Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Fire and Darkness -

Last Shabbat we read the following:

יט וַיְהִי, כְּשָׁמְעֲכֶם אֶת-הַקּוֹל מִתּוֹךְ הַחֹשֶׁךְ, וְהָהָר, בֹּעֵר בָּאֵשׁ; וַתִּקְרְבוּן אֵלַי, כָּל-רָאשֵׁי שִׁבְטֵיכֶם וְזִקְנֵיכֶם. 19 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, while the mountain did burn with fire, that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;

The description of the Divine voice is that it came out of the darkness while just a few verses earlier we read:

יב וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֲלֵיכֶם, מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ: קוֹל דְּבָרִים אַתֶּם שֹׁמְעִים, וּתְמוּנָה אֵינְכֶם רֹאִים זוּלָתִי קוֹל.12 And the LORD spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of words, but ye saw no form; only a voice.

The Divine voice came out of fire. What was it fire or darkness? Medieval scholars saw light and darkness as one. Darkness being the lack of light, they understood that the underlying element of light is darkness and light is some kind of activation of that underlying element. Rambam in Moreh 2:30 explains it as follows:

The four elements indicated, according to our explanation, in the term Eretz" earth," in the first verse, (he is referring to the first verse in the Torah- DG) are mentioned first after the heavens: for there are named Eretz (earth), Ruach (air), mayim (water), and Choshech (fire). By Choshech the element fire is meant, nothing else; " And thou heard his words out of the midst of the fire" (Deut. iv. 36): and," When ye heard the voice out of the midst of the Choshech" (darkness) (ibid. V. 2): again," All Choshech (darkness) shall be hid in his secret places: a fire not blown shall consume him" (job XX. 26). The element fire is called Choshech because it is not luminous; it is only transparent; for if it were luminous we should see at night the whole atmosphere in flames.”

In other words, there is the basic element darkness which when activated turns into light. If deactivated it becomes darkness. When we speculate about God we, humans, have to picture Him somehow. The things that come to mind are the least physical possible things we can imagine. One of those things is darkness which to our mind is described as lacking even light, the least physical of all elements, “it is only transparent”.

Yeshayahu 45:7 says:

ז יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ, עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע; אֲנִי יְהוָה, עֹשֶׂה כָל-אֵלֶּה. {פ} 7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things. {P}

Rambam in 3:10 notes:

In accordance with this view we explain the following passage of Isaiah:" I form the light and create (borei) darkness: I make peace, and create (borei) evil" for darkness and evil are non-existing things. Consider that the prophet does not say, I make ('osseh) darkness, I make ('osseh) evil, because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which the verb to make" would apply; the verb Bara" he created" is used, because in Hebrew this verb is applied to non-existing things e.g.," In the beginning God created" (Bara), etc.: here the creation took place from nothing. Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be produced by a certain action of an agent.”

The word Bara is used when describing creation from nothingness where nothingness is the substrate that contains existence just as darkness is the substrate of light. First one has to create a substrate so that something else can be superimposed. The substrate itself has no real individual physical existence, just a negative connotation, and a lack of something. When saying that at Sinai we heard the Divine sound coming from fire or darkness we are saying that it came from a non-physical source. As most people have a hard time grasping nothingness, they use metaphors in their minds to describe it. Some see it as fire others more sophisticated, see it as fire’s substrate - darkness. That explains the ending of the verse- וּתְמוּנָה אֵינְכֶם רֹאִים- but ye saw no form – the fire they “saw” was just a metaphor, not something they saw with their eyes. Fire after all has a form. The same idea is conveyed by the terms Anan – clouds, Arafel – fog, used in the Sinai experience.

Rabbeinu Bachya has a similar approach in this Parsha. He explains the verse in Melachim 1:19:


יא וַיֹּאמֶר, צֵא וְעָמַדְתָּ בָהָר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, וְהִנֵּה יְהוָה עֹבֵר וְרוּחַ גְּדוֹלָה וְחָזָק מְפָרֵק הָרִים וּמְשַׁבֵּר סְלָעִים לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, לֹא בָרוּחַ יְהוָה; וְאַחַר הָרוּחַ רַעַשׁ, לֹא בָרַעַשׁ יְהוָה. 11 And He said: 'Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD.' And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake;
יב וְאַחַר הָרַעַשׁ אֵשׁ, לֹא בָאֵשׁ יְהוָה; וְאַחַר הָאֵשׁ, קוֹל דְּמָמָה דַקָּה. 12 and after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice.

Elyahu was “standing on the mountain” a metaphor similar to Ma’amad Har Sinai, where he was searching for an understanding of God. The process he used was to first imagine God as a strong wind, and when he realized that that is too physical, he imagined that God is a sound wave. Realizing that too is too physical he saw Him as fire and finally realizing that even that is anthropomorphism he ended up with silence – He cannot be described or imagined. Rabbeinu Bachya discusses this in the context of the Passuk Devarim 4:39:

לט וְיָדַעְתָּ הַיּוֹם, וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל-לְבָבֶךָ, כִּי יְהוָה הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים, בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וְעַל-הָאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת: אֵין, עוֹד. 39 know this day, and lay it to thy heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is none else.

He explains that the Torah lays out an obligation to try to get an understanding of God - “lay it to thy heart” - which follows this path of negating all things that one can imagine about God. Rambam’s idea of Negative Attributes had taken hold even among the Kabbalists of the medieval era. Rambam’s understanding of the Mitzvah of Yediat Hashem as being not just simple faith but a search for rationally understanding God, held sway. It is only in later generations that Emunah Peshuta as an a priori approach became mainstream Judaism.

As an aside, anyone that knows a little about Rabbeinu Bahya,( Bahya ben Asher or Bahya ben Asher ben Halawa also known as the Rabbeinu Behaye, born about the middle of the thirteenth century at Saragossa, died 1340 was a 13th century rabbi and scholar of Judaism. He was a commentator on the Hebrew Bible and is noted for introducing Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) into study of the Torah- Wikipedia)
knows that he was a Talmid of the Rashba, Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Aderet, one of the leading Possekim of his time and also a great Mekubal from the Ramban School. That school of Kabbalah would be considered rationalistic in our time. Both Rambam and Ramban were rationalists differing in their understanding of the natural world. The difference was not at the basic level but rather in the details, how they understood and perceived their reality. Ramban understood mysticism and astrology as scientific facts while Rambam made a clear distinction between the physical and non-physical.

38 comments:

  1. Nice post. With regard to the Rambam's opinion of "the Mitzvah of Yediat Hashem ... being not just simple faith but a search for rationally understanding God," we can also cite the other Bachya (ibn Pakuda):

    It is impossible to think that the nations would recognize us as being wise and understanding if we were not to provide infallible proofs and explanations for the truth of the Torah and our faith.

    No one could possibly hold such a strong position nowadays, but it's interesting to see how far we've fallen from the idea that Judaism is a rational system.

    ReplyDelete
  2. David,
    You wrote:
    "One of those things is darkness which to our mind is described as lacking even light, the least physical of all elements, “it is only transparent”."

    I remember in my HS art class (already 16 years ago) that the color black absorbs all other light, while the color white reflects all other colors in the spectrum. Does this relate to what you're saying?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Neil, I think it would be too literal.Darkness is not black as black is a color that functions by absorbing light.

    The way I understand is that darkness is the lack of light. It is just a concept because absence of something does not necessarily mean there is something. Light is "something" compared to darkness, which is only the lack of "something".

    ReplyDelete
  4. No one could possibly hold such a strong position nowadays, but it's interesting to see how far we've fallen from the idea that Judaism is a rational system.

    I dissagree.

    As the rest of the world continues on its search for complete and utter relevatism and subjectivity, and continues to deny the existance of objectivity, I believe they will eventually be lead to the same conclusions the Kabbalists (such as Kaplan and Kook) came to understand.

    And at that time, with the help of the scientific understanding of multiple dimensions as a reality rather than a mathematical theory, Judaism will be proveable.

    To be honest though, I don't understand multiple dimensions as a reality, however the string theorists seem to keep comming up with evidence of it, and before that, I had always assumed like Rambam, and not like Ramban.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here we go again...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Irviner, could you please explain your comment? i can read some quite heavy duty stuff but you beat them all!

    ReplyDelete
  7. :(

    Which part do you need explaining?

    How the current philosophy of academics leads to completly subjective realities? Or how that conclusion leads to the same ideas of Kabbalah? Or the bit about multiple dimensions? Or the bit where I mention that I viewed dimensions as Rambam and Ramban?

    ReplyDelete
  8. erm, Rambam, and not Ramban.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Something I just realised. Many people might think that I, showing myself to be a religous person, think that completely subjective realities, is something I dissagree with. I do not deny the facts that Academic studies have found. The only thing I dissagree with them on, is the conclusion.

    So please, when reading my comments, don't place possitive or negetive connotations on the words I use, because I mean them completely neutrally.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think you misrepresent the Ramban. The Ramban's kabbalah is from the Girona school and is by definition NOT rationalistic. That is, assuming that you define rationalistic as the stance that one can only attain knowledge through and ONLY through the faculties of the intellect.

    The school of the Ramban held that will is the source of chochma and thus that knowledge can be perceived through OTHER derivatives of will that are parallel to chochma but not subsumed under it. This is clear in the Ramban's perush to sefer yetzira and is even clearer from the writings of his rabbis.

    I understand the need of rationalists to explain the kabbalah of the Ramban as being an explanation of the physical world which he would reject if he lived today. I do not, however, believe that such a stance is any more honest than those who try to turn the Rambam into a mekubal. As the maharal says in his commentary to the 5th chapter of avot, these are two system which can not truly be reconciled. We must accept this and find joy in learning both!

    ReplyDelete
  11. >As the maharal says in his commentary to the 5th chapter of avot, these are two system which can not truly be reconciled. We must accept this and find joy in learning both!

    You don't think that these systems can be reconciled on different levels?

    i.e. Rambam is only discussing the world as it is viewed and works within the realm of Olam Asyiah, and the Ramban is including multiple olams in his understanding?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rambam is only discussing the world as it is viewed and works within the realm of Olam Asyiah

    I think that the Rambam would completely reject the idea of tzimtzum and therefore the very idea of olamot. The Ramban himself most likely did not have a concept of olamot either as that concept is pretty much dependant on the doctorine of tzimtzum as understood by the Ariz"l

    ReplyDelete
  13. I know your stance Chardal, and you have many who think alike. maharal being one of them. I don't think we can do this on comments. I hope one day to post about this. i have been intrigued by this whole issue for quitte a while and would like to once and for all figure it out. BTW I am enjoying Ish Shalom a lot. Unfortunately i read about 5 books at once on top of regular shiurim so it takes a while.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If you are asking if there is room for rationalism within mysticism then the answer is of course yes, but it will never be the kind of epistimology and ontology advocated by the mideval rationalists such as the Rambam, Ralbag, and the Meiri.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I know your stance Chardal, and you have many who think alike.

    I am not advocating a stance, I am tring to clarify why I believe you are wrong about the Ramban. Don't you admit that his kabbalistic school had completely diffenet ontological standards than the Rambam?

    (BTW, I am glad you are enjoying the book!)

    ReplyDelete
  16. >I think that the Rambam would completely reject the idea of tzimtzum and therefore the very idea of olamot. The Ramban himself most likely did not have a concept of olamot either as that concept is pretty much dependant on the doctorine of tzimtzum as understood by the Ariz"l

    That is correct. That is why i believe that the early Mekubalim believed that what you call extra rational thought was in fact part and parcel of science. The best proof is Ramban's understanding of magnetism as something non-physical. BTW the famous question of how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, would be answered differently by each.

    ReplyDelete
  17. >Don't you admit that his kabbalistic school had completely diffenet ontological standards than the Rambam?

    Of course. The issue is what compelled them to see it that way? If it was explaining a physical phenomenum it obviously is science and not irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That is why i believe that the early Mekubalim believed that what you call extra rational thought was in fact part and parcel of science

    Well you might be correct as far as they used mysticism to explain misunderstood physical phenomena. However, the main difference is in their approach to knowledge in general and I see no evidence that their approach would change today. In fact, I don’t think you can bridge their approach to spiritual experience and imagination as sources of knowledge nor can you bridge their understanding of prophesy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Maybe you understand the term reconcile differently than me, however, when I see the term reconcile, in a secular sens, I think about the ideas of Euclidian Geomotry and Newton's Calculus. It is not hard to "reconcile" them, even if Euclid never even thought about the existance of calculus...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Of course. The issue is what compelled them to see it that way?

    I don't see evidence that the driving force was to get a better understanding of the physical world. If anything, that was secondary result of their initial impetus which was to explain paradox of a personal God simultaneously being ein sof.

    It is the problems of providence and free will more than science which motivated them.That is why i believe that the early Mekubalim believed that what you call extra rational thought was in fact part and parcel of science

    Well you might be correct as far as they used mysticism to explain misunderstood physical phenomena. However, the main difference is in their approach to knowledge in general and I see no evidence that their approach would change today. In fact, I don’t think you can bridge their approach to spiritual experience and imagination as sources of knowledge nor can you bridge their understanding of prophesy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. >In fact, I don’t think you can bridge their approach to spiritual experience and imagination as sources of knowledge

    If you read Ramban carefully he always sticks to what he learned from his rebbis and builds on it rationally. He will not let his imagination rule on its own. Only one generation later you had Abulafia who went that step further and let imagination take over. Rashba fought him and put him into Cherem. He still stayed with Ramban's derech as did his talmidim- staying with tradition only. Recanati let the cat out of the bag that R. Ytzchak Sagi Nahor had inspiration. I am not sure Ramban accepted that.

    Yes the problem of Ein Sof is the big issue for everyone including Rambam. He deals with it in his classical approach of transcendence - the Ramban school was not convinced in Yesh Me'ayin as you can see from R.Azriel's comment in Shir Hashirim on R.Eliezer Hagadol's famous Shamayim meheichan nivre'u. They therefore used rational philosophical approaches and not immagination. That changed as i mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  22. OK, here's a question that probably can't be answered on one foot, but I'll ask it anyway:

    Rambam says God is unknowable in His essence and attributes, but knowable in His actions. (DG has posted about this a dozen times, so I hope I got this right.) On the other hand, the kabbalists say that God is unknowable as En Sof but knowable through the Sefirot.

    Are both schools ultimately making the same distinction between God's knowable and unknowable aspects? Or is it not the same distinction at all?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  23. He will not let his imagination rule on its own

    That is not what I was suggesting at all.

    The big machloket seems to be whether imagination is only worthy when inspired by intelect or whether imagination can create units of knowledge which are then subjected to the intelect.

    There are of course more nuances to this question but imagination alone is not really advocated by anyone, not even R. Abulafia.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sorry, I put the last bold on the wrong word, but I think you get the question...

    ReplyDelete
  25. some guy,

    your question boils down to whether one sees Hashem's chochma as equivalent to His essance or if one sees it as derivitive from His essance (in other words, an action)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Because in the sefirotic system, chochma is split off from the other sefirot?

    ReplyDelete
  27. No, because chochma IS a sefira.

    Their biggest question is where to place keter which is basicaly equivalent to will. Some include it in the sephirot, most say it is not in the system of sephirot and therefore not understandable.

    ReplyDelete
  28. So if Chochma is equivalent to Essence, then the division between knowable and unknowable differs between the two systems (rational and kabbalistic), because on the kabbalistic system Essence would then be knowable. However, if Chochma is NOT equivalent to Essence, then the division between known and unknown in the two systems could very well be the same?

    I would have thought that Keter would have corresponded to Essence. Also, is En Sof = Ayin in kabbalistic thought?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sorry guys I got to go now. Keep up the discussion and I will put in my two senses tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  30. because on the kabbalistic system Essence would then be knowable

    No, essence would not be knowable. Chochma would be (to an extent - I would not say knowable, it is too strong a word) thus what is knowable is broader in any kabalistic system.


    I would have thought that Keter would have corresponded to Essence


    As I said according to some who equate it with ein-sof, others disagree.

    Also, is En Sof = Ayin in kabbalistic thought?

    This is something that is really in the realm of kabbalistic meditations. It is not something I would post on in a thread.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Are both schools ultimately making the same distinction between God's knowable and unknowable aspects? Or is it not the same distinction at all?

    I would say it is the same, as long as "actions" = Verbs

    ReplyDelete
  32. man, I wish I could edit comments.

    Verbs = verbs as best can be understood about an infinite being in all aspects of inifnity.

    ReplyDelete
  33. David, can you go to Dov bear's site and explain if Rambam belived that thought was more important than action?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hmmmm, thanks, but I'm still confused. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  35. What are you confused about? These are not simple ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  36. some guy, can you email me? chardal613@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete