13 Ikarim: Rambam Perek Cheilek, part 1

It’s b'ezras Hashem for the next coming two from Thursdays, a limmud b’iyun from the Rambam’s hakdama to Perek Chelek, specifically the Rambam’s Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim. But why is it that we don’t find already in Chazal this identification and formulation of the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim? The Rambam tells us here after listing the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim, he says ורחבתי בדברים מאוד ויצאתי מעניין חיבורי I digress

ועשיתי זאת כיוון שראיתי בו תועלת באמונה לפי שאספתי בו דברים הרבה מועילים המפוזרים בחיבורים חשובים

meaning that there isn’t one mareh makom in Chazal where you’ll find everything that I’ve presented to you here in the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim. And then im yirtzeh Hashem we’ll at least try to identify a couple of the mekoros that the Rambam clearly has in mind. But by his own description, by his own characterization, the Rambam is telling us there isn’t one memra Chazal which lays this out as crystal clear as the Rambam himself does. So how can it be, how can it be that yesodei hayesodos are not systematically presented in Chazal? Right, the Ramban famously says in his Drush al HaTorah, hem b’toch chasidusam were so busy with a level of drashos and darshining pesukim l’halacha that they didn’t tip their hands so much about ikkarim shel mikra. So as he understands the din kedima, you understand the din kedima to know what the pasuk means on its level of drasha l’halacha than whatever additional levels of interpretation there are than to the pshat. But obviously nothing is more basic, more important, more fundamental or indispensable than the ikkarei emunah. And the understanding is as follows. If you visit, I don’t know, a shiur in B’nei Brak, or maybe a mushal based on Tzav Bashabbos and you’re going to talk about a lot of the common shailos that come up. You’re probably not going to talk about the fact that the issur of carrying is only, and I don’t, please, this is not intended to be humorous, it’s not a humor sermon at all. You’re not going to talk about the fact that it’s only assur to carry outdoors and that within your own house, not talking about the hallways in apartment buildings, lobbies, in front, but within your own, within your own home, there’s no issur to carry. You’re not going to talk about that in your Hilchos Shabbos shiur on motzai because it’s so basic and so and therefore so obvious that our knowledge of Hilchos Shabbos isn’t what it should be, but some things are still so basic and so obvious that a maggid shiur who’s giving a shiur in Hilchos Shabbos is not going to talk about it. Precisely because it is so basic it is so fundamental. So I know a maiseh a maiseh she'hayah literally a maiseh she'hayah of a couple who were not blessed with a religious upbringing and became frum and they were not carrying in their own apartment they were trying to live Shabbos without moving things in their own apartment until they happened to mention it they happened to mention it to someone. So what's and again that's not that isn't humorous and wasn't intended to be humorous. Just intended to sensitize us to a reality that when we learn when we teach so often what's most basic what's most fundamental those things we don't. What's more basic what's more fundamental hilchos so what to do with the loose buttons so that we'll talk about in hotzaah in Hilchos Shabbos and what to do when you find something in your pocket when you're walking on the street to the shul or davening whatever you do so that we'll talk about but this most basic we won't talk about? The answer is yeah, we won't talk about it because it's so basic because it's so fundamental there is an assumption which obviously in light of this story depending upon the one's audience it can be taken for granted. So once upon a time yesodos and ikrei emuna didn't have to be the need for a systematic presentation of what we believe not just what we do what we believe represents a yeridas hadoros. We're so accustomed to the yeridas hadoros so we can't it's hard for us to think to a time when things weren't like that. But the emes is the need for a systematic presentation of what do we believe isn't that different than maybe it's not different at all on a certain level. It's the analog in that maiseh she'hayah to whether or not in a Hilchos Shabbos shiur on hotzaah does one have to make a point of saying you know none of this applies in the privacy of your own single family home dwelling. The emes is that the Rambam himself in a different context basically what Mishneh Torah is is also a systematization of halacha. You don't find psak every din the Rambam quotes in Hilchos Nizkei Mamon obviously a lot of them in Masechet Bava Kamma but not all in Bava Kamma. So the Rambam systematizes it. That's what the Rambam did in obviously that's a tremendous oversimplification but that's certainly not all he did but but that is certainly a major thrust of what the Rambam did in the Yad Hachazaka is he systematized all of halacha all of Torah She-be'al Peh. And here the Rambam says meforesh what created the need for it. He says

ובזמן הזה, בזמן הזה תקפו הצרות יתרות ודחקה השעה את הכל ואבדה חכמת חכמינו ובינת נבוננו נסתרה.

He says the chochmah the binah that used to be present previously has been lost. There's been a yerida. לפיכך אותם הפירושים וההלכות והתשובות שחיברו הגאונים. explained in a way that they felt was totally adequate, he says in our generation, when maybe a few exceptions, is entirely inadequate.

ואין צריך לומר המשנה עצמה והבבלי והירושלמי והספרא והספרי והתוספתא

sheheim amukim me'od

וצריכים דעת וחכמה ונפש וחומר וזמן ארוך ואחר כך יתברר מהם הדרך הנכונה בדברים האסורים והמותרים ושאר דיני התורה.

So because of this tokef hatzarot, because of this yeridah, ומפני זה נעורתי חוצני אני משה בן מיימון הספרדי. So the Rambam here tells us again in a different but lichora parallel context that the need for systematization really responds to a weakness. It responds to a weakness, and absent that weakness, it's not that the systematization necessarily is the highest form. That's sort of I think a modern Western mentality, but it isn't the case. Mishnah Berurah says the same thing. The why of the Mishnah Berurah, he says, מדוע בנו לדעת הדין, he says he's going to have bekius in all the sifrei acharonim and there's some 70 sifrei acharonim that have been written since the Sha'arei Teshuva gave you his digest over the Shulchan Aruch. If the Rambam had any specific makor for the number 13 as opposed to that the number 13 is what emerged once he enumerates everything, so he doesn't, I don't think he indicates. He doesn't indicate. He says,

ומה שצריך שאזכירם כאן והוא המקום הראוי ביותר להזכירם שעיקרי תורתנו ויסודותיה הם שלושה עשר יסודות.

There is a Teshuvos Chasam Sofer where he quotes that there is some, there is one precedent perhaps for that number in Chazal for 13. The Rambam doesn't, I don't know where the Rambam indicates that he has a makor for the number 13. So the Rambam was questioned from two opposite ends about this identifying 13. The Yosef Albo in Sefer Ikkarim says that the Rambam should have organized things for us more compactly and should have said that there are three basic yesodos. One is Hakadosh Baruch Hu, metzius Hashem. Two is Torah and three is sechar ve-onesh. Because the Sefer Ikkarim says when you look into it, so the emes is of the first five ikkurim, so they're all about Hakadosh Baruch Hu. So why not just say, why make each prat into its own yesod? Just say there's one ikkur is Ribbono Shel Olam. Okay, now there are pratim. There are pratim to flesh that out that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not a ba'al guf ve-chulu, there's no avodah zarah ve-chulu. Torah min hashamayim, okay, so there's nevuah, there's the nevuah of Moshe Rabbeinu, זאת התורה לא תהא מוחלפת, but again, those are pratim. So why not organize it more compactly and say there are gimmel yesodos? And the Sefer Ikkarim says, and not coincidentally... He says the gimmel yesodos that I'm suggesting corresponds to the malchuyos, zichronos, shofros in the mussaf Shemoneh Esrei. So when we're mamlika Hakadosh Baruch Hu, we take a focus on three yesodos. Malchuyos is about Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and Zichronos is about s'char v'onesh, and Shofros is about Matan Torah. אתה נגלית בענן כבודך על עם קדשך לדבר עמם. That's the first question the Sefer Ikkarim raises against the Rambam. He should have reduced the 13 to three. He's not disagreeing with anything the Rambam says within the Yud Gimmel, but he just says, I don't know organizationally why the Rambam insists on calling it 13 as opposed to just having three broader supercategories. From the opposite end, the Abarbanel has a different question that he raises against the Rambam. Heyos that if a person denies anything in Torah, so he'd be a kofer. So how can you single out 13? A person will say, oh, Rachmana amar Noach had only had two sons, only had two sons. Avadai that would be—he's denying something that says in the Torah. So how can you reduce it to the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim? Everything in the Torah is an absolute non-negotiable matter of faith. That's what the Abarbanel asks. So Rav Chaim answers both questions with the following, just almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of this insight. That's another question, leave that for later for now. So Rav Chaim answers as follows. What would be a person never learned Chumash Bereishis? You ask him how many sons Noach had? I don't know. He's not saying Rachmana amar no, I disagree with what it says meforash. He just says I don't know, I never learned, I never read Bereishis, I don't know. So what is he deficient in? The answer is he's deficient in Yedi'as HaTorah. There's psukim in Chumash he doesn't know. There's psukim in Chumash that a person doesn't know, so that means that the person is deficient in Yedi'as HaTorah. Let's say you ask a person is Hakadosh Baruch Hu a Ba'al Guf or not? And again, he says, I don't know, I don't know, they told me there's a Ribono Shel Olam, no one ever told me whether he is or is not a Ba'al Guf, so I just don't know. So what is he deficient in? Also just Yedi'as HaTorah? It's clearly more than that. He's not only deficient in Yedi'as HaTorah, but he's deficient in emunah. The person doesn't know how many sons Noach had, again, not because he knows the pasuk and is questioning the pasuk, he just never learned the pasuk. So his deficiency is in Yedi'as HaTorah. Okay, nothing to be complacent about. ושננתם לבניך שיהיו דברי תורה מחודדים בפיך, learn to the best of our ability. That's nothing to be complacent about, but it is no more than that, it's a deficiency in Yedi'as HaTorah. Ma she'ein kein, if a person says he doesn't know whether Hakadosh Baruch Hu is a Ba'al Guf or not a Ba'al Guf, so then the deficiency is not only in Yedi'as HaTorah, the deficiency is in emunah. That's a flaw in the person's emunah. Comes Rav Chaim and says that's what the Rambam's Yud Gimmel Ikkarim are. The Rambam's Yud Gimmel Ikkarim are foundational, indispensable elements of emunah. That in order for a person to have the baseline, the threshold of emunah, a person has to believe in these Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. That's what... the fact that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is ein bo guf is an indispensable part of not just yedias haTorah but is indispensable to emunah. Then one would have said, no, so belief in metzias Hashem is fundamental. Belief that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is ein bo guf, maybe that's not fundamental. But the whole point is that what the Rambam here is presenting us, what he's laying out for us is what's again indispensable in terms of basic, basic emunah. And that's also the answer to the Abarbanel's question that avada avada if a person knowingly questions, Rachmana litzlan, challenges something it says in the Torah, so avada he would be a kofer by going against the yesod of torah min hashamayim. But if a person is just ignorant of the yediah of a pasuk, so then there is a difference. There's a difference between not knowing that there's an issur k'ayin in the Torah and between not knowing something that it says in the Yud Gimmel Ikarim. One is a gap in yedias haTorah and the other, Rachmana litzlan, is a deficiency in emunah. Reb Chaim's stance on some form of a nebach apikores, someone who was, you know, tinok shenishba who almost hasn't heard of anything to say by to understand metzias Hashem as being an ikkar or even all the pratim of what an omnipresent, omniscient God would be. But for example, זכור את יום השבת, זכור את יום השבת, it's Torah, that there's certain things that I don't know something to be the ikkar, Reb Chaim's stance on that? That's an excellent question. It's relevant to that, but maybe that's a bigger discussion than what we're ready for, bli neder we'll hopefully at some point we'll try to determine a little bit more of that. Reb Chaim also effectively answers by dispelling a misunderstanding, he effectively answers a question one of the gedolei acharonim asks on the Rambam. He says, Anicha, I understand that metzias Hashem, torah min hashamayim, those are yesodos. Those are foundations. Rachmana litzlan, if a person doesn't believe in the Ribbono shel Olam, so he's not going to abide by halacha. Rachmana litzlan, if a person doesn't believe in torah min hashamayim, he's not going to abide by halacha. So I understand it's a yesod, it's a foundation. But let's say a person doesn't believe there's going to be a Melech HaMoshiach. Let's say a person doesn't believe there's going to be yemos haMoshiach. No, he thinks that olam hazeh is just going to continue forever the way it is now and maybe and he believes Rachmana litzlan that ein Yisrael nigalim. So how would that undermine, how is that a foundation that if you remove it, the whole binyan of Torah collapses? We'll still do everything the same way. We're not going to not keep Shabbos because there isn't going to be a yemos haMoshiach, a Melech HaMoshiach. We're still going to keep Shabbos. You're not going to put on tefillin? You're not going to daven? You're not going to do anything? Nothing will be affected. So the answer again according to Reb Chaim is saying is that that question is based on the Rambam's yesodos. They're not foundations, they're fundamentals. Again, a foundation means the foundation of the building holds up the building. If you pull out the foundation, so then the building collapses. A fundamental doesn't mean that it's holding anything else up, it just means that this is... And what the Rambam was listing in the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim are not things that if you don't believe in this you won't put on tefillin. No. It's if you don't know this, it's so fundamental to what emuna is that if a person doesn't know it, then his emuna is deficient. But lav davka that this is, so the correct translation of yesodos when the Rambam talks about the Yud Gimmel Yesodos are not thirteen foundational beliefs but thirteen fundamental, fundamental beliefs. Generally, even though again we recognize the fact that the Rambam has Yud Gimmel Yesodos, Yud Gimmel Ikkarim, not the three of the Sefer Ikkarim, that he doesn't reduce it to the Sefer Ikkarim's three, but generally we do borrow the Sefer Ikkarim's three in terms of organizing the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. When we talk about how the first five deal with Hakadosh Baruch Hu and the next four deal with again Klal Nevuah and Nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu, Torah min Hashamayim, and the last four deal with sachar va'onesh. And on one level that is a correct description, but it's misleading in the following sense. Lichora there are indications that really the way the Rambam is telling us to understand and frame the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim is the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim all define emuna bashem. Part of our אמונה בהקדוש ברוך הוא is how Hakadosh Baruch Hu interacts with and relates to the world. Hence the yesodos dealing with nevuah, dealing with Torah min Hashamayim, dealing with yediyah vehashgacha, dealing with sachar va'onesh etc. It's not that conceptually there were three topics. Conceptually a person has to believe, he has to have correct beliefs about the Ribbono Shel Olam, he has to have correct beliefs about Torah, he has to have correct beliefs about sachar va'onesh. That's sort of superficially true, but on a deeper level he has to have correct belief about Hakadosh Baruch Hu. But correct belief about Hakadosh Baruch Hu involves not only recognizing metzius hashem, rishon ve'acharon etc., but also how Hakadosh Baruch Hu relates to the world. Everything from six through thirteen, it's not that conceptually it's not that they're yesodos haemuna about sachar va'onesh. No, it's yesodos haemuna about how Hakadosh Baruch Hu governs, how Hakadosh Baruch Hu relates to the beriah. And this is at least one of the, this plus the Rav Chaim's understanding in terms of what we're talking about of fundamentals, not foundations. There are certain questions about things that the Rambam brought, some specifics that the Rambam didn't see fit to include in the list of ikkarim. And one of the questions which is raised is, in Hilchos Teshuva, so the Rambam says that it's an ikkar of kol hatorah kulah to recognize that there's bechira chofshis. Because without bechira chofshis all of Torah is nonsensical and there's no point in giving. justice in rewarding and punishing if there's pre-determination. So the Rambam says that this is an ikkar bechirah chofshis. Bechirah chofshis obviously does not appear in the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. So at first glance, the kasha is not enough to keep you up at night for three consecutive nights until it's just impossible to stay awake any longer and you're forced to go to sleep. But thank God, you can go to sleep with this kasha. L'maiseh, whether what we're about to say totally answers the question, but it certainly lets you go to sleep tonight after tonight's seder, after Thursday night's seder. But it does let you go to sleep tonight. A, the Rambam is telling us fundamentals, not foundations, of our faith. B, he's telling us fundamentals about Hakadosh Baruch Hu. These are not just different topics within the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. There's only one topic in the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. What does it mean to be a ma'amin b'Hashem? That is the one topic of the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. What does it mean to be a ma'amin b'Hashem? Again, it's not that you have to believe in Hashem, you have to believe in Torah, you have to believe in schar v'onesh. No. To be a ma'amin b'Hashem means to be a ma'amin b'metzius Hashem, to be a ma'amin b'yichud Hashem, to be a ma'amin she'eino guf, המאמין שהוא ראשון ואחרון, המאמין שהוא מנבא בני אדם, to be a ma'amin etc. etc. And again, not everything, there's an awful lot that's true that the Rambam doesn't put into the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. That is why it's a chochma to know what's a fundamental and what's true and true beyond a shadow of doubt, but doesn't rise necessarily to the level of being a fundamental. So A, the Rambam is enumerating fundamentals, not foundations. B, the fundamentals about Hakadosh Baruch Hu, not fundamentals about everything. Bechirah chofshis is certainly the foundation of kol haTorah kulah and it's certainly fundamental to the understanding of a person. But the Rambam says it's not the case that it needs to be enumerated individually within the ikkarim which are presenting those elements, those fundamental elements of belief about Hakadosh Baruch Hu. The place in Mishneh Torah where you almost have the Rambam reproducing this list of Yud Gimmel Ikkarim is in perek gimmel of Hilchos Teshuva when the Rambam talks about ואלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא. So the minim, apikorsim, kofer baTorah, kofer betchiyas hameisim, bi'as hagoel align, those categories align with twelve of the thirteen ikkarim. Rambam doesn't seem to explicitly mention schar v'onesh. But either way, that's actually not what we want to note now. There is an amazing what seems to be the Shitta HaRambam here that before the Rambam introduces this list, again in Gimel Vav in Hilchos Teshuvah, the Rambam says

אלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא אלא נכרתים ואובדים ונידונים על גודל רשעם וחטאתם לעולם ולעולמי עולמים.

Again, this is Gimel Vav in Teshuvah: Haminim, Ha'apikorsim, Hakofrim BaTorah. Each of these phrases the Rambam explains in the next halachah. Hakofrim bit-chiyas hameisim, bevi'as hago'el, and then he has others: mordim, machti'ei harabbim, porshim midarchei tzibbur, etc. What the Rambam says immediately before this, the last phrase of Halachah Hei, is וכן חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא. The Rambam then toch kedei dibbur on Halachah Vav says אלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא. So the simple peshat in the Rambam is that this list of אלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא, other than those handful of things which obviously, patently, can only are only relevant to Jews, but the other elements of this list apply to Bnei Noach as well. The peshat in the Rambam is that the Rambam thinks the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim is for all humanity. Not just that the Jews are mechuyav to believe in the Ikkarim. The peshat is that the Rambam thinks that everyone has to. A little bit of this, not nearly as far-reaching, some of this we know already in Hilchos Melachim. In Hilchos Melachim, again, when the Rambam says that to be one of the Chasidei Umos Ha'olam, to be a ger toshav, so a person has to mekabbel

ועושה מפני שציווה בהן הקדוש ברוך הוא בתורה והודיענו על ידי משה רבינו.

So there's a lot of the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim already compressed into that, but not all of it, not all of it. But the peshat here, and that's lichora the significance of the fact is that when the Rambam wants to illustrate, at least in two places, the categories of those who rachmana litzlan lose their chelek in Olam HaBa. So again, you don't have this in the standard Dfus, but if you look at the Frenkel and those which reinsert what the censor took out, so one of those who are kofrim BaTorah is

האומר שהבורא החליף מצוה זו במצוה אחרת וכבר בטלה תורה זו.

Even if it was Min Hashamayim. So what it says in the original in the Dfusim that omit this is kegon Hanotzrim veHahagrim. The Rambam says, he illustrates this category of kfirah by saying as is the Christian and Muslim religion. So it's a funny thing to do to illustrate ikkarim that we're chayav to believe in by citing I don't know, if you wanted to give an example of a mechallel Shabbos, I don't know, he wouldn't I'm not sure he would give an example of oh you see that that Gentile there driving a car, that's what it means to be mechallel Shabbos. No, chas veshalom. If one wants to point to a mechallel Shabbos, one would point to a Jew who rachmana litzlan is being mechallel Shabbos. I mean those who mezalzel the belief system, they themselves don't have that belief. Something he means them. He has kegon and then das Hahagrim and das Hanotzrim. He says he's pointing to the concrete, not the abstract. And then he does it a second time also. When another one of those who rachmana litzlan, again, here we're not talking about the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim, but just in terms of the fact that this list, those things in the list which are some things in the list obviously only make sense by a Jew, such as porshim midarchei tzibbur etc. So obviously that's only referring to Jews, but the Rambam doesn't need us to say that. Moshe Halbertal, so obviously that only refers to Jews. Another thing on the list is matilei eimah yeseirah, המטיל אימה על הציבור שלא לשם שמים. Kings, rulers who take advantage of their position to, just for their own self-aggrandizement, to instill fear into the populace. So here too the Rambam illustrates it: המטיל אימה על הציבור שלא לשם שמים. It tells you what the definition is and it says k'gon malchei ha'akum. Again, it's an anomalous thing to do, but l'mayseh given what the mashmaos is in the Rambam in the continuum between halachos hey and vov, so then it's entirely appropriate. And this obviously goes beyond that, but it is oleh b'kaneh echad with the fact that unlike the Ramo's Tosfos, that at least the Ramo's understanding of the Tosfos, that there is a different standard of belief, whether or not אמונת השילוש רחמנא ליצלן, so is that an avodah zarah belief for non-Jews? So the way the Ramo reads Tosfos, others read Tosfos differently, but the way the Ramo reads Tosfos, so Tosfos says no, there's a difference in level of belief which is expected from non-Jews as opposed to l'havdil from Jews. As the Rambam in kama v'kama places in Mishneh Torah rejects that and he says it explicitly time and time again that the Christians are ovdei avodah zarah. Not just that what they believe is avodah zarah for us, no, they're ovdei avodah zarah by ben Noach standards. Now this obviously goes well beyond that, but it's cut from the same cloth in terms of emunah is emunah. There's no sliding scale in terms of at least where the threshold, what the baseline for emunah is. Okay, so maybe we'll stop there for today, and I think probably next time maybe we'll want to do the issur Rishon, so you should try to bring a Rambam Perush Hamishnayos in Sanhedrin and also the first chelek of the Rambam.