Our Critical Need In Mishneh Torah

B"H

Today is an eventful day for Lubavitchers.  Those who learn one perek of Mishneh Torah per day, completing Mishneh Torah at a rate of about once every three years, today began learning Mishneh Torah again.  This is a wonderful occasion.  While most Lubavitchers learn three perakim per day rather than one (it was the custom of the Lubavitcher Rebbe zsl to learn three perakim per day), it is always good to celebrate completing mitsvot and new beginnings in mitsvot.  While I am not Lubavitcher, and I do not learn Mishneh Torah according to a schedule, I feel there is something to gain by joining the applause of this major achievement.  However, in a sobering act during this joyful moment I must ask what the goal is when learning Mishneh Torah.  It is on this that I would like to elaborate.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe says in geula Mishneh Torah de facto will be established halakha.  He says this is inevitable, because Mishneh Torah is the only written work which completely encapsulates all of Jewish life in every circumstance both during times of Malkhut David and during times of galut.  He is not alone in this assertion, and this position enjoys precedent going all the way back to Rambam himself.  I do not intend to completely list every talmid hakham who has made a statement to this effect or even all well-known statements, but I believe a few anecdotes can suffice to demonstrate the point.

Rambam writes the purpose of Mishneh Torah in the hakadma of Mishneh Torah.  Before Rambam another text had been written on halakha, Beur haGedola.  Rambam finds the methods Rav Shimon Kayara employed in Behag to be inconsistent with a systematic reading of Humash to determine the 613 mitsvot, and he intends for Mishneh Torah to be a completely sufficient work; if someone has a halakhic question Mishneh Torah gives a straightforward answer with no need for supplementation from any other source.  This was an ambitious work, and this along with Rambam's other writings generated a bit of controversy in his time.

One of the earliest writers to comment on Mishneh Torah is Rabbi Avraham ben David.  Raavad was incredibly critical of Rambam's work, including Perush haMishna and Moreh Nevukhim.  In a parallel critique of Mishneh Torah, Raavad details his objections.  While this spans the entirety of Mishneh Torah, there are two major themes of objection from Raavad: Rambam is too narrow and definitive in his decisions, and Rambam usually does not cite sources for his decisions.  With the help of Heaven I will discuss these points again in the context of later commentaries, but for now I will explain why these matter to Raavad.  Most sifre halakha written before Mishneh Torah are written parallel to the Gemara.  This means sources for a decision to some extent can be seen by comparing a text to the corresponding sugya in Gemara; today in the Vilna edition Gemara these texts are printed literally on the corresponding amud in Gemara.  This is the method of writing for Rabbenu Henanel, Rabbenu Nissim, Rif, and all the Tosafist tradition up to this point.  After Rambam this is also how Rabbenu Asher writes, yet Rabbi Yehiel ben Asher deviates from this method to write Arbaa Turim.  Additionally, Raavad is a talmid of the Tosafist tradition.  I do not intend to exhaust an explanation, but at a basic level the method of Tosafists was grounded in a theoretical learning of Gemara rather than a literal interpretation and application of Gemara.  This already differs from the Kairouan tradition from which Rambam comes, but since earlier Kairouan hakhamim write parallel to the Gemara they can be read by Tosafists as mefareshim rather than direct positions with which one is challenged to agree or disagree.  This theoretical framework means Tosafists could disagree with the conclusion of a sugya if they applied the practical methods of discourse from the Gemara.  As such the sugya is basically a continuous discussion had by the Tosafists whereby they could use the logic of Hazal to formulate their own positions.  As a result Raavad frequently does not object that Rambam was wrong; rather, he insists Rambam is just too stifling for deviation which would be within normal bounds in the Tosafist tradition.

There is a story in which someone once asked Rambam what could be said about those who disagreed with him.  Rambam said it was fine some hakhamim disagreed with him, and others held by those hakhamim, but one day this would not be a legitimate option.  Here Rambam demonstrates an idea one sees in Gemara.  The Gemara states that the halakha is fixed according to Bet Hillel in most instances, but one may hold by Bet Bet Shammai or Bet Hillel exclusively so long as he does so consistently, both in humrot and kulot.  The Gemara explains that though the halakha is fixed, in a mahaloket leShem Shamayim like that of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai one may hold exclusively by either position in that mahaloket.  Rambam implies such a mahaloket existed in his lifetime.  However, the clarity and completeness of Mishneh Torah means such a mahaloket cannot last forever; eventually the rationale of positions opposed to Mishneh Torah will be lost, and those who continue to cling to these contrary positions without the basis of a good understanding borne from Talmud Torah would be "evildoers."  

Throughout the Rishonim, Rambam is cited as a primary source.  Even Tosafists such as Rosh, Tur, and Rabbi David Abudirham frequently cite Rambam as justification for their positions.  Maran writes in Avkat Rokhel that the Tosafists leaving Spain after the Alhambra Decree could not impose on the talmide haRambam in the Middle East and North Africa and even says if one will hold by Rambam exclusively one may elect to do so.  Maran and Radbaz also write in response to critiques of Rambam to demonstrate the validity of Mishneh Torah; Maran writes Kesef Mishneh in direct response to the criticisms of Raavad.  This is also reflected by the hakhamim of Tsefat who were confident in holding by Rambam to reestablish semikha.  

Ramhal says that the appropriate way for a layman to learn halakha is to compare Mishneh Torah with Shulhan Arukh and reference Bet Yosef when Shulhan Arukh disagrees.  Nevertheless, the halakha is generally according to Rambam.

Vilna Gaon says in most instances Shulhan Arukh is in agreement with Mishneh Torah and demonstrates how many seifim rely on logic derived from Mishneh Torah.  In some instances Shulhan Arukh offers kulot on which Gra would not rely when they disagree with Mishneh Torah.  

The Brisker Rav famously holds that Mishneh Torah is sufficient enough that one could hold a position based on what is excluded from Mishneh Torah.  

Rav Moshe Shemuel Glasner says the reason anyone is perplexed by Rambam when comparing him to Gemara is that people have been conditioned to learn Gemara as a text of Rashi and Tosafot rather than of Gemara itself; if one learns Gemara on its own terms one sees the continuity between the Gemara and Rambam.

Rav Meir Simha haKohen of Dvinsk and the Rogatchover Gaon built a link between the Brisker Derekh and Habad by emphasizing the primary importance and final authority of Rambam.  Both also wrote commentaries on Mishneh Torah.  It is worth mentioning that the Lubavitcher Rebbe received semikha from the Rogatchover Gaon.

As you can see the Lubavitcher Rebbe enjoys precedent.  However, the critical importance of Mishneh Torah is not fully realized today.  Mishneh Torah is essential to Judaism now, and this essential quality is practical rather than theoretical.  A social fracture is happening in America whereby Orthodox Judaism is becoming a socioeconomic class rather than a religious group.  This has to do with the fast-paced nature of the capitalist economy in America and the little room success in that economy leaves for Torah study.  Additionally, other Jews dedicated to Torah who eschew the materialism found in the mainstream of Orthodox Judaism are left impoverished, and the middle-class strata between these two are too poor for the former and too integrated in society for the latter, leaving many of these people to de facto be bereft of halakha by not being able to afford an Orthodox Jewish life.  This is easily remedied by applying Rambam's principles of Torah im derekh erets.  By reinforcing both work and Torah study in a practical manner it is possible to encourage both Torah study and work and to make halakha accessible to Jews who cannot afford what has become a standardized Orthodox lifestyle.  

Many otherwise faithful Jews feel they are left with the option of either praying or working, and they choose the latter.  This is a miscarriage in justice borne from a misleading representation of tefilla.  In fact during Shaharit nothing after kaddish following Uva leTsiyon is halakhically required, and Rambam explicitly states in Hilkhot Tefilla this is the point at which people leave to attend their own affairs.  Rambam, likewise, says Minha and Arvit both end with kaddish after Amida.  While reciting Seder haYom and other additions not mentioned by Rambam (e.g., Alenu) are good things for those who have time these are not required, and making this clarification would encourage working-class people to be steadfast in prayer.  

Furthermore, for Jews praying beyahid they should lekhathila not say kedusha desitra.  As a conciliatory measure Rambam writes a teshuva in his office as Nagid that those who hold to say it may do so if they recite the pesukim with taamim, and Rabbi Avraham ben Rambam and Shulhan Arukh echo this kula, and Rama, Hida, and Ben Ish Hai say it is customary to hold like this.  However, halakha is not to say this is what one must or even should do.  The Gemara, Zohar haKodesh, Behag, Rabbenu Nissim, Rabbenu Henanel, Rif, Mishneh Torah, Radbaz, Shaar haKavanot, Vilna Gaon, etc. hold that kedusha desitra should altogether be omitted when praying beyahid.  Kal vahomer this is true today when many Jews do not know how to recite pesukim with taamim or are unable to do so, as this is the basis for the kula altogether.  What is a kula has ironically been hoisted as a burden onto Jews today, as Jews are told they must recite kedusha desitra in Yotser Or and Uva leTsiyon.  To not impose this halakhically problematic practice is actually an opportunity to not only promote prayer for working-class people, but it is an opportunity to encourage them to do something beautiful while praying beyahid: to pray vatikin.  Rambam holds lekhathila one should pray vatikin by beginning the berakha Yotser Or six minutes before hanets so that one will complete the berakha Gaal Yisrael at hanets.  In this way most people will find that tefilla is not of cumbersome length and can be completed quite early, and tefilla will not interfere with their employment.

Another issue to be found is in Rambam's conception of Torah im derekh erets.  Here it seems there is an inconsistency which is irreconcilable with modern American life.  Rambam says in Hilkhot Talmud Torah that one should work three hours per day and learn Torah nine hours per day.  This seems impossible ever since the industrial revolution, yet by acknowledging the full context of Rambam it is possible to see this is reconcilable.  Rambam writes in a letter to his talmid, Rabbi Yehuda ibn Tibon, that he is burdened with work as a physician for Salahuddin al Ayubi and as the Nagid for the Jewish community in Egypt.  In this letter Rambam attests he himself works more than three hours, and seemingly he has very little time for much else.  By considering this context we can see that Rambam understands that reality cannot always match this ideal model he proposes.  Furthermore, this model is intended to demonstrate that one's time for Torah study should be divided with Mikra, Mishna, and Gemara; the exact numbers of hours are not consequential.  This teaches us a valuable lesson of the use of our own time in an industrial society.  Many of us have eight-hour workdays, and from this we see how we can employ our time apart from work to devote to Torah study.  Thus, we see that far from making Mishneh Torah obsolete industrialization and mercantilism make Mishneh Torah more necessary.  

It is an exciting time for those who learn one perek of Mishneh Torah each day to begin learning Mishneh Torah again.  The necessity of learning Mishneh Torah is reinforced by the Lubavitcher Rebbe following after an estimable precedent of talmide halkhamim.  Mishneh Torah is the only fully exhaustive work of halakha that deals both with times of Malkhut David and galut.  However, the necessity of Mishneh Torah is in more than learning Mishneh Torah.  It is also in applying Mishneh Torah.  This means more than a pedantic tokenization of Mishneh Torah; it means literally realizing the authority of Rambam.  Several hakhamim explain this is a necessary step in geula.  However, it is a bit more than that; it is a practical necessity to promote the vitality of American Orthodox Judaism and make it relevant to the modern era and for Jews of all socioeconomic classes.

Hazak umevorakh.