Hot answers tagged

11

Yes, several subsequent Jewish authorities criticized Maimonides, either for his general approach or for specific statements. A few examples: Nachmanides in his commentary to Genesis 18:1 criticizes Maimmonides's non-literal interpretations of certain Biblical incidents: But such words contradict Scripture. It is forbidden to listen to them, all the more ...


10

Rambam discusses this at length in Book II of Guide for the Perplexed. Particularly chapters 4-5 would be informative on this topic. You can read them online in the Friendlander English translation here. Chapter Four in fact opens by noting that you might find it strange at first: THE enunciation that the heavenly sphere is endowed with a soul will appear ...


10

We have testimony from Rambam himself about this. Towards the end of his introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah, Rambam writes as follows: וההלכות שעשה הרב הגדול רבינו יצחק זצ"ל הספיקו במקום כולם לפי שהם כוללים כל תועליות הפסקים והמשפטים הנצרכים בזמננו זה כלומר זמן הגלות וכבר בירר בהם כל השגיאות שנפלו בפסקי קודמיו ולא הוקשו לנו בהם אלא הלכות מעטות ...


8

According to a quote from Rav Chaim Kanievsky, there are only 3 places in Shas where Rambam is mentioned in Tosfos (brought down in the stories at the end of the 29th chapter of the Artscroll English Orchos Yosher, Page 400. Including the 2 already mentioned for the sake of completion): 1: Berachos 44a, Dibur Hamaschil על העץ ועל פרי העץ : ובס' המיימוני ...


8

Tosefos to Berachos 44a, s.v. על העץ, cites the ספר המיימוני. ובס' המיימוני מצריך להזכיר בה מעין המאורע בשבת ובי"ט


8

Rambam discusses this exact question in a responsum (1:150 in the Machon Yerushalayim edition) to R. Pinchas the Judge. He tells R. Pinchas to read his Sefer Hamitzvot where he lays out the rule that a mitzvah that is derived via one of the 13 principles of exposition is not called d'oraita unless the Sages explicitly say so. Kessef which is derived via a ...


8

The Taz in CM 262/6 asks your question. He gives two answers: The Rambam is talking about where we know he did not despair, such as when we heard him say something to indicate he thought it was in his house. However, if we don't know if he despaired, such as finding money in the street where we assume people check for their money, then it has nothing to do ...


6

The rabbis didn't contradict Rambam, the rabbis are in Gemara, and Rambam himself report this law. Rambam isure bia 14.2 יד,ב ומודיעין אותו עיקרי הדת, שהוא ייחוד השם ואיסור עבודה זרה; ומאריכין, בדבר זה. ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצוות קלות, ומקצת מצוות חמורות; ואין מאריכין, בדבר זה. ומודיעין אותו עוון לקט שכחה ופיאה, ומעשר עני. ומודיעין אותו עונשן של מצוות.&...


6

The Shulchan Arukh (YD 268:2) rules that someone who wants to convert to Judaism can be taught some of the basic mitzvot. The language there is borrowed directly from the Rambam in his Mishneh Torah (Isurei Biah 14). It seems from the language of the Rambam that the convert should not be taught in great detail, but should be generally informed about the laws:...


6

What an excellent question! They were many rabbis who supported and opposed the Rambam's 13 principles of faith. In his The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised, Rabbi Marc B. Shapiro examines the principals. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Introduction to Perek Chelek, Maimonides calls this dogma; whoever rejects ...


5

Almost everyone will agree that neither extreme is correct. That is to say, that almost no one will interpret every word of the Torah literally, and almost no one will interpret every word of the Torah allegorically. The real question is what the balance is. How do we determine which parts of the Torah should be interpreted literally, and which parts should ...


5

The miracles of the Exodus were ones the Jews saw or heard. In a way, as if it were a performance and they were the (participating) audience. The miracles were all real things, to be sure. The Jews walked through the Red Sea, drank the water, and ate the manna. People swallowed up by the earth died and stayed dead. All experience of the miracles came ...


5

This question was sent by R. Tzvi Hirsh Segal Spitz to R. Yosef Dovid Sinzheim, and is recorded as Question # 5 in Kuntres Sheva Chakiros. R. Spitz began by questioning the order of specific mitzvot but then moved on to say that he could not find any order at all. He then went on and on praising Rambam's masterful writing in all areas, such that it is nigh ...


5

Like Rambam, Ralbag also maintains that this incident did not occur in real life, and he explicitly discusses the view of the Sages: והנה דעת רבותינו ז”ל הוא שזה הענין היה כפשוטו ולזה אמרו שפי האתון הוא מן הדברים שנבראו בין השמשות והנראה בעינינו לפי השורשים האמיתיים הנראים מדברי הנבואה ומן העיון שזה הסיפור היה ענין שקרה לבלעם במראה הנבואה Behold, ...


5

Listing arayot as one of the commandments that one only abstains from because God said so is not Rambam's invention. His statement here is more or less a direct quote from a Midrash Halacha: Sifra 4:9 ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אומר מנין שלא יאמר אדם אי איפשי ללבוש שעטנז אי אפשי לאכול בשר חזיר אי איפשי לבוא על הערוה אבל איפשי מה אעשה ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי כך ת"ל ...


5

See Rabbi Samson Refael Hirsch, in his Nineteen Letters, letter 18. He criticizes the rational approach of Maimonides, but without mentioning him by name: he sought to reconcile Judaism with the difficulties which confronted it from without, instead of developing it creatively from within, for all the good and the evil which bless and afflict the heritage ...


4

Indeed, Ralbag in his commentary there rejects the straightforward understanding of this miracle. For such a miracle to occur, nature would be changed in ways surpassing any of the miracles performed even by Moses whom no miracle-performer can actually surpass. In fact, for Hezekiah to even ask for such a miracle would be utterly foolish, which, based on ...


4

The text of Rambam paraphrases a verse in Kohelet 7.16 אַל תְּהִי צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה וְאַל תִּתְחַכַּם יוֹתֵר לָמָּה תִּשּׁוֹמֵם Metsudat David למה תשומם. למה תעשה כזאת לשבת משומם מבלי בוא מי להתחבר עמך בעבור מרבית הפרישות ותהיה מובדל מן האנשים Why will you stay isolated, and nobody comes to bind with you, because of your excessive deprivation. You ...


4

וְלֹא יִשְׁתּוֹמֵם can mean: To be numb or silent. In this context: He shouldn't sit around idly; it should always look like he's doing something productive. To do strange things that make other people wonder. In this context: He should act normally and not do strange acts. This is basically the Sefaria translation you quote: provided he does not go to ...


4

Yes, idolatrous items contaminate, and things that get mixed with objects of idolatry are forbidden property. However, these are two separate laws. The Rambam has already said that objects of idolatry are forbidden in benefit from the Torah (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:2). Therefore he explains here that once an object of idolatry is mixed with or lost among ...


4

R. Joseph Karo in his commentary to that halacha suggests that based on how Ra'avad is quoted in Sefer HaIkarim the text may not have said "bigger and better than" in the first place: ויש לתמוה על פה קדוש איך יקרא לאומרים שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה גדולים וטובים ממנו ואפשר שעיקר הנוסחא כמו שכתוב בספר העיקרים פ"ב ממ"א וז"ל א"א אע"פ שעיקר האמונה כן הוא המאמין ...


4

Some commentators say that Zerubbabel was supposed to be king (such as Ibn Ezra, see e.g. his commentary to 4:14). Zerubbabel is never explicitly called a king, but he was from the royal family (1 Chronicles 3:19), and also served as governor (פֶּחָה) of Judea (Haggai 1:1). Zerubbabel was the one who built the Temple (he participates in the building in Ezra,...


4

Quoting the Rambam again, he actually says something more radical. "כְּשֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה וְיָשׁוּב מֵחֶטְאוֹ חַיָּב לְהִתְוַדּוֹת -- ... when he does teshuvah, he is obligated to confess..." The mitzvah is vidui (the confession), teshuvah is the context in which vidui would be said. There is a dispute among acharonim as to whether the Rambam counts ...


4

Perhaps an answer: There is punishment for the sin, which is for the rebellion against G-d. This is immediately shielded by repentance. Then, there is the process of complete atonement, which is more of a refinement or educational processes. This may require suffering to complete. Yet, this suffering is not a punishment. For example, when the Jewish ...


3

The source is Mishnah Bava Metzi’a 4:11. בֶּאֱמֶת, בְּיַיִן הִתִּירוּ לְעָרֵב קָשֶׁה בְרַךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ.‏ In truth they permitted one to mix hard wine into soft, as it improves it. As explained there by Bartenura, if one agrees to sell soft wine, he may mix some hard into it, as that increases the value of the product he is ...


3

As @user15464 mentions in the comments, the Rambam defines "porech", or the torture that you quote as being permitted, in Avadim 1:6: ואיזו היא עבודת פרך זו עבודה שאין לה קצבה ועבודה שאינו צריך לה אלא תהיה מחשבתו להעבידו בלבד שלא יבטל What is "porech" labor? Labor that has no limit, or labor that is unnecessary and is asked of the servant with the ...


3

Your question 2 is predicated on a reading of the word כשר as referring to proper spiritual value, and therefore middot. I do not believe that that interpretation is correct. Here is Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn (author of the sefer Daat Torah) correctly translating the Rambam under discussion. Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 3:19): Similarly a man should not marry of a ...


3

A possible answer is as follows: (Largely based on R. Yaakov Ettlinger in Bikkurei Yaakov 639:39 with a bit of my own twist.) It seems that the question is predicated on the fact that the Mishnah in Taanit refers to the rain as a siman klalah. If R. Yehoshua's objection is that rain is a siman klalah for the entirety of Sukkot, then indeed one can wonder ...


3

Observing the 7 Mitzvos does not change their status as Gentiles. The prohibitions of marrying gentiles (just like all other illicit relations) do not differentiate between righteous and wicked ones. The relations are forbidden in any way. PS I feel very uncomfortable discussing the details of the Jewish Halachah with a Noachide as it is not endorsed by ...


3

Multiple responsa have been written to address this question. In Shu"t Toafot Re'em (# 32) R. Aharon Moshe Taubes argues that by tefillin there really are eight mitzvot, whereas in the other cases there really is only one mitvah and it's only as if there are multiple mitzvot. As evidence of this he cites the fact that by birkat kohanim Rambam actually wrote ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible