Welcome to the Nishma Insight Discussion Forum blog.
The NISHMA INSIGHT is our popular dvar Torah, distributed almost every week by e-mail, that touches upon an important concept in the Parsha, theme in a holiday or event in contemporary society.
Often, readers respond, via e-mail, with comments that initiate a further dialogue. Through this Discussion Forum, we now wish to open this dialogue to others. If you have a comment on the INSIGHT, we invite you place to your comments here; then we invite everyone to join the discussion.
(If you are not receiving the NISHMA INSIGHT, we invite you join our mailing/e-mail list through completing our sign-up form available at our website.)
I really appreciate the way you delineate differences in opinion and either reconcile them (if possible )or further highlight the distinctions. I really look forward to reading your Insights over shabbos as they help me to expand the parameters of my Torah knowledge. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteMitzvos shim'iyos aren't the same as chuqim. E.g. those mitzvos that RSRH
ReplyDeletecalls Edios. The mitzvah makes sense, but without knowing the history and
symbolism, no one could have pre-guesses the mitzvah on seikhel alone.
I understand what you are saying but I still have a question in the Rambam. He of course only gives the two categories and you can wonder why he does not explicitly state this third category although it would seem to make sense from his approach to the mitzvot. My question, though, is still that Rambam does seem to make it important that in regard to chukkim, one should have a desire and not be disgusted by the act and he does include kashrut specifically in that category. It also seems that he includes the arayot in that category as well. I just think this is an issue that needs to be further addressed.
ReplyDeleteThere is a popular approach that states:
ReplyDelete1. Mishpatim are intutively understandable [EG Lo Tirtzach]
2. Chukkim are not obvious to understand - or even not POSSIBLE to understand.
--------------------
Re. #1, even Mishpatim often have a unique Torah Nuance. EG re: Eidim zom'mim, har'gu ein neheragim. I head this b'sheim the Rov, RYDS.
Re: #2 I think we have a perfect misunderstanding
Chukkim such as Shatnez are indeed not understandable to Gentiles, and therefore they are "Mal'iggim alayhu". Gentiles are not exposed to Torah, and there is nothing that makes Chukkim meaningful or relevant w/o that background. Perhaps, therefore, the idea arose that since they are not intuitively obvious ergo they're mysterious and esoteric.
However, it is my opinion that MANY Chukkim are understandable when one learns sufficient Torah. EG, with a proper Torah perspective, Inisghts into Kil'ayim become far less mysterious. This is the Gray area of Chukkim that are not intuitively obvious and yet are quite sensible within the Torah system and community.
However, even within the commmunity, we do see some Chukkim that transcend all reason and explanation. EG re: Poroh Adumah where even Sh'lomoh Hamelech couldn't "get it". So there is a subset of Chukkim that are completely esoteric.
I understand what you are saying and it all makes sense. Still, my problem is Rambam in that he does explicitly not make the distinction between the two types of chukim that you do, creates an idea that explains why chukim are not understandable -- i.e. that this shows that one is simply following the Will of God -- but then challenges that very reason in the Moreh both explicitly and by giving reasons for chukim. I then have a specific problem in regard to kashrut is that there are reasons to consider it a category 1 chok pursuant to your categorization but then Rambam, through stating that one should continue to have the desire to eat non-kosher, seems to treat it as a category 2 chok is saying that one should only refrain because it is the Will of God.
ReplyDeleteHere is a simple approach
ReplyDeleteMishpatim are aimed at improving morals and ethics
Hukkim are there to promote K'dushah. K'dushah is often a function of refraining from certain behaviour, EG No Unkosher Food no M'lachah on Shabbat, etc.
Almost every mitzvah promotes either one, the other, or both.
Pauline Xtianity rejected k'dushah in favor of Love or Messianism, while EG Sadducess and Karaites would not rebel against hukkim! Yet the abandonment of Hukkim was later echoed by Reform Judaism and by "Ethical Culture" , perhaps to Promote Acceptance or Assimilation.
I get your point and in a certain way this is somewhat what I was trying to say in the Insight. Mixing your words and mine, K'dushshah is something like a cheftza category created by the Torah to which we are to have emotional responses in the same way that our natural morality has emotional responses to cheftza categories it creates. By extension, though, it would seem that Rambam is then saying that in the development of emotional responses to cheftza k'dusha categories, it is still important not to simultaneously have the emotional response that you would have to ethical cheftza categories. So non-kosher food should disgust me from a k'dusha perspective totally defined by Torah but at the same time, from a ethical perspective, I should not be disgusted by it.
ReplyDeleteThe Rambam often writes in black-and-white dichotomies. I kinda wonder if he was reallly so dichotomous in private conversation? Perhaps when publishing he felt the need to force a certain precision onto the "masses".
ReplyDeleteI see your point. In any event, I am just using Rambam as a starting point to further understanding by dealing with the resultant question. I am not sure if my conclusion is one he would agree with.
ReplyDeleteRambam's Moreh is tricky.
ReplyDeleteRambam might be saying something more subtle than what meets the eye.
Sometimes Rambam gives a simple model but knows better
I'm also being simplistic because I'm not that into it.
To me it's a continuum. Putting things into precise categories can be misleading
EG hockey has MORE contact than baseball, but baseball has SOME contact, EG at 2nd base or home plate.
Think about it. How different is a Binyan Av from a g'zeirah shaveh?
I understand the split between mishpatim and chuqim as being those mitzvos
ReplyDeletewhose central theme can be understood vs. those that can't. Whereas the
Rambam appears to be talking about those mitzvos which do not need to
be taught, ie people ought to be able to deduce from one's innate moral
voice, vs those which we would only have because of the Torah.
The Rambam limits the Sifrei's "do not say pork is ma'us" to mitzvos
shim'iyos because by definition mitzvos sichliyos are the mitzvos with
which one's internal "Jiminy Cricket" should be aligned with.
Tir'u baTov!
I see what you are saying but perhaps that was really the problem that initiated my whole investigation of this issue. Rambam in the Moreh does describe pork as mius which contradicts his assertion in the Shemona Perakim. The conclusion I am reaching that there are two definitions of mius, one from sechel and one from shmiyah, I find interesting and opens some possibilities but, to be honest, it does not fully answer the Rambam. When he refers to pork as mius he means from sechel.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"So non-kosher food should disgust me from a k'dusha perspective totally defined by Torah but at the same time, from a ethical perspective, I should not be disgusted by it."
ReplyDeletePossibly
Or
Perhaps Mishpatim Ought to lead me to Disgust
While Hukkim may or may not lead me to disgust, yet I submit to Hashem's will Mitzad K'dushah
L'mashal
Murder "should" disgust me
Treif May or May not disgust me, rather I avoid it for the sake of K'dushah, ergo I may feed Treif to a Gentile - since there is nothing INTRINSICALLY disgusting about it except Hashem's command makes it off limits.
So if I'm disgusted by it fine
And
If I'm NOT disgusted by it fine
So long as I don't consume it.