RAMBAM'S VIEW OF BIBLE STORIES

Rambam opens this chapter by saying that certain passages in the Torah are "mysteries of the Torah," which he wishes to explain. He notes the gemara's statement in Sanhedrin that one of Menasheh's crimes-- Menasheh was a king of Yehudah, the southern kingdom of the Jewish people; he was famously wicked, despite being the son of the famously righteous Hizkiyah-- was to mock the inclusion of certain verses in Scripture. The specific example the gemara uses is the verse in Bereshit that lists the geneology of Esav's family (mentioning even that Timna, who became a concubine to Esav's son Eliphaz, was the sister of Lotan, a leader of the Hori people). Rambam's overall goal in the chapter is to explain why the Torah included such seemingly menaingless verses.

In broad terms, Rambam sees such verses as either verifying some religious principle or as preventing wrongdoing or aggression among people, as we will see.

THE PURPOSE OF BIBLICAL HISTORY

The geneological parts of the first two parashiyot in the Torah are, according to Rambam, a way to verify the time-scheme of Creation. Since, as far as Rambam says, the Torah requires us to believe in Creation in time (meaning, as we've said before, that the world went from complete nonexistence to existence), it wants us to know that there were about 2500 years from Adam to Moshe. It might be hard for people to imagine, however, that the world went from having one person in it to the broad expanse of humanity and of habitation today. To explain it, the Torah carefully lists the descent of the most famous people, the inventions they contributed, and the story of how they developed many languages and became spread all over the Earth.

The notion that these are only the most famous people should be clear to anyone who has read Bereshit carefully, since the verses refer repeatedly to someone bearing boys and girl, without listing those offspring. Presumably, then, the first generations of people were having children, who were then also having children, etc. The line we hear about is a central line, which contributed greatly to human history, but which also serves as a convenient way to guage the passage of time from Adam to Noah and then to Abraham. The story of the Tower of Babel in this presentation is a way to explain the spread of human habitation from one community into many, with many languages.

A DIGRESSION ON RAMBAM'S VIEW OF CREATION

I have noted in this context several times before when Rambam says something that strikes me as directly contradicting the academic view of his opinion, and we have reached another one. As we have noted before, some academics insist that Rambam did not believe in Creation ex nihilo despite his having explicitly said that he did, based on textual clues they find in other places in the Guide. This passage seems, again, to be a particularly strong proof that he actually did.

Since Rambam's topic here is an explanation of the purpose of certain verses in the Torah, his bringing in the notion of absolute Creation (from nothing) is not strictly necessary, and therefore would seem to be sincere. If Rambam did not believe in such Creation, he must have had some other explanation for these verses, so why not share that with his readers (or leave this discussion out of the Guide entirely-- it does not obviously flow from the project of the previous chapters)? I believe that such incidental assumptions of Creation ex nihilo are strong proofs that he does not in fact have a hidden doctrine here. (Parenthetically, I will say that I could imagine Rambam holding the Platonic view-- that the world was created out of some basic physical matter that was eternal-- since that, too, would necessitate the beginning of human existence at some point, thus explaining these passages in the same way).

Of course, a stubborn believer in Rambam's Aristotelianism (and there are many) could say that Rambam disagreed with the Torah's assumptions, meaning that the Torah believed in such Creation but he did not. Besides the level of heresy that would impute to Rambam, it would again not explain his decision to include this discussion in the Guide. Perhaps, however, Rambam thought the Torah itself seemed to believe in Creation, but esoterically agreed with Aristotle. If that were true, however, there should be some indication of what the Torah really meant by these passages, and I do not see any such hints. In summary, then, this passage strongly supports the view that Rambam actually accepted Creation in time, an issue that would color our view of many other obscure passages in the Guide.

OTHER SUNDAY SCHOOL STORIES

Two other stories, the Flood and the destruction of Sodom, for Rambam, support the principle that there is reward for the righteous and that God judges the wicked. This, too, is a provocative statement in the context of current Maimonidean studies, since the most academic readings of Rambam assume that he does not believe in direct Divine reward and punishment. Due to certain of Rambam’s statements, these academics conclude that he thought that reward and punishment extended naturally from our acts and personal development (or lack thereof). Without digressing to a discussion of all those texts, this passage again advances a notion of Divine reward and punishment where it was completely unnecessary. It therefore (in my mind) constitutes strong evidence that Rambam had some notion of such Divine retribution. Further, given the context of the stories, it at least suggests that that reward and punishment, on at least some occasions, extends more directly from the Divine Will than the ordinary (since the plain sense of the text says that God made these decisions).

Even if Rambam holds that God is completely unchanging (a function of His perfection—that which is perfect never needs to change), the Flood and Sodom stories tell of extraordinary events of retribution, events that Rambam explicitly sees as affirming a notion of reward and punishment. I would add here that Rambam, in his Letter on the Resurrection of the Dead, notes the difference between miracles and ordinary natural events. Miracles, Rambam says, are events that only occur once and then the world goes back to its "ordinary" nature. What he seems to mean is that God created a world that can even respond to those circumstances that require "miraculous" intervention. At the moment of the splitting of the Sea, then, it was not that God "decided" the Sea needed to split; rather, the original Creation had prepared for the possibility that Jews would be standing at the Sea, needing it to split. However that works in Rambam’s view, it gives some notion of how God could both be unchanging and yet there be actual reward and punishment, even miraculous, for those who deserve it.

ABRAHAM’S NOBILITY

The Sodom story has more elements than that, as far as Rambam was concerned, revolving around what it reveals about Avraham. First, it shows his willingness to come to the rescue of his relative, despite the difference in military might between him and the four kings. More interesting to me is the reason that Rambam gives for his doing this; as far as Rambam is concerned, it is because that relative (Lot) shared in Avraham’s monotheistic belief. Since the Midrash portrays Lot as having sunk to the level of the inhabitants of Sodom on many levels, the idea that he nonetheless maintained his monotheism is a stimulating one.

The incident also reveals Avraham’s lack of greed, his being satisfied with moderation. When the king of Sodom offers Avraham a reward, after all, Avraham accepts nothing. Again, we might have drawn other lessons from this—Avraham might have foregone reward to stress God’s role in the salvation of Sodom, or he might simply not have wished to profit from such evil people. Rambam nonetheless uses it as a proof of his moderation.

GENEALOGIES AND REIGNS OF ESAV

At the end of Parshat Vayishlah, the Torah lists the descendants of Esav, and then the kings who ruled there "before there was a king for the children of Israel." Rambam sees both of these passages as supporting a halakhic imperative laid out later in the Torah. The genealogy of Esav comes to teach us about the requirement to eradicate Amalek. At some point, all the descendants of Esav became mixed together; zealous anti-Amalekites might think that all those known as Amalek fell under the Torah’s rubric for eradication. To forestall that conclusion, Rambam says, the Torah carefully lists the various families of Esav, to warn us to be careful about whom we consider Amalek. Without getting too political, it is worth noting the implicit message here, that when we consider commandments to kill people (even non-Jews), we need to be certain that we are not broadening our swath of destruction beyond the limits set by the Torah.

In terms of kingship, Rambam assumes that the kings of Esav were an example that supported the Torah’s requirement that any king of the Jewish people be "from amongst your brethren." In his reading, the kings of Esav were all foreigners (to Esav), since the Torah tells us each one’s home place. I confess that in my readings of that passage, I always thought the places referred to were cities within the boundaries of Esav; Rambam assumes that they are outside of Esav’s territory, and that the people were importing kings to rule over them. He further assumes (here, I believe, without any evidence) that these kings mistreated the people, and handled their duties as king oppressively. Reading this—and he says that the Jews of the Torah’s time would know these histories better than we now can—Jews would understand God’s insistence that we not take outside kings. They, having no stake or connection to the Jewish people’s welfare, could not be trusted to act with the people’s best interests at heart. We would hope the same lack of care would not apply to Jewish rulers, although reading the book of Melakhim we see how difficult a standard of care that was to maintain. We will continue with Rambam’s exposition of "secrets of the Torah" next week, be"H. See you then.