How to get to the truth

There are two main schools of thoughts in what we call Jewish Philosophy. One, lead by the likes of the Rambam and Rav Saadiah Gaon, is known as the rationalist. The other is known as the to many as a more nationalist approach lead by the likes of the Maharal and the Kuzari. Now, we all know that the Rambam was also a nationalist: Like every other Jew, he thanked God, every morning, for choosing the Jewish Nation. We also know that the works of the Maharal and the Kuzari were both also very rational. What is, therefore, the difference between these two schools of thought?

I believe that by simply looking at the structure of their writings, we will be able to find the deeper, truer, difference between these two schools of thought. Then, when we properly differentiate between them, we will be able to find the appropriate way for us to approach Jewish thought.


The Rambam and Rav Saadiah Gaon both wrote their big work on Jewish thought, the Moreh Nevuchim and Emunot Ve-Deot respectively, in a systematic way. They went topic by topic and explored it systematically. The Maharal and the Kuzari had a different approach.

The Kuzari is written in a literary way. It is set in a story of a king who has a dream, and in this dream he receives a prophecy which tells him to explore his religious practice because, while his intentions were good, his actions were not good. The whole book of the Kuzari is an attempt at understanding this prophetic message that this imaginary (although historically half-accurate) King had.

The Maharal, in his books, whenever he explores a topic, starts by looking at a story from our sages in the Talmud. He never explores a topic directly but rather first checks what our sages, who lived right after the cessation of prophecy and therefore had a Jewish thought still very influenced by prophecy, had to say about it.

Both the Kuzari and the Maharal have very rational thoughts, however, the source of their belief system is not a purely rationalist method of thinking. They start with a premise and that premise is the accuracy of prophecy, the accuracy of the Torah. From this premise, they rationally expound everything that they believe.

I believe that the reason for that is very simple – the Maharal explains in Netivot Olam that there is no way a human being can get to the truth. He will always have some doubt. Philosophy can, at best, lead you to a state of probability but it can never extinguish the doubt. Therefore, by trying to find God through philosophy without any previous premise, all we can get to is to a statement in which “God is most probably real and he most probably wants us to do this and this”. The probability is sometimes extremely convincing, but it is never certainty.

However, when we meet God, as I explained in this post, we can get ourselves to a premise in which we know for sure that God exists and that his Torah is true. We don’t do this blindly, we do this by meeting him, as explained in this post.

Once we have this premise, all the rational expounding that we do is one of certainty. Sure, there is still some doubts, and that is what leads to maklokets – the more we move away from the time of prophecy the more expounding there is to do and therefore the more doubt and different opinions emerge. But we have the certainty of going from the right source, and expounding from it through ways which the source deemed accurate.

I cannot emphasize enough that even those rabbis were extremely rational. Their words did not go against the reason. However, the source of their truths was not from reason but from an objective source of truth. And sometimes, in that source of truth, there were things which were beyond reason – not irrational, but similar to the fact that a second grade student cannot do a difficult division. His reason is simply not at that level yet. However, that division will not contradict his reason.

Why then did the Rambam not use this method? I have no doubt about the fact that the Rambam premised his own personal thoughts with the validity of Torah. However, his book of Jewish Thought was written specifically as a response to the Jews who were leaving the faith to go to Aristotelian philosophy. Therefore, his approach was one of probability – he wanted to show that even through the eyes of Aristotelian philosophy, without meeting God, Judaism has great probabilities of being true.

Rav Saadiah Gaon, according to some scholars, was also responding to a group of people. He was responding to the Karaites.

Therefore, when responding to others, our sages teach us how to speak their language. When today, Judaism is attacked from many different angles, we have rabbis writing books speaking their language showing them it is not great attacks. One such books has a great title: Permission to Believe. I’m not saying I’ll prove anything 100%, but I’ll show you that you have the permission to believe, it is not irrational.

When attempting to live a truly complete and enhanced Jewish Life, while the systematic method of the Rambam is important for study purposes in order to clarify some of the most essential concepts, the method of expounding from the source and starting with a true meeting with the Almighty is a much more meaningful approach.