that he sets forth a system of understanding reality to say that that is completely erroneous everything can be thrown out in the face of truth today. I think it uh it's an idea that is wanting to put it mildly it's deficient especially and this is somewhat surprising when it comes later in Rambam and you know I've heard from people who've said the first four chapters of Mishna it's you know it's somebody said it's not the And I find that to be completely off mark because later you are going to take every word of the Rambam and dissect IT MORE THAN THE SCIENTISTS dissect an atom and the solar system. The syllable in Rambam, a phrase in Rambam, a sentence in Rambam. The way the Rambam wrote it, this becomes not just important. It become fundamental perspectives on how to view, how to learn a how the Rambam defined the essence of the Rambam is not just trusted. The Rambam is seen as the seinal quintessential embodiment of wisdom and the perspective and the divine will in this world. And yet the first four chapters could just be, you know, thrown under the bus. and dismissed. Oh yes, Justin, you know, Greek Bubbaisis, Aristotle's Bubbaisus and I'm not here to give a definitive answer to this, but I'm just going to introduce two more ideas, two more approaches into this chant. And the point here is not to give an authoritative uh [sighs] answer and ultimate solution to reconcile all of the paradoxes and introd and contradictions. The idea is to open us up to the various modes of thinking and to be able to think about this in creative fashions and outside of the box. I'm going to introduce now a third a third idea and the idea may be strange to some. Rabbi Tower talks about this in his introduction to but I do want to say that the nucleus of the idea is found by Rabbi I found by Rabbi Mosato the famous Ramal the author of the misillus many many other works in Jewish philosophy and Kabala Jewish mysticism he was the famous poet and playwright he passed away in the 1740s from a pandemic in Tiberius in Tavaria he was a young man 39 I think he and his whole family died he writes this in a commentary to the to this a section in Za it's in his manuscripts a similar pattern by the vil nagon in a commentary on a section of za called so one of the most complex sections of zya the vil nagon has a commentary on it both quoted and explained by the famous rebavid lurya one of the great great of VNA in the 18th and 19th century Rabb David Ly wrote a commentary on Debzar and there he inserts it. This is the introduction because there's a few chapters on astronomy there with more elaboration and a little bit in a diff from a different perspective although not quite different. This was this approach was developed also I heard it myself in the labba about other Rambams Rambamesh where he discusses the solar cycle and Rambam is where he discusses the proper diet in order to maintain optimum health throughout your life. I will discuss it there too. But from all these different sources and other sources there may be another approach. The approach is a profound one and uh I would say a uh a spiritual very spiritual one [snorts] approach is and it really answers both questions both problems. The Rambam was not just articulating here a Greek system of astronomy or as the shemer says arisatalian physics. No, the Rambam was articulating as he himself will say at the end secrets about the mystical spiritual energies of creation about the divine inner spiritual system of creation which is a basic fundamental idea that we see in the Ram. There is a divine mind, intelligence, love, passion, wisdom, infinite wisdom behind every single nuance of every single being in existence and in the collective cosmos and in the collective planet and the Rambam is articulating it. But as always in the works of the Rambam, he is using scientific language in the famous expression of the Gmorrah that he quoted earlier. Why we use anthropomorphic terms to describe God, God's eyes, Hashem's hands, Hashem's feet, the employs human language. The Ram is using terminology of science, of physics, of astronomy, similar, but not an exact replica of much of Greek astronomy. Similar in many aspects, but not identical in any way. Using that to convey the spiritual workings of creation that are embedded in this terminology, which means it would be like a mushel versus a niml. A mushel is a metaphor, a parable, an allegory. But the parable hides within it an inner theme. The Rambam here is not just discussing the system of astronomy. The way it was taught by the Greeks as says, "So what are the secrets here? Why can't you teach it to everybody? It's not even Jewish astronomy." The Rambam is conveying here the divine, inner, mystical, spiritual energies behind creation, employing the language, the human language, the scientific language of astronomy to express it. In fact, there are statements here that come from the Zar. They are we don't have that in the Tal. We find them articulated in the Zar. And there's another interesting thing. There is the commentary called Kiras Melik. And the curious melik cites sources for the from the Zar from many of the in these chapters. Now what's the Zar? The Zar is a work of Kabal. It's the basic work of Jewish mysticism of Jewish spirituality. This is the big question that see didn't see this. I discussed it in an earlier in an earlier class. But here he cites many sources for these in the zar or other cabalistic works. There spiritual divine energy embedded in creation. Is the Rambam then using scientific terminology and physical corporal terms in order to convey the secrets of creation? So this is not just Arisatelian physics. This is toyra physics. This is the spirituality of physics. This is divine physics. And as the vilon says says, and the fact that sometimes physical observations may be inconsistent with this does not does not require of us to dismiss science and negate science and say, "Yeah, it's a garnish. It's garbage." No. Does the spiritual system always manifest itself in the physical system? Not necessarily. Sometimes the spiritual system and the physical system can be in a state of dissonance or sometimes the spiritual system is manifested in the physical system in a different fashion. So when we say sun, when we say moon, when we say planet, when we say stars, when we say motion, when we say spheres, are we using we [snorts] describing physical realities or spiritual realities? Raal says sometimes we're describing spiritual realities using the language of metaphor. And in the spiritual reality, the physics is exact. It's accurate. Sometimes we can see it in the very physical sense and sometimes not. Sometimes there is dissonance between the way it is in the spiritual physics and in the physical physics. This principle will be alluded to at different points in Mishna. Not often but a few times as I told you. We'll discuss it also with the blessing we make once in 28 years. what happens once in 28 years is a similar problem there a similar discrepancy there and this theme is going to come up another few times a very fascinating theme there's another important point to make and the other important point to make is it's important not to be closed-minded in science as well now you might best found that surprising of course not but sometimes scientists can also get stuck they get stuck in a certain development and they're not ready to uh escape that. By most of us, the geocentric model that Talamy embraced which sees the earth as the center of the universe and all of the planets rotating about the earth has been dismissed in the 15th century by Capernacus and the capernician model completely dismissed the ancient model as archaic, as old-fashioned, as ridiculous, as absurd. And therefore there's a new model and the new model is the haloscentric model in which the sun is actually the center and the earth rotates around the sun. Sun doesn't rotate around the earth. The earth rotates around the sun. This has become the new model. I was teaching the other day I was teaching some time ago to so beginning from page 11 and further there's a lot of astronomy because of course a lot of the mak is about establishing the new month the new moon so there's a lot there about the about the constellations about the solar system the lunar system is also about the various constellations masimo it's leed and frick with astronomy there so I was looking at the various you know contemporary translations and pictures and explanations. It's not easy to teach. It's not easy to understand. So there is the art scroll, the famous celebrated art scroll gum and there's the famous celebrated Mifa Gmorrah. Both makashana art scroll has in Hebrew and in English and the massifa has in Hebrew and Mifa has a comes with a beautiful album with a lot of images and pictures three-dimensional a lot of them and and art scroll has its pictures. Both did a magnificent magnificent job. Each one in their own style. Beautiful, beautiful job. But as I was reading it, I saw that in the MFA Gamarra, you know, they maintained the geocentric model which is the literal straightforward interpretation of our tradition. The Gmorra in a few places in Rashana and other places and Shiaomi and Medish embrace the idea that LoDis Ecclesiastes says the earth stands and the sun rotates around the earth and the other planets as well. The art scroll Gammorra says that's all the appearance in their translation they say that's from our appearance from our appearance when we look out when we uh when we watch the sunrise the sun is rising in the east and the sun is setting in the west but of course the actual reality is that something else is happening that the earth is rotating it's spinning on its axis and as a result of that we are perceiving the sun the moon the stars rising in the east and setting in the west. Even though the sun is not rising and the sun is not moving, the earth is rotating on its axis. And the earth is also revolving around the sun in the annual uh the annual cycle in the annual revolution. The sun this earth revolving around the sun. So this is a very this is a very classic example. It's a classic example of here you have two models and what they're saying is the tra is addressing our perspective. It looks like the sun is rising and the sun is setting. The mift they just went the literal approach. Now it's very obvious when you learn Rambam. He is embracing emphatically the geocentric model and this creates a big problem. the geocentric model of the sun revolving around the earth. Earth stationary and the sun revolving around the earth rising in the east setting in the west and also revolving around the earth in the opposite direction making a rotation over 365 days revolving around the earth. How does one reconcile this? Are we following the the ancient talamy model that has been dismissed or the haloscentric model of capernicus beginning with the 1400s? So we would seem here here would be a real real discrepancy and it's here I want to quote something that's extremely fascinating. Now I have to say the truth. I don't really understand this. I am not a scientist. I am not a cosmologist. I still have a problem wrapping my brain around Einstein's theories of uh general relativity and specific relativity. So I am not speaking to you as an expert of somebody who understands this. I'm just quoting sources that uh are very fascinating and interesting. And I think we have to all be curious and inquisitive and at least open to these possibilities and not remain stuck in in dogma based on preconceived notions and then just follow confirmation bias. Albert Einstein had a student in Berlin. His name was Hans Reichenbach. Ryenbach has majored in philosophy but he was also a practicing engineer and quite a celebrated physicist. He sat at the feet of Albert Einstein I believe for four years studying with him and under him his theory of relativity. He then went on to write his own books about physics and science, geometry, space and time published in Berlin and Germany in the 1920s. Hans Reichenbach. I want to quote here a line from one of his works. Fascinating line. And this is somebody who Einstein held in high regard. I believe he secured his position as a professor, assistant professor of physics in the celebrated University of Berlin. So he wasn't a Catholic he wasn't a I'm going to quote Rakenbach has a book it's written in German philosophy of space and time published in Berlin in 1928 and I quote I quote word for word in English translation Hansenbach The relativity theory of dynamics is not a purely academic matter. It upsets the Copernican worldview. It is meaningless to speak of a difference in truth claims of the theories of Copernicus and the two conceptions are equivalent descriptions. What has been considered the greatest discovery of western science compared to antiquity is now denied its claim to truth. Capernicanin the capernicanin model has been so revolutionary as he says it's been considered the greatest discovery of western science. He's writing in 1928. He says now it's not you can't say it's true anymore. The theory of relativity does not say that the conception of palamy is correct. It doesn't say that the sun rotates around the earth. Rather, it contests the absolute significance of either's theory. And he writes, Reichenbach writes, Newton decided in favor of Copernicus from the point of view of dynamics. It was only for this particular world description that this that his theory of gravitation offered a mechanical explanation. The complicated planetary orbits of Talamy on the other hand did not fit in to any explanation. If we wish to establish the equivalence of both [snorts] world conceptions, we must find a theory of gravitation sufficiently general to explain the capernic and also the tal the the the talamies planetary motion as a gravitational phenomenon. Here is the great achievement of Einstein. Einstein has indeed found such a comprehensive theory of gravitation. It is with this discovery which places him on the same plane as copernicus and Newton that the problem of the relativity of motion has been brought to its conclusion. So basically he's saying that the copernican view of planets orbiting the sun has been accepted as true from a certain world view that of motion and dynamics. If one accepted Talami and the Rambam's argument that the earth lies at the center, then the resulting planetary and solar orbits would be very messy and they wouldn't be able to be explained elegantly. This would be uncomfortable from the Newtonian dynamic world view. But not in Einstein's universe which was seen through the eyes of gravitational pole. I think this is extremely important to remember when we discuss this and we're going to discuss the Rambam's worldview. I'll also going to share with you a very interesting story which I read in a biography Rabbi Kaya Miller's biography of the labba called turning Judaism outward. It's a fantastic story. I want to share it with you. I really appreciated it. There's a Jew. He lives in Brighton Beach. I happen to know him. His name is Rabbi Fial Rimler. A ro in Brighton Beach for many years. In 1975, he encountered an intelligent skeptic, a secular Jew who was either a scientist or a physicist or well familiar with it and uh they began discussing the two models. So this fellow who was an educated man, he said, "Listen, it's impossible." He said, "You're a kabadnik. It's impossible that the labava would embrace the outdated belief. Obviously, he rejects it. Rabbi Rimler tells him, "No, I think that the Labava actually embraces the idea of the sun and the planets rotating around the earth." So the man says to him, I am saying to you and I will submit it in writing. If the Reb would make a public statement to the effect that since the Talmud states that the sun revolves around the earth, it's therefore his firm belief that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth. I promise I will number one personally observe the laws of family purity, mikvah and shabas. Immediately I'll start putting on fillin. I'll start keeping Shabas and I'll follow the laws of family purity and I will influence my friends and colleagues to do the same. However, of course, it's more than obvious to me that the Rebu would not in any way make such a ridiculous statement because number one, he does not wish to be labeled as a fool. And number two, he himself is not a fool at all and he's not foolish as some of his ardent but hypnotized followers. I predict with no hesitation that I will not hear any more about this matter from you or from the Reb or through the press because it's obvious the Reb was educated in college and he himself would never ever embrace such a view. Rabbi Rimler shared this letter with the labb a letter from the Reb to this man penned on the 5th of November 75. The Reb writes, [snorts] "It is my firm belief that the sun revolves around the earth. I have also declared this publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science. In view of the above, I have no objection of course if you wish to make this view known to whoever you choose. And the Reb now hopes that the Jew will start putting on fillin and celebrating Shabas and keeping the laws of family purity. In a separate document, the Reb say he doesn't want to confuse the two documents. He writes as follows. I quote, "One of the conclusions of the theory of relativity is that when there are two systems or planets in motion relative to each other, such as the sun and the earth, in our case, either view, namely the sun rotating around the earth, or the earth rotating around the sun, has equal validity. Every person, including modern scientists, actually has three options to choose from in this matter. A that A revolves around B. B that B revolves around A. C that A and B revolve around each other. But such a choice cannot be dictated by science. It would be one's personal choice and belief. Now it's true that this new trend in science has been ignored to the dismay of the labba as he writes in the letter and other letters. But this is I think a very fascinating idea that we should keep in mind. There's another very important idea to keep in mind here. And here I'm going to quote from Rabbi Tower's introduction to this chapter in Rambam. When we learn the Rambam, it's going to be obvious that the Rambam's interpretations of the spheres are material entities. He doesn't only see stars and planets. He sees spheres. In fact, he's going to give the number of the spheres. And these are like balls, circles, balls that encompass the planets that encompass the stars. And he speaks of the spheres as material entities. What appears to us today is that they are nothing more than empty space in which the planets revolve. The orbit of the planets is an empty space. The Rambam believes that they are material entities. Even describes what they're made up of. This seems completely outdated to say the least. But let's now think about one thing. According to the general theory of relativity, within a gravitation field, there is no such thing as empty space. Gravity wraps space and causes it to be defined as a specific entity. The planet's movements are therefore a function of the geometry of space. In this conception, the orbit of each planet exists as a distinct entity but altogether different from entities that exist in our world. Because of course when we speak about gravity which warps space, it causes it to be defined as a specific entity. But it's not exactly the entities that we're familiar with with in our world. But it would mean it would mean that the orbit of each planet exists as a distinct entity not just as empty space. Now how different is that from the Rambam statement who says that the spheres are entities whose matter and manner of existence is of a completely different nature from that of the creations of our world. Important to take note. A third point the four fundamental elements the Rambam is going to be addressing in chapter three and four. fire, wind or ear, water and earth. Aish fire, ruach is wind, mayam is water and offer is earth. Here again, who speaks about this in chemistry? We speak about fire, water. Again, Greek ideas. The truth is we have to realize that this is something that's mentioned often in Medish. It's mentioned in Zhar. It's mentioned in a lot of sources in Judaism, not only in Cabala, but also in texts of medish in the writings of Cabala. This is a fundamental idea because it corresponds to the four names of God Yud, the four letters of God's name Yud V responds to the corresponds to the four worlds and corresponds to many parallels of foreign Judaism. And as I said, it's mentioned not once or twice, numerous times. numerous times in Medish and Z. So just to dismiss it as garnished as as as as meaningless is quite problematic. But here it's important it's important to say something when we study chapter 4 we see that when the Rambam is referring to the four elements he's not referring to these four substances as we see them before us. what fire is observe what fire means to us and wind and water and earth completely not it's conceivable that he's speaking of four states of matter the solid state the liquid state the gazous state and the kinetic state in which matter is transformed into energy so when you have afar you have may you have ru and you have a it's four states of matter matter. There's the solid state afar, the liquid state may the gazia state which is ruach and then you have the kinetic state in which matter becomes it's metamorphosiz into energy which is a another component of this has been suggested some say that the four elements today is matter antimatter positive and negative that's also dollar matter antimatter posit positive and negative. Another important component to understand is when they speak about Yesidis, you shouldn't confuse it with chemistry. We're not talking about the ultimate uh particles that make up matter in its most fundamental element. They're not saying that these cannot be further divisible into smaller and smaller elements and particles. That's also an important element to understand. These are just some observations that I think are good to maintain. when we are embarking on chapter three and four from I think my time is up now. So I'm going to uh we'll take a break and we will continue to tomorrow. Have a beautiful day. Remember tomorrow's schedule uh tomorrow morning 7:30 the mimerus and 10:00 a.m. we'll continue ram and we will learn chapter 3 of have a beautiful day. Let me take questions. I will take questions. particles that make up matter in its most fundamental element. They're not saying that. Okay, here we go. Let's see what's going on. Somebody comments there's a a safer called Zoya Haram um Zoya Ram chapter 5 which discusses my various and my according to the Rambam and the man did quite a fine job in compilation of sources. This Okay, this is very interesting. Somebody writes in 1969 in August man landed on the moon. Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. It was a monumental achievement for mankind. Leading Torah scholars of the of the leading Torah scholars of the time were very impressed like everybody else in the world. Here are some very interesting reactions to the event. Rabbi Hershel Shakar writes in the name of Rabbi Rabasha Salvet Bitsk Journal 5754 number 26. Rabbi Salvet was asked about Judaism's view of man's traveling to the moon. The questionnaire suspecting that it might be forbidden because doesn't it say in Tahillim the heavens are gods but the land he gave to mankind. Rebel responded one can distinguish the definition of heavens and earth. The term heavens can be explained in two ways. As something high and distant like we say is not in heaven. It means it's not remote and distant according to which the moon is considered as part of the heavens. Alternative alter alternatively the term can be defined as including everything that is beyond human understanding including the entire spiritual realm. According to the second understanding the stars and most distant galaxies and certainly the moon are considered part of earth because we can relate to them. We can study them. We can see them. We can observe them. We can analyze them as we can analyze things on the earth. Therefore, according to this interpretation, there's no contradiction between traveling in space, scientific studies of the cosmos and the verse, the heavens are the lord and the land is for mankind. Because in this sense, moon is part of the human domain. Rabbi Salvet Rabakov Kamitki, Emac of Alatra and Bacius. We learn from these words of the Ramban says Rabbi of Kameki and in particularly from what he concluded in the continuation of his words on verse 8 Genesis chapter 1 that everything that exists in the creation of the entire world including the sun, the moon, all the heavenly hosts are not called heavens. The heavens are only things that have no physical bodies such as angels. However, that whatever has a physical body is included in the name earth in verse one. These words of the Ramban are what carried me when we saw men descending from a spaceship on a ladder onto the surface of the moon. I thought to myself, what would the Rambam who wrote that the moon has a spiritual form answer now? I thought that at that point Kabola defeated philosophy and comforted myself with the words of the Ramban. We are forced to say that the Rambam that what the Rambam told us in these chapters chapter 1 and four is neither my nor myious rather he wrote these four chapters from his deep mind and from his knowledge of secular wisdom not for the wisdom of but for only from philosophy and the Rambam only wrote these as an introduction to the mission of Tyra. The main part of the book begins with chapter five. [snorts] Rabbi Manakim Kasher tries to defend the Rambam but I see it as forced and bizarre. So here you have a classic example of the view that I discussed earlier. Rabbak of Kamitki says that the first four chapters are not really Mishna of the Ra. I mean, they are, but he he doesn't take them so seriously because of Kamki understood that says that the moon has a spiritual form and therefore how could you land on the moon if it's a spiritual form? But really, the moon is a physical and therefore it's part of the earth. It's not part of heaven. But the truth is I don't understand this because the Rambam Rambam doesn't say that the moon is spiritual. The Rambam says that the matter of the moon is not like our matter. That the matter that the physical form of the moon is not like things below on on planet earth. That's what the Rambam says that the Rambam says that by us the body and the soul it's always changeable. The body decomposes and it dies and everything changes, goes through a flux. But the heavenly planets, the heavenly planets and stars don't go through that change. It remains fixed. Now the moon remains fixed for thousands of years. It's the same moon doesn't go through those vicissitudes that human bodies or animal bodies or trees, vegetation or metals go through on planet earth. That's what the Rambam says. But I don't know where why Rabbi thought that the Rambam says that the moon is spiritual and therefore you can't land on the moon. I don't think the Rambam says that anywhere. So I'm not sure what he means. I don't know why he would say that. And then he has to question the Raum. I don't understand Alter 4. Is it correct what many are currently saying that when man reached the moon and dug from it dirt and stones was proven wrong? What says in Mishna chapter 3 section 25 and brings proof to Aristotle's position from biblical verses of the sages that the heavenly spheres have souls knowledge and understanding and live stand and recognize he who said and the world came into being that the Rambam says the Rambam says that the heavenly spheres have souls and they are aware and they recognize God. I wrote that the early sages the author of end of essay one and that barbell strongly reject the position of Aristotle in the Raomd in his book migdal o writes about Aristotle's position it is all nonsense and lies maral wrote in his introduction to the book Hashem that the ram's position is nonsense it's not true in the pamphlet gulas of the mag of kashnit the author attempts attempts to defend the ram he explains that the heavenly spheres are intellectual ual without free will. We can explain this idea based on what Vital wrote in his book Sharik Ddusha based on Kabala that just like there is a soul in a living creature. There's also a soul in an inanimate object says that even a rock has a soul. This is also the force that combines the four elements the divine force. The position of the ramaiz just like there is knowledge and intelligence among the angels which does not refer to intellect that we have that's connected to five senses but rather it's a spiritual intellect according to their level. We can say the same for toyu the first power created by the will of God that remains forever in various forms at first in buu the atom and later in elements and bodies. This force is so is also called an angel because it is an agent of god to be made into matter. It's not impossible that this force has its own intellect and rules according to its level and recognizes it creator and master. So I don't see the problem with the raam. In other words, just like there's angels that have intelligence even though they don't have physical brains, there is spiritual intellect. We could say the first power created by the will will of God that remains forever in forms. It's the atom. It's the other elements and the other bodies. It still retains that intelligence. We can add that the intellect of an atom of an item is the rules by which it act with God's will according to God's will. And it's the it's the essence of its existence. The soul of an item is the force that preserves its existence with God's will and that's the energy inside of it. The fact that the atom follows certain rules and it feels dicts um that it has to follow those rules. It's not just blind mechanics without any awareness. That's what the rama means. This is God's will that's infused in this. It's a certain intelligence that God infuses with it and that's the essence of its existence. That's the soul and that's the force that preserves its existence and its existence is according to God's will and the energy inside of it. I came across another rabbitic response of the moon landing that takes a different approach. Rabbi Schlommo Vulba the famous Balmus in a talk shabas kates in 1969 dime page 81 unapologetically and unself-consciously he said how the astronauts were quarantined for 21 days after returning to earth to ensure that no alien bacteria or viruses came back with them. He suggested if there were spiritual beings on the moon, they would have quarantined the astronauts for upon landing to ensure that they were not bringing any bacteria, of lack of god-fearing, any contamination, of irreligiosity. Theim had been the first to land on the moon, he would have seen a pure landscape entirely untainted by irreligiosity, perhaps even attaining the level of prophecy. I find this characteristic of his Musa personality using contemporary events to illustrate a spiritual point. I also find that no Rabbi Vulba saw no religious challenge in this monumental event referring to it without skeptical disclaimers or intellectual alarm. Instead, he found the muser aspect which could further