The Rambam in the Moreh Nevuchim explains why Hebrew is called “Leshon HaKodesh”

Book 3 Chapter 8 (Friedlander translation)

“I have also a reason and cause for calling our language the holy language–do not think it is exaggeration or error on my part, it is perfectly correct–the Hebrew language has no special name for the organ of generation in females or in males, nor for the act of generation itself, nor for semen, nor for secretion. The Hebrew has no original expressions for these things, and only describes them in figurative language and by way of hints, as if to indicate thereby that these things should not be mentioned, and should therefore have no names; we ought to be silent about them, and when we are compelled to mention them, we must manage to employ for that purpose some suitable expressions, although these are generally used in a different sense…” “…Be not misled by the word yishgalennah (Deut. xxviii. 30), to take it as denoting that act: this is not the case, for shegal denotes a female ready for cohabitation…”

The Ramban[i] presents his own idea and asks 2 questions on the Rambam:

1. Why does the Torah change “Yishgalenaah” to “Yishkevena” if the former is not a derogatory term?  [ii]

2. Why doesn’t the Torah use “Leshon Nekiah” actual euphemisms like “Lower beard[iii]” to refer to pubic hair, and “bread which he eats[iv]” to refer to his master’s wife

There is also a fundamental question on the Rambam. Why does the Torah refrain from using an explicit term, the concepts are discussed at length both in Tanach and Gemara? Judaism does not deny these areas but speaks about them openly (albeit through thinly veiled references).

The first thing to understand what the Ramban’s means by “Leshon Nekiah”; “Leshon Nekiah” means using metaphor. The definition of metaphor is using a word which means one thing to refer to another. This word is not defined as the second thing it is merely being used as a reference. The Rambam does not hold that Hebrew uses metaphors to refer to “lowly” things, since metaphor lacks as a primary mode of communication. Unlike metaphor, where the term is NOT defined as the object being referenced, The Rambam’s examples are all defined as the “lowly” concept. For example one of the definitions of “Gid” IS the male reproductive organ. Rather the Rambam’s idea is that there is no original words for these things, all of the words have a dual definition or are derivative terms. In fact Hebrew must contain words for these concepts since they are legitimate topics of study and discussion, as a vehicle for communication Hebrew would be lacking if it did not have words with these definitions.

What about not using unique terms makes Hebrew holy? The words, which a language has, reflect the ideals of the group who use it. For example Eskimos have over 50 words for snow. Similarly scientists have specialized terms for every particular type of bone. The more words you have for something gives the ability to increase subtlety of expression for communication. Hebrew lacks any specialized terms for lowly bodily functions since these things are not something to put a lot of energy into. For the purposes of study and basic communication derivative, and generic terms are sufficient. This is what makes Hebrew holy according to the Rambam; the language itself directs a person’s attention to an involvement in abstract study and other soul involvements and separates them from idealizing and involvement in physical pleasures.

[i] Shemos 30:13

[ii] I will not deal with this question in this article

[iii] Sanhedrin 68b

[iv] Bereishis 39:6

I had an interesting conversation about education based on the Rashi on Breishis 14:14. Rashi explains that the word for education, “Chinuch”, means Initiation, it is the same word for the sacrifices brought to initiate the Mishkan and for a moving into a new house. This Rashi brings forth a new idea of education and the role of an educator. Education is not giving a child a certain body of knowledge or implanting certain ideas in his head. Rather education is setting up a framework so that a child can learn. The role of the educator must be to provide tools of learning and a good environment, ultimately however the child must learn on his own. This idea changes the goals of a school system teaching a certain body of knowledge is not the goal of education but only a tool for the child to have the necessary facts to move forward. The Goal must be to teach thinking skills and guide the personality traits to produce an adult who is able to think and live on their own. This is at least one idea of “Teach a child according to his nature”[i] it is not only practical advice that if you want a child to learn it has to be interesting or else he will shut off and not remember the lesson. But it points to the very core of education, education can be only “according to his nature” since it is an idea of bringing out and enhancing his natural curiosity and intelligence. Anything not inline with his personality won’t function to produce a functioning human being; at best it can only superimpose certain factual beliefs, while at worst it can turn the person away from his natural desire to learn.

[i] Mishlei 22:6

Pirkei Avos chapter 4 mishnah 19

Shmuel Hakatan would say “do not rejoice at your enemy’s downfall and with his destruction do not gladden your heart, for God will see and it will be bad in your eyes and he will remove his anger (“Apo”) from upon him” (Mishlei 24:17-18) The Rambam’s edition of Pirkei Avos adds: it does not say “Charon Apo” but rather “Apo”

What is the mistake that you are making?

What is the difference between “Apo” and “Charon Apo”?

Why should the person’s sin of rejoicing save the evildoer from punishment?

I would like to propose ,based on the Ralbag’s explanation of the verse in Mishlei, that the difference between “Apo” and “Charon Apo” is that Apo means that the person is not under personal divine providence but rather subject to chance. The Rambam explains in the Moreh Nevuchim that most people do not merit Divine providence in their daily life and are therefore under the physical laws. Most punishment falls under this class of “merely” being distant from God. For such a person his evil only causes his removal from the direct relationship of supervision from God; the particular things, which happen, are not the result of his evil (except insofar as they are natural consequences). “Charon Apo on the other hand is when God is “actively” punishing the person. Rejoicing in your enemy’s downfall is making the mistake that God is actively punishing this person, he thinks that because of his own righteousness God is punishing his enemy. Since the other person does not actually deserve punishment he is rescued in order to punish the rejoicer.  This is a direct consequence of your thinking that God’s providence is in direct response to your own personal desires. In order to correct your idea of divine providence, God punishes you Measure for measure by actively rescuing him with divine providence because of you. Why is this verse in Mishlei, which normally takes up practical consequences? Even though this verse takes up philosophical ideas directly the nature of the motivation is not a philosophical recognition but rather not wanting consequences that go against your personal desires. Hence it is practical advice as opposed to deep philosophical investigation.

According to The Ibn Ezra the people who built the tower were not sinners. They had good motivations and the righteous people of the generation joined in the construction. They built the tower with two goals in mind; first so that mankind should not become divided. Second so that there would be a monument to their existence both in their time and for generations to come.  

However God did not approve of their plan and prevented it from being carried out. There were two problems which God saw in the plan; first that if successful in this endeavor they would think that they could be successful in everything which they desire. Second God’s will was for the world to be completely populated by man; if they built the tower, civilization would be limited to that region.

This explanation raises many questions; what was their idea? What was their mistake? Why would they think that success in this area, which they thought was in line with God’s will, imply that they would be successful in all areas?

After the flood, the world was set up in a way, which was conducive to world peace. Practically, mankind shared a language and culture while psychologically they had just experienced the flood, which was a consequence of societal injustice. The people decided that they would make sure that the situation of world peace was maintained. They would build a tower so that everyone would stay unified both in that generation and the future, the ideal of man’s unification would thereby be reinforced and idealized. This ideal of world peace, which would allow people to pursue perfection without distraction, attracted even the righteous people.

According to this the tower seems to be a great idea, the fulfillment of every society’s dream of a peaceful world government. Why didn’t God agree with this plan?The problem was that this society would be too perfect. It would present an environment where man could take complete security and have everything under his control. This would lead to man having a wrong view of his place in the universe. He would have a distorted view of man’s power, because the tower would show the power of society. That is what the verse means when it says that they will think that they will be successful in all of their desires. This environment of mans dominion would also provide complete security. That security would prevent people from having the courage to face the world and all of the challenges, which reality presents; rather then face that challenge, they would stay safe in their own small environment.

God created competition that forced the society apart; introducing interpersonal competition took the security away from society, and forced man to recognize a framework outside of himself. This dispersion was not a punishment but rather for man’s benefit. Man lost the situation of world peace since the form it had taken created too great an image of human power and too strong an establishment of security. This type of world peace would end up being harmful to mankind’s purpose. God dispersed them so that they would lose their complete security and be forced to face reality. Now they would involve themselves in filling the earth and engaging perfection in a universal framework instead of a limited societal one.

[i] Noah, Shem and possibly Avram

[ii] The world peace that we look forward to in the messianic age is one based on knowledge of God. That type of society leaves no room for the fantasy of man’s dominion, once the tower was built it shut the door for that type of society.

Here is the continuation of Ibn Ezra’s introduction to Chumash.

for the first part click here

The Metaphorical Method

These commentators take everything in Torah as a metaphor. They maintain that the torah is a book of deep secrets and deny the existence of a simple meaning. Each one gives his own ideas for the secrets based on their own personal ideas. The problem with this approach is that it does not try to learn from the text, rather it ignores the text and expounds on its own ideas. This is worse then the previous (subjective) method since here there is no attempt to understand the text; whereas there it is “only” a flawed methodology. The Ibn Ezra agrees that metaphor is a legitimate way to interpret Torah. But that conclusion must come from an understanding of the literal meaning. Only if our minds tell us that a literal understanding is nonsensical do we go to the metaphorical. Otherwise we accept the simple meaning. After we understand the simple meaning we can look further to see if the verse also has a secret meaning.

This fails as a commentary since it does not even attempt to explain the meaning of the Torah.

The Midrashic Method

These commentators quote midrashic materiel to explain the Torah. While Ibn Ezra accepts Midrashim as true and important he denounces using them as a basis for a commentary. The main problem with this method is it makes it appear that the Drash is literally the meaning as opposed to a carrier of deep ideas. Since they all have been written earlier copying them serves no purpose but to make them appear to be the literal and simple interpretation. In some cases Midrashim are even contradictory and cannot both be literal. Furthermore in many cases their true meaning only emerges after understanding the simple meaning of the verse. Another problem is that Drash has many different purposes from educating children to hiding deep ideas to relaxing the mind from a difficult area. Until you know the purpose of a specific Midrash you cannot understand its meaning or significance. Lastly the method of Drash opens infinite possibilities, as a commentary you have so many possibilities that the meaning becomes obscured.

For all these reasons Ibn Ezra accepts the validity of Drash and their significance he only decries their use as a basis for a commentary.[i]

As a commentary this fails since it does not produce a clear and precise meaning in the book. It can only function as a further step once a basic understanding is established.

The Literal Method

This is the method of the Ibn Ezra. His approach is first to explain the grammar, then to explain the meaning of the words. This explanation is without concern for the spelling and other linguistic elements; it only deals with the content of the words. Finally he combines the two to explain the entire verse[ii]. In addition in areas of Halachah he also uses the Torah SheBaal Peh since that is the authoritative source for understanding the simple meaning.

[i] On a side note one aspect of Rashi’s genius in his commentary is the selection of Midrashim which directly enhance the Pshat when understood properly.

[ii] His method is in line with Onkelos who only uses Midrashim when the simple meaning is so obvious that it is clear that the Midrash is only an enhancement.

The Ibn Ezra introduces Torah with the 5 methods of interpreting Chumash. This is a summary and explanation of his main point (To my understanding

1: The encyclopedic method

2: the subjective method

3. The metaphorical method

4. The Midrashic method

5. The literal Method

The encyclopedic method

These commentators write everything that is tangentially related to their subject; they present all of the opinions and details in these areas. In their desire for thoroughness they lose track of their original subject. An extreme example is someone who wrote a treatise on botany in his Pirush of the Pasuk “VaTozei HaAretz”. There are two problems with this approach:

1. You do not gain knowledge of the thing you are trying to study (i.e. Torah)
2. You do not gain knowledge of the tangential subjects either. In order to have an encyclopedic grasp these commentaries limit themselves to factual presentation of the positions. They present neither arguments nor ideas.  Knowledge of a body of facts is not understanding; merely a mechanical memory which is no better then a tape recorder

To summarize how they fail as a commentary. If the true meaning is the point at the center of the circle they are at the most distant ring around that point. In other words they fail to explain the meaning of the subject which they are supposed to be commenting on by getting lost in surrounding issues.

The Subjective Method

This is the method of the Sadducees.  They claim to take the Torah literally and deny the veracity of Torah SheBaal Peh. They explain the verses without knowledge of the Hebrew language, and use Torah SheBaal Peh only when it is convenient. Since the Torah is written in a way, which demands explanation, trusting the Torah SheBaal Peh to fill this role, the subjectivists are able to project any interpretation they desire. Their commentaries are shallow and present the way the verse hits them emotionally at first glance. They use Torah SheBaal Peh only when it fits in with their preconceived notions and cultural milieu. Since the method is totally subjective they can switch conclusions from one section to the next.

The problem with this approach is that they use the Torah as a bouncing board for their preconceived notions. They are not putting in effort to gain knowledge from the Torah. Furthermore this system is devoid of wisdom since it is totally subjective and not based on a systematic understanding. Overall they lack in all the tools necessary to extract meaning from a book.

To summarize how they fail as a commentary. They have misidentified the center point of the circle. Meaning they think that the book means something different then its true meaning.

With God’s help next week I will continue with the other 3 methods.

I would like to propose an answer to the series of questions which I asked in an earlier post

First we need to identify the similarity between Haazinu and the whole Torah. Haazinu is a Shirah that enunciates the historical pattern of God’s providence to the world through the Jewish people. Similarly the Torah is a book whose purpose is to teach the system of divine providence. If one were permitted to write separate paragraphs than that would be the command. but since we are not allowed to take one paragraph of Torah as a distinct entity separate from the rest of Torah we deduce that the song must be referring to the whole torah which is the same theme but fully expanded. 

This is different than Tefilin and Mezuzah since they are new entities. It is only forbiddon to write paragraphs as separate “books”. Writing a song would establish that paragraph as a written entity distinct from the rest of Torah. It would mean that there are 2 written entities. Tefilin and Mezuzah are not essentially written entities but rather new legal objects where the parchment qualifies a greater entity but is not itself the entity. 

The Mitzvah is for a person to accept the system of divine providence. Since it is an acceptance and not merely a vehicle for learning “happening” upon your father’s torah is insufficient.  

The reason why writing it is the same as receiving it from Sinai is that the transmission of Sifrei Torah is book to book. When you write it yourself you are accepting this entity through the system, which traces back to Sinai, if someone else writes it for you then you are accepting it through an intermediary. You no longer are personally involved in the system of transmission. Someone who doesn’t write it in his own hand even though he is capable of writing it himself fails in his receipt. Only if he is unable is he given a secondary form of transmission. Permission to use this secondary system is dependant upon his inability.  

Since the Mitzvah is to join the chain of transmission of Sifrei Torah, correction is identical to writing. The Mitzvah is not concerned with content per se, rather with the legal entity of Sefer Torah. A Torah with mistakes is as good as no Torah at all. Therefore someone who corrects it has fully produced the entity of Sefer Torah

[i] on this note I have heard quoted frim Rabbi Chait an explanation of the First Rashi on Chumash. That he is explaining that the Torah is not a book of laws (which would start at “Hachodesh Hazeh Lachem”) but rather a book of divine providence, with the laws only one component (hence it starts with creation).

I just want to apologize to the readers of this blog The theory I had considered to explain the Rambam turned out to have a problem with it. I am currently working on another theory which I will post if it ends up working out.

 I am posting a list of Questions I have on the following Rambam. With God’s help I will post a possible answer in the next day or two.

Rambam Hilchos Sefer Torah 7:1

“It is a positive command on every Jewish man to write a Sefer Torah for himself. As it says: “and now write for yourselves this song (the song of Haazinu)”. Meaning write for yourselves the Torah which includes this song, since we do not write the Torah as lone paragraphs. And even though his father left a Sefer Torah for him, it is a Mitzvah to write one of his own. And if he wrote it in his own hand it is as if he received it from Sinai. And if he doesn’t know how to write others write it for him. And anyone who corrects in a Sefer Torah even on letter is as if he wrote it entirely.”

This Law presents many difficulties

1.  How does a Mitzvah to write one paragraph become an obligation to write the whole Torah? In other words why is it formulated to write a Torah as opposed to write the song and practically you must write the rest to avoid transgressing the forbidden act of writing paragraphs.

2. Why can’t we write it as a lone paragraph, we write Tefilin and Mezuzos as lone paragraphs?

3. What is missing if he takes his father’s Torah?

4. In what way is it any more of a receipt from Sinai when you write it yourself then if someone writes it for you?

5. Why is it obligatory to write it in your own hand?

6. How is correcting a Sefer Torah like writing it?