Rambam’s Letters (Shiur 7) | Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz | September 2nd 2025

Everybody again it's been a while since we've been together. Uh first uh today's shir is dedicated anonymously for the Rafu LMA of Okana Batuma. May she have a raffle with all of the all of the Israel. Um as you know uh our course uh is about the letters of the Rambam and the introductions. Eventually we'll get to the introductions of the Rambam uh as well. uh the I hate to say it uh this is not an inspirational share. So those who seek inspiration may go elsewhere including some other classes that I give. Uh this is anformational share and informational shir in spite of what people think have importance also. Sometimes it's important uh to get knowledge of Torah even if it's not automatically going to be immediately inspiring. The hope would be indirectly of course when one is connected to the sweetness of Torah there's an automatic inspiration but it's not necessarily devoted to inspiration. I have to give that warning because sometimes people come in with uh certain certain expectations. Uh so far we've examined uh two letters of the Rambam. Uh the first just to remind you uh was called uh myar kites hashem uh oras hashmad where the Rambam discussed uh the idea of martyrdom and when must a person give up his life before he renounces Judaism etc. And this was a letter written to a number of communities that were undergoing Islamic persecution. And they were informed that by some rabbi that if they were to even profess belief in Islam, even in one sentence, they believe in Muhammad, whatever it would be, they are no longer Jewish. And God does not want their mitzvot. And the Rambam specifically went out of his way to uh dispel that idea. uh he says whether or not you have to give your life, you're still a good Jew even if you failed in that duty. And then the Rambam even suggested that you don't have to give up your life in a situation where the persecutor knows you're not sincere in what you say. Meaning, you know, you got to say this line just so they'll take the knife off your neck, but they don't really they understand you don't really mean it. All right. So we went over that was the myareshm which essentially uh wasizuk to a community that was undergoing religious persecution. The second letter dealt with the same type of historical circumstance but it approached it from a different angle. That was the Gretman uh the letter to the communities in Yemen. uh which also goes by the later name Pakva just like the city in Israel an opening of hope and this too uh dealt with communities that were facing Islamic persecution and the Rambam addressed the issue of Messianism of Mashiach of gula of the fact that God will redeem his people and before that redemption there are going to be very very difficult times. So mammar keshashem and tman were both confrontations with the issue of martyrdom and persecution. Myar keshm was more mainly in its analysis and tan uh was uh myar and of comfort and I think I had mentioned probably more than once that the kihilot in tman were so grateful to the that the ram gave them uh that in fact uh they incorporated the ram's name in the kadesh. Uh so when we we ask for mashiach so they would say Israel may the goolah come in your lifetime and in the lifetime of all of Israel and they would add the words mosha ben in the may the mashiach come in the lifetime of Mosha benmon this was their response to tman the raam himself left it instruction that I tan be read publicly in its Arabic in all of the binot even though the Rambam admitted that this might be dangerous to him if the authorities hear that he's undermining uh Islam and the like but the Rambam said and it's not clear that this is a that it's worthwhile to endanger your life to bring to the congregation to bring to the seabore he is willing to even put his own life at at risk. Uh this is also the source of the fact that many many Yemenite communities from that day forward they considered the Rambam to be their definitive POS. Meaning even when the Shan or came out later and the Shanorak was largely accepted as the authoritative code of Jewish law especially by Spartan because Ashkanazim followed the Rama but the shorse kairo became the code of Jewish law but many of the tmani communities they did not follow the shor per se they followed the and they still follow the Rambam directly now there's not going to be tremendous difference because in truth most of the rulings of Raboseph Cairo are in fact the rulings of the Rambam because as many of you might know Reseph Cairo had a rule in deciding among Makloim of Poskim and this is his famous two out of three rule. He identified two three postkim that he considered to be the primary decisor of Jewish law. One was the riff rais, one was the Rambam and one was the rush rau aer and the had a rule that he would normally follow the based on two out of three. Uh now the truth of the matter is that really stacks the deck because the rush who lived who was Ashkanazi was always the odd man out and the Rambam follows the riff 90% of the time. uh but not always not always. So most of the time the in fact is the of the Rambam but not always and the will not look at the will look at the Rambam and this was in the aftermath of Ear Tan. So those are the two letters that we we looked at. Uh so today we are looking at the third major public letter that the Rambam wrote. The Rambam has many many letters and we'll be looking at some of the private letters as well but this too was a public letter and this is called again mamar it's not called a letter but it's called mammarim uh the myimar the discourse on the concept of resurrection of the dead it is a fairly long letter again written in Arabic and then translated uh into Hebrew It's interesting, you know, the the Rambam's main translator uh was Yehuda Iben Tibbon. The Iban Tibon family were great translators from Arabic into into Hebrew and Yehuda ibon ibon, father and son. Uh they translated like everything that the Rambam wrote in Arabic. They translated the perish of Mishnayas. Uh they translated the safer hamitzvot. They translated the morim and they translated a number of these public letters. But for some of the earlier public letters, it's very interesting and mama keshm, we actually have multiple translations by different people. And uh the ibon translations are usually very difficult to follow because they are very literal and they follow the syntax of Arabic which is not always the same as Hebrew. They're hard to read. the other translations are much more flowing. So it's very very interesting that when it came to we tan and mama keshashem uh when Ibent tibon when when yud ibon was given a copy of the letter from the ram himself uh he then made it available to other translators he says this is my translation you can translate it unfortunately uh when those other translators became more popular than his own when it came to He refused to release the original Arabic. You know, he had the Arabic from the Rambam. He translated it into Hebrew. He did not release it to other translators. Uh so what some now we do have other translations but it became re-ransated in a very odd convoluted way and that is they took the Iban Tiban Arabic transl I'm sorry Hebrew translation they re-ransated it into Arabic and then they re-ransated it into a more flowing Hebrew. So we do have uh multiple translations uh but the Iben Tibon translation particularly of this letter even worse than Earman and Mamares Hashem is frankly difficult to follow. It is a difficult translation uh to to follow. uh but uh one needs to know a little bit of history of the mamm that is uh the date is the secular date the Rambam died in 1204 so we're talking about uh 14 or so years before the Rambam's Petira uh by the time the Rambam wrote to Mim all all of his works have already been publicized uh the commentary on the Mishna of course which was early anyway but the Mishna Torah has been out there and even the moim the guide to the perplexed. So the Rambam is no longer an acolyte. The Rambam is no longer a young person who is uh not fully known. The Rambam is already the world famous Rambam uh as we we know him. And uh the problem was this uh even in the Rambam's lifetime the Rambam was subject to a number of attacks after his death they intensified but obviously theim was written in the lifetime of the Rambam and the Rambam was often accused well obviously in the Mishna Torah there were disputes but that's not such a big deal I mean there's always going to be arguments in what's your source etc. And the Rambam was criticized not only for the substance of the halic ruling but the fact that he did not give sources for his halic rulings. Okay, those were relatively minor criticisms. But the Rambam was also accused theologically of being an apicorus, of being a heretic, of being a person who did not deserve a share in the world to come. And in particular, the Rambam was accused of denying the idea of that the Rambam uh was said to believe that the only reward that one gets after one's death is the reward of the soul. the soul in olmhaba and in olm haba there is no body there is no eating there is no drinking there is no physicality uh there is only the spiritual survival of the soul with joyous eternal communion with God and therefore the idea that the body is going to be resurrected was considered to be at least the again the ram was accused of not believing in physical resurrection of the dead and uh based on the Mishna in Sanhedrin. A person who denies is an Apicorus is a heretic and a lohaba. Now that is a fairly severe accusation uh that the Rambam was an apicorus and the Rambam felt it was necessary for him to defend his position or at least explain his position and the truth of the matter is the Rambam's position is actually a bit strange a bit ambivalent and one actually wonders what his true belief might have been uh because uh there is a lot of uncertainty Here on one hand the Rambam points out the following. The Rambam points out that all the way back to his commentary on the Mishna which the Rambam authored around the age of 30 many decades before. So remember that the 11th per of Sanhedrin which is called Perk that's the one that says call is every Jew has a inab. Of course, that sounds real good until you just read the next sentence. However, the following people do not have a right. So, it's not as it's not as all-incclusive as one would hope. Uh, in the Rambam's Mishna, Perk is not the 11th per of Sanhedrin as it is in Argum as it is number 10. Okay, that makes no difference. But in his commentary to the Mishna and Perk, the Rambam gives a very very important introduction. It's called the haktama to perk where he articulates a number of very important theological ideas. And in perham devotes a great deal of discussion to what is olabah because after all the Mishna says call is leolabah. Every Jew unless they're excluded has a share in haba. So the Rambam wants to devote a lot of time in the tokaba. And there indeed he goes on at great length to say that Maba is not physical. And when the talk about a meal, right, very often a very common description in rabbitic literature is the great meal of the great feast, the feast of the Leviathan and the wild ox. I'm sure you've heard the the joke because it says there are two there are two foods that are going to be served. One is the levyasan and one is the beh. Uh so essentially you have a choice of meat and fish in the in the suda. So the joke goes because some people aren't even going to trust Hashem's shita. They're going to demand uh demand fish. uh and it talks about golden tables and wine that has been kept in its grapes from the six days of creation. In fact, if you remember the if you look at the very famous difficult Aramaic poem that we recite Shabuis morning before Ka Satra uh this is the pot of odtomos. It's very unfortunate people who are up all night often may fall asleep during Octo. Uh but if you look at Octo is a very very graphic description of the beauties and the luxuries of Olam Haba including the rivers of balsam oil that will go flowing by and it's a very very physical description gold and silver and and the best foods and the like. Well, it's hard to know what Ravme mayor bravitzk the abdomos had in mind, but the Rambam is very very emphatic all the way back to his peric that all of that is a metaphor that's not real. Olabah is not about physicality. It's not about eating. It's not about drinking. It's not about gold thrones and rivers of balsam oil. Olaba is 100% a spiritual existence. The body decomposes in the ground. It is the soul that is eternal. It is the soul that comes from God. It is the soul that is the breath of God. And therefore, just as God can never be destroyed, the soul can never be destroyed. And um haba is the return of the soul to that eternal joy. And therefore the Rambam makes the point linguistically when we say olum haba the world to come. The Rambam says it does not mean a world that's not here yet. The truth is it's already here. I mean someone dies today they go to Mhaba. So the only reason it's called the world to come is not because it represents a future stage in history. It's a world to come visav any given individual visav you. It's not here yet. You haven't right but but it's already here. Right. So the Rambamus addresses and he absolutely negates the idea of physicality. Okay. So that would lend a little bit of credence to the accusation that hey you don't believe in physical resurrection of the dead. But then the Rambam proceeds to enumerate the very famous 13 principles of faith. If you want to know where you can find the 13 principles of faith in their original incarnation, it is in the hakama of the Rambam to perk. Again, I I think I made this point just to repeat it. Uh by way of review, uh if you look in a regular sitter, right? So after Shakris, there are 13 statements each of them beginning in I believe in perfect faith that there's one God that God is without body that there's reward and punishment that the Torah will never change all the different principles and and the like. So it's important to know that although the Rambam indeed is the author of the 13 principles of faith the Rambam is not the author of an Amin that whole wording rather that was written by an anonymous author uh who adapted the Rambam's 13 principles in an easier to digest format in a more simplified format and that's why occasionally if there are discrepancies between the anime description and the Rambam and Perch. Obviously, if you want to know the Rambam's opinion, Perk is going to control because those are actually the words of the Rambam at least in translation because once again the perish Mishna was Arabic and we're reading the Ibon uh translations. So why does the Rambam proceed just to understand this? Why does the Rambam use perk as the the the place where he articulates 13 principles of faith? Because the Rambam has a particular view. You know, you sometimes hear the statement that Judaism is about deed rather than creed, which some people might subscribe to. In other words, there is a shittita that actually says as long as you believe in God and you keep the mitzvot, you're fine. You don't have to go into every detail of theology. I'll mention Albo as an example of this. The Rambam would absolutely disagree with those statements. The Rambam took the position that unless you believe the 13 principle, what he articulated as 13 fundamental dogmas of Judaism, no matter how righteous you are, you do not have a share in the world to come. Meaning theological belief, correct theological belief is a Sinaan. It's an indispensable condition. It's the admission ticket for olhaba. Uh so for example, the Ramba maintains if a person believes that God has a body, that God has physicality, which after all you could easily make that mistake based on a number of biblical verses, the hand of God, the eyes of God. The Rambam says keeps all the mitzvah. He does not have a share in the world to come. Masha the Ramba maintains that if a person for example believes the 13 principles of faith but he's not so religious he violates Shabas he violates kosher so the Rambam says for such a person he'll go to gehennam for a while and after gehenn he'll go to haba for the mitzvah that he's done meaning he doesn't he doesn't lose haba by violating the Torah strangely enough right because God will reward him for his good deeds and indeed it's asymmetrical because the punishment of ganam is limited in time and the reward of olam haba is infinite in time but the Rambam says without the theological beliefs you're in trouble and therefore the Rambam says I must articulate the principles of faith which are necessary for admission to olaba so he goes through 13 principles and each of them is given somewhat of an explanation And of course, principle number 12 is very well known. That's the one that says, "I believe in the coming of Mashiach. That's the one that's been said to uh many nagunim." And then he says, "Principle number 13." Oh yeah, I got a principle number 13, which is literally around less than 10 words. I don't have an exact number of words. He says, "Oh yeah, there's something called resurrection of the dead, which is an important principle of the Torah." Now, there's something a little funny about this. On one hand, the Rambam in his letter of the says, "What do you mean I don't believe in physical resurrection?" It's in there. It's in there. Look at principle 13. I said it's a fundamental principle of the Torah. Yeah, the Rambam did cover himself all the way back. But you know there's something a little funny because when it comes to haba the Rambam devotes are on a page and a half to say it's not physical and the body is not involved etc. Meaning he seems to want to negate the notion of eternal physicality and then he says oh yeah there's something called which I'm not really going to talk about at all but it's there. I don't know what do you what do you make of that? I mean the Rambam says it is the 13th principle of faith to be sure and the Rambam points that out in it's there on the other hand he devotes so little energy to it so little enthusiasm to it uh you know it's one of those things that one could say he's almost ashamed of in the sense because the Rambam could not conceive of the body as having any particular significance comes across in many many teachings of the Rambam in which the Rambam says the only thing that matters is the intellect and the soul and the body is the body you know you know you got to keep your body healthy the Rabam said because that's how the soul and the mind can function but there's certainly nothing transcendentally significant about the body okay so as I say uh some people basically said the Rambam really didn't believe in but the Rambam did point to the fact that I said it now similarly. So that's text number one. Text number one is uh in where the Rambam articulates he spends a long long discussion about not being physical uh he mentions in in less than 10 words. Okay. Yeah. could be had something to do with Christianity that he didn't want to >> um it is it is it is possible it is it is possible that the Ram didn't want to emphasize physical resurrection so much because that was such a cornerstone of Christianity that that that may have some validity now the second text is in the Mishna Torah in a part of the Mishna Torah that is widely studied Baddafa this time of year that is the Rambam has a section in the Mishna Torah that is called chuva the laws of repentance it's very interesting theor does not have anything called the laws of chuva the Rambam does salv once speculated the great salv that there are 10 chapters in hil's chuva perhaps the Rambam intended that one should study one chapter every day in the 10 days from rashashana through yam kipper yes again it's speculation, but perhaps the Rambam intended it that way. And Hilkas Chuva is divided actually into two unequal halves. The first four chapters of Hilush Chuva deal with what you might call literally the laws of Chuva, the obligation of confession uh to Hashem, the obligation of asking forgiveness from people that you hurt. In other words, the theic aspect. Chuva is a mitzvah like other mitzvah and it's not just about emotion. There are halos in how one does chuva. So the first four chapters are are devoted to halos of chuba. The next six chapters are devoted to a number of very intriguing philosophical problems that the idea of chuva engenders and among them is the issue of free will. In fact, the Rambam's most extensive discussion of free will of as opposed to predestination appears in Hilos Chuva because you understand the connection here. If I have to do chuva because when I did something wrong, I have to ask God for forgiveness. I have to make amends. That presupposes responsibility. That presupposes accountability. Now accountability or responsibility can exist only if a person has free will to choose good or evil. If you were predestined to go on a certain path then how could you be punished for deviate you know for following your path and and the other way around if it was predestined that you would be righteous why should you be rewarded for being righteous. So the whole idea of reward and punishment, the whole idea of accountability, the whole idea of responsibility depends on there being free will. Moreover, without free will, doing chuva would be impossible. How could I change if I'm programmed to be a certain way? So the Rambam articulates very much the idea that based on the statement of the Gmorrah, everything is in the hands of heaven except the decision to fear God. The decision to fear God or serve God is your choice. It is not God's choice. And therefore, the Rambam discusses. And then the Rambam goes into great detail in a number of very famous questions. Well, how could God harden Pyro's heart and make Pyro resistant to the makos, etc. How could the Egyptians be punished if God told Abraham that they shall enslave your uh people? Uh, right. How can there be punishment when there's not free will? Uh the Rambam then raises the old chestnut very famous question of if God knows the future then your choice is already foreclosed. God right? You say I get up in the morning. I can decide to davenin or not d. Right? That's what we say. I have free will. But how could I have free will if God knew yesterday and God knew the day before yesterday and God knew a million years or 10,000 years or 10 million years ago what I was going to do? By the time this day arrives, my choices are already foreclosed. So how do you reconcile free will with divine omniscience? So the Rambam raises a whole bunch of interesting questions. Uh reconciling free will with divine knowledge of the future. Reconciling free will with God hardening Pyro's heart. Uh reconciling free will with God decreeing that the Jews will be enslaved by a nation that is not theirs. I'm not going to discuss those questions. Those are very very interesting questions. Uh but after the Rambam discusses free will, the Rambam then moves to the nature of reward and punishment and the Rambam mentions that reward and punishment the ultimate reward is olabar. And once again the Rambam discusses at length. It is not physical. Physicality is a metaphor for the pleasures that we can understand because this is a spiritual pleasure we cannot understand. And he makes no reference when he discusses the greatest reward. He makes no reference at all to again if one would just read those chapters one could easily come to the conclusion that the Rambam denied physical resurrection but once again in the Rambam points out I have an insurance policy because in an earlier part of he kind of reiterates with some differences who doesn't have a share in Olabah and he mentions he who does not believe resurrection. So that's the only reference. In other words, the only reference to physical resurrection in the Mishna Torah is a single half sentence. But when the Rambam discusses the reward, he only discusses he does not discuss. So these are two very peculiar texts because both in the peric and in the Mishna they follow the same pattern. The Rambam has a long elaborate discussion of the non-physical aspects of the world of the soul with a cursory lip service admission. Yeah, there's something called and it's a big deal. You got to believe in it almost. you got to believe in it. Uh etc. So you can understand a little bit I think that although the Rambam certainly legitimately claims he's covered his basis because indeed he does explicitly say in both places that if you don't believe inim you don't have a share in he says it on the other hand the exposition the enthusiasm the gishmat the passion is all directed to the nonphysical aspects of And again, and the Rambam doesn't just call it non-physical. He emphasizes it can't be physical because bodies don't last forever. Well, how does that how is that consistent with and the like? I I'll get to that. Now, the third text is the most recent the Rambam's great philosophical treatise. Here the Rambam drops any pretense is not mentioned whatsoever in the morim. He only mentions the nonspiritual hab which is called olam hanot. So if you were a scholar, especially if you were looking to pick a fight as as many to in those days did, it was kind of a a little bit of an abrasive atmosphere. Uh the Rambam was a target that people like to attack. Uh you could look at these three texts. The text in the parish of Mishnayas, the text in the Mishna Torah and especially the text in the Morinim, which anyway was very controversial because of its attempt to reconcile Aristoilian philosophy uh with Judaism. And one can conclude that the Rambam didn't believe in physical resurrection and therefore the Rambam was an Apicorus. Now people who came to the conclusion that the Rambam didn't believe in physical resurrection they themselves broke felt they were into two different groups some people said yeah that's great they actually agreed they said yeah it's a wonderful thing let's get rid of this physical resurrection maybe it's too connected Christianity it's too connected maybe to these superstitions of paganism after all what's the body the only thing that matters is the soul if the Rambam has gotten rid of physical resurrection. I mean some people actually said that's great. Other people said they pointed out of course both to the says and they pointed specifically to that speaks right speaks about those who are sleeping in the ground. afar and of course what about the amida it's very difficult I mean you could read it metaphorically but the the second of right God fulfills his faithful promise to those who are sleeping in the ground and you are trustworthy worthy to revive the deadim. How how how are you going to interpret that if you don't believe in physical resurrection? I believe I I haven't checked the reform prayer book recently. I I believe the reform uh movement uh fooled around with that brah. I think they they they changed language vidafka that it shouldn't reflect uh physical resurrection of the dead. I believe they did change that but the Rambam obviously didn't change that. The Rambam had the regular Shimon right. So you're going to it's a big do like I mean theoretically you might say well maybe revival of the dead means the soul comes back but that doesn't make sense really because the soul doesn't come back. the soul. In other words, a person dies. All right, it may be ganim or whatever, but it's not that the soul will come back. The soul is an olhaba. Now, I mean, if you're talking about something coming back, that that description only makes sense if you're talking about physical resurrection. Because if the soul coming back, if coming back is a reference to the soul coming back, coming back is not the right is not the right word. The soul never dies. It's not like the soul dies and then God revives the soul. So although the Rambam does not bring this as a proof uh but the the the nus of itself which comes back from the anchess as well as the puss in Danil clearly talk about physical resurrection of the dead. So again uh some of the more philosophically minded people like liked the fact that the Rambam was a progressive who was moving away from that primitism. Others sought the Rambam was notic uh the Rambam wrote this defense and he pointed to the fact that uh in the parish of Mishnayas and in the Mishna Torah he explicitly does mention albeit without that much enthusiasm in the he doesn't but I'll I'll explain that. Okay. So yeah body light and only after um he that he became opaque is it possible he could have a resurrection of body of life. >> Well yes uh yeah well we'll talk about that mean meaning what type of body gets resurrected that that's that's an important question. Uh but the question is does the Rambam subscribe to bodily resurrection and then we'll talk about what body gets resurrected. Certainly the derashemos who was a phenomenally great cabalist uh talks about the fact that bodily resurrection does not mean the actual opaque body that we have. It's a much more spiritualized body but it's still a body that gets uni unified with the soul. So the Rambam then has to address a very big question. Yeah. The Rambam covered his basis and the Rambam did affirm belief in bodily resurrection. So he has been exonerated of the Apicorus charge. At least this was his his position. Question is though why does he deemphasize it so much? Why is all of the elaborate discussion is a passing footnote and in the mor is totally ignored. So here the Rambam says something that's quite astounding quite amazing and he does not uh he does not mention this in the Mishna Torah. Again he he mentions the words but he doesn't discuss what it is in the Mishna Torah. And he saysim is a passing phenomenon. God will bring the dead back to life. Yeah, that's great. And that's a great supernatural miracle, but they're going to die then. Meaning to say is not the eternal reward for Torah and for mitzvah. Mason is a miracle like the splitting of the Red Sea, like the falling of the man, uh like many like the opening up of the ground uh for Korak, like the talking of the donkey, it's a miracle like other miracles. But those who come back, they may live for a while, but they're going to die. And therefore, and what's going to happen when they die? they'll go to meaning the only thing that is the eternal reward for God's mitzvot is not resurrection of the dead it is >> right >> and therefore the a little bit closer thank you >> it is and therefore the raam says when I discuss inv the ultimate reward for mitzvot I don't mention so I mention as a condition to get but when I discuss the reward for mitzvot I only talk about I don't talk about because is not a reward it is simply a miracle that God will perform to demonstrate his might and demonstrate his mastery and demonstrate his control over nature. But in terms of the what you might call the exchological process, the process of reward and punishment is frankly not very important. Now this is a remarkable position. I will mention in a second how other people other people view it. Uh but even accepting the Rambam's premise, the question then becomes so why is it a foundation of faith? me meaning okay uh it'll happen but what makes it so important and number two why would God do it well why why does God have to do that particular miracle again let me contrast for a moment the Rambam's view on the 13 principles of faith where the Rambam says you must have commitment to the 13 principles as an admission ticket to Allah Maba and without that commitment you have no share in Olabah, which by the way can create tremendous tremendous tremendous hardships because if you think about this, uh this condemns a tremendously high percentage of the Jewish people, the Rambam's view at least, to not having a sharab even if they're good and they're righteous. That's why many argue with the Ramba. Let me mention that a later philosopher Rivier Sealo wrote a very famous book in Jewish philosophy. It is called safer karim the book of fundamental principles which is a much more readable book than the morim. It is not as difficult as the guide to the perplexed and as a result safer karim became a very popular book. It's not so studied today unfortunately but uh in the late middle ages it was a very very popular book. Uh and it's funny because it's an easyto- read book. People read it even though Safer Karim is actually a very radical book because he takes tremendous issue with the Rambam. And let me explain what he does. Albo says that the Rambam defined 13 principles as amuna. Ear amuna, fundamental principles of faith. But the wordar comes from the word root. An ikar is the same as a shores. This is the root from which comes the tree of Judaism. And just as a tree cannot live without roots, you cannot be Jewish without adherence to the 13 root principles of Judaism. That is the Rambam's view. Ravier Albo maintained that many of the things that the Rambam called ear are not ear they are anaf. He said some things are roots and some things are branches. A tree cannot live without roots but a tree can live even if it's missing some of the branches. And Ravalo maintained and he brought many many proofs to this that many of the of the Rambam are not. They are anim. And even if a Jew did not believe them, they can still be a Jew in good standing and they will have a share in olamab. Ravalo famously said, "Instead of there being 13, there are only three amuna." Only three things the Jew has to believe. Number one, that there is one God who is the creator of heaven and earth. You have to believe in God. So I know that there are um there's something called humanistic Judaism which uh actually says they don't believe in God. It's it's it's open. I mean somehow they do have they do have synagogue services. I'm not really sure uh what what that means. Uh it's not reform. It's humani humanism is a totally different thing. Humanism is literally a Judaism that doesn't believe in God. Okay. So so so even revival would say you got to believe in God. Number two, you have to believe in some system of reward and punishment. It could be this world, the next world, but you have to believe that there are consequences to your behavior because if there are no consequences, why should I follow anything? And number three, you have to believe in the divine revelation of the Torah that God communicated to us in some form what his will is. So we know what is good and evil. Okay. Okay. So the threem the existence of God one God some system of reward and punishment and some system of divine revelation. Ravalo writes that this is actually the structure of the musaf on rashashana where the musf on rashashana has three special that we add to the musf after which we blow the chauffar after each special braha. Uh the first is Malot in which we recite biblical verses proclaiming God as king. The second is Zronot where we recite biblical verses about God remembering the good deeds of our forefathers. And then we recite then we have chauffeur which are verses about the blowing of the chauffeur. Zikronote chauffeur ravalo is mazbar that since Roshashana we are coronating God is our king. We pledge our allegiance to the three fundamental principles of Judaism as exemplified in malotronote and chauff. Malote essentially proclaims the existence of God. That's why he's our king. Zronotes conotes reward and punishment because God remembers the good deeds of our forefathers and chauffeur commemorates among other things the chauffeur of matan torabo says the three are part of our affirmation on the day that we coronate god as our king. Right? very good uh nice explanation of malotronote and shaote. In fact, one of the popularities, one of the reasons why the safer karim became very popular uh is because he often digresses to offer explanations of the sitter or whatever it is. The Rambam tends not to do that. The Rambam tends to stick to his philosophical argument. Now in order to have clarity between the difference between the Rambam's approach and Ravalo's approach, let me take a few examples. Let's say a person does not believe in the coming of Mashiach. He says, "Who needs Msiah? When I die, my soul goes to God. If I if I deserve it, I'll get rewarded. I don't need Msiah." According to the Rambam, Batamashiach is the 12th fundamental principle of faith. A person who does not believe Mashiach is a he is denying a fundamental principle. The same thing would be true even like the Rambam if I denied physical resurrection even in even in the Rambam's limited sense because the Rambam calls to principle number 13 you know what Rala would say Rabba would say well wait a second here instead of looking at Miach and as ear it is simply a branch bunch of a more general principle called reward and punishment. So as long as I believe in reward and punishment which include haba even if I am mistaken in denying mashiach orim I am a mistaken Jew but a mistaken Jew is not the same as a heretical Jew. Now, here's a critical point I want to I want to clarify. A lot of people misunderstand Ravalo's point. They will say something like, "Ravalo didn't believe in Mashiach. Ravalo didn't believe inim." That's actually wrong. Ravalo believed in everything the Rambam believed in. Meaning there is no difference at all as to what are the true beliefs of Judaism, what are not. The only point that Raalo departs from the Rambam is what are the consequences of having a mistaken belief. It is a mistaken belief. But Dravalabo says a mistaken belief on a branch does not affect your maba. It is only a mistaken belief on an ear that affects your maba. And the Rambam's classification of ear was too extensive. Okay. Again I this point is is worthwhile to repeat. Realo does not agree with the I'm sorry does not disagree with the Rambam on the substance of the beliefs of Judaism. He just disagrees as to how you classify them. Now let me give you some more dramatic examples. Let's say a person based on the anthropomorphic descriptions in Tanakh believes that God is an old man sitting not an old man but an old person with a long white beard sitting on a throne which is exactly the way the book of Dal describes him. According to the Rambam, anyone that says God has a body is denying one of the 13 principles of faith does not have a share in allah. What would Roalo say? Rovalo would say it's certainly the case that God does not have a body, but if somebody made a mistake and think he does, he's a mistaken person. He's not a heretic. So again I want to point out when if people will tell you will believe that God was caporeal that's not true but he's saying you know you don't lose your above or let me mention something yet another thing the Rambam posits as that every single letter in the Torah perhaps except for maybe the last eight verses that talk about Moshe's was dictated by God to Moshe. And the Torah that we have today is the very same Torah that was given to Moshe. There were no additions, no deletions. Now, as you know, there are some verses in the Torah that create a little bit of a problem. The Torah sometimes seem to be referring to things that happened after Mosha's life. So the Rambam's answer would be these were prophetic meaning God told Moshe about things that that will happen etc. Ravalo will say that as long as you believe that the mitzvot of the Torah come from God and that is divine revelation. The mitzvot of the Torah do not come from man. They come from God. The when and the where and the how and the possibility of postmosaic additions on an editorial level that do not change the substance of commandments are admissible within the faith tradition of Judaism. Again, I'm not here to convince you of anything. I I all I want to do is very simply articulate the difference in Gisha between Ravalo and the Rambam. So according to Raalba, well, if the Rambam would have agreed with Alba, which he didn't, the Rambam wouldn't be in trouble at all. uh the Rambam is accused of not believing in physical resurrection according and therefore he's an apicorus. Well, if Raalbao would have been his defense attorney, Ravalo would say, "Yeah, okay. He didn't believe in physical resurrection. So what? You don't have to believe in physical resurrection as long as you believe in Sakarvion." The problem is the Rambam couldn't use Ravalo as his defense attorney because Raalo wasn't born yet because the Rambam Bedavka says you have 13 principles of faith that if you're a kofair you're in trouble and one of those principles is indeed the principle of resurrection of the dead. So, so it's fascinating that in a sense the Rambam painted himself into a corner. The Rambam's definition of an Apicurus made him open to the accusation that he was an Apicurus under his definition although theoretically there were alternative definitions that would have saved him right so he destroyed his own alibi uh in a way so the bottom line and we'll stop here the bottom line basically is that the Rambam does have textual proof in his own texts that hey I do believe in physical resurrection but he greatly greatly greatly dimin diminishes its significance and the question then becomes so what is the point of it if it just means the dead will come back and then they're going to die again and the only thing that lasts is yeah you've given lip service that there'll be resurrection of the dead but what is the significance of that is a huge question and the Rambam frankly does not fully address it but we'll talk about it in room next week have a good good [Music]