Monday, June 25, 2007

reasons behind doing mitzvos (ta'amei hamitzvos) - part 2

Before going on with the topic, a word in response to some of the comments on the previous post. The Rambam is still a shitas Rishonim which can undoubtedly be defended from attack. The question here is not “How do I answer up a shverrer Rambam” – the question is “Which of the varied approaches to ta'amei hamitzvot is most philosophically satisfying and/or fits best with the presentation of Chazal”. I wouldn’t start puting band-aids on the Rambam before hearing out some of the opposing views. And on that note, moving on.,.

The Ramban bases his approach on a Midrash which asks the rhetorical question whether it makes any difference to G-d whether an animal is killed by having its neck cut (kosher shechita) or some other means – of course not. The purpose of mitzvos, says the Midrash, is to perfect human behavior. It is not because G-d is concerned with the cow’s welfare that he commanded shechita, or because he is concerned with a bird’s welfare that he commanded shiluach hakan. Rather, the reason for these commandments is because if one becomes accustomed to killing animals in an inhumane way, it desensitizes one to cruelty and leads to human moral failing.

Ramban still suffers from some of the difficulties raised earlier. For example, if the purpose of the mitzvah of shechita is to inculcate humane behavior, why the exceptions for ben pakua or melika? There is still a reductionist element to the whole approach, and there is still the difficulty of why not say “ee efshi” when behavior is inhumane or unethical. Nonetheless, the Ramban gets us out of other jams. It is far easier to argue that kosher laws are designed to create a psychology of restraint from gluttony than to argue the health benefits of refraining from pig. I think most of the rationalists writing blogs (no, I have not done a formal survey) who align themselves with the Rambam end up veering into the Ramban’s territory when they address ta’amei hamitzvot.

I think the best illustration of the difference between Rambam and Ramban comes from the mitzvah of tzedakah. A Rambam-centric view would claim that the reason for charity is G-d’s love for the poor. As the gemara itself asks, one could reasonably ask why a G-d who is benevolent to the poor created poor people in the first place! The Ramban’s approach avoids that pitfall. G-d’s will is a gezeirah – an unfathomable decree. We cannot say about G-d that he has cares, like, dislikes, wants, etc. However, what we can say is that G-d gave mankind the opportunity to achieve perfection. Instead of focusing on the benefit to the recipient of charity (Rambam view), the Ramban would focus on the giver – ethical people act with benevolence, and therefore G-d gave us a mitzvah of charity to perfect our ethical character. Mitzvos are didactic; they are designed to teach people a baseline of morality upon which the ethical person will build (Ramban on ‘v’asisa hayashar v’hatov’).

What I see as the biggest shortcoming to this whole approach (again, see Maharal) is that it is inconsistent with practical law. If mitzvos’ ultimate meaning stems from the didactic lesson they impart, why do mitzvos have any value if one is unaware of that didactic lesson? To take one example, “bala matzah yatzah” – if matzah is shoved down a person’s throat on Pesach night willy-nilly, he fulfills a mitzvah of achilas matzah even if unaware of the lessons of freedom behind the deed! According to the Ramban, isn't this awareness the raison d'etra of the mitzvah, the most crucial ingredient to fulfilling the commandment?

10 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:20 PM

    "I think the best illustration of the difference between Rambam and Ramban comes from the mitzvah of tzedakah. A Rambam-centric view would claim that the reason for charity is G-d’s love for the poor."

    I'd think vehalachta bedrachov is central to the Rambam's explanation too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:01 PM

    "Nonetheless, the Ramban gets us out of other jams. It is far easier to argue that kosher laws are designed to create a psychology of restraint from gluttony than to argue the health benefits of refraining from pig. I think most of the rationalists writing blogs (no, I have not done a formal survey) who align themselves with the Rambam end up veering into the Ramban’s territory when they address ta’amei hamitzvot."

    The rambam specifically gives avoiding gluttony as an additional reason for kashrus so it's not veering into Ramban's territory!
    (generally prishus is one of his main explanations of many issurim).

    The ramban says that animals that are nonkosher have specific negative spiritual effects.

    regarding the prior comment, rambam doesn't say shiluach hakan is specifically vehalachta bedrachav, but he says it's to teach that if one must take care with birds, how much more care one must take not to cause unhappiness to fellow men, which seems pretty clearly along those lines.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous9:02 PM

    "The ramban says that animals that are nonkosher have specific negative spiritual effects."

    I.e. and *that* is the difference between rationalistic and nonrationalistic te'amim.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:24 PM

    "I think the best illustration of the difference between Rambam and Ramban comes from the mitzvah of tzedakah. A Rambam-centric view would claim that the reason for charity is G-d’s love for the poor."

    Don't know where you get this from see moreh 3:53

    ReplyDelete
  5. B'mechilas kvodcha, you illustrate one of the point's I was trying to make perfectly. I didn't write that the Rambam veers into the Ramban's territory, only that proponents of the Rambam's philosophy in the blogsphere do. You are imposing a didactic element to the Rambam's explanations - the Ramban (in his comments to shiluach hakan) did not take the Rambam to mean that!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous9:48 AM

    The ramban explains a midrash that Rambam finds puzzling in a way that accords with the Rambam's own philosophy in Moreh (and explains the second shita of the gemara in brachas in the same way).

    Rambam *says* the things I say - I'm not imputing them to him. He gives the explanation of kashrus that you claim the blogosphere veers into Ramban territory to impute to Rambam. He is pretty clear on tzedaka too. Look it up in moreh! You have assumed things that are not so - you are extrapolating from the ramban incorrectly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. >>>The ramban explains a midrash that Rambam finds puzzling in a way that accords with the Rambam's own philosophy

    You are doing it again. So you mean to say that the Ramban was better at defining the Rambam's own philosophy than the Rambam himself was?

    Below is a quote from Friedlander's translation of III:48 on kasrus. It has everything to do with pork being unhealthful and not pefection of character or ethical concerns. The Ramban is a completely different approach.

    "For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks. A saying of our Sages declares: "The mouth of a swine is as dirty as dung itself" (B. T. Ber. 25a)."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another source contrasting the 2 approaches: http://dafyomi.shemayisrael.co.il/chulin/insites/ch-dt-138.htm

    (a) The RAMBAN (Devarim 22:6) explains that when the Gemara says that the reason behind the Mitzvah of sending away the mother bird is not in order to have mercy, it means that it is not Hashem's intent to have mercy *on the bird*. Rather, it is a "Gezeirah" (a decree upon *us*, for our benefit) in order to accustom us to be merciful and inculcate in us that trait. One who is accustomed to being cruel to beasts, becomes cruel by nature in general, even to people....
    (c) The RAMBAM in Moreh Nevuchim compares the Mitzvah of Shilu'ach ha'Ken with the Isur of "Oso v'Es Beno" (Vayikra 22:28), which forbids slaughtering an animal and her offspring on the same day. The Rambam explains that both of these Mitzvos show that animals have feelings towards their young, and those feelings must be respected. Maternal compassion is not a logical emotion, but rather an inborn, instinctive one. Consequently, if the offspring is taken while the mother is present, the mother naturally will suffer pain and anguish. The Torah therefore instructs us to demonstrate compassion by first sending the mother away before taking the eggs, thereby sparing her the anguish of seeing her offspring being taken.

    Rambam=G-d wants us to respect the feelings of the bird.
    Ramban=G-d is using the bird as a means to teach us mercy, but there is no inherent reason to respect its feelings

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous4:46 PM

    forget about bala matzah, even according to the man d'amar mitzvos tzrichos kavanah, that is only kavana latzes, etc. However, i did just happen to hear that r' elchanan (kovetz hearos, and beiur agados al derech hapshat) says that even if mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana that is only true of the metaphysical gain achieved thru the mitzvah, but not the fulfillment of ratzon hashem, ayen sham (i have not yet done so myself)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous11:31 PM

    dreeszen aftermath domain canadabrand covert hobbies forget nwjhkk quoted luckily usageif
    masimundus semikonecolori

    ReplyDelete