On the Soul and its Powers
Author: Esther Ehrman, Tishrei 5768/Oct 2007Aristotle and Maimonides describe man's Soul
Shemone Perakim. Ch.1
Maimonides writes Eight Chapters (shemone perakim) as an Introduction to the Mishna, Ethics of the Fathers, (Pirkei Avot). He examines the function of ethics for the well being of the soul, the necessity of such well being for the person who seeks to understand the Creator and states a theory of behaviour to be followed in order to achieve that goal. Chapter one is largely descriptive.
1. Know that the soul of man is one.
This chapter deals with man's nefesh. The word means 'soul'; it also means 'character' or 'person' or 'personality'. It translates the Greek word 'psyche' (defined as 'breath, life, soul' in the Oxford Dictionary). The point that Maimonides (Rambam) is making is that, while there are many facets to our psyche - he uses Aristotle's division of basic areas of activity - we should not see these as independent of one another, or indeed of the physical person. Just as there are many body parts, heart, legs, brain, eyes etc that constitute areas of 'one body', so we must understand that there is one 'soul/psyche'.
Indeed, as Rav Aviner stresses in his edition of the Shemone Perakim, man is one, where body and soul interact. It is significant that the Aristotelian divisions of the 'soul' that Rambam adopts are largely physical. Early philosophers, we are told, were confused and believed that the various active areas of functioning indicated a plurality of souls in man. To understand man, we need to know that he is one whole.
2. Know that the improvement (tikkun) of our character traits (middot) is brought about by curing the soul (refuat ha nefesh).
As the title of the Mishna, Ethics of the Fathers, indicates, the subject is 'ethics', morality, the middot. We are dealing with a Rabbinical work, part of the Talmud, not with the Torah and its commandments (mitzvoth). There is a basic difference between a statement like asei lecha rav u knei lecha chaver, adhere to a teacher and acquire a friend (pirkei avot) and a statement such as ve ahavta le reieicha kamocha, you shall love your neighbour as yourself (Torah). The function of Pirkei Avot, as Rambam sees it, is to improve the (sick) soul. A person without the morality taught in Pirkei Avot is 'sick'. A moral person has a 'healthy' soul/psyche. Rav Aviner suggests that healthy here is normative. If a soul is not in a normal healthy state, i.e. if his morality is not 'fit', he needs to be dealt with. We now accept this in that we send criminals to have psychiatric treatment.
Rambam explains that, just as a physician needs to know the details of physiology before he can cure anyone, so the rofe nefesh 'soul doctor/psychologist/moralist' needs to know and understand the functions of the soul/ psyche. There are five of these; they control:
a. sustenance (nutritive)
b. the senses (sentient)
c. the imagination
d. stimulation
e. the intellect/conceptualisation
3. Man's nutrition stems from the nutritive faculty in the human soul, whereas a donkey...derives its nutrition from the nutritive faculty in the donkey's soul.
In a discussion of character, the soul, morality, man is not just a superior animal species. Just as the food of animals suits their need, the food of humans, their intellectual and emotional needs are not those of a donkey, a horse or an eagle.
NB the use of the word nefesh when referring both to humans and to animals. Both have a 'soul', but they are not comparable. We use the words, 'food', 'sensation' for both, but only the term, not the meaning is common to both. Every species has a soul, a way of behaving, specific to it. Rambam illustrates this with an example, - not his - of light that lights up three dark places, one is lit by the sun, one by the moon and one by fire (man made). There is light in all three, but in each case it is of a different kind, though we use the word 'light' for all three. Similarly, we use the word nefesh and, as with the light, only the term is common to man and animals.
4. The element that controls nutrition includes the power to ingest, store food, digest, excrete, grow, reproduce and the ability to distinguish liquids that sustain and those to be excreted.
Rambam now lists the functions of each area of control. There is a clear link with the physical; he is concerned with 'healing', i.e. doing what is 'good' for the body.
Sentient. This area refers to the five senses throughout the physical body. The 'soul' interprets and reacts to these, Rambam implies.
Imagination. Rambam defines this as memory able to recall sensations, to combine or divide up such sensations and thus create impossible combinations - an iron ship flying in the sky, for example. This faculty can delude man (the intellectual function is able to sort this out). Rambam makes the point that not everything that it is possible to imagine may be real, even if all the constituent parts of something may have been real. Science was to grapple with this question for several hundred more years.
Stimulation. A person is stimulated to desire or to reject things. Thus one may love or hate, desire or fear something and the physical organs, legs, hands, eyes will react accordingly; the physical heart is responsible for courage.
5. The function of thought/conceptualising is the power given to man....
Know that this one soul, described above, can be compared to matter, for which the intellect serves as form.
This faculty is granted to man alone. It gives 'form' (tsura) to the other aspects of the soul, decides on action and deliberates on what is possible. It discriminates and makes judgments on the basis of knowledge and thus imprints a character (form) on the soul/psyche. Man has an individual soul and therefore an individual character. But man has features that are common to mankind and therefore it is possible to say that certain actions will have certain consequences, so the middot can be applied to anyone.
The intellect can deal with the abstract notions, understand the eternal values and thus acquire wisdom - knowledge. The intellect can also determine life style in a concrete way (applied, ma'asi) and thus a. discriminate between true and false ( as e.g. when the imagination presents impossible things and
b. determine practical matters suited to it, lifestyles, careers, such as carpentry, seafaring etc. One needs to be careful not to confuse the guiding intellect with the soul/psyche. The intellect is a function of the soul.
6. If the soul be without knowledge, it is not good (Prov.19,2)
'Even without knowledge the soul exists but it is not good' (transl. Eliahu Touger). It would seem that a soul that has not acquired a 'form' is a soul without knowledge, as it were. The intellect has not 'shaped' it and it thus remains without direction, characterless, incomplete. The word 'good' is ambiguous. Without direction it cannot be good in the moral sense - or bad - and the situation of a soul that is directionless is a waste, it can have no contribution to make. As Rav Aviner points out, man is born with middot and these are neither good nor bad, but have the potential for either. The positive direction is ours to work at.
The details, says Rambam, are not important here, since they are not needed for a discussion about middot (ethics). However, the difference that exists between the functions of the soul need to be clear to the teacher of ethics to enable him to 'heal' that soul and ensure its 'health'.
An interesting philosophical perspective emerges of the Greek and Jewish attitudes to the 'soul', the essence of things. Plato sees this world in terms of the shadows of a cave reflecting the essentially real Ideas outside of it. Aristotle speaks of the essential, the real within a being. The Torah teaches that man was created 'in the image of G-d' . Maimonides is telling us that the healthy, ethical soul is the real essence of the person and that once it is achieved it will constitute that 'image of G-d'.
Leprosy - Crime and Punishment
Author: Esther Ehrman, Nisan 5768/ April 2008Leprosy - Crime and Punishment (Metzora Lev.13)
The English word 'leprosy' is usually the translation in the Bible of the Hebrew tzoraat, which actually means 'smiting', a plague that designates a number of skin diseases. When Moses is given instructions of how to persuade Pharaoh and his court that he is being sent by G-d, he is told that one of the signs he is to give is to put his hand to his chest, show that it is 'leprous', repeat the gesture and show that is back to normal (Ex.4, 6-7). When Miriam and Aaron speak slightingly about Moses, Miriam is punished by G-d, smitten with leprosy and excluded from the comp for seven days, 'And the Lord said unto Moses, if her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? Let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that, let her be received back in again' (Num.12, 14). Moses reminds the Children of Israel of the event (Deut.24), 'Take heed of the plague of leprosy, that you observe diligently and do according to all that the priests the Levites shall teach you, as I commanded them, so shall you observe to do. Remember what the Lord your G-d did to Miriam.'. The context that Moses gives here is a set of moral commandments, not to kidnap an Israelite, not to oppress a servant, not to keep a poor man's pledge overnight, although the teachings of the Levites would seem to refer to laws of purification and sacrifices.
In the weekly portions of the Torah, Tazria and Metzora (Lev.chs 12 - 15), the plague of tzoraat is treated as a fact of life, a disease that makes a person unclean, unfit to remain in the community. It is checked by the Cohen and, once the person has recovered and has been declared clean, the sacrifices that are brought are, first, two birds, tzipporim, alive and clean, with cedar wood, scarlet and hyssop (Lev.14, 4).One of the birds is killed and the Cohen then dips the live bird in the blood, takes the cedar wood, scarlet and hyssop, dips them too and sprinkles the blood seven times on the cured person. 'And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord' (Lev.14, 18) On the eighth day, part of the ceremony whereby the cured person is enabled to re enter the community requires that two male lambs, a sin offering (chataat) and a trespass offering (asham) be brought and the Cohen then sprinkles some of the blood of the asham on the right ear, the right thumb and the big toe of the right foot of the cured person. 'And the priest shall make an atonement for him and he shall be clean' (v. 20). Because 'sin' and 'trespass' offerings are brought and 'atonement', kpper ha cohen alav, is effected, we assume that there has been some wrongdoing. But the wrongdoing is apparently simply being unclean - as are the women after childbirth or males with an issue, both discussed in the same weekly portions of the Torah.
Two of the many questions raised by the account are the significance of the ritual and the nature of the trespass or sin. First, it is important to note that the ritual takes place only once the person is 'clean'. There is no magic cure here. While the person suffers from tzoraat, all that the Cohen does is to inspect and isolate the person. The ritual upon recovery suggests possible interpretations: The Hebrew tzipor, like the English 'birds', suggests a generic meaning; not so, explains Ramban, they are little birds that twitter, not the of ha shamayim of creation. Rashi comments that they chatter, as do people who gossip. The cedar wood, scarlet and hyssop remind us of the purification effected by the ashes of the red heifer (Num. 19) on those who have been defiled by contact with death. Cedar wood is the very best wood, hyssop is the lowest of herbs. The sprinkling on the right ear, thumb and toe recall the dedication of Aaron and his sons by Moses at the dedication of the Tabernacle. Moses takes the blood of the ram of consecration, ayil ha milu'im and sprinkles it on the right ear, thumb and toe of these Cohanim (Lev.8). We thus have elements of gossip, of purification, possible from contact with death (tumat met) and of dedication, all alluded to so far. The accounts are factual. In the case of Miriam, G-d is angry and punishes her, 1. for the words about the Cushite woman, 2. for, like Korach, expressing envy of Moses closeness to the Almighty. Moses, when he recalls the incident, seems to link her speech to both moral and priestly ordinances.
In the rest of the Bible tzoraat also appears. In 2 Kings, 7ff, the Haftara reading to the Torah portion Metzora, we read the story of four 'lepers' who saved the Israelite army because they were outside the camp - sent there, being lepers - and discovered that the enemy camp was deserted, the Aram army having fled in fear; the lepers were able to inform the king of Israel. The Israelites went in pursuit and found an abundance of provisions in the enemy camp, so that on that day 'two measures of barley were sold for two shekel and a measure of fine flour for one shekel', as the prophet Elisha had foretold. The story has no comment on the lepers. Their behaviour was clearly praiseworthy.
Elsewhere (2 Kings, 5), the Syrian general, Naaman, is a leper who is cured by Elisha and who then acknowledges the greatness of the one and only G-d of Israel. The cure consists of dipping in the waters of the Jordan seven times. Since Naaman was not an Israelite, the question of defilement does not arise.
There is also the story of Uzziah, king of Judah (2 Chron, 26), who takes it upon himself to burn incense on the altar in the Temple. The Cohanim try to stop him; he is adamant and, as he holds the censer, he is smitten with tzoraat; the king remains a leper until his death and lives 'in the house of liberation, beit ha hofshut, being a leper' (v.210 ). The affliction here is clearly a punishment, a punishment for arrogating to himself the function of the Cohen; or perhaps also for approaching the Sanctuary, being unfit? The only fact that emerges from the three accounts is the condition in which a leper finds himself and the fact that this entails isolation for Israelites.
There remains the question of 'atonement'. Our understanding is based on the Rabbinic understanding of atonement, requiring repentance and confession and restitution where relevant. The Biblical usage is not as clear, 'You shall cover, ve kiparta' the ark with pitch (Gen 6, 14); or, concerning an ox that gores, 'im kofer yoshet alav, if a ransom has been placed, its life is forfeit' (Ex.21, 30). Rambam is puzzled, 'we do not know the purport of all these expressions of atonement' (Guide). Atonement would seem to entail elements of ransom, of penalty for something that is improper, for an infraction of a moral or a physical statute.
The Mishna, in Negaim,14, is concerned with the correct understanding and pratice of the Temple ritual and enters into the details of the ritual, step by step. We learn that the metzora, the leper, dips himself in the water in the lishkat ha metzorim, the lepers' court. If there was a lepers' court, lepers must have been part of an accepted structure. With the destruction of the Temple, the whole ritual of tahara, purification that requires sacrifices, disappears. The concept of tuma, defilement is seen as having been very much connected to the existence of a Sanctuary. (cf also Rambam, Guide 3,47). The atonement now has to become a spiritual atonement. Rambam quotes the Sifra, which interprets the Biblical kedoshim tiyehu as 'you shall be obedient to His commandments' whence, he explains, the transgression of commandments is also called uncleanness or defilement (ibid, 1.19).
How do we, then, arrive at the opinion, stated by Rambam in his Guide for the Perplexed, that 'all agree that leprosy is a punishment for slander' (3, ch 47 )? We might have expected our Sages to have linked the destructive power of defamation, lashon ha ra, to the ten commandments, lo ta'ane be re'eicha eid shaker, 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour' (Ex 20,13). Miriam's defamation of Moses would seem to be just an example of this. Is it possible that the Rabbis deliberately wanted to link evil speech to physical impurity? Both require atonement. As the quotation from Sifra suggests, infringement of mitzvoth equals impurity, impurity of the soul, the highly serious punishment for which is that it prevents us from fulfilling the commandment of kedoshim tiyehu.
Angels and Divine Communication
Author: Esther Ehrman, Cheshvan 5769/Nov 2008Do angels have an identity? Are they agents of the Almighty? Do human beings really see them? Who may be 'visited' by angels? These questions and more have been addressed by Bible commentators and it seems to be by no means easy to arrive at a consensus on the subject.
In the Torah, it is in the Book of Genesis that the above questions mainly arise. Chapters 18-22, parashat Vayyeira, show just how varied the function of angels can be. If we look at the Commentaries by Maimonides (the Rambam) and Nachmanides (the Ramban), we find very different understandings of the Biblical narrative.
Angels appear in each of these five chapters, from the opening moment, when we find Abraham sitting in the heat of the day, (ch.18) having performed the circumcision on himself, to the episode where the angels rescue Lot from Sodom (ch 19), to the dream of Avimelech (ch 20), to the help given to Hagar (ch 21), to the calls to Avraham at Akedat Yitzchak, the sacrifice of Isaac, (ch 22).
In Chapter 18, the Almighty appears to Avraham, Avraham looks up and sees three 'men, anashim. Rashi explains and the text will show that these 'men' are angels, sent by G-d. They eat – or pretend to eat, the meals disappear, the commentaries tell us, and one of them announces the birth of Isaac. V.10:And he said , I will certainly return to you at that time and Sarah your wife shall have a son....v.13: And the Lord said to Abraham: Why did Sarah laugh...Is anything too hard for the Lord? I shall return to you at that time and Sarah shall have a son. In v16, the 'men' then turn to go towards Sodom and the Almighty speaks with Abraham.
At this point, the text seems to indicate a separate identity for the 'men'
Rambam explains that the opening statement, that G-d appears to Abraham, is a general statement and it is followed by a detailed clarification, namely that this means that three figures appear to Abraham. That would give one identity to the Almighty and His manifestation.
In v 10, the text seems to say that the man/angel will return; in v.13, the text seems to say that the Lord will return. Rashi comments that the angel here is speaking as G-d's agent, just as an angel had told Hagar 'I shall multiply your seed (Gen.16,10). An angel, says Rashi, has no power to do this.
In Chapter 19, there are two figures in Sodom and they are now called malachim, usually translated as angels/ messengers. Rashi explains that they are called 'men' when the shechina, the divine presence is with them, but to Lot they are initially angels. V.12, 13: the 'men'; say: who is still here? WE will destroy...because the cry is great before the Lord and the Lord has sent us to destroy it. – The text clearly states that they are to effect the destruction at the behest of G-d, again indicating a separate identity. In v.17, 18, 19 matters are not so clear. The angels take Lot and his family physically outside and say 'look not behind you...go to the mountain, lest you be consumed. And Lot said to them, aleihem, O not so, my Lord. adonay. Behold now; your servant has found grace in your sight and You have shown mercy ...in saving my life...I cannot escape to the mountain... Rashi explains that Lot here, while apparently speaking TO THEM, is addressing the Lord, 'You have saved my life' , something that only the Lord can do.
In Chapter 20, Avraham is travelling through Gerar and says that Sarah is his sister, who is then taken by the king, Avimelech. In v. 3, Elohim comes to Avimelech 'in a dream by night' and warns the king not to touch Abraham's wife..v.6,7. 'And Elohim said to him in a dream...I also stopped you from sinning'. Rashi's comment is that the angel had stopped him. Why would Rashi replace the 'I' of the text with an angel, unless he understands 'elohim' here to denote an angel.
In Chapter 21, Hagar and her son, Ishmael, have been sent away from the house of Avraham. The water they took is finished and Hagar weeps. V.17 reads 'And elohim heard the voice of the lad and an angel of G-d, malach elohim, called to Hagar out of heaven'....v.19 :'and elohim opened her eyes and she saw a well of water'. Here, too, we wonder about the role of the malach.
Chapter 22 gives the account of the Akeida, the Sacrifice of Isaac.. V.1 reads: 'HaElokim – clearly referring to the Almighty – nasa et Avraham, tried Abraham.' V.12,13 tell us than an angel of G-d, malach H', stays Avraham's hand, 'now I know hat you fear the Lord, ki yr'ei Elokim ata. Samson Raphael Hirsch, quoting Tractate Sanhedrin 93A, explains this as 'Now I, the angel, know that G-d is justified in considering you greater than the angels....The Almighty has prior knowledge of your potential as a G-d –fearing man, but an angel's knowledge can only based on actual – not potential – knowledge'. An angel judges what occurs, the Almighty judges on what may occur. In any case, in 'Now I know', the identity of 'I' is not obvious.
In v. 15, the angel of the Lord calls from heaven to Abraham a second time, v.16,17:'and said, by Myself have I sworn, says the Lord, bi nishbati ne'um H, because you have done this thing.....I will bless you...' The angel in the text seems to be quoting the Almighty.
In all these cases, anashim, malach, malachim, even occasionally elohim, seem to denote beings empowered by the Almighty to announce, act, speak in His name.
That is not how Maimonides, Rambam, understands matters. In his Guide for the Perplexed, Morei Nevuchim , Rambam devotes almost twenty chapters to Prophecy and in several of these he discusses Divine communications. He bases his arguments throughout on the verse in Num.12, v.6 'If there be a prophet among you, in a vision I will make Myself known to him, in a dream I will speak to him, im yihehyei neviachem H', be mar'eh eilav etvada, be chalom adabeir bo. The context of the verse is the rebuke to Aaron and Miriam for speaking ill of Moses. The Almighty tells them that only to Moses does He communicate directly. All other communications are in visions and dreams. These, Rambam stresses, are the only ways, that G-d communicates with other people..
Divine communications that concern such matters as the relationship of the people to the Almighty, the consequences of actions etc are made to prophets, to people who are worthy, fit to receive them, says Rambam. Ordinary people may be given information that relates to them. 'All prophets except Moses receive the prophecy through an angel. Note it' (Guide, II, ch.34). Rambam will elaborate on that. He states 'You must know that whenever Scripture relates that the Lord or an angel spoke to a person, this took place in a dream or in a prophetic vision '(ibid.ch 41) – which would seem to be saying that no one in a waking state ever really saw an angel.
Where an angel or elokim comes to an ordinary person at night, there is no prophecy, just information, e.g.Avimelech, Laban, Bilaam.. Hagar was not a prophetess, nor was the wife of Manoah. 'The speech they heard was like a bat kol, ( a prophetic echo) so frequently mentioned by our Sages' (Ch.42). When Rebecca goes to ask of the Lord about the struggling twins inside her, 'G-d spoke to her through an angel, Eber – for a prophet is sometimes called an angel' (ibid).
In these visions, angels may look like human beings, but even then 'it is in a prophetic vision that the prophet believes that G-d is speaking to him (ch.44)
There are degrees of prophetic communications, from ruach ha kodesh, the spirit of the Divine, to inspiration, as with David or words inspired/dictated by G-d, as in the case of Bilaam. The highest degree that a prophet, other than Moses, can attain, is that he sees an angel addressing him in a vision (ch 45). Everything that happens happens in a vision (ch.46: 'Whatever is said in the account of a vision, that the prophet heard, went forth, came out, said, was told, stood up, sat, went up, went down, journeyed, asked or was asked, all is part of the prophetic vision' (ibid).
Nachmanides, the Ramban, does not accept Rambam's views at all, as he explains in his Commentary to the text of these Chapters (18 -22) of the Book of Genesis.
'According to his (the author of the Morei Nevuchim) words, Sarah did not knead cakes nor did Abraham prepare a bullock, and also, Sarah did not laugh. It was all a vision!...And if all these were part of prophetic visions, then it follows that the account related in the verses 'And the angels hastened Lot...as well as the entire chapter is but a vision....the author of the Morei Nevuchim thinks that the events took place of themselves, but the conversations relating to all matters were in a vision! But SUCH WORDS CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE . It is forbidden to listen to them, all the more to believe them. Asur lishome'am..af ki le hamin bahem'. Strong language, indeed.
Yet Ramban's views are not in all respects different from those of Rambam.
Ramban makes a distinction between 'angels', which, he agrees, human senses cannot perceive and communications, which, he states, people did actually receive, even though not as clearly as did Moshe. 'When G-d said (Ex.6,3) I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob....that means that He 'appeared', not an angel'.
Ramban further states that there is a difference between the identities of the Almighty and His angels. G-d tells Abraham to sacrifice his son and then an angel countermands the request. It happens frequently, Ramban says, that G-d tells prophets to do something and that an angel countermands the request. He refers the reader to his commentary on Gen. 48, 16, 'the angel who has redeemed me', but the commentary there does not enter into the subject.
On the verse ' and the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven a second time' (Gen.22,15), Ramban explains that it was the angel who called and it was G-d who pronounced the blessing that follows.
However, in a statement that seems to go along with views expressed by the Rambam, Ramban says that those who see angels and speak with them are not necessarily among the prophets. They have a 'vision', called 'opening the eyes', as in the case of Hagar, but also in the case of Abraham seeing a deer to be sacrificed instead of Isaac.
As for the mysterious' men' that are mentioned on occasion – here and in the story of Joseph, for example – '..where the Torah speaks of 'angels' as 'men'...in all these cases, there was a special glory created in the angels, called...'a garment' visible to human eyes in the case of such pure persons as the pious and the disciples of the prophets'.
Moreover, 'And in those places, where you find the sight of G-d and the speech of an angel, or the sight of an angel and the speech of G-d, in the words of Zecharia (1,14), "I will yet disclose the words of the living G-d in allusions"'.
Visions, opening the eyes, a garment, allusions, all indicate that Ramban, too, makes a distinction between events that take place in everyday reality and Divine communications which, given human nature, cannot be part of everyday reality.
According to both, Rambam and Ramban, the terms, malach, occasionally also elohim, denote a special kind of personal Divine communication. The difference between the views of the two Commentators would seem to be mainly one of emphasis: Rambam stresses the exceptional/supernatural experience of the communication. This worries Ramban, who is concerned that one might not accept the Biblical account as having 'really' occurred. Actually, Ramban goes along with the idea that human beings cannot simply 'see' angels. Ramban's stress is on the distinct roles accorded to words addressed to an individual directly by the Almighty and words or events transmitted or carried out at His behest, where the Divine agent is not simply a manifestation of the Divine. The Biblical text lends itself to either of these perspectives.