Our friend Turk Hill requested that I give my opinion on the subject matter. Here it is.
There is disagreement among scholars on whether Maimonides accepted Aristotle’s view that matter existed eternally. Some say he agreed with Aristotle and others that he disagreed. I favor the view that he agreed with Aristotle. Or, possibly felt that what Aristotle said could be true philosophically and according to the Torah. The opening verse can be read as follows, and it is the true meaning or, arguably, a possible meaning: “At the beginning, when God created the heaven and earth, the earth (meaning all matter) was without form, and a strong wind blew over water.” Then, God began to form the preexisting matter and made/created various items that are listed out of it.
Why would Scripture say the earth was without form if God created everything from nothing? Creation out of nothing means that first, there was nothing, and then—poof—the created object appeared. There would never have been a time when the matter was without form.
I do not think the Aristotelian view diminishes the concept of God or divine power in any way.
Attendee panel closed
Hi, I am an Italian Noahide. Forgive me, I would like to bring to your attention a question that does not exactly concern the fact, but rather Rambam’s thought on Aristotle.
Maimonides, as we know, considers Aristotle a man of exceptional wisdom, barely inferior to prophecy. However, in his celebrated halachic code “Mishneh Torah” he outlines requirements for non-Jews for their participation in the “World to Come” (“Olam Ha-Ba”) according to which Aristotle would be excluded from such participation.
Indeed, in Mishneh Torah-Hilchot Melachim 8:11 Maimonides states that the “pious among the Nations” (“chasidei umot ha Olam”) have part of the World to Come; these are the non-Jews who observe the “Noahide Precepts” (v chapter nine Hilchot Melachim, which invokes the Gemara-Sanhedrin 56b) on the basis of the belief that they have been revealed by God in the Torah. Non-Jews who instead observe these precepts on the basis of an intellectual conviction are not “pious among the Nations”, but “wise men” (“chochmei”;I adhere here to the lectio of the text present in the Yemeni manuscripts, considering the lectio “neither one of their wise men” corrupt).
On no side Maimonides affirms that even such “chochmei umot ha Olam” have part in the World to Come; it is true that there is also the interpretation on Hilchot Melachim 8:11 by the authoritative Rav Abraham Isaac Kook, the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of British Mandatory Palestine, according to which for Maimonides these “wise among the Nations” have an even higher status than the “poius among the Nations”; fascinating interpretation, but which in my opinion does not appear reconcilable with what Maimonides himself affirms in the third chapter of the Hilchot Teshuvah of the same Mishneh Torah,where he not only reiterates that it are the “chasidei umot ha Olam” the non-Jews who have part to the World to Come (3:5), but then he adds that there are twenty-four categories of individuals who:
“do not have a portion in the world to come. Rather, their [souls] are cut off and they are judged for their great wickedness and sins, forever” (3:6).
At 3:14 he says:
“All the twenty four individuals listed above will not receive a portion in the world to come even though they are Jewish”
which shows that Maimonides clearly refers to both Jewish and non-Jewish people.
Among these individuals Maimonides includes, among others, the “Epicureans”, i.e.( 3:8) :
“those who deny the resurrection of the dead and the coming of the [Messianic] redeemer;
“one who disputes the prophecy of Moses, our teacher”;
“one who denies the existence of prophecy and maintains that there is no knowledge communicated from God to the hearts of men.”
These exclusions from the World to Come that Maimonides speak of have their source in the Mishnah -Sanhedrin ch. 10, where, however, it is not specified whether they also refer to non-Jews, while Rambam is sure of this, as we have seen.
Now, Aristotle, despite being considered a monotheist by Maimonides (I don’t know if Maimonides explicitly stated it, but it seems to me impossible that he considered Aristotle an idolater, although Aristotle’s monotheism is historically somewhat questionable) is nonetheless a non-Jew who does not believed at all in the divine origin of the Torah, nor in the existence of prophecy, nor in the resurrection of the dead, and it does not seem to me that Rambam affirms the opposite in any part of his works. Therefore, according to the same affirmations of Rambam in the third chapter of the Hilchot Teshuvah of the Mishneh Torah, Aristotle cannot have any part in the World to Come because he belongs to the category of “Epicureans”, and therefore his soul “is cut off and he is judged for his great wickedness and sins, forever” (Teshuvah 3:6) .
But here is what to me is a complete contradiction in Maimonides’ reasoning: if Aristotle, as Rambam himself explicitly states, is the wisest man of all time after those who have reached the level of prophecy, how can it be explained that God has forever destroyed his soul as a man “of great wickedness and sins”? I consider it completely absurd.
What do you think of my considerations?
Dear Riccardo,
Your question is excellent.
The phenomenon of Maimonides taking a rational approach to a subject and saying the opposite elsewhere appears very often. An example is the thirteen principles of Judaism that is in his work “Chelek.” There are scholars who are convinced, as I am, that Maimonides only thought that his statements about God are true, but the rest are ideas he wrote for the uneducated.
Plato introduced the concept of the “Noble Lie,” which are statements made for people who cannot think philosophically. Maimonides accepts the need for such statements and calls them “Essential Truths.” I think he says he is doing this in his Introduction to his “Guide for the Perplexed.” An example is that “God becomes angry at people who misbehave and punishes them.” We have no idea if this is true. In fact, it is unreasonable to think that God becomes emotional and even angry. But it is essential to teach this to uneducated people to make sure they behave. Another ecxample is that when the Jews of Yemen were persecuted, Maimonides wrote to them and assured them, despite not believing what he is saying, that the messiah will soon arrive.
In short, I think the statements you quote are “essential truths,” ideas Maimonides did not think are true.
Israel
Thanks very much,dear Israel.
You’re welcome. Riccardo.
By the way, I’m thinking of writing a longer answer and putting your question and my answer in my 60th book.It probably wont be published for over a year. Can I put down your name etc as you wrote it?
Israel
Of course dear Israel , it would be a great honor for me!
I confirm my details:
Name: Riccardo Fabio
Surname: Gioviale
City and country: Catania, Italy
Best regards
Riccardo
Thank you, Riccardo. I will send the fuller answer soon, which will appear in my 60th book.
Riccardo,
Please send me your email address to my email iddrazin@comcast.net.
Israel
The Jews did not believe the first chapters of Genisis to be fact.
Maimonides is very explicit in ‘Moreh Nebuchim,’ upon the non-reality of the things stated in the account of the Creation in the book of Genesis.
“We ought not to understand, nor take according to the letter, that which is written in the book of the creation (the book of Genesis), nor to have the same ideas of it which common men have. It is a maxim which all our sages repeat, and above all with respect to the work of six days…The book of Genesis, taken according to the letter, gives the most absurd and the most extravagant ideas of the divinity.”
This is certainly a very extraordinary declaration of Mairnonides. He declares that the account of the Creation in the book of Genesis is not a fact, and that to believe it to be a fact gives the most absurd and the most extravagant ideas of the divinity. Rambam maintained that it is an allegory. Thus, Maimonides himself, tells us that the book of Genesis is not a book of facts. Taken according to the letter, especially with respect to the work of four days, it gives the most absurd and extravagant ideas of God. I agree here with Maimonides. The Jews did not believe the things stated in Genesis to be true. Thus, there is no reason to reject the view of Aristotle on the basis of Scripture alone. It shouldn’t be taken literally. It is only a parable. Thus, I have no qualms accepting the view of Aristotle that the universe is eternal.
I agree with you that he says the account of creation is an allegory and so is the tale about the Garden of Eden. But I do not think he states all of Genesis is allegory.
Off Topic: The Torah, Nevi’im, Ke’tuvim & all the Siddur’s, etc. were written by a bunch of guys back in the day. Most of the events just happened either by nature or never happened and or were parables. Since it was a facade. Then why doesn’t the Jewish community just be nice to fellow people in our passing and forget about the demands/requirements to be Jewish?
Books on Rambam, what would you suggest? Thank you
The three works/books about Maimonides that made the most impression on me were Leo Srauss’ Introduction to Shlomo Pines’ “Guide of the Perplexed,” where he analyzed the dual nature of the Guide. (Maimonides does so himself in his introduction to the Guide.) I disliked Pines’ translation and prefer that of Friedlander. Pines’ sound as if it were written in German, Friedlander’s “Guide for the Perplexed” is easy to read. (The titles of the two books are examples.) The second is “Hay ibn Yakdan” by ibn Tofayl. It does not mention Maimonides, but my professor for Maimonides taught that the book influenced Maimonides, and I agree. Third, Leo Strauss’ Maimonides. These three take the same approach that I take.
Twersky’s “A Maimonides Reader” is full of valuable information, but he is opposed to Strauss’s view. Nevertheless, one can learn much from it. Similarly, all of Menachem Kellner’s books are filled with good information, although he, too, rejected Strauss. Once, he rejected me. He gave a weird interpretation of the requirement that prophets need a good imagination. I explained that our sages were saying that since each prophet gave their messages in different ways and examples, they needed a good imagination to help them deliver and explain it. This made him angry, and he stopped sending me his articles. Nevertheless, I think most of what he writes is very thoughtful and I read his books.
I had about a hundred books on Maimonides in my 12,000 library. You can find many other books on and by Maimonides by going on Amazon under Maimonides. You may also enjoy my three books on him.
Also, a good book on Maimonides is Micah Goodman’s Maimonides and the book that changed Judaism. Rabbi Israel Drazin’s books on Maimonides are great.
Thanks for the compliment.
Thank you for answering my question. We agree that the Aristotelian view does not diminish or belittle the concept of God or divine power. I also think that Maimonides held the Aristotle view. Maimonides was an Aristotelian who held that the universe is eternal. I think it derogates nothing from the power and perfection of God to say that he formed the world out of preexisting matter that, like him, existed for all eternity. In fact, a rabbinic midrash says that Rabbi Eliezer held that the universe is eternal.
Yes, we agree as usual.
I agree with you entirely that the Aristotelian view does not diminish the concept of God or divine power. The axiom, that from nothing, nothing can be made, here applies.
We agree that the Aristotelian view does not diminish divine power. But it is still possible that God has the power to create something from nothing. We simply do not know anything about God who may have powers we cannot concieve.
We agree that it is possible that God could have the power to create something but, isn’t it true that from nothing, you get nothing? Out of nothing, nothing can come. The axiom, that from nothing, nothing can be made, here
applies. Parmenides said, “Nothing comes from nothing” (Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit).
I am more inclined to say that God formed the world out of pre-existing material but I am human and could err.
We agre. In regard to creation out of nothing, since we know nothing about God other than what creation/science has revealed, it is possible that God can create something from nothing even though here on earth it is impossible. Therefore, I think Aristotle may be correct or he may not be. I am simply not smart enough to know what everbody else does not know, what powers God has.
Even if halakhah, Jewish law derived from the Torah as interpreted by our rabbis, is ispired and not spoken directly by God, it is still holy because it contains wisdom and requirements that not only make adherants all they can be, it also prompts them to treat strangers as they want to be treated themselves, and treat animals and inanimate objects similarly. It is no surprize therefore that Jews have percentage-wise contributed much to science, medicine, and litrature far more than people in other cultures. I and all sensible Jews love the Torah. Without it, we would be devestated, more than other cultures would be hurt if their laws were nullified.
I agree with you entirely that we know nothing about God other than what creation/science has revealed, although it is also possible that God can create material from nothing. I like the Aristotle view better but I will be open-minded and share your view that creation ex nihilo is nonetheless possible. I think you wrote somewhere in another post that both views are rational. I think your idea that God may be more powerful than we can even imagine (including the power to create something from nothing) is what makes creation ex nihilo also rational. The Aristotle view is aso rational because, at least on earth, everything created needs materials.
I like that we agree, but I would still like you if we had disagreed.
Hi Rabbi: In regards to the Rambam, would you suggest The Rambam Chumash book by Steinberg?
It may be interesting, just a fictional novel is interesting. With an open mind,it may prompt one to discover the truth. However, personally, I am not a fan of books by Artscroll. I think they distort Judaism by giving interpretations that are not rational but that fit their mystical exterme-pious agenda.
https://philpapers.org/archive/TERECV.pdf
https://philpapers.org/archive/TERTCP.pdf
Imo only, the assumption of Aristotelian eternal matter does not fit with the assumption of a creation out of nothing, which is a uniquely philosophical concept of Judaism. The Greek language of that time had not even a word for a creation out of nothing, but uses the word ἐποίησεν (epoiēsen), to make something out of something (https://www.septuagint.bible/-/genesis-1, ΕΝ ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν).
As the temporal moment is decisive here, I am in support of Moshe Carmel, i.e. cosmological special relativity,
e.g. extra-temporal causality. In this sense, dear Rabbi Israel Drazin, Talmud Torah and science are compatible, but that excludes Aristotelian eternal matter and logic per methodological reason. My own works (e.g. pdf) on this cosmological issue are mainly based on our B’OR HA TORAH journal, which is unfortunately no more existent. Maybe, this helps a bit to clarify the query of Turk Hill.
Best: stephen
Thanks, Stephen. I appreciate your help. I will check out your PDF essay. Thank you for sharing your work with us. I am sure Rabbi Drazin will appreciate it as well.
It is interesting that the Greeks didn’t have a word for creation ex nihilo but ἐποίησεν (epoiēsen), something out of something. Parmenides said, “Nothing comes from nothing” (Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit).
It is good to talk to one another. We learn by doing so.