“I am Hashem your G-d that has taken you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.” (Devarim 5:6)
Moshe reviews the Decalogue – the Aseret HaDibrot. Our passage is the first pasuk of the Aseret HaDibrot. Hashem declares that He is the G-d that redeemed Bnai Yisrael from Egypt. Maimonides maintains that this passage contains a positive command. What is this mitzvah?
In his Mishne Torah, Maimonides defines the commandment as an obligation to know that there is a G-d who is the cause of all that exists. It is clear from this formulation that blind faith in Hashem’s existence does not satisfy this commandment. According to Maimonides, a person must have knowledge of the Hashem’s existence.
Maimonides also discusses this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot. Maimonides wrote this work in Arabic. The standard translation of the Sefer HaMitzvot was composed by Moshe ibn Tibon. The first mitzvah in Sefer HaMitzvot is affirmation of Hashem. In Ibn Tibon’s translation, the mitzvah obligates us to have faith in the existence of a G-d that is the cause of all that exists. This seems to contradict Maimonides’ formulation in his Mishne Torah. There, Maimonides insists on knowledge. Here, Maimonides establishes a more general perimeter for the obligation. Faith is adequate. According to the formulation in Sefer HaMitzvot, it seems that blind faith is sufficient for fulfillment of the commandment.
Rav Yosef Kafih offers a simple resolution to this contradiction. He explains that the confusion is based in the Ibn Tibon’s interpretation of Maimonides’ original Arabic. Rav Kafih studied the original Arabic text of Maimonides’ Sefer HaMitzvot. He notes that in the original text, Maimonides uses an Arabic word that should more properly be translated as “knowledge”. According to this rendering of the original Arabic text, there is no contradiction. Sefer HaMitzvot defines the mitzvah as knowing that there is a G-d who is the cause of all that exists.
Rav Kafih’s resolution of this problem is certainly reasonable. However, it does assume that Moshe ibn Tibon’s scholarship is flawed and that he mistranslates the original Arabic. Moshe ibn Tibon was a prolific writer and translator. He wrote translations of various philosophical works. He composed a commentary on the Torah. He wrote on a commentary on a portion of Maimonides’ Moreh Nevuchim. In short, he was an accomplished scholar and translator. He was well aware of Maimonides’ outlook and formulations. It is likely that he felt his translation of the Maimonides’ Arabic was consistent with the author’s intentions. It is appropriate to consider the possibility that Ibn Tibon’s translation is accurate. If we accept this translation, how can we reconcile Maimonides’ formulations? Why does Maimonides insist on knowledge of the Almighty’s existence in his Mishne Torah and in Sefer HaMitzvot define the mitzvah as faith?
The answer lies in understanding Ibn Tibon’s translation. The Hebrew word that Ibn Tibon uses to describe the mitzvah is emunah. This word is generally regarded as the Hebrew equivalent of “faith” or “belief”. However, a simple analysis of the term’s use in the Torah indicates that emunah indicates a firm conviction. It does not refer to a conviction based upon faith or unfounded beliefs.
Let us consider a few examples of the Torah’s use of the term emunah. Yosef uses this term when speaking to his brothers. The brothers come to Egypt to purchase food. Yosef, as Paroh’s regent, rules the land. He accuses the brothers of spying. The brothers deny this charge. Yosef devises a test to determine the truth. He asserts that through this test – v’yaiamnu – the brother’s claim will be established. Yosef uses a term that is a conjugation of emunah. Rashi explains that the term used by Yosef means that the truth of your claims will be established.
Rashi provides a wonderful example to support his interpretation. The Sotah is a woman suspected of adultery. She denies these charges. She is required to drink a special potent. If she is guilty, this potent will kill her. The Kohen admin