Rambam on Hametz III
We left off in our last post with the following difficulty:
If the Rambam indeed believes that the halakhot governing hametz on Passover require their own separate derivations from Scripture, why does he then see fit to learn two of these laws from the same verse?
As I mentioned in the conclusion of that post, this question is ultimately linked to another one:
We have offered reasons why the prohibition of hametz should be understood as starkly different from other Forbidden Food prohibitions, and why its regulations cannot be derived from the rules that apply to non-kosher items in general. We emphasized the distinctive nature of the hametz laws and explained that, without the special Scriptural derivations, we would have likely assumed that abstention from hametz did not involve restrictions on benefit, etc. So why is it that the Torah decided to impose such restrictions anyway? What insight can we glean from the ultimate inclusion of these additional rules in the context of hametz and matzah, despite compelling reasons to assume otherwise?
All of this confusion revolves around the peculiarities of a single phrase, "hametz shall not be eaten".What is the significance of this verse in the Rambam's treatment of the prohibition of hametz?
We have already established that, unlike other forbidden foods whose prohibition is designed to regulate or restrict the instinctual drives in human beings, hametz serves a totally different function - abstention from leaven is intended to remind us of the themes and lessons of the Exodus. While we understand the role of a prohibition on benefit or on consuming even minute quantities of forbidden foods when the goal is placing limitations on bodily impulse, it is harder to see the objective of these rules when we are dealing with hametz, which is prohibited not because it is enjoyable but because it represents a certain concept or idea.
The answer lies in the nuance of the verse, "it shall not be eaten". The Torah is teaching us that a prohibition of benefit need not be limited to cases in which physical enjoyment is the focus. Deriving benefit from a food is not only about the experience of sensual pleasure had by the beneficiary; it is also an activity that lends value and significance to the food itself.
When we utilize an object for a beneficial purpose, we demonstrate that the object is important to us, that we perceive it as a worthwhile possession. Hence, on Pesah, when we are commanded to repudiate and nullify hametz altogether, benefiting from it must also be prohibited. 'It shall not be eaten', written in the passive form, means that hametz as an object should not be related to as a source of pleasure, as an entity of value.
For the same reason, the Torah prohibits even the slightest amount of hametz from being consumed. True, from the perspective of the individual, eating such a small quantity of hametz would hardly interfere with his adoption of the "matzah framework" of Passover. Intellectually and emotionally, abstaining from the consumption of hametz in its most obvious forms might be sufficient to keep him engaged in the Pesah experience.
However, from the standpoint of totally rejecting hametz as an object of importance, it is necessary to avoid even a trace of the substance for the duration of the holiday. Anything less than an absolute withdrawal from hametz would, in this regard, be insufficient, since an attribution of any value the hametz whatsoever would thwart the ultimate purpose of the law. This is not about limiting enjoyment as per the laws of kashrut; it is about highlighting the essential principles of the Passover holiday through the repudiation of hametz.
Why does proper observance of Pesah hinge upon denying any significance to hametz? Why does the Torah formulate our commemoration of the Exodus in this unusual manner?
At the time that our ancestors first tasted freedom, the potential existed that the Jewish people might lapse into self-indulgent luxuriating and become yet another materialistic culture. Departing from Egypt in haste reminded the Jews that their liberation had a purpose - to transform them into a nation consecrated not to the pursuit of luxury and the worship of human power, but to the recognition and service of a transcendent God.
We work to internalize this lesson each year by adopting matzah, the bread of affliction and servitude, as our staple food, precisely as we reflect upon and express our gratitude for the blessing of freedom. By so doing, we demonstrate our desire to utilize our resources not for selfish gratification but in the service of the noble spiritual mission for which Hashem selected us.
In order to accomplish the transition to matzah, we must systematically rid ourselves and our domains of all hametz, separating ourselves from the bread of wealth and comfort that represents the central focus of the materialistic culture from which we struggle to be liberated. For matzah to become our staple food for the week, its arch competitor for our affections, hametz, must be put out of commission altogether. Withdrawing ourselves from any involvement with hametz is our way of preventing it from making its alluring presence felt throughout the holiday and compromising the relationship we establish with matzah.
If we truly mean to reject hametz for the duration of Pesah, it is not sufficient to abstain from consuming and owning it in its fully constituted form. We must also restrain ourselves from attributing any significance to it whatsoever. Halakhically, we accomplish this feat by disallowing the derivation of any benefit from hametz, and by prohibiting the consumption of even the slightest quantity of it on Passover. All of this is learned, as the Rambam teaches, from the words "hametz shall not be eaten".
Friday, April 25, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Rambam on Hametz II
In the previous post, we identified several difficulties with the Rambam's formulation of the basic prohibitions of hametz on Pesah. At the conclusion of that post, we summarized our problems as follows:
1) Why does the Rambam treat the halakhot of hametz independently of the laws of Forbidden Foods in general, deriving the details of the laws of Passover from Torah verses rather than simply applying the preexistent laws of kashrut to the special case of hametz?
2) If the Rambam indeed believes that the halakhot governing hametz on Passover require their own separate derivations from Scripture, why does he then see fit to learn two of these laws from the same verse?
In this post, we will address the first of these challenges. Why doesn't the Rambam utilize the principles of the laws of kashrut with respect to hametz, rather than feeling compelled to derive the rules of hametz independently of other Forbidden Foods?
It would seem that the answer to this conundrum lies in a fundamental distinction between hametz and other non-kosher food items. The majority of prohibited foods are discussed in Sefer Qedusha, the Book of Holiness, which includes a section devoted to sexual prohibitions as well. The theme of the Book of Qedusha is the regulation and sublimation of instinctual forces to the higher purpose of serving Hashem and seeking knowledge of Him. This core principle is expressed in the Rambam's choice of "crowning verse" for the Book of Holiness:
"Guide my footsteps by Your word, and do not allow any wickedness to rule me."
Placing limitations on our physical gratification is the Torah's way of teaching us that instinctual pleasure should not be the ultimate objective of human life. The desire for physical satisfaction should not be allowed to dominate our psyches, shape our value systems or guide our actions. Enjoyment of the material world must be had in moderation, and appreciated as a means to more significant ends rather than as an end in itself. Our sense of purpose and the vision of good that we strive to realize must be drawn from our apprehension of God's wisdom and design and not from the ignoble recesses of our biological drives.
By contrast, the prohibition of hametz is found in Sefer Zemanim, the Book of Times, which deals days set aside - either by the Torah or the Rabbis - for reflection on important themes in Judaism. Once again, the verse chosen by the Rambam as the heading for this book speaks volumes:
"I shall inherit Your testimonies forever, for they are the joy of my heart."
In the case of Pesah, the emphasis is on recalling the event of the Exodus (Your testimonies) and the relevance of its lessons for the manner in which we conduct our lives (i.e., pursuit of true joy through the eschewing of materialism and the dedication of our resources to the service of Hashem). Abstaining from hametz is commanded not for the purpose of restricting our involvement in the instinctual, but for the purpose of highlighting key dimensions of the Exodus and its implications for our relationship to creature comforts and luxury.
With this in mind, we can appreciate why laws that hold in the context of Sefer Qedusha would not automatically be transferable to the context of Sefer Zemanim.
The notion that any prohibited food is also forbidden for benefit unless the Torah indicates otherwise makes perfect sense in the Book of Holiness. Since the goal of the mitsvot treated Sefer Qedusha is restricting our physical gratification, when an item is prohibited for consumption it stands to reason that all manner of deriving pleasure from the item should be similarly forbidden.
On the other hand, in the framework of Sefer Zemanim the logic of applying this rule is not immediately apparent. We abstain from hametz during Passover because of certain concepts that it represents, not because we are seeking to restrain our instincts to a greater degree. Thus, one might have quite rationally concluded that only eating and not benefiting from hametz would be prohibited.
Similarly, in the context of the Book of Holiness it is eminently reasonable to assume that even the slightest derivation of enjoyment from a forbidden food should be disallowed; hence the principle that forbidden food mixed into permitted food retains its prohibition as long as it is present in a certain of the final product, and the principle of "hatzi shiur", that the consumption of any quantity of a forbidden food item is prohibited.
However, in the context of Sefer Zemanim, we are not concerned with raw pleasure but with the philosophical significance of the entity of hametz. Thus, we might have easily assumed that only a legally substantial amount of hametz - hametz that exists independently of any mixture, and fully partakes of the form of bread and its properties both quantitatively and qualitatively - comes under the radar of halakha.
Because of the fundamental distinction between the thematic objectives of the Books of Times and Holiness, respectively, laws that are clearly established in one framework cannot necessarily be generalized and applied to the other. Thus, the Rambam saw fit to derive the prohibitions of benefiting from hametz, eating hametz in a mixture and consuming even a minute amount of hametz from verses in the Torah that deal with Pesah directly, and did not base these laws on the laws of kashrut.
One salient problem that remains is as follows:
We have offered reasons why the prohibition of hametz should be understood as starkly different from other Forbidden Food prohibitions, and why its regulations cannot be derived from the rules that apply to non-kosher items in general. We emphasized the distinctive nature of the hametz laws and explained that, without the special Scriptural derivations, we would have likely assumed that abstention from hametz did not involve restrictions on benefit, etc. So why is it that the Torah decided to impose such restrictions anyway? What insight can we glean from the ultimate inclusion of these additional rules in the context of hametz and matzah, despite compelling reasons to assume otherwise?
In a subsequent post, we will tackle the resolution of question #2 above and hopefully, in the course of discussing that issue, we will offer a response to this difficulty as well.
In the previous post, we identified several difficulties with the Rambam's formulation of the basic prohibitions of hametz on Pesah. At the conclusion of that post, we summarized our problems as follows:
1) Why does the Rambam treat the halakhot of hametz independently of the laws of Forbidden Foods in general, deriving the details of the laws of Passover from Torah verses rather than simply applying the preexistent laws of kashrut to the special case of hametz?
2) If the Rambam indeed believes that the halakhot governing hametz on Passover require their own separate derivations from Scripture, why does he then see fit to learn two of these laws from the same verse?
In this post, we will address the first of these challenges. Why doesn't the Rambam utilize the principles of the laws of kashrut with respect to hametz, rather than feeling compelled to derive the rules of hametz independently of other Forbidden Foods?
It would seem that the answer to this conundrum lies in a fundamental distinction between hametz and other non-kosher food items. The majority of prohibited foods are discussed in Sefer Qedusha, the Book of Holiness, which includes a section devoted to sexual prohibitions as well. The theme of the Book of Qedusha is the regulation and sublimation of instinctual forces to the higher purpose of serving Hashem and seeking knowledge of Him. This core principle is expressed in the Rambam's choice of "crowning verse" for the Book of Holiness:
"Guide my footsteps by Your word, and do not allow any wickedness to rule me."
Placing limitations on our physical gratification is the Torah's way of teaching us that instinctual pleasure should not be the ultimate objective of human life. The desire for physical satisfaction should not be allowed to dominate our psyches, shape our value systems or guide our actions. Enjoyment of the material world must be had in moderation, and appreciated as a means to more significant ends rather than as an end in itself. Our sense of purpose and the vision of good that we strive to realize must be drawn from our apprehension of God's wisdom and design and not from the ignoble recesses of our biological drives.
By contrast, the prohibition of hametz is found in Sefer Zemanim, the Book of Times, which deals days set aside - either by the Torah or the Rabbis - for reflection on important themes in Judaism. Once again, the verse chosen by the Rambam as the heading for this book speaks volumes:
"I shall inherit Your testimonies forever, for they are the joy of my heart."
In the case of Pesah, the emphasis is on recalling the event of the Exodus (Your testimonies) and the relevance of its lessons for the manner in which we conduct our lives (i.e., pursuit of true joy through the eschewing of materialism and the dedication of our resources to the service of Hashem). Abstaining from hametz is commanded not for the purpose of restricting our involvement in the instinctual, but for the purpose of highlighting key dimensions of the Exodus and its implications for our relationship to creature comforts and luxury.
With this in mind, we can appreciate why laws that hold in the context of Sefer Qedusha would not automatically be transferable to the context of Sefer Zemanim.
The notion that any prohibited food is also forbidden for benefit unless the Torah indicates otherwise makes perfect sense in the Book of Holiness. Since the goal of the mitsvot treated Sefer Qedusha is restricting our physical gratification, when an item is prohibited for consumption it stands to reason that all manner of deriving pleasure from the item should be similarly forbidden.
On the other hand, in the framework of Sefer Zemanim the logic of applying this rule is not immediately apparent. We abstain from hametz during Passover because of certain concepts that it represents, not because we are seeking to restrain our instincts to a greater degree. Thus, one might have quite rationally concluded that only eating and not benefiting from hametz would be prohibited.
Similarly, in the context of the Book of Holiness it is eminently reasonable to assume that even the slightest derivation of enjoyment from a forbidden food should be disallowed; hence the principle that forbidden food mixed into permitted food retains its prohibition as long as it is present in a certain of the final product, and the principle of "hatzi shiur", that the consumption of any quantity of a forbidden food item is prohibited.
However, in the context of Sefer Zemanim, we are not concerned with raw pleasure but with the philosophical significance of the entity of hametz. Thus, we might have easily assumed that only a legally substantial amount of hametz - hametz that exists independently of any mixture, and fully partakes of the form of bread and its properties both quantitatively and qualitatively - comes under the radar of halakha.
Because of the fundamental distinction between the thematic objectives of the Books of Times and Holiness, respectively, laws that are clearly established in one framework cannot necessarily be generalized and applied to the other. Thus, the Rambam saw fit to derive the prohibitions of benefiting from hametz, eating hametz in a mixture and consuming even a minute amount of hametz from verses in the Torah that deal with Pesah directly, and did not base these laws on the laws of kashrut.
One salient problem that remains is as follows:
We have offered reasons why the prohibition of hametz should be understood as starkly different from other Forbidden Food prohibitions, and why its regulations cannot be derived from the rules that apply to non-kosher items in general. We emphasized the distinctive nature of the hametz laws and explained that, without the special Scriptural derivations, we would have likely assumed that abstention from hametz did not involve restrictions on benefit, etc. So why is it that the Torah decided to impose such restrictions anyway? What insight can we glean from the ultimate inclusion of these additional rules in the context of hametz and matzah, despite compelling reasons to assume otherwise?
In a subsequent post, we will tackle the resolution of question #2 above and hopefully, in the course of discussing that issue, we will offer a response to this difficulty as well.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The Rambam on Hametz
In the first chapter of his Laws of Hametz and Matzah, the Rambam presents the various leaven-related prohibitions that apply during Passover. The Torah instructs us that we may not consume, benefit, or even possess hametz for the duration of the Pesah holiday.
I believe that the Rambam's formulation of the basic principles of these laws reveals a unique approach to the area of Hametz and Matzah that is worthy of recognition and reflection. In this regard, at least to my knowledge, the Rambam differed from many if not all other rabbinic thinkers, blazing an intellectual trail all his own. In this post, I hope to begin to demonstrate the creativity and depth of the Rambam's analysis of the nature of the hametz prohibition.
The second law in the first chapter of the Laws of Hametz and Matzah reads as follows:
"Hametz on Passover is prohibited to be a source of any benefit, as it is stated in the Torah, 'hametz shall not be eaten' (i.e., the verb is in the passive form)."
As the Aruch Hashulhan points out, the fact that Maimonides feels the need to bring a "prooftext" for the prohibition of benefiting from hametz poses a serious difficulty. After all, the Rambam himself rules in the Laws of Forbidden Foods that anytime a food is prohibited by the Torah it is automatically assumed to be prohibited for any kind of physical benefit unless proven otherwise. So, ostensibly, we would presume that hametz, by virtue of its being forbidden for consumption during Passover, is also forbidden for any benefit, since there is no indication to the contrary. Why does the Rambam bother citing a separate verse to establish that we are not allowed to benefit from hametz, when this would have been implicit in the statement that we may not eat it?
Similar problems abound in the first chapter in quick succession. For example, in Law #6, the Rambam writes:
"One is not liable for the penalty of excision [from the Jewish people] unless he consumes actual hametz. A mixture containing hametz, however, such as Babylonian dip, Median beer or anything else that has hametz mixed into it, if one eats them on Passover he receives lashes but not excision, as it is stated in the Torah, 'you shall not eat any leaven.' When is the law [that one is lashed for eating a hametz mixture] applicable? Only when, in the course of eating three egg-measures worth of the mixture he consumes an olive's bulk of hametz. However, if the mixture does not have a ratio of one olive's worth of hametz to every three eggs worth of mixture, then even though it is prohibited for consumption, if he eats it he only receives Rabbinically mandated lashes."
Furthermore, in Halakha #7 the Rambam adds:
"One who eats actual hametz on Passover of even the slightest quantity is violating a Torah prohibition, as it is stated in the Torah, 'hametz shall not be eaten'."
The Aruch Hashulhan objects to the Rambam's formulation of these halakhot for the same reason that he found fault with Halakha #2: namely, because these rules - the prohibition of benefit, the 'one olive for every three eggs' condition, and the notion that even the slightest quantity of hametz may not be eaten - are all explicitly laid out in the Rambam's general treatment of forbidden foods, and should not require separate Scriptural "prooftexts" related to hametz to support them.
Stated succinctly, then:
1) It is not because of any unique property of hametz that it is forbidden for benefit - this would be equally true of any non-kosher food that the Torah does not specifically exempt from that restriction.
2) Similarly, it is not because of some particular feature of hametz that it must be present in a mixture in certain quantities (i.e., an olive's worth in every three eggs-worth of foodstuff) in order to retain its identity - this is again true of all non-kosher substances that become intermingled with kosher foods.
3) Finally, it is not because of any special quality of hametz that the consumption of the slightest quantity thereof is considered a Torah violation - this is simply another application of a broad halachic principle known as 'hatzi shiur asur min haTorah', i.e., the consumption of less than the requisite amount (e.g., less than an olive's bulk) of any forbidden item is still considered a Torah offense, albeit not a Biblically punishable one.
Apparently, these three halakhic rulings of the Rambam are superfluous, since they are nothing more than applications of the general principles governing all Forbidden Foods. Why does the Rambam present these halakhot as if they are novel ideas only relevant to Passover?
Before we attempt to answer this problem, there is yet another anomaly in the halakhot that we should note. Let us return to Halakhot #2 and #7 once more:
(#2) "Hametz on Passover is prohibited to be a source of any benefit, as it is stated in the Torah, 'hametz shall not be eaten'."
(#7) "One who eats actual hametz on Passover of even the slightest quantity is violating a Torah prohibition, as it is stated in the Torah, 'hametz shall not be eaten'."
As the Aruch Hashulhan points out, the Rambam utilizes the same phrase - 'hametz shall not be eaten' - to derive two different halachot: the prohibition of benefiting from any hametz, as well as the prohibition of consuming even a minute amount of hametz.
Under normal circumstances, a separate verse would be adduced for each novel teaching; one for the prohibition of benefiting from hametz, and one for the prohibition of consuming even the slightest quantity of hametz. Assuming that the Rambam maintains that these laws need a special Scriptural source - a position about which we have already raised questions above - how can the Rambam justify learning both halakhot from the same source?
In the final analysis, then, we must deal with two fundamental problems in the Rambam's formulation of the basic "building blocks" of the prohibitions of hametz:
1) Why does the Rambam treat the halakhot of hametz independently of the laws of Forbidden Foods in general, deriving the details of the laws of Passover from Torah verses rather than simply applying the preexistent laws of kashrut to the special case of hametz?
2) If the Rambam indeed believes that the halakhot governing hametz on Passover require their own separate derivations from Scripture, why does he then see fit to learn two of these laws from the same verse?
In a follow-up post, I will present what I believe to be a compelling resolution to these difficulties. Stay tuned.
In the first chapter of his Laws of Hametz and Matzah, the Rambam presents the various leaven-related prohibitions that apply during Passover. The Torah instructs us that we may not consume, benefit, or even possess hametz for the duration of the Pesah holiday.
I believe that the Rambam's formulation of the basic principles of these laws reveals a unique approach to the area of Hametz and Matzah that is worthy of recognition and reflection. In this regard, at least to my knowledge, the Rambam differed from many if not all other rabbinic thinkers, blazing an intellectual trail all his own. In this post, I hope to begin to demonstrate the creativity and depth of the Rambam's analysis of the nature of the hametz prohibition.
The second law in the first chapter of the Laws of Hametz and Matzah reads as follows:
"Hametz on Passover is prohibited to be a source of any benefit, as it is stated in the Torah, 'hametz shall not be eaten' (i.e., the verb is in the passive form)."
As the Aruch Hashulhan points out, the fact that Maimonides feels the need to bring a "prooftext" for the prohibition of benefiting from hametz poses a serious difficulty. After all, the Rambam himself rules in the Laws of Forbidden Foods that anytime a food is prohibited by the Torah it is automatically assumed to be prohibited for any kind of physical benefit unless proven otherwise. So, ostensibly, we would presume that hametz, by virtue of its being forbidden for consumption during Passover, is also forbidden for any benefit, since there is no indication to the contrary. Why does the Rambam bother citing a separate verse to establish that we are not allowed to benefit from hametz, when this would have been implicit in the statement that we may not eat it?
Similar problems abound in the first chapter in quick succession. For example, in Law #6, the Rambam writes:
"One is not liable for the penalty of excision [from the Jewish people] unless he consumes actual hametz. A mixture containing hametz, however, such as Babylonian dip, Median beer or anything else that has hametz mixed into it, if one eats them on Passover he receives lashes but not excision, as it is stated in the Torah, 'you shall not eat any leaven.' When is the law [that one is lashed for eating a hametz mixture] applicable? Only when, in the course of eating three egg-measures worth of the mixture he consumes an olive's bulk of hametz. However, if the mixture does not have a ratio of one olive's worth of hametz to every three eggs worth of mixture, then even though it is prohibited for consumption, if he eats it he only receives Rabbinically mandated lashes."
Furthermore, in Halakha #7 the Rambam adds:
"One who eats actual hametz on Passover of even the slightest quantity is violating a Torah prohibition, as it is stated in the Torah, 'hametz shall not be eaten'."
The Aruch Hashulhan objects to the Rambam's formulation of these halakhot for the same reason that he found fault with Halakha #2: namely, because these rules - the prohibition of benefit, the 'one olive for every three eggs' condition, and the notion that even the slightest quantity of hametz may not be eaten - are all explicitly laid out in the Rambam's general treatment of forbidden foods, and should not require separate Scriptural "prooftexts" related to hametz to support them.
Stated succinctly, then:
1) It is not because of any unique property of hametz that it is forbidden for benefit - this would be equally true of any non-kosher food that the Torah does not specifically exempt from that restriction.
2) Similarly, it is not because of some particular feature of hametz that it must be present in a mixture in certain quantities (i.e., an olive's worth in every three eggs-worth of foodstuff) in order to retain its identity - this is again true of all non-kosher substances that become intermingled with kosher foods.
3) Finally, it is not because of any special quality of hametz that the consumption of the slightest quantity thereof is considered a Torah violation - this is simply another application of a broad halachic principle known as 'hatzi shiur asur min haTorah', i.e., the consumption of less than the requisite amount (e.g., less than an olive's bulk) of any forbidden item is still considered a Torah offense, albeit not a Biblically punishable one.
Apparently, these three halakhic rulings of the Rambam are superfluous, since they are nothing more than applications of the general principles governing all Forbidden Foods. Why does the Rambam present these halakhot as if they are novel ideas only relevant to Passover?
Before we attempt to answer this problem, there is yet another anomaly in the halakhot that we should note. Let us return to Halakhot #2 and #7 once more:
(#2) "Hametz on Passover is prohibited to be a source of any benefit, as it is stated in the Torah, 'hametz shall not be eaten'."
(#7) "One who eats actual hametz on Passover of even the slightest quantity is violating a Torah prohibition, as it is stated in the Torah, 'hametz shall not be eaten'."
As the Aruch Hashulhan points out, the Rambam utilizes the same phrase - 'hametz shall not be eaten' - to derive two different halachot: the prohibition of benefiting from any hametz, as well as the prohibition of consuming even a minute amount of hametz.
Under normal circumstances, a separate verse would be adduced for each novel teaching; one for the prohibition of benefiting from hametz, and one for the prohibition of consuming even the slightest quantity of hametz. Assuming that the Rambam maintains that these laws need a special Scriptural source - a position about which we have already raised questions above - how can the Rambam justify learning both halakhot from the same source?
In the final analysis, then, we must deal with two fundamental problems in the Rambam's formulation of the basic "building blocks" of the prohibitions of hametz:
1) Why does the Rambam treat the halakhot of hametz independently of the laws of Forbidden Foods in general, deriving the details of the laws of Passover from Torah verses rather than simply applying the preexistent laws of kashrut to the special case of hametz?
2) If the Rambam indeed believes that the halakhot governing hametz on Passover require their own separate derivations from Scripture, why does he then see fit to learn two of these laws from the same verse?
In a follow-up post, I will present what I believe to be a compelling resolution to these difficulties. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
