INSIGHT 5767 - #30 TRUST AND TRUTH
Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei
HaTorah 8:1 states that the Jewish People, in the
desert, did not trust Moshe Rabbeinu and believe
his prophecies because of the many miracles he
performed on their behalf. Rather, they believed him
because they experienced Revelation at Sinai and, with
their own eyes saw, and their own ears heard, the unique
event of God conversing with Moshe. Rambam continues that
it was for this reason that the nation believed Moshe
without any doubt and why it was not necessary for Moshe
to perform any further miracles to establish and maintain
his status as the prophet of God. True, in the beginning
of his mission, Moshe had to sway the nation with
miracles but, even though necessary, such faith or trust,
built upon the experiencing of miracles, inherently must
include doubt. Only after Sinai, did the nation have no
doubt in the truth of Moshe’s prophecy and mission.
The story of Korach and his rebellion1
would seem to dispute this assertion. In challenging
Moshe’s presentation of the structure of leadership
within the nation, it would seem that the people had some
doubt in Moshe. Rambam seems to address this problem by
stating that the miracles performed in response to
Korach’s rebellion were intended solely to defeat
the rebellion, not to further secure faith in
Moshe’s prophecy. Bamidbar 16:5, however,
seems to indicate otherwise; Moshe states that through
the events of the next day the nation will know who God
has chosen. We may also wonder, in response to
Rambam’s assertion, why it would be necessary to
defeat the rebellion in such a manner if this was the
sole purpose of the earth swallowing Korach’s
assembly. Rambam’s words, more importantly, do not
seem to address the full extent of the problem with
Korach’s rebellion. In keeping with his theory about
Revelation, Rambam is attempting to explain that the
miracles that occurred in response to Korach had nothing
to do with further establishing the acceptance of
Moshe’s prophecy. There is, though, a greater
problem. Rabbi Yaacov Weinberg,2
questioned, according to Rambam, how the rebellion could
even have occurred. If Sinai clearly established the
authenticity of Moshe’s prophecy, how could a
challenge to Moshe’s status even have arisen?
In describing how the truth of an assertion is
established, Rambam makes a most interesting statement.
He does not just state that an event such as Sinai is the
best way to establish the absolute truth of a matter. He
states that it is the only way. Trust based upon miracles
is not only a weaker proof, it is inherently lacking.
Rambam states that one who believes because of miracles
inherently has doubt. Is this true? Belief based on
miracles is open to challenge but does someone who
believes because of miracles inherently also maintain
some doubt in his/her belief. I would venture to say that
many people who believe because of a perception of a
miracle also would state that they do not have any doubt.
In fact, the miracle is perceived to be the strongest
form of proof and is deemed to vanquish any doubt.
Rambam, I would venture to say, is not just describing
the reality of people in their evaluation of trust, faith
and how one knows truth. Rambam is stating how the
rational mind, the individual who wishes to truly
investigate truth, should operate. Miracles should raise
some doubts. If they do not, that reflects a weakness in
the individual in his/her pursuit of truth. As such,
Rambam is not saying that it was absolutely impossible
for someone to have questioned Moshe’s prophecy. He
is saying that it was impossible for someone who was
rationally exploring truth, who understood the honest
pursuit of truth, to have doubted Moshe. Individuals, who
have adopted another process by which to define truth,
could have made a mistake. This was Korach and his
assembly.
We look upon doubt in such negative terms. Rambam,
however, presents the great value that is inherent in
proper doubt.2 Doubt is often understood to
reflect a negative statement about God. If someone has
doubt, this person is often deemed to have a moral
weakness. In fact, doubt is inherent to the human
condition. It says nothing about the Divine; it simply
describes the human condition. Human beings inherently
are imperfect and, as such, do not have perfect knowledge
or even the ability to gain perfect knowledge. When we
doubt, we are inherently recognizing our weaknesses. Is
the information that we have gathered correct or did we
misread our senses? Is our analysis of this evidence
correct or did we make a mistake? Rambam is informing us
that the process by which we make a decision based on
miracles must be recognized as inherently flawed as the
human being is flawed. We should have doubt. We should
have doubt in ourselves.
The information that Sinai provided overcame this
doubt. The evidence and the only possible conclusion were
clear, but they were only clear to someone who understood
the process of knowledge and the correct place of doubt
in this process. One with a different process could still
reject this truth. Such a person would doubt when there
really was no reason to doubt and, significantly, not
doubt when there was reason to doubt. It was not simply
that Korach’s rebellion questioned Moshe. They also
were ready to risk their lives on the belief that they
were right and Moshe wrong. Warned by Moshe that they
would die in a different manner if they continued,
Korach’s assembly continued. If they had doubt in
Moshe, should they not have had some doubt, in Korach and
in themselves, that maybe Moshe was right. The problem
was not doubt. The problem was that they had a different
theory on how one knows the truth.4 This was
the essence of their rebellion, it attacked the whole
structure of Torah and truth. There are still parameters.
There are still leaders. A challenge that the entire
nation is holy and thus able to make decisions is an
inherent challenge to the very concept of parameters and
leadership. It ignores the reality of individual
distinction and the need to recognize the inherent
authority of another. If knowledge is dependent upon
thought, the one who has a greater intellectual ability
has a greater say in the world of knowledge. If knowledge
is based upon some intuition, who says your intuition is
better than mine? How does one even evaluate that?
This is perhaps Rambam’s point. They
didn’t question Moshe’s prophecy. They rebelled
against it, against the true process by which one knows
truth. Moshe has to quash the rebellion, to teach us all
that inherent to the process of truth must be doubt, the
questioning of self. Only with that recognition will
someone be able to discern the truth.
Footnotes 1 Bamidbar, Chapter 16. 2 As reported orally. Rabbi
Weinberg, of course, was the previous Rosh Yeshiva of Ner
3 Further on the value of
doubt, see Rabbi Norman Lamm, Faith and Doubt. 4 Further on this topic, see
my The Slifkin Affair Revisited, Part 4 available
on the Nishma website at www.nishma.org. © Nishma, 2007 Return to top |
© 2006 NISHMA