In Guide for the Perplexed 1:59 Rambam cites a Talmudic passage and introduces it with the following statement:

You must surely know the following celebrated passage in the Talmud – would that all passages in the Talmud were like that! – although it is known to you, I quote it literally, as I wish to point out to you the ideas contained in it: (Friedlander translation, my emphasis)

What is the meaning of the bolded line? At first glance it seems like a criticism of the Talmud, i.e. Rambam is lamenting that the rest of the Talmud is not like this passage, but inferior to it. However, it might instead mean that Rambam is lamenting that the rest of the Talmud is not as celebrated as this passage, i.e. he wishes the whole Talmud was as famous as this one famous passage. In that case it is not a criticism of the Talmud, but perhaps a criticism of the people who don't study the Talmud.

The other renderings of this into Hebrew or English don't provide much more detail. The Pines translation has it as:

You also know their famous dictum – would that all dicta were like it. I shall quote it to you textually, even though it is well-remembered, so as to draw your attention to the various significations it expresses.

The Ibn Tibbon translation has it as:

וכבר ידעת אמרתם המפרסמת אשר מי יתן והיו כל המאמרים כמותה ואני אזכרה בלשונה ואף על פי שהיא ידועה להעירך על עניניה

The Kafih translation has it as:

וכבר ידעת אמרתם המפורסמת אשר מי יתן והיו כל האמרות כמוה והנני מזכירה לך כלשונה ואף על פי שהיא אמרה ידועה כדי להעירך על עניניה

The Schwartz translation has it as:

וכבר ידעת אמרתם המפורסמת אשר מי ייתן והיו כל האמרות כמותה אני אציין לך אותה כלשונה אף על פי שהיא אמרה שזוכרים אותה על מנת להסב את תשומת לבך אל משמעויותיה

In each of these translations the statement can presumably be read in either of the aforementioned two ways.

I know that Professor Marc Shapiro cited this passage as a criticism of the Sages:

The Limits of Orthodox Theology p. 37

Occasionally, one even finds him subtly criticizing the talmudic sages: 'You also know their [the talmudic sages'] famous dictum – would that all [their] dicta were like it.'

So is there any evidence as to whether this statement was meant as a criticism of the Sages or not? The evidence could be linguistic, contextual, based on how later sources understood it, etc.

In case the context may help answer the question, the dictum under discussion is from Berachot 33b:

A certain [reader] went down in the presence of R. Hanina and said, O God, the great, mighty, terrible, majestic, powerful, awful, strong, fearless, sure and honoured. He waited till he had finished, and when he had finished he said to him, Have you concluded all the praise of your Master? Why do we want all this? Even with these three that we do say, had not Moses our Master mentioned them in the Law and had not the Men of the Great Synagogue come and inserted them in the Tefillah, we should not have been able to mention them, and you say all these and still go on! It is as if an earthly king had a million denarii of gold, and someone praised him as possessing silver ones. Would it not be an insult to him?

(Soncino translation)

  • 2
    I don't see any good reason to view this as a criticism of the Talmud - the simple explanation is clearly that he wishes the entire Talmud was known this well. May 6, 2019 at 18:08
  • Apparently this reading goes back to a 15th century Karaite (quoted here)
    – b a
    Aug 18, 2019 at 14:24
  • It seems to be an idiomatic expression, whose main purpose is to extol the splendor of the praised element (e.g., Alex's famous question; would that all questions be like his, etc). You are right that, when applied to sacred things, it might produce a somewhat undesired effect (e.g., David's celebrated Psalm 51; would that all other Psalms were like that, etc.), but that's ultimately descriptive of the reader's overly-simplistic or overly-literal (mis)understanding, rather than of some (alleged) underhandedness on the speaker's or writer's part.
    – user18041
    Sep 25, 2020 at 4:19
  • You may already be aware of this (I'm a beginner). Halbertal, has chapters describing the evolution of the "Commentary on the Mishna" and his criteria in formulating the "MIshna Torah." He mentions distancing himself from the Geonim as a class, discounting theis temporal poximity to Sinai. Similarly, feelin that there is but one correct din, "elu v'elu" goes out the window. Further, it seems that a portion of shas, is not mi Sinai - which he then rescues by vitrue of the posuk to 'follow them.' amazon.com/gp/product/B00F8MIJ44/… With regards,
    – user24795
    Apr 5, 2021 at 15:44

4 Answers 4


The commentary of R' Shem Tov there says:

אשר אין בכל המאמרים כמותה מקביל למאמרים אחרים מאגדות וממדרשות אשר יורו על הגשמות ועל תוארים נוספים בא-ל, ולכן אמר מי יתן אשר היו כל המאמרים כמותו

So he understands it as a contrast not with the Talmud as a whole, but with various other statements of Chazal that speak of G-d in corporeal terms or that otherwise attempt to describe Him.

  • So is it a criticism, or not?
    – Alex
    Aug 18, 2019 at 18:35
  • @Alex I guess, according to that, it's a criticism of those other statements (but not of the Talmud as a whole).
    – Meir
    Aug 18, 2019 at 18:38
  • @Meir The Rambam did say that the Talmudist stumbled, never finding the entrance to G-d's palace, which is not to say that it is imprudent to be a Talmudist. Maimonides, himself was a great Talmudist. What the Rambam meant was that people should develop their minds by studying G-d's Creations, natural law, science.
    – Turk Hill
    Aug 28, 2019 at 17:11
  • @Meir That is to say, that G-d does not want us to sit and rely on Him to solve society's social problems. G-d helps those who help themselves. While it is important to study Talmud, my father (who is a rabbi) did 7hrs a day, he also preached perfection by not relying on G-d, but ourselves. This is what G-d desires. No, Rambam did not criticise the Talmud in this light.
    – Turk Hill
    Aug 28, 2019 at 17:14
  • See Guide for more info.
    – Turk Hill
    Aug 28, 2019 at 17:15

In Maimonides on the Decline of the Generations and Rabbinic Authority (p. 60-61) Prof. Menachem Kellner argues that this was indeed a criticism:

In introducing a quotation from BT Berakhot 33b concerning appropriate ways of praising God, Maimonides takes an apparently unnecessary "swipe" at some [of] the sayings of the Rabbis: "You also know their famous dictum – would that all dicta were like it..." There seems to be no way of interpreting this passage other than according to its plain sense: Maimonides approves this dictum of the Rabbis, while hinting at reservations concerning others.

Shem Tov in his commentary to this passage explains that Maimonides approved this dictum because, unlike so many other rabbinic texts, it does not present God in corporeal terms. In effect, he says that Maimonides did not give this passage his "seal of approval" at the expense of other passages in rabbinic literature; rather, Maimonides related to the fact that this passage taught in clear language what other passages taught parabolically, namely, that God was incorporeal.

I am not convinced that Shem Toy succeeds in removing the "sting" from this comment of Maimonides. In no other place with which I am familiar does Maimonides bemoan the fact that the Rabbis saw fit to couch their philosophical perceptions in misleading, corporealist language. If Shem Tov reads Maimonides correctly, then why, according to his understanding of Maimonides, did the Rabbis not teach true doctrines concerning God clearly and in every place? Clearly, they hid these doctrines because the[y] had to. But then why not here?

No, I think that the conclusion cannot be avoided that Maimonides here is expressing approval for one rabbinic dictum and implied disapproval for for other dicta of the Rabbis.


This quote is taken from an extensive section with the key point being Lechah dumiah sihilah (Silence is praise to thee). The gemara in question shows by example the inadequacy of verbiage in praise and prayer.

"A certain person, reading prayers in the presence of Rabbi Haninah, said, 'God, the great, the valiant and the tremendous, the powerful, the strong, and the mighty.'--The rabbi said to him, Have you finished all the praises of your Master? The three epithets, 'God, the great, the valiant and the tremendous,' we should not have applied to God, had Moses not mentioned them in the Law, and had not the men of the Great Synagogue come forward subsequently and established their use in the prayer; and you say all this! Let this be illustrated by a parable. There was once an earthly king, possessing millions of gold coin; he was praised for owning millions of silver coin; was this not really dispraise to him?"

HaRMBM, true to his ultimate intention, in essence feels that specific expressions in prayer (and praise) are extraneous, inaccurate, if not dilutive; thereby citing this gemara as intimating that perspective.

In HaRmbm's own words:

Thus far the opinion of the pious rabbi. Consider, first, how repulsive and annoying the accumulation of all these positive attributes was to him; next, how he showed that, if we had only to follow our reason, we should never have composed these prayers, and we should not have uttered any of them. It has, however, become necessary to address men in words that should leave some idea in their minds, and, in accordance with the saying of our Sages, "The Torah speaks in the language of men," the Creator has been described to us in terms of our own perfections; but we should not on that account have uttered any other than the three above-mentioned attributes, and we should not have used them as names of God except when meeting with them in reading the Law.

Bottom line - he would that all instructions regarding man's perception and description of H' be so constrained. So you can consider HaRMBM's perception of this gemara as either uniquely outstanding in this particular context, (he's not, e.g., considering a gemara such as whether or not one can ride a horse in the desert on Shabbos - lo plug) or what should be the norm and others are lacking. Either way, on a relative basis, there is a disparity which is certainly not complimentary.


I don't think it is possible to know exactly what the Rambam meant when he said, "Would that all passages in the Talmud were like that!" But his record is consistent with the statement meaning, "I disagree with some teachings in the Talmud." Here are two examples.

(1) I know that you may… find sayings of… sages in the Talmud and Midrashim whose words appear to maintain that at the moment of a man's birth, the stars will cause such and such to happen to him. Do not regard this as a difficulty… Possibly the matter was hidden from them. Or there may be an allusion in those words. Or they may have been said with a view to the times and the business before them. (You surely know how many of the verses of the Torah are not to be taken literally…) [Rambam, Letter on Astrology]

(2) The custom in those days among all men…consisted in sacrificing animals. God did not command us to give up these services; for this would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used. Sacrifices [however] are not the primary object [of the commandments about sacrifice], prayers are. [To wit,] we were not commanded to sacrifice in every place, and in every time, or to build a Temple in every place, or to allow anybody to become a priest and sacrifice. Only one Temple has been appointed, and only, [as the Torah says,] “in the place which the Lord shall choose” (Deut. 12:26). In no other place are we allowed to sacrifice. [The Torah says,] “Be careful not to give your burnt-offerings in every place that you see” (Deut. 12:13); and only the members of a particular family were allowed to officiate as priests. All these restrictions served to limit this kind of worship. But prayer and supplication can be offered everywhere and by every person. Because of this, the Prophets rebuke people for being over-zealous in bringing sacrifices. [Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed) 3:32]

It is hard to see this as the opinion of someone who looks forward to the resumption of animal sacrifices, even though, in his halachic writings, he delivers normative Jewish teaching:

[When the Messiah comes] the sacrifices will be offered, the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee year instituted as outlined in the Torah. [Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 11-12]

Do his disagreements come through only in his nonhalachic writings? I am not sure, and I don't know of a counterexample.

  • 4
    This is more like disagreement with a position than criticism of the medium. And anyway it doesn't answer the question since we still don't know whether the OPs citation was meant as criticism or not. He already knew either was possible.
    – Double AA
    May 6, 2019 at 17:38
  • Is there any indication that the passage about sacrifices is a criticism of, or even a disagreement with, anything in the Talmud (or other statements of the Sages)?
    – Alex
    May 7, 2019 at 2:51
  • @Alex -- The passage can be read that way, although the wording is extremely careful. That's why I used very careful wording too: "It is hard to see this as the opinion of someone who looks forward to the resumption of animal sacrifices." May 7, 2019 at 3:08
  • See here for solutions to the sacrifices issue. But to clarify, is your answer that given that the Rambam has criticized the Talmud/Sages on other occasions it's perfectly reasonable that he's criticizing here too, or is your answer that given that the Rambam has criticized the Talmud on other occasions, the statement "would that all passages in the Talmud were like that!" is referring to those very statements that he has criticized (and is this a criticism)?
    – Alex
    May 7, 2019 at 3:19
  • @Alex -- I am not sure I appreciate the difference. The Rambam seems to be dropping hints. It's up to us to interpret them according to the glasses we wear. May 7, 2019 at 3:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .