IN FOLLOWING UP LAST WEEK'S CALL FOR INPUT, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THROW OUT SOME IDEAS FOR COURSES I COULD DO NEXT YEAR-- 1) THE BOOK OF PROVERBS (taking up some of the verses in that book, and the ways various scholars understood the message they were trying to convey), 2) FINISH THE GUIDE OF THE PERPLEXED (since I have come to realize that we will not finish this year; and then move on to part I, an exercise in Biblical terminology-- explaining how words in Tanakh that seem to ascribe physical experiences to God should be understood), 3) PEREK HELEK (The tenth chapter of Sanhedrin, which deals with the required beliefs to earn the World to Come; we would open up with Rambam's famous introduction to that chapter). PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR CHOICE OF COURSES, AS WELL AS AN ASSESSMENT OF HOW THE COURSE HAS WORKED FOR YOU (how often you have had a chance to read the material, your assessment of where the material was most and least successful, etc.), I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT.

CHAPTER 39—THE BOOK OF SEEDS and others

The fourth class of mitsvot that Rambam discusses are a hodgepodge collected from various places in the Mishneh Torah—all of the laws of agriculture, except for those having to do with kil`ayim, mixing kinds of seeds, all the laws of giving gifts to the Temple (nedarim, haramim, etc.), the laws of borrowing money, and of slaves. According to Rambam, these are all meant to instill pity for the weak (and the quality of generosity generally).

Gifts for the poor—meaning leket, shikehah, and peah—are obviously in this category. For the gifts given to priests and Levites, Rambam says that it is in order to allow them to dedicate themselves fully to Divine service and knowing the Torah. It is for that reason that the Leviim were not given property, so they would not be involved in tilling and harvesting.

Two points seem worth noting here. First, Rambam is famous for his opposition to taking money for studying Torah. In several places, he vehemently rejects the option of a person assuming the community should support him in his Torah study. (The Talmudic strictures Rambam noted applied as well to taking money for teaching Torah and for rendering judgement. Later generations of rabbis spent much effort justifying their right to do so). Yet, Rambam also acknowledges that the Torah set up a system in which there would be a cadre of scholars who would be supported by the community so that they could focus more fully on their endeavors of Torah. While it might not be permitted for a person to demand money for teaching Torah, it might be worth a community’s while to insure that such figures of Torah are in their midst.

Second, we ought to consider whether this part of the chapter fits with the category— having pity for the weak, etc. While levi’im were poor, by virtue of having to rely on ma`aserot for their livelihood, that is not the element on which Rambam focuses. Rather, he notes that the verses group the levi`im among the poor because they have no property. Even if a Levite was well taken care of by his community, then, he qualifies as poor by virtue of his lack of property. That means, in Rambam’s opinion, that when we deal with levi’im, regardless of their current financial situation, we should treat them well, as part of our mode of treating those who are poor and weak. The Torah mandated, in other words, that levi’im should have to rely on the community gifts for their support, in order that they be free to study Torah. As we support them, then, we should be recognizing that they are a vital segment of our community. How we treat them speaks to how well we have internalized the recognition that God ordains that some people should be poor, and the responsibilities that creates for those who are not poor.

MA`ASER SHENI, NETA REVAI, MATNOT KEHUNAH

The rule of ma`aser sheni(for a brief review) is that in every harvest, we give a small percentage to a kohen (that’s terumah), a tenth of the remainder to a Levi, and then a further tenth of the remainder goes to one of two causes: in years 3 and 6 of the seven year shemittah cycle, it is called ma`aser `oni and is given to local poor (clearly fitting in Rambam’s view of these laws). In the other 4 years, however, it has to be taken to and is given to local poor (clearly fitting in Rambam’s view of these laws). In the other 4 years, however, it has to be taken to Yerushalayim and eaten there. At first glance, that would not seem to be connected to the poor. Rambam, however, points out that all of ma`aser sheni (or the money used to buy back the ma`aser sheni, since it is easier to transport money to Yerushalayim than produce) must be used for food. As such, it becomes likely (in his view) that the person bringing ma`aser sheni to Yerushalayim will need to share his food with the poor, since there will be too much of it to consume just by himself or with his family. Ma`aser sheni as well is now part of the mitsvot that teach about sharing with the poor.

Neta revai (the fourth year’s harvest from a new fruit tree, which has to be eaten in Jerusalem), often grouped with ma`aser sheni in Mishnaic sources, carries a different meaning for Rambam. Since these are the first fruits from this particular tree that are permissible in any way, they are another example of how Judaism deals with firsts (like first fruits and first shearings, etc.). It thus rejects the idolatrous notion that unless we give it to the idol it won’t grow as well. More relevant to the current chapter, giving it to God teaches us generosity (being willing to give up our possessions for a higher goal), as well as reducing our taste for acquiring things (in learning to give up our possessions for a higher goal, we also learn not to care so much about getting things). Rambam applies the same logic to the gifts given to priests from each animal we slaughter (for our own eating)—he suggests that the jaws are a primary part of the body, etc.

MIQRA BIKKURIM AND REDEEMING THE FIRSTBORN

The ceremony of reading certain parts of the Torah when offering the first fruits at the Temple—the part of the Torah that we say on Seder night as "Arami oved avi, etc."—Rambam defines as teaching humility. Since growing up in prosperity creates the danger of being spoiled, conceited, and vain, the yearly reading was meant to remind a person of the source of his wealth. In addition, mentioning the plagues that came to the Egyptians reminds us of the truth of prophecy and of the existence of reward and punishment. That explains, in addition, the requirement of redeeming the firstborn, human and animal, since it reminds us of the redemption from Egypt and the miraculous salvation of the Jewish firstborn.

Rambam here advances an interesting theory as to why the obligation of gifting firstborn animals (or redeeming them, in the case of donkeys) applied only to oxen, small cattle, and donkeys. He suggests that these were the common animals in the agricultural household. Horses and camels were more rare, however, and therefore were not included. The answer assumes that the goal of the mitsvah could have been accomplished with any animals (and perhaps therefore should have applied to all animals); the answer seems to be that the Torah used the most available examples to teach this lesson, without making it universally mandatory. I could have imagined a commentator suggesting a reason why the notion of firstborn applies most directly to these animals; Rambam’s answer shows a willingness to be technical about the issue).

Even before we finish the discussion of the agricultural laws, note that Rambam has assumed that these laws are meant to instill moral qualities, to teach various types of lessons. That means (and this is relevant even to the non-farmers among us) that he sees the Torah as prescribing ways to turn our worklife (as agriculture was in the time of the Giving of the Torah) into a part of our continuing religious and spiritual development.