Rabbeinu Yonah on Accepting Truth

In a comment to this post, Barzilai wrote the following:

See Rabbeinu Yonah on Avos 2:4 D'H Ahl Taamin B'atzm'choh. He says precisely the opposite of the oft quoted Rambam.

So last night I looked it up and this is what I found:

The Mishna in Avos says: Al taamin b'atzmcha, Do not be overly confident in yourself.

R. Yonah first explains that this is true in the area of actions, i.e., A righteous person who is careful in his observance of mitzvos and in refraining from avayros for many years should still not delude himself into believing that he is totally immune from sinning, because the yetzer hara does not give up the fight until a person is gone from this world.

He then adds that the Mishna's warning is applicable in another area as well. That is, in the arena of Emunah. He writes the following:

(translation by me, it may be somewhat imprecise but you'll get the gist of it)

We are warned against learning from heretics, and even from their true ideas because all contact with them is bad. It can lead one to believe ideas that are against our laws, because these ideas have the ability to draw at the heart. So do not be overly confident in yourself to say "I will learn from them and I will accept only the good but the bad I will reject". One should not rely on his own intellect as R. Meir did when he studied under Elisha the heretic, as we learn in Chagigah [15b] that it is said regarding R. Meir "He found a pomegranate, he ate the fruit and discarded the shell". But not all people are equal in their ability to do so.

While it seems to me that R. Yonah would certainly reject the way the Rambam's dictum is invoked by many people today, he also is clearly not totally rejecting it either. He does not condemn R. Meir for studying under Elisha. R. Yonah's concern seems to be, how can a person be absolutely sure that the idea that he is about to accept is actually a "truth". Relying on one's own intellect in this regard is faulty because who is to say that he has never been fooled.

In truth, this concern is voiced by at least one of the other major Rishonim.

ולא עבודה זרה בלבד הוא שאסור להיפנות אחריה במחשבה, אלא כל מחשבה שגורמת לו לאדם לעקור עיקר מעיקרי התורה-מוזהרין אנו שלא להעלותה על ליבנו, ולא נסיח דעתנו לכך ונחשוב ונימשך אחר הרהורי הלב: מפני שדעתו של אדם קצרה, ולא כל הדעות יכולות להשיג האמת על בורייו; ואם יימשך כל אדם אחר מחשבות ליבו, נמצא מחריב את העולם לפי קוצר דעתו

Any guesses on which Rishon is being quoted?

If you guessed Rambam.... you are correct!

Clearly the Rambam didn't advocate a total pursuit of the truth by every individual relaying solely on one's own intellect as the only check against error. The Rambam did believe that he himself had the ability to do this - and that's what he is saying in his famous quote. The Rambam selectively quoted the sources that he believed to be true. Now when presenting it to the reader as a finished product, he implores the reader not to question his judgment but rather to accept the what the Rambam himself has already determined to be the truth, regardless of it's source. I don't believe that the Rambam meant for every person to go off on his own search for truth without any checks.

So in short, what it boils down to is - He could say it, we can't.

Rashi on Accepting Truth

The Rambam, in his introduction to his Peirush on Avos, Shemoneh Perakim, famously writes the following:

ודע, שהדברים אשר אומר בפרקים אלו ובמה שיבוא מן הפירוש, אינם עניינים שבדיתים מעצמי, ולא פירושים שחידשתים, אמנם הם עניינים מלוקטים מדברי החכמים במדרש ובתלמוד, וזולתם מחיבוריהם, ומדברי הפילוסופים גם הקדומים והחדשים; ומחיבורי הרבה בני אדם.
ושמע האמת ממי שאמרה.

My translation:

And know, that the words which I will say in these chapters, and in the explanation itself, are not ideas that I originated, nor are they my own novel insights, rather they are ideas that were compiled from the chachamim in the Midrash and the Talmud, as well as from their other writings, and also from the words of the early and later philosophers as well as from the works of many people. And accept the truth from the one who says it.

The Rambam goes on to explain that it is for this reason that he chose not to quote people by name in this work. He did not want the "inexperienced person" (thanks, S.) to disregard the statement because of its source.

In this post I would like to try to demonstrate that the Rambam's view in this matter is not the only view.

In Makos (5b) the gemarah relates the following incident:

ההיא איתתא דאתאי סהדי ואישתקור אייתי סהדי ואישתקור אזלה אייתי סהדי אחריני דלא אישתקור אמר ריש לקיש הוחזקה זו א"ל ר' אלעזר אם היא הוחזקה כל ישראל מי הוחזקו זימנין הוו יתבי קמיה דרבי יוחנן אתא כי האי מעשה לקמייהו אמר ריש לקיש הוחזקה זו א"ל רבי יוחנן אם הוחזקה זו כל ישראל מי הוחזקו הדר חזיה לרבי אלעזר בישות אמר ליה שמעת מילי מבר נפחא ולא אמרת לי משמיה

A woman once brought witnesses, and they were found to be lying. She then brought another pair of witnesses, who were also found to be lying . She then brought a third party. Said Resh Lakish: This woman has established herself [as someone whose purpose is to use false witnesses]. Said R. Elazar to him: Because she he established herself has all of Israel established themselves [to be suspected of testifying falsely]? Such a case happened also before the court of R. Yochanan, and Resh Lakish said "this woman has established herself". But R. Yochanan exclaimed: "Because she he established herself has all of Israel established themselves?" He (Resh Lakish) looked at R. Elazar rebukingly, saying: You have heard your statement from Bar Naf'ha (R. Yochanan), and you have not mentioned his name!

(Translation courtesy of Sacred-Text, edited by me to represent what the gemorah actually says)

What is not clear from this gemorah is why was Resh Lakish upset at R. Elazar? What exactly was his complaint?

There is a very similar gemorah in Kesuvos (25b). While the matter under discussion there is different, it does feature R. Elazar saying something to Resh Lakish which Resh Lakish subsequently heard from R. Yochanan. Again Resh Lakish was upset at R. Elazar and addressed the same rebuke to him. (You have heard your statement from Bar Naf'ha (R. Yochanan), and you have not mentioned his name!)

To this gemorah Rashi comments:

He [RL] turned his head around and stared at R. Elazar with an ayin ra'ah for he [RL] understood that R. Yochanan was the source for R. Elazar's words but when he [R. Elazar] said it [to RL] he didn't say it in the name of R. Yochanan, therefore he did not accept it from him.

Now in all honesty, I don't really understand Rashi's explanation of Resh Lakish's objection. But is there any other way to understand Rashi other than to conclude that Rashi (or perhaps, Resh Lakish) did not subscribe to the Rambam's dictum?

The Message of the Wind

This is a repost of last year's Parshas Bo post.

Right at the beginning of the parsha, Moshe warns Pharaoh of the impending plague of locust. Then the Torah tells us how the plague actually transpired:

יג וַיֵּט מֹשֶׁה אֶת-מַטֵּהוּ, עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וַיהוָה נִהַג רוּחַ-קָדִים בָּאָרֶץ, כָּל-הַיּוֹם הַהוּא וְכָל-הַלָּיְלָה; הַבֹּקֶר הָיָה--וְרוּחַ הַקָּדִים, נָשָׂא אֶת-הָאַרְבֶּה

13 And Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt, and the LORD brought an east wind upon the land all that day, and all the night; and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts.

Why was the wind necessary? The only act that proceeded the earlier plagues was Moshe (or Aharon) hitting the ground or the river with a stick.

It seems like, for some reason, G-d wanted this plague to appear totally natural. The wind blew all night and in the morning they saw that wind was bringing in locust swarms. I assume that that is the way a locust swarm would usually arrive.

Perhaps G-d was saying (to the Egyptians as well as to the Jews), you all realized over the course of the last few months that I am the Master of the Universe, I can change the nature of water at will, I can cause an infestation of frogs to suddenly appear. But maybe you still don't understand that not only can I do all this supernatural stuff, I also control the natural events that happen all the time. Therefore, G-d sent this totally natural plague, complete with gusts of wind, and sandwiched it between two supernatural events to show everyone that from G-d's perspective there is no difference between the supernatural and nature.

The Ramban at the end of the Parsha says that the reason we are commanded to constantly remind ourselves of Yitziyas Mitzrayim (through mitzvos like shabbos, yom tov, teffilin, mezuzah) is not just to remember the shock and awe of the makkos and of yetziyas mitzrayim. The more important point is that through remembering the supernatural events that took place at yetziyas mitzrayim one will come to the realization that G-d controls every aspect of our natural existence as well.

That, I think, may be the message of the wind.

High Expectations

In this weeks Parsha:

ו וַתִּפְתַּח וַתִּרְאֵהוּ אֶת-הַיֶּלֶד, וְהִנֵּה-נַעַר בֹּכֶה; וַתַּחְמֹל עָלָיו--וַתֹּאמֶר, מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה. ז וַתֹּאמֶר אֲחֹתוֹ, אֶל-בַּת-פַּרְעֹה, הַאֵלֵךְ וְקָרָאתִי לָךְ אִשָּׁה מֵינֶקֶת, מִן הָעִבְרִיֹּת; וְתֵינִק לָךְ, אֶת-הַיָּלֶד.

6. She opened [it], and she saw him the child, and behold, he was a weeping lad, and she had compassion on him, and she said, "This is [one] of the children of the Hebrews."

7. His sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and call for you a wet nurse from the Hebrew women, so that she shall nurse the child for you?"

Rashi comments:
From the Hebrew women.

This teaches that she handed him around to many Egyptian women to be nursed, but he refused to nurse, for he was destined to speak with the Divine Presence.

Interestingly enough, this Medrash is brought l'halachah.

The Rema (SA YD 81:7) rules that a yisroel child should not nurse from an mitzris if there is a viable alternative available. Biur HaGra cites this Medrash as the source for Rema's ruling.

The obvious question is, how could this Medrash possibly be the source for Rema's ruling. The Medrash clearly states that the reason that Moshe objected to nursing from a mitzris was because "he was destined to speak with the Divine Presence", why should that apply to every other child?

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky (Emes L'Yaakov, shmos 2:7) answers, that we can learn from here a vital lesson in how to be m'chanch our children. We must have the absolute highest expectations for our children. We must give them the tools that they need to reach the greatest heights. We must educate each child as if he is a future Moshe Rabbeinu. Obviously no child will speak directly with the shchina as moshe did, however, for parents to deny the child that chance right from the outset, to cripple him because of their low expectations is a sin.

A Really Old Book

A few months ago my great-uncle died. He was an askan in many Jewish causes, a respected man. He had a large collection of seforim and books. His children, unfortunately, have no need for seforim. So they called us asking us to take what we want before they sell his house. We collected several large boxes. Among these boxes was one box of really old seforim.

I was going through this box, and I found many different siddurim, tehillims, chumashim, etc. from various times and places in Europe. Then, on the bottom of the box I found a small, thin volume wrapped in plastic. I unwrapped it and carfeully opened the cover. It is completely handwritten. The pages are brown and splotchy and sometimes hard to read. The date on top reads 1719.

The chances of this actually being from 1719 is virtually nil, and as I began reading the cursive script I was more and more sure of that. It tells the story of Avraham Ben Avraham, the famous Ger Tzedek of Vilna. He wasn't killed until 1749. So it seems obvious to me that the date of 1719 is the date when the story begins in this book. The first sentence would also lead to that conclusion.

I had always accepted this story as factual, not having done any research into it.

But a visit to Wikipedia shows that there is some scholarly debate if this story really happened. If I could accurately date this little book, perhaps some of this doubt can be put to rest. I don't know when it's from but it looks really old to me. Significantly older than some of the 1850's era books that were in the box.

Closed book

This is what it looks like when you open the cover. There are obviously some pages that were cut out with a sharp-edged object.

There seems to be some kind of ledger, where the author wrote a list of names with a number near each one. There is no monetary symbol, unfortunately.

First page

I have a high-res (3.89mb) scan of the first page, if anyone wants it.