Rambam controversy

Question

I don’t like that I have to ask this but I haven’t heard of this before and would like some information on it.

If one holds, for example, that the Rambam literally holds that demons don’t exist, which are talked about multiple times throughout tanach and Talmud, would that mean that the Rambam is a heretic c”v?
If the answer to the above question is yes, then would the fact that he’s the most cited person in the shulchan orech cause us to reconsider all of modern day halacha?? And how do we reconcile the fact that so many authorities respect him?
If the above answer is no, would accusing him of being one cause the accuser to have a status of an apikores?
If the answer is unknown, what would that mean for us in terms of following a possible heretic?

My personal opinion is that I find it hard to believe that Hashem would allow the Jewish people to become so swayed that all of halacha is skewed and most of us are looking up to a heretic. I also don’t find it likely that he was a heretic because of all the rabbanim and geniuses who had great admiration for the Rambam and paskened based on his teachings (this may be a logical fallacy of appealing to authority, but tradition and respect for rabbinic authorities is one of the core pillars in Judaism).

What would be best is if someone can explain the whole situation so that there is no confusion.

I apologize if I am leaving out any information that would be helpful to the question or if I am not asking as well as I can be.

What makes someone a heretic? Answerers of this question would need to know what definition you're working with. — magicker72, Jun 29 '23 at 02:30
possible answer: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/73734/11501 — mbloch, Jun 29 '23 at 03:30
relevant sources: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/55210/what-is-rambams-opinion-on-demons, https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/23523/which-rabbinic-source-claimed-that-the-rambam-killed-the-demons — mbloch, Jun 29 '23 at 03:30
Rambam, as we know, takes more of a rationalist approach to statements in the Gemara and Torah. This is simply a different way of interpreting the text, thus not making him a heretic. For all we know, our sages very well intended X to be a metaphor and not to be taken literally. By the example you cited, some people say when the Talmud says demons they mean bacteria and germs and not literal demons, so maybe rambam holds like this too. But in general, rambam, and many others, interpret midrashim and the like allegorically, and this is not heretical at all — Curious Yid, Jun 29 '23 at 03:31
@Deuteronomy hahaha most definitely not. I have a lot of respect for the Rambam and would never disgrace him, even if I didn’t understand something he said. If I came off that way I apologize, I really was asking sincerely — Rardal, Jun 29 '23 at 13:22
@setzu Comments are not the place for permanent discussion, and get cleaned up periodically if they grow unwieldy. If you have an answer to the question, you can post it as such. — magicker72, Jun 30 '23 at 03:50

Deuteronomy · Accepted Answer · 2023-06-29T13:43:50.977

11

the Rambam literally holds that demons don’t exist, which are talked about multiple times throughout tanach and Talmud, would that mean that the Rambam is a heretic c”v?

No, there is no fundamental principle of Judaism that is denied if one does not take such accounts literally. The mesorah for doing so stretches back to the Geonic academies in Babylon which are the direct inheritors of the Talmudic academies. See R. Sherira Gaon and R. Hai Gaon (as cited in Sefer ha-Eshkol, H. Sefer Torah 60a), R. Shemuel b. Hofni Gaon (in his intro to the Talmud, usually printed in the back of BT Berakhoth). The Rambam simply perpetuates this Geonic tradition. The debate over which aspects of the Torah and writings of Hazal should be taken literally, clearly has ancient roots.

If the answer to the above question is yes, then would the fact that he’s the most cited person in the shulchan orech cause us to reconsider all of modern day halacha?? And how do we reconcile the fact that so many authorities respect him?

The answer is simply not yes. No one maintains such an erroneous view. Rabbinic Judaism UNIVERSALLY upholds the Rambam as a respected authority on Jewish law.

If the above answer is no, would accusing him of being one cause the accuser to have a status of an apikores?

One who disgraces/disparages a Talmid Hakham is to be placed in niddui (ostracization) and has no portion in 'Olam ha-Ba (see H. Talmud Torah 6:11-12 and H. Teshubhah 3:11). Furthermore, if he is spreading his malicious lies and causing others to follow his inequity, this may constitute a violation of the prohibition of enticing others to sin (מחטיא את הרבים), which similarly has the consequence of losing a share in 'Olam ha-Ba (see H. Teshubha 3:10). This latter category is one from which teshubhah is withheld (see H. Teshubha 4:1). Anyone treading upon such a path is highly cautioned against.

If the answer is unknown, what would that mean for us in terms of following a possible heretic?

The answer is known. There is no such hypothetical to consider.

edited Jun 29 '23 at 13:43

answered Jun 29 '23 at 12:31

Deuteronomy

8,112
21
37

There is a general machlokes that the Torah should always be taken literally, or it sometimes speaks in metaphor and parable. This would be relevant to your answer and would clarify why the Rambam is certainly not doing anything wrong by holding by one of these opinions, both of which are found in ancient sources. It might also improve your answer to quote some of Rambam's strongest critics, such as the Vilna Gaon and R' Hirsch, and see how they word their criticisms, to show whether they bring up the word heresy or not. Either way +1 for a great answer! – Rabbi Kaii Jun 29 '23 at 13:01
@RabbiKaii There are no views that everything should be taken literally (for example, no-one says that God is literally a consuming fire, as Devarim 4:24 would suggest). – magicker72 Jun 29 '23 at 13:06
1

@magicker72 the word "literally" is the issue here. I get bogged down in long discussions over it. God IS a consuming fire, but not a literal physical fire. It's not a metaphor, but rather physical fire is the metaphor for the "real" fire. Anyway, if you have further objections, make them and then let's just leave it because this conversation is just too long for a site like this. – Rabbi Kaii Jun 29 '23 at 13:15
2

@RabbiKaii thanks for the input I've made some edits, though didn't want to get too bogged down (so left out your suggestion of quotes from critics). Hopefully alluding to the fact that there are accepted divisions within our tradition, should suffice to make the point. – Deuteronomy Jun 29 '23 at 13:46
2

+1 Many mistakenly think Rambam made this all up after reading Aristotle. As with many other "unique" positions of his, Rambam (living in the Middle East) was largely following the (Middle Eastern) Geonic tradition in a way few other European Rishonim did (or could). – Double AA Jun 29 '23 at 15:31
1

@DoubleAA agreed. For multiple historic reasons he was in a unique position to inherit and pass on that legacy. Relatedly, I have sometimes wondered whether the Rambam was himself named after R. Moshe b. Hanokh who was a major contributor to the expansion of the Geonic mesorah in Muslim Spain. – Deuteronomy Jun 29 '23 at 15:42
@DoubleAA He also twisted the tradition though, which makes his results and processes questionable. – setszu Jun 29 '23 at 16:56
@Deuteronomy This is also false information that everyone universally upholds Rambam as a legitimate authority. "No, there is no fundamental principle of Judaism that is denied if one does not take such accounts literally." - you realize that not everyone even agrees upon and agreed upon the "fundamental principles" of Judaism? I think almost everyone agrees that if one denies a major concept/portion of the Torah though that they're a heretic - something that Rambam implicitly or explicitly does. – setszu Jun 29 '23 at 16:59
2

@setszu There's no evidence he twisted his tradition from the geonim. Basically everything he says is found already in the geonim before him. Their writings were less widespread so historically various people (including apparently you) have suggested Rambam made things up, but such claims have been objectively disproven. If you want to claim the geonim living in Bavel in the same Yeshiva buildings as Rav Ashi twisted and changed the tradition, then you'd have a claim that has not been disproven (or proven). – Double AA Jun 29 '23 at 17:04
@DoubleAA Evidence? Also its not up to you to decide what is meaningful or not. And just because its been said by someone before doesn't necessarily mean that the way its been put down is perfectly correct. – setszu Jun 29 '23 at 18:03
4

@setszu I can't provide you every citation to earlier works. Try a commentary on Rambam by someone well versed in Geonica, say Yad Peshuta. I'll provide you one thing he recorded faithfully and and you provide me something he twisted/made-up. Deal? – Double AA Jun 29 '23 at 18:05
@RabbiKaii To say G-d is a fire in any sense of the word is heresy, r"l. These terms either refer to Shechinah, or are non-literal. – N.T. Jun 30 '23 at 02:27
N.T. Please explain. – QwertyCTRL. Jun 30 '23 at 16:50
@DoubleAA It is true that the foundations of the Rambam's view are found in the Geonim, and it is also possibly true that some of the Geonim would have agreed with everything the Rambam wrote. However, the Rambam was the first one who systematically wrote that almost everything Chazal said in relation to demons and superstition was not to be taken literally (=false). If you like, he accepted every rationalist comment made by individual Geonim, and rejected (almost) every mystical concept found in Chazal and those who came after them. – user18037 Jul 04 '23 at 19:40
1

@user18037 systematic just means he wrote in an organized fashion. While he was good at that, it's hardly relevant to the discussion at hand about philosophical tradition vs innovation, where it seems you concede he didn't innovate much – Double AA Jul 04 '23 at 19:40
While I consider myself a Rambamist in this regard and fully support this approach, if people (erroneously) think that arguing with Chazal over such matters makes one an apikores, I can understand why they may apply this label to the Rambam. – user18037 Jul 04 '23 at 19:41
@DoubleAA I concede he may not have innovated much, but it is also conceivable that he did. We don't know that any Gaon systematically believed everything the Rambam did, against Chazal. – user18037 Jul 04 '23 at 19:43
It is also true that even if the Rambam did not innovate, he did not see himself as constrained by what had been said or believed before him, and appears to have held Aristotle's philosophy in higher regard than that of the Geonim (possibly higher than that of Chazal too). – user18037 Jul 04 '23 at 19:45
@user18037 he disagreed with Aristotle and upheld creation ex nihilo in accordance with tradition, he disagreed with Aristotle about ethics and upheld tradition on the idea of cultivating intense humility, and so on and so on. It is an anti-Maimonidean canard to claim he just abandoned Hazal and the Geonim and chased after Aristotle. – Deuteronomy Jul 05 '23 at 12:04
I never said he abandoned Chazal and the Geonim, but in terms of philosophy, he certainly held Aristotle in extremely high regard, more so than the Geonim and possibly more than Chazal. Creation ex nihilo was Aristotle's only philosophical mistake according to the Rambam (Aristotle also preached abstinence from physical pleasure, despite not practicing it himself). – user18037 Jul 06 '23 at 15:10
@user18037 than the Geonim? Perhaps. Than Hazal, I don't think so. Though he did not consider them collectively inerrant, he nevertheless maintained that some of our Sages entered into the heights of metaphysical contemplation and apprehended truths that Aristotle did not. – Deuteronomy Jul 06 '23 at 15:47
@RabbiKaii "Saying that the Shechina is not Hashem is a very irresponsible thing to say, r'l." I don't think the Rasag, R. Yehuda ha-Lewi and Rambam were irresponsible. – Deuteronomy Jul 07 '23 at 14:57
@Deuteronomy Rambam considered himself doing something very dangerous by teaching that idea and similar in Moreh Nevuchim, and implored people to not read it unless they were a very select few. Others did consider him irresponsible and worse, but I wasn't referring to any of that. It is a dangerous statement no matter how you look at it and shouldn't be thrown around, and neither should the word heretic. I am not getting embroiled in this any further. – Rabbi Kaii Jul 07 '23 at 15:06
I wasn't referring to the earlier comments about fire or heresy (and agree they don't belong here). I was just referring to your line about the shekhinah. Where do you see that the Rambam thought he was doing something dangerous in what he taught about the shekhinah? Or did you just mean that MN generally is not for the masses? And again, this discounts the Rasag, Rihal, et al. I think the contrary is a dangerous statement, that the shekhinah (i.e. what is often conceived of as corporeal/hypostasis) is God, r'l. – Deuteronomy Jul 07 '23 at 15:16
@Deuteronomy in the latter Kabbalistic and Chassidic works, the mashal was made that the Shechina filling the world is likened to the neshama filling the body. So what the Shechina is in relation to Hashem Himself, so to speak, is likened to what the neshama is to a person himself, l'havdil. This is too philosophical for most, and the necessary complexity helps understand the older explanations such as you've quoted, that dealt with the dangers you said. It is therefore irresponsible to be simplified to a one liner, especially when that simplification is to be used to drive a charge of heresy. – Rabbi Kaii Jul 07 '23 at 15:30
@RabbiKaii that there is a division about understanding the nature of the shekhinah between the Geonim/Rishonim and later Kabbalistic/Hasidic sources, is undoubtedly true. IMHO the path of the former is fraught with far less danger than the latter. But yes, the topic is quite involved and there is absolutely no way to do it any kind of justice in a throw away line and certainly it would be improper to casually throw such charges around without having a firm understanding of what precisely one is accusing another of (not that I think we should be in the habit of heresy hunting altogether). – Deuteronomy Jul 07 '23 at 15:49
@Deuteronomy While admitting you are clearly my superior in your understanding of this, I think you should move the IMHO further back, but otherwise, I fully agree :) Shabbat shalom – Rabbi Kaii Jul 07 '23 at 15:52
1

Hah, of course you would ;) have a wonderful שבת – Deuteronomy Jul 07 '23 at 15:57

score 1 · Answer 2 · answered Jun 29 '23 at 04:49

1

While Rambam's opinion on demons and magic etc. is a minority view, nobody has said it makes him a heretic. In fact, the accepted definition of a heretic is one who disagrees with one or more of the thirteen principles of faith outlined by the Rambam himself in his introduction to Perek Chelek.

Falsely accusing someone of heresy is not tantamount to heresy.

answered Jun 29 '23 at 04:49

N.T.

8,653
9
32

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Isaac Moses Jul 02 '23 at 17:08

score -4 · Answer 3 · answered Jun 29 '23 at 15:00

-4

Maimonides is not a heretic. That Maimonides did not believe in demons does not make him heretical, it makes him a pure monotheist. Accusing him of heresy doesn’t make one a heretic. It makes them ignorant.

answered Jun 29 '23 at 15:00

Turk Hill

1,348
7
16

7

"That Maimonides did not believe in demons...makes him a pure monotheist" No, his affirmation of the oneness of God is what makes him a monotheist. Belief in the existence of a particular creation (foolish/false or not) does not necessarily entail an infringement on the concept of monotheism. It is true that demons and the like were often the preoccupation of idolators, but unless such existences (imagined or not) are petitioned, prayed to, worshiped as independent forces, etc. then there is no inherent contradiction to monotheism. It would be just another aspect of creation. – Deuteronomy Jun 29 '23 at 15:52
@Deuteronomy The belief in the “Shekinah,” or demons or even angels as separate beings from God, is a polytheistic belief. It is also idolatrous to believe in powers without evidence. In addition, I did not say that Maimonides' disbelief in demons made him a monotheist. I said it made him a pure monotheist. It's true the belief in one God is held in greater purity by Turks than by Christians but Rational Jews, who strictly hold to the belief of one God, is real purity; for they acknowledge no co-partnership with God. It believes in him solely; and knows nothing of demons, devils, nor Ghosts. – Turk Hill Jun 29 '23 at 17:40
The shekhinah/kabhod/created-light is understood as a creation by many early sources (this seems to have been the view of Rasag, R. Yehudah ha-Lewi, and others). Though the Rambam clearly introduces another perspective, he also very clearly maintains that there is no harm in such a view (see MN 1:19). Malakhim are similarly so conceived. Belief in the existence of any creation (erroneous or not) does not infringe on pure monotheistic belief. Mistaken belief that a monster inhabits Loch-Ness does not make an idolater. Affirming that something exists is not an affirmation of partnership with G – Deuteronomy Jun 29 '23 at 18:29
@Deuteronomy A belief in a Loch-Ness monster does not make one an idolater but the belief in “Shekinah,” as a being separate from God, is. It's a polytheistic belief. There's no evidence that demons exist. – Turk Hill Jun 29 '23 at 18:44
"belief in “Shekinah,” as a being separate from God, is. It's a polytheistic belief. " See MN 1:19 cited above. "There's no evidence that demons exist." That's not the topic. – Deuteronomy Jun 29 '23 at 18:46
Maimonides disliked the idea that there is a physical "Shekinah." He said there is nothing called Shekinah. The Shekinah is not in the Bible. It was invented by the rabbis. Maimonides said the Shekinah is a “human feeling” of the presence of God. Maimonides rejected the notion that it is another being. When he writes that this is acceptable in the Guide, this is for the masses and not his true view. – Turk Hill Jun 29 '23 at 19:57
"When he writes that this is acceptable in the Guide, this is for the masses and not his true view." If this view were in fact polytheistic as you appear to claim, then he absolutely would not state that there is no harm in such belief (אין הזק בכך). This is not one of those cases of a possible esoteric/exoteric belief. He does not hesitate to call out unhesitatingly anything with a whiff of idolatry. – Deuteronomy Jun 29 '23 at 20:13
@Deuteronomy Perhaps he is saying that there's no harm to believe that the Shekinah is a “human feeling” of the presence of God. – Turk Hill Jun 29 '23 at 20:22
No, he makes basically the same point in MN 1:5: ואם ירצה אחד ממעוטי ההשגה שלא להגיע לדרגה זו שאנו רוצים לעלות אליה, ועשה את כל הלשונות הללו שנאמרו בעניין זה מורים על השגות חושיים לאורות נבראים, מלאכים או זולתם, אין נזק בכך - It will do no harm, however, if those who are unable to comprehend what we here endeavour to explain should refer all the words in question to sensuous perception, to seeing lights created [for the purpose], angels, or similar beings. – Deuteronomy Jun 29 '23 at 20:34
@Deuteronomy A "created light" is not the same as a separate being. – Turk Hill Jun 29 '23 at 20:50
Anything "created" is not God. – Deuteronomy Jun 29 '23 at 20:54
@Deuteronomy Rambam may say its OK for the masses to believe in angels but he himself did not believe in angels as physical enteites. – Turk Hill Jun 29 '23 at 20:55
Not physical, still created. – Deuteronomy Jun 29 '23 at 21:00
@Deuteronomy I don't think it is a created light (whatever that means). I think it is a human feeling of God's presence. – Turk Hill Jun 29 '23 at 21:10
1

Going in circles now. I give up. – Deuteronomy Jun 29 '23 at 21:11

Rambam controversy

3 Answers3