495 —לימוד חכמות חיצוניות, גישת הרמב"ם, וגישת התניא

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Regarding your comment on the words of the Migdal Oz (Yad Hilchos Avodah Zarah beginning of ch. 2) that the Rambam did not read from non-Jewish books and similar sources—it is actually proven otherwise from what is written in Moreh Nevuchim part 3 chapters 29 and 30 and in his letter to the sages of Marseilles. I also agree with this view. Even though in those chapters one could force an interpretation that the Rambam only accepted what was written in those idolatrous books etc., as the Migdal Oz suggests, it is impossible to say so regarding chapter 49 there. Note also the opening of Shemoneh Perakim. The words of Migdal Oz are puzzling to me, especially since he brings Moreh Nevuchim part 3 explicitly in his commentary (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah ch. 1 halachah 10). Perhaps one could say that since Moreh Nevuchim was translated from Arabic, it may not be precise in this regard according to Migdal Oz, and his intention is that the Rambam accepted everything written in those books. And perhaps Migdal Oz did not see that letter. Still, it remains difficult—at least Migdal Oz should have mentioned that Moreh Nevuchim passage. It is also puzzling why Rambam did not bring in Yad HaChazakah the ruling that for understanding and teaching it is permitted—even practically—which does not seem consistent with what he wrote in Hilchos Avodah Zarah ch. 3 halachah 2 and Hilchos Sanhedrin beginning of ch. 2. I later saw that Minchas Chinuch mitzvah 511 discusses this issue and leaves it unresolved.

Regarding your comment on what is written in Tanya chapter 8: concerning secular wisdom—"idol worship" does not appear in the first edition etc.; it was a later addition due to censorship concerns. In some editions they changed it to "other wisdoms" (Lemberg 1856 and others). In other editions (Vilna 1872 etc.) they noted in the margin: "and he brings them out to nonsense and heretical investigations!"—he clothes and defiles etc., with the impurity of kelipat nogah etc., unless etc., and this is the reason for Rambam, Ramban, and their group who engaged with them; he discusses in his letter how this applies to idolatrous wisdoms. Seemingly these are from impure kelipot since their study is forbidden by "Do not turn to idols," but one must say they are also from kelipat nogah since for understanding and teaching it is permitted—and this is why Rambam engaged with them. If so, they too are included in what Tanya writes there—this seems to be his intent in his letter to me. In my humble opinion, this cannot be said. Either way: if one studies idolatrous wisdoms not for teaching purposes—it defiles one's Chabad faculties completely with impure kelipot, as with other prohibitions; but if one studies to understand and teach—it becomes included within holiness, all the more so compared to a joke mentioned in Tanya chapter 7 which only serves to clear one's mind; here it serves as preparation for Torah study itself. The manner described by Admor Hazaken can be found regarding forbidden foods: they are from impure kelipot but if eaten for life-saving purposes as permitted by our sages—they become fully permitted (see Iggeres HaKodesh section 26)—but if one's intent is not for Heaven's sake—to serve Hashem thereby—it still belongs to kelipat nogah (chapter 7 there). The reason one can elevate idolatrous wisdoms from impure kelipot—even though they are forbidden—is similar to how intentional sins become merits when through them one comes closer (chapter 7 there), so too here—since through them Torah matters are clarified.

While discussing what Admor Hazaken writes in Tanya there: "and this is why Rambam..."—I will also present a major question that arises at first glance: It seems Admor Hazaken seeks to explain how Rambam etc., engaged with these wisdoms by stating they knew how to use them for Torah and mitzvos purposes—but it's unclear why he focuses on Rambam etc.—the Torah commands "and he shall heal," it's a mitzvah to calculate seasons and constellations (Shabbat 75a), a city without a doctor—a Torah scholar may not live there (Sanhedrin end of ch.5), Ben Achiyah was appointed over intestinal illnesses (Shekalim end of ch.5), Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania was said to know much (Horayot 10a), Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta was involved with such matters (Chullin 57b), etc., etc.

The explanation seems to me as follows: There are several categories regarding studying or knowing secular wisdoms—from highest to lowest: A) Knowing these wisdoms from within Torah itself; just as a wise person can deduce all building details from a map, so too Torah is like a map or blueprint upon which creation was founded (Bereishis Rabbah beginning of ch.1). As told in Bechoros (8a) about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania learning snake gestation time from scripture; Midrash Tehillim on Samuel and Rabbi Hoshaya who learned all about heaven through Torah diligence; certainly anything explicit in Written or Oral Torah—all this is actual Torah itself, G‑d’s wisdom—as Rambam famously says there's no difference between verses about Cush/Mitzrayim or "I am Hashem your G‑d" (Commentary on Mishnah Chelek Yesod H). B) Studying these wisdoms when Torah directly commands it—for example, positive commandment upon Beis Din to calculate (Rambam Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh ch.1 halachah 7); needing knowledge of idolatry/witchcraft etc.; permission granted Beis Rabban Gamliel to learn Greek wisdom due to communal need (see Tosafos Menachos 64b; glosses on Hilchos Talmud Torah Admor Hazaken ch.3 sec.1) etc.—this study isn’t Torah per se but remains a mitzvah—even before using it practically for sanctifying new month etc., like other biblical/rabbinic commandments.

C) When compelled by circumstance—such as when prohibited from studying Torah so one contemplates calculations instead (see later authorities Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim sec.85); perhaps included also by Midrash Devarim Rabbah ch.8:6 where Samuel was asked about astrology—he replied he only looked at stars while relieving himself—which too counts as a mitzvah but third category.

D) When studying Torah or wishing to fulfill a mitzvah but lacking necessary knowledge—so fills that gap; e.g., Rav spent eighteen months among shepherds (Sanhedrin 5b) learning which blemishes are permanent or passing—this study isn’t itself Torah or mitzvah but preparation for mitzvos/Torah; perhaps even learning laws of idolatry/witchcraft by Beis Din falls here.

E) Using secular knowledge only as needed for business/profession—to earn livelihood (see Derech Mitzvosecha tzt"z p104b), or making such knowledge into one's trade/tool—this counts as preparation for something permitted.

Thus everything found in Torah or rabbinic sources about Jews engaging with secular wisdom can be explained as falling into one of these categories; thus there's no question how they engaged nor need for special justification—it’s straightforward: cite verse/rabbinic precedent/practical example as needed.

The main difficulty raised by Admor Hazaken concerns Rambam who explicitly states he studied non-Jewish books—which doesn’t fit category A above—and not mainly because he studied idolatrous texts per se (as stated Moreh Nevuchim), nor because he studied Greek astronomers’ works (as stated Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh end ch17)—for through these he explained reasons behind commandments/calculations etc.—thus category B—but rather because he studied other sciences like medicine from Galen’s works etc.; nor can we say he did so merely for earning livelihood since at that time his brother supported him financially along with his family—as known from Rambam’s letters; likewise Ramban mastered many sciences without making all into professional tools.

To resolve this comes category F:

F) It’s permissible even before practical necessity arises if one knows how afterward to use such knowledge for serving Hashem or His Torah—and thus we understand precisely Tanya’s wording: “and this is why”—singular form—even though two types of permission were previously cited—for at time of study there was only one reason motivating Rambam et al.; only later when circumstances changed after his brother’s passing did necessity arise turning those sciences into livelihood tools.

Additionally regarding what you cited about Rambam/Ramban from Shaar HaGilgulim introduction thirty-sixth—and see also Shem HaGedolim by Chida under their entries—that neither merited Kabbalah at least until late life—the connection between Kabbalistic order-of-creation wisdom/practical Kabbalah/natural sciences is clear.

With honor and blessing,
M. Schneerson

Summary

This letter clarifies when studying secular sciences aligns with Torah values according to Tanya and explains various permissible contexts based on purpose—from direct mitzvah needs down through practical preparation—and analyzes how figures like Rambam fit these categories.