Sorry folks, this is going to be a longer post than usual but I hope worthwhile!
The beauty of Rambam is that he is such a great teacher that once one falls prey to his methods, one can become addicted. Ask most religious people what is the basis of Torah min Hashamayim - Revelation and they will tell you that it is based on Faith. They will tell you it is Mesora, that it was transmitted father to son all the way back to our ancestors who stood at Har Sinai and why would a father lie to his sons. On the blogosphere Godol Hador attacked several times similar statements. Ben Avuyah http://benavuyah.blogspot.com has a beautiful post, titled Daniel’s Dilemma making the point and showing so coherently the ambiguities of this argument. What a talented writer!
Rambam in Moreh 2:40 makes a statement on this issue that is so revolutionary that it just boggles my mind. It has been bothering me for years and this afternoon during a conversation with a friend I suddenly realized what Rambam was saying and the incredible depth in his words. Here is Rambam Friedlander translation (horrible but available on line) with some of my edits based on Pines: (Moreh 2:40)
“If you will find that the sole object of certain laws, in accordance with the intention of their author, is to establish the good order of the state and its affairs, to abolish in it injustice and prejudice: and if in these laws attention is not directed to philosophic problems, contain no teaching for the perfecting of our logical faculties, and are not concerned about the existence of sound or unsound opinions. If their sole objective is to arrange, under all circumstances, the relations of men to each other, and to secure their well-being, in accordance with the view of the author of these laws. Then these laws are political, and their author belongs, as has been stated above, to the third class, to those who only distinguish themselves by the perfection of their imaginative faculties. If on the other hand you find laws which, in all their rules, aim, as the law just mentioned, at the improvement of the material interests of the people: but, besides, tend to improve the state of the faith of man, to create first correct notions of God, and of angels, and to lead then the people, by instruction and education, to an accurate knowledge of the Universe: this education comes from God; these laws are divine”
In other words how do we know that Torah is revelatory? By its contents! Analyze its contents and if it meets a certain criteria, it is proof that it is divine! What kind of objective proof is this?
Now let us read a little further:
“The question which now remains to be settled is this: Is the person who proclaimed these laws the same perfect man that received them by prophetic inspiration, or a plagiarist, who has stolen these ideas from a true prophet? In order to be able to answer this question, we must examine the merits of the person, obtain an accurate account of his actions, and consider his character. The best test is the rejection, abstention, and contempt of bodily pleasures: for this are the first condition of men and a fortiori of prophets…”
Rambam is really going off the charts! How do we know that the giver of the Law is not a fake? The content may be divine but how do we know it is first hand? Again not because we partook in the experience at Har Sinai and we heard God say to Moshe go tell them such and such, but because the man who is telling us this is an ascetic! What is he talking about? This piece has bothered me for the longest time. True Rambam states this in context of comparing Torah to other documents such as the New Testament and the Koran whose authors also claim them to be Divine. He does not use the argument as an absolute proof for the revelatory status of Torah, but still what kind of objective argument is this?
Rambam starts the Moreh discussing ethics and morality. After introducing the concept that man has the ability to understand abstract truths in Chapter 1, he then introduces in chapter 2, ethics and morality in context of Adam’s sin.
“The fine and the bad (morals) belong to the things generally accepted as known (conventions) as opposed to those known by the intellect. For one does not say: It is fine that heaven is spherical and it is bad that the earth is flat. Similarly our language expresses the idea of true and false by the terms emet and sheker, of the morally right and the morally wrong, by tov and ra'. …After man's disobedience, however, when he began to give way to desires which had their source in his imagination and to the gratification of his bodily appetites, as it is said," that the tree was good for food and delightful to the eyes" (Gen. iii. 6), he was punished by the loss of part of that intellectual faculty which he had previously possessed. …; becoming endowed with the faculty of apprehending generally accepted things (conventions) he was wholly absorbed in judging what is proper (fine) and what improper (bad).”
Rambam defines morals as conventions. It is not an absolute truth but an agreement among peoples for reciprocal fair treatment. It is a self - protective system, not altruistic, necessary for society to function. It is not a result of intellectual depth and understanding but rather comes from the need for physical and bodily pleasure and comforts.
However the last piece of the Moreh reads thus:
“It is clear that the perfection, in which man can truly glory, is attained by him when he has acquired-as far as this is possible for man-the knowledge of God, the knowledge of His Providence, and of the manner in which it influences His creatures in their production and continued existence. Having acquired this knowledge he will then be determined always to seek loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, and thus to imitate the ways of God. We have explained this many times in this treatise.”
Rambam understands that there is a second kind of morality and ethics. That one comes as a result of intellectual development. When one searches for God by meditating about His deeds, looking at the universe we live in and understanding how it is being run, the laws of nature, science, become God’s fingerprints. Doing this we get an idea of God’s ways and we appreciate the way He deals with His creatures. That is the meaning of the 13 Midos that Moshe was taught at the Nikras Hatzur, the famous cave, after the Egel... The purpose of searching for God is therefore no longer just an intellectual search but also a very practical one. Once His ways are understood we humans now are obligated to emulate them. That is the eighth Positive Commandment in Sefer Hamitzvos Veholachto Bidrochov, a Jew is expected to emulate his Creator and how else can one do that without knowing His ways? This type of ethics is no longer a convention but an act of altruism. It is the ultimate service of God emulating Him without any expectation of reciprocity by fellow man, just like we cannot reciprocate His kindness to us.
Only a person that is not interested in worldly matters can teach this type of morality. For only to such a person are ethics and morality not reciprocal but altruistic.
Rambam is telling us, true Christianity preaches love and kindness, true the Koran teaches to give alms, but they are teaching the mundane kind, the reciprocal type. Our Torah teaches us to do these things as Imitato Dei, emulating God, and that is Divine law not a human one, given by a true prophet not a plagiarist.
Of course our Mesora stands. We accept that our ancestors were at Har Sinai. However others also have traditions and myths with similar contentions. It is the content of the Torah compared to the content of the others that proves which contention is true and which is false, which is divine and which is human.
I believe that this is one of the most important insights in Judaism missed by many academics who have studied Rambam. It is also the nuance that Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz missed in his writings. We cannot grasp God’s essence, but we can understand His world and learn to partake in Creation and its maintenance together with Him. The Torah is the guide that we follow to accomplish that. This is how Rambam legislates this in Hilchos De’os 1:11
יא ומצווין אנו ללכת בדרכים אלו הבינוניים, והם הדרכים הטובים והישרים, שנאמר "והלכת, בדרכיו" (דברים כח,ט). [ו] כך לימדו בפירוש מצוה זו: מה הוא נקרא חנון, אף אתה היה חנון; מה הוא נקרא רחום, אף אתה היה רחום; מה הוא נקרא קדוש, אף אתה היה קדוש. ועל דרך זו קראו הנביאים לאל בכל אותן הכינויין, ארך אפיים ורב חסד צדיק וישר תמים גיבור וחזק וכיוצא בהן--להודיע שאלו דרכים טובים וישרים הם, וחייב אדם להנהיג עצמו בהן ולהידמות כפי כוחו.
from wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteImitatio dei in Christianity
The Christian believer is told to imitate God on several occasions. On the first, in Ephesians 5, he is told by Paul to: "Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children". The believer is also advised to follow the ways of Jesus (who, in turn, imitated God), notably in 1 Corinthians 11:1: "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." The Catholic church fully endorses the concept of imitatio dei/Christi. In Protestantism the picture is different: In the Anglosaxon tradition it is also widely accepted, whereas the Lutheran tradition prefers to talk of conformitas, or in German of "Nachfolge" instead of "Nachahmung" (imitation), because Jesus was singular and cannot and need not be imitated, but followed in his spirit, to which the believer is not forced, but enabled.
Good point.However there is a big difference. Torah tells us to look at the world and infer from that how God acts while Christianity tells you to read the human produced gospel and imitate the man it describes and how he acted, allegedly imitating God.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about? Look at your own quote:
ReplyDelete"Doing this we get an idea of God’s ways and we appreciate the way He deals with His creatures. That is the meaning of the 13 Midos that Moshe was taught at the Nikras Hatzur, the famous cave, after the Egel."
"והלכת, בדרכיו" (דברים כח,ט). [ו] כך לימדו בפירוש מצוה זו: מה הוא נקרא חנון, אף אתה היה חנון; מה הוא נקרא רחום, אף אתה היה רחום; מה הוא נקרא קדוש, אף אתה היה קדוש. ועל דרך זו קראו הנביאים לאל בכל אותן הכינויין, ארך אפיים ורב חסד צדיק וישר תמים גיבור וחזק וכיוצא בהן--להודיע שאלו דרכים טובים וישרים הם, וחייב אדם להנהיג עצמו בהן ולהידמות כפי כוחו
V'halachta b'drachov is also invoked in chazal in l'mod agada shemitoch kach ata makir b'hkb"h u'mdabek b'drachov.
Where does it say to "look at the world and see how god acts"? In the mitzva of ahavas hashem, Rambam mentions that, but otherwise, we are taught to emulate, eg God visited Avraham, therefore the mitzva of bikur cholim, etc. V'hkb"h b'atzmo ohev ger, she'enemar v'ohev ger loses lo lechem v'simla. Chazal and rambam both invoke v'halachta b'drochov in ways learned from torah!!!
Imitatio deo is Latin, that's the tipoff that it's a central idea in the Church:-)
I believe there is such an idea in Islam as well, but am not sufficiently familiar to say how prominent it is.
Where does Rambam *explicitly* say that these ideas don't exist in Islam and Christianity?
>Imitatio deo is Latin, that's the tipoff that it's a central idea in the Church:-)
ReplyDeleteCorrect and as usual copied from Veholachto Bidrochov.
Here is christianity. On 2:40
where he talks about a person that is sexually profilgate R.Kafieh makes this note:
. שמא רומו רבנו לישו כפי שמסרו חז"ל בסוטה מז א (במושמטות) אמר ר' יהוידע בן פרחיה כמה נאה אכסנאי זו, אמר לו ישו ר' עיניה טרוטות, אמר לו רשע בכך אתה עוסק, אפילו ארבע מאה שיפורי ושמתיה
I know he mentions Mohammed in a similar context but I will need to find it.
It is neither here nor there. Read that perek and you will see that i am right. He basically says there is no other religion that has this idea in it.
Re veholachto bidrochov my way 3:53
וכבר ביארנו בשלילת התארים 11 שכל תואר שה' מתואר בו בספרי הנביאים הוא תואר מעשי, והנה בגלל המציאו את הכל נקרא חסיד, ובגלל רחמיו על החלשים 12 כלומר: הנהגת החי בכוחותיו 13 נקרא צדיק, ובגלל מה שמחדש בעולם מן הטובות היחסיות 14 והפגעים הגדולים היחסיים אשר חייב אותם המשפט שהוא תוצאה של החכמה נקרא שופט 15.
וכבר נתפרשו בתורה שלשה שמות הללו, השופט כל הארץ 16, צדיק וישר הוא 17, ורב חסד 18 וכל מטרתי בפירוש ענייני שמות הללו הצעה לפרק שאביא אחר זה. [תיב]
and read 3:54 you will see.
Thanks anyway. Gives me the opportunity for another post.
Anon - You also show me that there is a need to clarify how rambam wants to be read. He wants precision and breadth at the same time. he demands both quite explicitly.
ReplyDeleteYou can get Kafieh edition here.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/more/shaar-2.htm
"here he talks about a person that is sexually profilgate R.Kafieh makes this note:
ReplyDelete. שמא רומו רבנו לישו כפי שמסרו חז"ל בסוטה מז א (במושמטות) אמר ר' יהוידע בן פרחיה כמה נאה אכסנאי זו, אמר לו ישו ר' עיניה טרוטות, אמר לו רשע בכך אתה עוסק, אפילו ארבע מאה שיפורי ושמתיה
I know he mentions Mohammed in a similar context but I will need to find it."
Oh, I'm not disputing that he saw them as poor models - and you can complain about imatatio dei from that angle, i.e. what does copying Jesus do for you if Jesus was not a god. But that's separate from the rest of your claim.
here is Rambam in 3:54
ReplyDeleteהתבונן היאך אמרן כפי סדרן אצל ההמון, כי השלמות הגדולה אצלם עשיר בעושרו, ולמטה ממנו גיבור בגבורתו, ולמטה ממנו חכם בחכמתו, כלומר: בעל המידות הנעלות, שגם אדם זה מכובד אצל ההמון אשר אליהם הוא המשא 38, ולפיכך סודרו בסדר זה.
וכבר השיגו חכמים ז"ל מן הפסוק הזה את העניינים הללו עצמן אשר הזכרנו, וביארו מה שביארתי לך בפרק זה, והוא שהחכמה האמורה בסתם בכל מקום והיא התכלית, היא השגתו יתעלה, ושהרכוש הזה שהאדם רוכש מן הסגולות שמתקנאים 39 בהן וחושבים אותם שלמות אינם שלמות.
וכן כל המעשים התורתיים הללו כלומר: מיני העבודות, וכן המידות המועילות לכל בני אדם בעסקיהם זה עם זה, כל אלה אין להשוותן אל התכלית הזו הסופית, ואינן שוות לה, אלא הם מצעים בגלל התכלית הזו.
He says all Midos are for the purpose of Ydias Hashem
Then he continues
והואיל והזכרנו פסוק זה ונפלאות שנכללו בו והזכרנו דברי חכמים ז"ל עליו, נשלים מה שנכלל בו, והוא, שלא הסתפק בפסוק זה בביאור הנעלה שבתכליות שהיא השגתו יתעלה בלבד. כי אילו הייתה זו מטרתו, היה אומר כי אם בזאת יתהלל המתהלל השכל וידע אותי, ויפסיק הדיבור, או היה אומר השכל וידע אותי כי [תטו] אני אחד, או היה אומר כי אין לי תמונה, או כי אין כמוני, וכל כיוצא באלה. אלא אמר כי ההתפארות היא בהשגתי ובידיעת תוארי כלומר: מעשי, כעין מה שביארנו 43 באומרו הודיעני נא דרכיך וגו' 44.
וביאר לנו בפסוק זה כי אותם המעשים אשר חובה לדעת אותם ולהתדמות בהם, הם חסד ומשפט וצדקה *44.
והוסיף עניין אחר חשוב והוא אומרו: בארץ, אשר זהו ציר התורה, ולא כדמיון המתפרצים אשר דמו כי השגחתו יתעלה נסתיימה אצל גלגל הירח, ושהארץ וכל אשר בה עזובים, עזב ה' את הארץ 45, אלא כמו שביאר לנו על ידי אדון החכמים: כי לה' הארץ 46, אמר כי השגחתו גם בארץ כראוי לה, כמו שמשגיח בשמים כראוי לה, והוא אומרו: כי אני ה' עשה חסד משפט וצדקה בארץ 47.
ואחרי כן השלים את העניין ואמר כי באלה חפצתי נאם ה' 48, רוצה לומר מטרתי שיהא 49 מכם חסד וצדקה ומשפט בארץ, כדרך שביארנו בשלוש עשרה מידות 50, שהמטרה להתדמות בהן ושיהיו אלה הליכותינו 51.
נמצא כי התכלית אשר הזכיר בפסוק זה, היא שהוא ביאר כי שלמות האדם אשר בה יתפאר באמת היא מי שהגיע להשגתו יתעלה כפי יכולתו, וידע השגחתו על ברואיו בהמצאתם והנהגתם היאך היא, והיו הליכות אותו האדם אחר אותה ההשגה מתכוון בהם תמיד 52 חסד צדקה ומשפט, להתדמות במעשיו יתעלה, על הדרך שביארנו כמה פעמים במאמר זה *52
now Midos are post Yediah and the tachlis of Yediah. I am correct here and it is the crux of rambam's shita. I will write more about it.
I am surprised you resist this so much. it seems so fanatastic and secheldig that I get the shivers!
What I have not yet worked out is that he seems to have 2 sets of emulating, the 13 midos which he discusses in the 1st chelek and refers to here and then Chesed Mishpat and Tzedaka which he introduces here as post Yediah. What is the difference? Is it cunmmulative?
ReplyDeleteI don't see your position supported from what you quote - but I will try and look at the section in full more carefully later.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteHere Rambam says
וכן המידות המועילות לכל בני אדם
בעסקיהם זה עם זה
In other words ethics and morality which is between each other is so that we can have peace of mind to get to yediah as he says in many places.
then he says the goal of yediah is :
שלא הסתפק בפסוק זה בביאור הנעלה שבתכליות שהיא השגתו יתעלה בלבד
Yediah is not the final goal but:
47.
ואחרי כן השלים את העניין ואמר כי באלה חפצתי נאם ה' 48, רוצה לומר מטרתי שיהא 49 מכם חסד וצדקה ומשפט בארץ, כדרך שביארנו בשלוש עשרה מידות 50, שהמטרה להתדמות בהן ושיהיו אלה הליכותינו
to emulate God which is
, והיו הליכות אותו האדם אחר אותה ההשגה מתכוון בהם תמיד 52 חסד צדקה ומשפט, להתדמות במעשיו יתעלה
So it seems the 13 Midos which he told us about in 1:54 and Chesed mishpat and tzedakah which he explains here as emulating God take on a new meaning after achieving yedias Hashem.
The idea is that he starts with the similar act in 1:2 as not intellectual and ends in 3:54 making it intellectual.
The key is 1:54 where he presents Moshe integrating Yediah and emulating God.
What I'm disputing is the *source* of knowing how to emulate God. Your claim is that it's empirical observation, not from a revealed text, and this is what makes us different than Christians:
ReplyDelete"Torah tells us to look at the world and infer from that how God acts while Christianity tells you to read the human produced gospel and imitate the man it describes and how he acted, allegedly imitating God."
Now I agree that Rambam didn't have a very high opinion of Mohammed, or think Jesus was a good representation of v'halachta b'drochov, let alone divine.
But I think his concept of v'halachta b'drachov is that one learns darkei hashem from the text of torah as a primary source. To stick with the ex I gave, he writes on ahavas hager "v'hkb"h batzmo ohev geyrim, she'neemear Etc" Can one know that God loves geyrim from empirical observation? That he would like us to do bikur cholim, etc? Perhaps, but the direct source is psukim, or so it seems both in chazal and rambam (but I still have to look over these perakim).
I'm not disputing anything else about your understanding of v'halachta b'drachov, just this:
ReplyDelete"Rambam is telling us, true Christianity preaches love and kindness, true the Koran teaches to give alms, but they are teaching the mundane kind, the reciprocal type. Our Torah teaches us to do these things as Imitato Dei, emulating God, and that is Divine law not a human one, given by a true prophet not a plagiarist."
To which you responded that they teach imitatoo what they consider the revealed text, not imitatio the empirically based observations of god's actions in nature. I think we teach the former too, just that moshe is a more credible prophet than Mohammed etc.
Hope this is clearer. Sorry for the confusion.
>Your claim is that it's empirical observation, not from a revealed text, and this is what makes us different than Christians
ReplyDeleteיכולתו, וידע השגחתו על ברואיו בהמצאתם והנהגתם היאך היא
Is that not clear enough?
I can quote you probably 10 or 15 places where he makes that clear. Rambam in general when comes to yediah is not text based. That is why torah to him includes all sciences.
We're talking past each other. The Rambam doesn't say that this is the difference with Xianity and Judaism! He says that you can know the prophet didn't just plagiarize based on behavior.
ReplyDeleteWRT the rest, the Rambam begins (and ends) with psukim; Yedia is fleshed out with experience, and informed by it, but it's not one or the other. As relates to this discussion, I am sure that Xianity does have a concept of v'halachta bdrachav that is empirically based; the whole concept of Natural Law is Christian. This wouldn't distinguish Judaism either. Natural Law doesn't exclude or substitute for learning about God's ways from revealed text in Christianity, and I don't think in Judaism either.
I am no specialist in comparative religion, in fact I know very little about other religions outside judaism. I picked up on Rambam's tone which seemed to be proposing a test of how one knows a Law is divine versus human.
ReplyDeleteThe point I was trying to make is that similar actions can be seen as human law or divine law depending on where in the development process one is.
The undertone that i think you picked up is correct. I do not believe that sitting in beis hamidrash and trying to find HKBH from texts without being active in His universe and studying His creation can bring you to a correct understanding of Veholachto Bidrochov.
If you disagree you will have plenty of opportunity to voice it as it is one of my favorite themes. If you agree enjoy the ride and make sure I don't say innacurate things. :-)thanks for reading.
I'm just asking where in the Rambam you see this worked out as the difference between Judaism and other religions. That part appears to be extraplation and not in the text - all I see is evaluation of the prophet-messenger's behavior - and I don't see how it works.
ReplyDeleteFor the rest, I am not sure if we disagree, or where, but it is a separate and as you point out perenniel issue - but regardless, the same dual sources of knowledge of God's ways exist in other religions.
I always enjoy your enthusiasm.
Subjectively, although the Rambam doesn't say this, I would say that one can decide that the behavior advocated by other religions doesn't conform to v'halachta b'drachav.
ReplyDeleteEg one can say that the view of human nature in Judaism, mercy vs judgement, etc seems more consistent with human psychology and "natural law" than the christian view.
This to me seems a valid reason to conclude that intuitively Judaism is more consistent with divine will.
But I don't think the Rambam is saying this, even if it's consistent with his approach.
>I'm just asking where in the Rambam you see this worked out as the difference between Judaism and other religions. That part appears to be extraplation and not in the text
ReplyDeleteyou are right it is extrapolation as are many things we read into Rambam. It would seem to me to be more straightforward than many other Brisker Toires.
>the same dual sources of knowledge of God's ways exist in other religions
I am not sure what you mean by "dual sources"? If you mean textual I disagree. Rambam tells us to look at the world and interpret the Torah so that it fits and applies to the world. Hence his famous comment about Bri'ah Yesh Meayin in 2:25. We learn Darchei Hashem from His actions not His words.
But there are many places where rambam invokes v'halachta b'drachav exclusively based on psukim, the example with geyrim is just one.
ReplyDeleteEven here, he begins with psukim, and then uses that as a stepping stone. Moshe did need to actually receive the 13 midos and they are part of the revealed text. The two are not fully separable.
another ex, sefer hamitzvos asey #3 hi she'tzivanu b'ahavaso yisbarach. V'zeh she'nachshov v'nisboneyn b'mitzvosov u'ma'amarov u'pe'ulosov ad she'nasigeyhu v'ne'hene behasogoso b'tachlis ha'noah... v'loshon sifri l'fi she'ne'emar v'ahavta es hashem elokecha eyni yodea keytzad ohev es hamokom, talmud lomar v'hoyu ha'dvorim ha'eyle asher onochi metavcha hayom al l'vavecha, she'mitoch kach ata makir es mi she'omar v'haya ha'olam etc.
ReplyDeletehe says to think and be misbonen on all three - mitzovs and maamaoros and peuulosov.
How can you possibly separate the text from pe'ulosov? The text *is* an empirical phenomonen to a believer. God says is also something God did! I understand that the rambam doesn't confine knowledge of god to the beis medrash, and emphasizes philosophical/empirical knowledge, but kicking him out of beis midrash is too much! :-) This bright dividing line between empirical and textual knowledge doesn't really exist.
I think that there are 3 stages, first is Naskil ve nisbonen Mitzvosos which means besides knowing what they require from you the reasons for them are important e.g.discipline and midos as well as anti idolatry which are required to get to the next level which is naskil venisbonen bi'puolosov. To do that properly one has to be unbiased and therefore the Mitzvos and the understanding thereof prepares you for it. Then for metaphysical speculation which is also pe'ulosov one reverts to the text itself because there Nevuah is the decider as in 2:25 when talking about Yesh Meayin and re Rotzon in several places. The Torah itself does not teach physics nor biology it does teach midos and ma'aseh Merkava.
ReplyDeleteI never understood how that idea that the Torah teaches all science internally can still be accepted nowadays. It made sense when science was still a complete mistery. Metaphysics we will always have to turn to torah because it has no proof in our reality.
Your points are very well taken and each of your examples has to be reread and there are more that I can point to. I have not done a full analysis of all of them but it will be done IY'H.
I am trying to get into Hashhgacha as I just submitted a paper on Miracles to Hakirah which should get published in June if no delays occur.
In my Negative attribute one which I excerpted on a few posts i dealt with prophecy in this context.
"Then for metaphysical speculation which is also pe'ulosov one reverts to the text itself because there Nevuah is the decider as in 2:25 when talking about Yesh Meayin and re Rotzon in several places."
ReplyDeleteThis is part of what I'm saying.
But also when it comes to midos hkb"h, the text tells you what the midos are. Why is there need to do that? Why are the 13 midos written, why does yirmayahu say (using your text):
-”But he [ירמיהוּ] says that one should glory in the apprehension of Myself and in the knowledge of My attributes by which he means His actions, as we made clear with reference to the verse: הוֹדיענוּ נא את דרכיך - Show me now Thy ways. In this verse he [ירמיהוּ] makes it clear to us that those actions that ought to be known and imitated are loving kindness, judgment and righteousness.[4]”
all this shoudl be deducible from the natural world (and might be for a navi, but it's in the text for a purpose).
It's not just science/metaphysics, it's also God's hanhagos which one sees in how he behaves, rewards, and is described in torah. I would have thought this is completely uncontroversial - do you really disagree?
At any rate, good shabbos.
I'm sorry, I missed this phrase:
ReplyDelete"it does teach midos and ma'aseh Merkava. "
So we are agreeing, I think.
>and might be for a navi, but it's in the text for a purpose).
ReplyDeleteThe purpose is to direct how to look and from what perspective. A scientist will not necessarily see HKBH in the Bry'ah without being made aware to look at that. Anyway good shabbos to you too. We are getting closer!
>midos
ReplyDeleteI meant midos bnei odom not hashem. But yes my earlier comment can be defined as midos hashem.
"I meant midos bnei odom not hashem. But yes my earlier comment can be defined as midos hashem."
ReplyDeleteI realize now that's what happened, I read it as midos bnei odom the first time and on rereading, read it as midos hashem. :-)
.. ahhHH... but why some people cant stop their bad side??
ReplyDelete