I mentioned in an earlier post that I was enthralled with an essay by R. Meir Simcha Hacohen of Dvinsk (1843-1926) in his Magnum Opus Ohr Sameach at the end of Hilchos Teshuva. I will just highlight one of the ideas he sets out there. The issue is the famous conundrum of Yediah and Bechira – God’s omniscience hence knowing everything including the future and man’s freedom of choice. How can we understand this freedom if everything is already pre – determined by God’s knowledge? Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva 5:5 addresses it and basically says that we do not understand God’s omniscience - it is different. Ravad and many others misunderstood those cryptic words, and in a typical sharp rejoinder comments that one should not publish a question to which one does not have an answer. Ravad proceeds to propose an answer that he ends with "vechol zeh einenu shoveh -it is still not clear”.The Maharal, R. Judah Loew ben Bezalel (1525 – 1609) in his introduction to Gevuros Hashem argues that Rambam’s mistake was accepting the philosopher’s idea that God and His knowledge are one or as Rambam puts it in Moreh 1:68 “He is the intellect as well as the intellectually cognizing subject and the intellectually cognized object”. In other words to God knowing everything is His essence. There are no senses that perceive things and process these perceptions sending them to the brain, reprocessing and deciding on a reaction just as we do. God does not do that. Exactly how He “knows” we cannot apprehend but we do know that He does not “know” our way.
Maharal argues that this is incorrect. Though God is not physical, He is however a “Sechel Poshut” – a simple spiritual entity - without boundaries and therefore knowledge is not part of His essence. When God perceives a new thing, it does not imply a change in Him, because it happened as a result of His action which is also not an essence. (The difficulty becomes obvious immediately. If He has no boundary how can something be outside Him?). In other words He has set things in motion which can have different outcomes. God finding out the outcome does not change God’s essence just as the act itself does not. When God split the sea and the Egyptians were destroyed, that event did not change God nor did the knowledge of that event change Him. Maharal thus understands that God set nature into motion, with a plan which includes free will to man and randomness in nature. God does not necessarily know how the outcome will be but at the same time He interferes at will and controls the outcome. That new action or the new knowledge does not change His essence. They are outside Him.
RMS is astounded by this argument and implies that it is heresy (ossur leomrom)! He marvels at how Maharal can describe God as a spiritual entity. Any positive description of God’s essence is heresy and tantamount to anthropomorphism. We can only know what God is not! Furthermore by saying that God has set the world in motion allowing for randomness, thus not knowing the outcome, limits God’s omniscience.
RMS therefore totally disagrees with Maharal. He explains that God’s knowledge is different and is just called that. God can know everything as His knowledge and His will are one, both outside time, thus everything has already happened from His perspective. We still have freedom of choice, because His knowledge does not affect us, even though we do not understand how that is.
Maharal’s approach is generally accepted in contemporary Jewish thought. It is the basis for accepting “Intelligent Design” as an Ikkar. As I have shown in my earlier post http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/03/is-intelligent-design-compatible-with.html#links ID is not the same as Judaism’s concept of God as Creator. Stubbornly staying with Maharal and ID makes for very difficult arguments when one tries to reconcile science with Torah.
I believe that it is time for our Yeshivos to bring back real Machshovo as taught by the great thinkers of our past, followers of Rambam's derech, who were also the great Possekim. As Rav Kook said, if not for Rambam, Judaism would have no foot to stand on in our era. His approach is the only one, among all the other approaches of the Rishonim, that is compatible with our contemporary scientific understanding. Ralbag should be dusted off as other thinkers such as Meiri (see his Chibur Hateshuva). Professor Chaim Kreissel, a few years ago published two Provencal Rishonim, R. Nissim of Marseilles's Maseh Nissim and Livyas Chen by R.Levi ben Avrohom. The malaise of our time is starkly shown when a sefer like Malmad Hatalmidim by R,Yaakov Antuli, a great Tzaddik and thinker, son in law of R. Shmuel ibn Tibon, was last printed in Lick in 1866.
Discard Intelligent Design – Discover Yediah. Ki hi chochmaschem ubinaschem le'enei hoamim.
what does maharal have to do with intelligent design? You leave out this rather key piece of the argument.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was obvious but you are right it needs to be clarified. ID does not work according to Rambam as I explained in the earlier post. It will work according to Maharal. Maharal believes that nature is not left to develop on its own. God can make and makes adjustments along the way without it being any change in Him thus not implying imperfection.
ReplyDeleteI will elaborate in a separate post. Thanks for the question.
ID doesn't posit that God interferes and makes changes. It posits that evolution is teleogical and shows evidence of design. Design can be in place from the getgo; it merely needs to emerge. It therefore is not inconsistent with
ReplyDeleteRambam and isn't more consistent with Maharal. A freilichin Purim!
ID doesn't posit that God interferes and makes changes. It posits that evolution is teleogical and shows evidence of design. Design can be in place from the getgo; it merely needs to emerge. It therefore is not inconsistent with
ReplyDeleteRambam and isn't more consistent with Maharal.
I have to think more about that. If I find you are right I will post on it. However according to Rambam there is nothing that forces us to accept ID. I am not sure that can be said about Maharal. In fact probably not but again I need to think more about it. I also want to see this in light of Hashgacha which I am planning to devote the next few months to.
ReplyDeleteThnk you for your input. That is the purpose of this blog.
Anonymous:
ReplyDelete>The theory does, however, necessarily reject standard science's reliance on explaining the natural world only through undirected natural causes, believing that any theory that relies on such causes alone is incapable of explaining how all biological structures and processes arose (Wikipedia)
Maharal would agree Rambam would disagree. Rambam's Ratzon would accept undirected natural causes without it negating Yediah especially if that would agree with current scientific thinking.
they just mean random evolution as opposed to other mechanisms. different proponents phrase this differently, but that's what the common denominator is. AFAICT rambam's ratzon would accept random causes but wouldn't mandate it
ReplyDeletea freilichin purim
ReplyDeleteWhat is AFAICT?
ReplyDeleteA freilichen Purim to you too
as far as I can tell.
ReplyDeletea freilichin shushan purim!
God does not necessarily know how the outcome will be but at the same time He interferes at will and controls the outcome
ReplyDeleteThis is the ralbag's position which the Maharal vehemently rejects in other places. The maharal would understand the very idea that God and His yedia are one as being a limitation on God since he sees the very definition of yedia as something which is external the the being which exercises it.
The truth is that we have to divide and define yedia into smaller components. See the beginning of Orot HaKodesh for more on this methodology.
The basic methodology exercised by the mystic/philosopher (Maharal, Rav Kook, Rav Tzadok) recognizes that reason is a vessel which is inherently insufficient to describe these matters. I believe that your description of the Maharal's position is somewhat lacking.
>The maharal would understand the very idea that God and His yedia are one as being a limitation on God since he sees the very definition of yedia as something which is external the the being which exercises it.
ReplyDeletethat is correct and therefore yediah or any other act would be external to Him and therefore change would not affect Him. The problem is that in that case we are attributing the same concepts to God as we have. We are just saying that it does not change Him without really believing it. That is the point of the Ohr Sameach. i have a hard time grasping this whole approach. i get very frustrated with what i see as words, semantics. I am much more comfortable with God being in a different realm.
I am much more comfortable with God being in a different realm.
ReplyDeleteWhile others see this approach as incompatible with passionate worship of Hashem or a true personal relationship with Him. The esoteric system allows us to approach the Ein Sof while not crossing the line into heresy.
>While others see this approach as incompatible with passionate worship of Hashem or a true personal relationship with Him.
ReplyDeleteMoreh 3:51 speaks for itself:
Those, however, who think of God, and frequently mention His name, without any correct notion of Him, but merely following some imagination, or some theory received from another person, are, in my opinion, like those who remain outside the palace and distant from it. They do not mention the name of God in truth, nor do they reflect on it. That which they imagine and mention does not correspond to any being in existence: it is a thing invented by their imagination, as has been shown by us in our discussion on the Divine Attributes (Part 1. chap. 1.). The true worship of God is only possible when correct notions of Him have previously been conceived
I know that Gedolei Olam went in different ways, I cannot go along. I will stay with Rambam on this issue.
The key word you came back to is imagination. The role of imagination in the search for
ReplyDeleteTruth is probably the key deviding point between the rationalists and the mystics.
Rav Nachman of Breslov's main critique of the Moreh comes down to the Rambam's rejection of imagination/creative faculties as valid members of the search for Truth.
This is also where Rav Kook departs from the Rambam as well. I really think its much more a matter of personality types (although on a philosophical level it gets down to the crux of how we define the very institution of prophesy).
I understand why you are inspired by the Moreh, but you must also understand that it just does not work for many many people.
>Rav Nachman of Breslov's main critique of the Moreh comes down to the Rambam's rejection of imagination/creative faculties as valid members of the search for Truth.
ReplyDeleteI know and he misreads Rambam. Rambam understands all prophecy outsiude Moshe to be the ratiuonal faculty feeding the imaginative. Without a healthy imaginative there is no prophecy. Imaginative that feeds the rational is avodah Zara. (read Homo Mysticus by Jose Faur on this).
>I understand why you are inspired by the Moreh, but you must also understand that it just does not work for many many people.
Oh I know that and believe me I am very respectful of those opinions. The Torah is so great that it serves all types. It is just dangerous whenever the rational faculty is not in control.
I know and he misreads Rambam. Rambam understands all prophecy outsiude Moshe to be the ratiuonal faculty feeding the imaginative. Without a healthy imaginative there is no prophecy. Imaginative that feeds the rational is avodah Zara. (read Homo Mysticus by Jose Faur on this).
ReplyDeleteYes, but if I am not mistaken, he rejects almost any use of the imaginitive faculties outside of the realm of prophesy. Rav Nachman and Rav Kook would both say that the imaginitive parts of man are integral parts of non-prophets as well.
See Moreh 2:37 where he describes how people whose imaginative is stronger than their rational are leaders of nations, legislators, and also seers and true dreamers.
ReplyDeleteThere is only one person in history, also for a specific type of prophecy, giving the Law, who did not use it and that was Moshe. That is the meaning of Peh el Peh, without the imaginative's involvement. BTW the imaginative Rambam talks about is a combination of imagination, inspiration and instinct. That is another matter that needs to be culled from different places in his writing.
ID doesn't posit that God interferes and makes changes. It posits that evolution is teleogical and shows evidence of design. Design can be in place from the getgo; it merely needs to emerge.
ReplyDeleteTechincally speaking this is correct. However, in practice the ID movement (Behe, Johnson etc.) is presenting the idea that God is interfering and making changes.
de maharal himself had the same questions...
ReplyDeletesefer ntsach yisroel p 13.
Great post . It takes me almost half an hour to read the whole post. Definitely this one of the informative and useful post to me. Thanks for the share.Plz visit my site. mastering divination If you are that young then it is my sincere advice that you leave this site right now.
ReplyDelete