[י] עשו בבית שני אורים ותומים, כדי להשלים שמונה בגדים--ואף על פי שלא היו נשאלין בהן. ומפני מה לא היו שואלין בהן: מפני שלא הייתה שם רוח הקודש; וכל כוהן שאינו מדבר ברוח הקודש, ואין שכינה שורה עליו--אין נשאלין בו.
י [יא] וכיצד שואלין: עומד הכוהן ופניו לפני הארון, והשואל מאחריו, פניו לאחורי הכוהן. ואומר השואל, אעלה או לא אעלה; ואינו שואל בקול רם, ולא מהרהר בליבו, אלא בקול נמוך, כמי שמתפלל בינו לבין עצמו.
יא ומיד רוח הקודש לובשת את הכוהן, ומביט בחושן, ורואה בו במראה הנבואה, עלה או לא תעלה--באותייות שבולטות מן החושן כנגד פניו. והכוהן משיבו ואומר לו עלה, או לא תעלה.
(Rambam Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 10:10)
Paraphrasing: During the second Temple they had Urim and Tumim but they were not queried because there was no Ruach Hakodesh. A Cohen that had no Ruach Hakodesh was not a vehicle for a query.
The way the process worked was for the Cohen to stand facing the Aron and the person that wanted to pose a question stood behind him facing his back asking do I go up or not? (Apparently not all queries were appropriate. They were limited to national affairs regarding war.) That person queried in a soft voice, as one does in the quiet Tefilah (apparently he is referring to the Amidah).
Immediately the Ruach Hakodesh (the spirit that emanates from the Holy place) covers the Cohen, and while looking at the Choshen he experiences a prophetic vision, in which he sees the letters that make up the words, “go up” or “do not go up”, highlighted. The Cohen transmits the response to the petitioner.
Reading this Rambam it is clear that querying the Urim and Tumim was a prophetic experience. It was a tool to help a person that perfected himself to the level of prophecy, to experience it. The emphasis is not the physical object but the personal preparation of the prophet/Cohen. It also is clear that there was no physical change in the Choshen. It was the Cohen who through his prophecy “saw” the letters highlighted. Nothing changed physically; the Cohen had a prophetic vision.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
What makes a new movement in Judaism acceptable?
I had not planned to opine about the YCT article in Yated but my last post and comments I made on Areivim got me into the subject. I am also working hard on a post on MN 3:23 about Iyov so this gives me a little diversion and an opportunity to set out my ideas.
The purpose of Torah and Mitzvot is to train us in Avodat Hashem and make us into people that can develop Ahavat Hashem. Ahavat Hashem is based on knowledge and synonymous with Yediat Hashem. To acquire the kind of knowledge that lets us have an understanding of HKBH we have to work on ourselves by being disciplined, moral, and ethical as enumerated in the Braitha of Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair that Ramchal based his Mesilat Yesharim on. The Torah and Mitzvot are the tools that we have, to attain these Midot.
For the Torah and Mitzvot to work in helping us fulfill the goal intended, it has to be tailored to each personality. Some people need clear delineations; others thrive on creativity and a certain amount of freedom. I personally feel stifled by minutiae but I know others who are lost without it. Some people feel imprisoned living in a very close community others would give their life for it. In other words there has to be a certain amount of leeway for Torah to allow for the different personalities. That explains the different groups within Halachik Judaism. Each works for a different type of person.
Of course not all members of a group are thinkers nor are all aware of what the goal is. Within each group there are those who work hard at growing in Yediat Hashem while others just go along because of communal pressure, feeling part of something, family or other reasons. That is the case with the Chassidim, where some are growing through the system while others just have the trappings. The same can be said about the Yeshivish crowd, the Dati Leumi, the Hungarian Ashkenaz, the Yekkes and the Modern Orthodox. They all have the same goal and probably the same percentage of real Ovdei Hashem. They just act differently outwardly but those that are serious in each group have the same goal, Yediat Hashem.
So what binds all these different groups? Nothing but Halacha. When I say Halacha I refer to Halacha leMa’aseh as it applies to Mitzvot Asseh and Lo Ta’asseh not Hashkafah matters. Even the Ikkarim just describe general rules without really settling exactly what they mean. Besides Metziut Hashem, the existence of God and Ychud Hashem, uniqueness of God, all the others are quite broad. Anthropomorphism according to Ra’avad is tolerable, exactly what is Avodah Zara depends on who one accepts Rambam or Ramban and that goes even more for the rest. We believe in Techyat Hametim, Nevuah, Mashiach and so on but exactly what each one means and defined depends on who you accept and understand. It is only the Halachot leMa’aseh as decided in the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi that are binding on all of us. Of course there are differences of opinion even there. Not all agree how the Talmud decided, but that is usually more in a detail than in the overall Halacha.
Halachot that are not in the Talmud are deduced from it and human intellect is so great that there is rarely agreement on anything when deduction is the method. Each competent Rav or Talmid Chacham can rule in those areas as long as it is an honest truth seeking approach. Rambam in his introduction to Mishne Torah states that it is his goal to summarize the decisions of the Talmud so that everyone will know how to follow it. He emphasizes that he restricts himself to those halachot while others are up to each Posek to decide.
Taking all this into account I believe that what defines a new movement in Judaism as legitimate is its adherence to Halacha as defined in the Talmud. As long as they adhere to this, their particular philosophy as to hashkafah is irrelevant. Adherence to Halacha demonstrates that their ultimate goal is Yediat Hashem and are therefore legitimate and should be viewed as just as genuine as any other movement. This has been proven historically. Shabbtai Tzvi had a huge following even among Gedolei Yisrael and might have become an acceptable sect if not for his decision to abolish Tisha Be’av. Chassidim on the other hand, though vilified and ostracized by the Gadol Hador, the Gra, they survived and indeed thrived because they were medakdek in Mitzvot and followed Halacha to a tee.
I therefore posit that if YCT is subservient to Halacha as defined above they are a legitimate movement, just as legitimate as Lakewood or any other such institution and movement. It is forbidden to look down on them, feel superior to them and even try to apologize for them as there is no need for such an apology. It is arrogance and a lack of understanding what Klal Yisrael is all about and what is the goal of Torah and Mitzvot.
I will finish with an anecdote. Rav Simcha Wasserman AH repeated it gleefully almost every time I met up with him. When he first went to the West Coast in the early Fifties at the behest of Rabbi Mendelowitz he decided to travel up and down the coast to acquaint himself with the different communities. A conservative Rabbi suggested that the orthodox are not tolerant enough. There are different ways for different people and Judaism should work for all. RSW told him that he was right and it is a Beferush verse in the torah. In Shemot 12:41 we read
מא וַיְהִי, מִקֵּץ שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה, וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת, שָׁנָה; וַיְהִי, בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, יָצְאוּ כָּל-צִבְאוֹת יְהוָה, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
41 And it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the host of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.
Why are the Jews depicted as Tzive’ot Hashem – God’s host or armies – plural? Why not the army of God? The answer is that armies are made up of different branches such as land forces, sea, air, marines and Special Forces. They all are just as important as the others are. They just serve different functions. The Rabbi was delighted asking R. Simcha what branch he perceived the Conservative where? R. Simcha with his usual twinkle said I told him “you are the deserters!”
It is not their theology that took Conservative Judaism out of the covenantal society, to paraphrase RYBS; it is their lack of commitment to Halacha. I am no historian but I would bet that originally the conservative movement, especially here in America, was respected by the observant Jews. They were observant and followed the Halacha. It is only when they officially sanctioned non-Halachik behavior that they were cut off. I will leave it to the Historians to confirm my conjecture.
The purpose of Torah and Mitzvot is to train us in Avodat Hashem and make us into people that can develop Ahavat Hashem. Ahavat Hashem is based on knowledge and synonymous with Yediat Hashem. To acquire the kind of knowledge that lets us have an understanding of HKBH we have to work on ourselves by being disciplined, moral, and ethical as enumerated in the Braitha of Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair that Ramchal based his Mesilat Yesharim on. The Torah and Mitzvot are the tools that we have, to attain these Midot.
For the Torah and Mitzvot to work in helping us fulfill the goal intended, it has to be tailored to each personality. Some people need clear delineations; others thrive on creativity and a certain amount of freedom. I personally feel stifled by minutiae but I know others who are lost without it. Some people feel imprisoned living in a very close community others would give their life for it. In other words there has to be a certain amount of leeway for Torah to allow for the different personalities. That explains the different groups within Halachik Judaism. Each works for a different type of person.
Of course not all members of a group are thinkers nor are all aware of what the goal is. Within each group there are those who work hard at growing in Yediat Hashem while others just go along because of communal pressure, feeling part of something, family or other reasons. That is the case with the Chassidim, where some are growing through the system while others just have the trappings. The same can be said about the Yeshivish crowd, the Dati Leumi, the Hungarian Ashkenaz, the Yekkes and the Modern Orthodox. They all have the same goal and probably the same percentage of real Ovdei Hashem. They just act differently outwardly but those that are serious in each group have the same goal, Yediat Hashem.
So what binds all these different groups? Nothing but Halacha. When I say Halacha I refer to Halacha leMa’aseh as it applies to Mitzvot Asseh and Lo Ta’asseh not Hashkafah matters. Even the Ikkarim just describe general rules without really settling exactly what they mean. Besides Metziut Hashem, the existence of God and Ychud Hashem, uniqueness of God, all the others are quite broad. Anthropomorphism according to Ra’avad is tolerable, exactly what is Avodah Zara depends on who one accepts Rambam or Ramban and that goes even more for the rest. We believe in Techyat Hametim, Nevuah, Mashiach and so on but exactly what each one means and defined depends on who you accept and understand. It is only the Halachot leMa’aseh as decided in the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi that are binding on all of us. Of course there are differences of opinion even there. Not all agree how the Talmud decided, but that is usually more in a detail than in the overall Halacha.
Halachot that are not in the Talmud are deduced from it and human intellect is so great that there is rarely agreement on anything when deduction is the method. Each competent Rav or Talmid Chacham can rule in those areas as long as it is an honest truth seeking approach. Rambam in his introduction to Mishne Torah states that it is his goal to summarize the decisions of the Talmud so that everyone will know how to follow it. He emphasizes that he restricts himself to those halachot while others are up to each Posek to decide.
Taking all this into account I believe that what defines a new movement in Judaism as legitimate is its adherence to Halacha as defined in the Talmud. As long as they adhere to this, their particular philosophy as to hashkafah is irrelevant. Adherence to Halacha demonstrates that their ultimate goal is Yediat Hashem and are therefore legitimate and should be viewed as just as genuine as any other movement. This has been proven historically. Shabbtai Tzvi had a huge following even among Gedolei Yisrael and might have become an acceptable sect if not for his decision to abolish Tisha Be’av. Chassidim on the other hand, though vilified and ostracized by the Gadol Hador, the Gra, they survived and indeed thrived because they were medakdek in Mitzvot and followed Halacha to a tee.
I therefore posit that if YCT is subservient to Halacha as defined above they are a legitimate movement, just as legitimate as Lakewood or any other such institution and movement. It is forbidden to look down on them, feel superior to them and even try to apologize for them as there is no need for such an apology. It is arrogance and a lack of understanding what Klal Yisrael is all about and what is the goal of Torah and Mitzvot.
I will finish with an anecdote. Rav Simcha Wasserman AH repeated it gleefully almost every time I met up with him. When he first went to the West Coast in the early Fifties at the behest of Rabbi Mendelowitz he decided to travel up and down the coast to acquaint himself with the different communities. A conservative Rabbi suggested that the orthodox are not tolerant enough. There are different ways for different people and Judaism should work for all. RSW told him that he was right and it is a Beferush verse in the torah. In Shemot 12:41 we read
מא וַיְהִי, מִקֵּץ שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה, וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת, שָׁנָה; וַיְהִי, בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, יָצְאוּ כָּל-צִבְאוֹת יְהוָה, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
41 And it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the host of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.
Why are the Jews depicted as Tzive’ot Hashem – God’s host or armies – plural? Why not the army of God? The answer is that armies are made up of different branches such as land forces, sea, air, marines and Special Forces. They all are just as important as the others are. They just serve different functions. The Rabbi was delighted asking R. Simcha what branch he perceived the Conservative where? R. Simcha with his usual twinkle said I told him “you are the deserters!”
It is not their theology that took Conservative Judaism out of the covenantal society, to paraphrase RYBS; it is their lack of commitment to Halacha. I am no historian but I would bet that originally the conservative movement, especially here in America, was respected by the observant Jews. They were observant and followed the Halacha. It is only when they officially sanctioned non-Halachik behavior that they were cut off. I will leave it to the Historians to confirm my conjecture.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Yated - a Mamzer?
The recent article in Yated about YCT, (I will not link it here as there is no need to further Lashon Hara and Rechilut) brings to mind an interesting comment by a great man of the last generation who as usual in these cases, was prescient. Although he was talking about the Israeli Yated his take applies here too.
Rav Simcha Wasserman Z”L once told me that when they came to him (after he had moved to Yerushalaim) asking to subscribe to the Yated Hane’eman publication he told the gentleman that approached him that he was reluctant to be an instrument for being Marbeh Mamzerim – promoting Mamzerim. To the man’s surprised look he explained that Mamzerim are considered “Me’uvat Lo yuchal Litaken” a wrong that cannot be righted. In a moment of passion two people create a mamzer that remains such for generations. The same goes with the Yated. In a moment of passion, a disagreement of two factions within the Agudah, a new newspaper was established. One day the factions will make peace, the paper will by then have a life of its own without a purpose. A “Me’uvat Lo yuchal Litaken”.
People who knew R. Simcha will recall the sparkle he had in his eyes when he told these stories. Hachacham einav berosho.
Rav Simcha Wasserman Z”L once told me that when they came to him (after he had moved to Yerushalaim) asking to subscribe to the Yated Hane’eman publication he told the gentleman that approached him that he was reluctant to be an instrument for being Marbeh Mamzerim – promoting Mamzerim. To the man’s surprised look he explained that Mamzerim are considered “Me’uvat Lo yuchal Litaken” a wrong that cannot be righted. In a moment of passion two people create a mamzer that remains such for generations. The same goes with the Yated. In a moment of passion, a disagreement of two factions within the Agudah, a new newspaper was established. One day the factions will make peace, the paper will by then have a life of its own without a purpose. A “Me’uvat Lo yuchal Litaken”.
People who knew R. Simcha will recall the sparkle he had in his eyes when he told these stories. Hachacham einav berosho.
Who Will Save the baby? - A true story.
A very touching and personal article about my brother in law and a remarkable man who is responsible for his survival can be found here
http://www.aish.com/holocaust/people/Who_Will_Save_the_Baby$_.asp .
When Mr. "Shapira" made his choices and decided to act according to what he understood to be God's will and emulating Him, Chanun Verachum Hashem, he connected with Hashgacha - Providence. At the time it seemed like folly and suicide. It turned out to be the right thing in the long run and for generations to come. Ma'asseh Avot Siman Lebanim, and he followed in the footsteps of the Avot, doing the right thing and not the easy one.
Rambam's Hashgacha in action.
http://www.aish.com/holocaust/people/Who_Will_Save_the_Baby$_.asp .
When Mr. "Shapira" made his choices and decided to act according to what he understood to be God's will and emulating Him, Chanun Verachum Hashem, he connected with Hashgacha - Providence. At the time it seemed like folly and suicide. It turned out to be the right thing in the long run and for generations to come. Ma'asseh Avot Siman Lebanim, and he followed in the footsteps of the Avot, doing the right thing and not the easy one.
Rambam's Hashgacha in action.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Rambam deals with a misfortune - the death of a young daughter.
Further to my last post “who is Satan?” http://yediah.blogspot.com/2007/02/who-is-satan.html my friend Rabbi Buchman reminded me about the following excerpt of a letter Rambam wrote to his pupil R. Yosef ben Yehudah. It is published in R. Shailat’s edition of the Iggerot page 262. I am not a very good translator so here goes more or less a paraphrase.
“I already advised you about the death of the young daughter[1] God should accept her death as a Kapparah. My son, do not mourn or be depressed on neither a male nor a female. God knows, and the truth is as I will say, that a person that understands things does well when he focuses on humankind rather than the individual[2]. I am not saying that this attitude is perfect but it is the most acceptable and is the cause of the least anxiety. There is no choice for a person wishing to understand our well designed existence that was labeled by its Creator “Tov Me’od” – very good – but to concentrate and see the good in the happenings of the whole of humankind rather than trying to see it in the occurrences in the life of each individual. I hope that when you will receive the chapters of the Moreh Hanevuchim dealing with this issue, you will understand this better with God’s help”.
Apparently Rambam wrote this letter while he was still composing the MN, which he published in sections. It confirms our understanding of his attitude towards the misfortunes in our day-to-day life.
It is interesting to contrast this letter with an earlier one (page 228) regarding the death of his brother and his reaction to it. There too, though he admits to depression, illness and still being disconsolate eight years after his death, he consoles himself with the study of Torah and general knowledge. To be translated at a later date.
[1] Although there are different opinions R. Sheilat believes it is Rambam’s daughter.
[2] I translated it as I understand this sentence in the context though it is a little forced. See r. Sheilat’s note that the letter is only available in a poor translation and not in its original Arabic.
“I already advised you about the death of the young daughter[1] God should accept her death as a Kapparah. My son, do not mourn or be depressed on neither a male nor a female. God knows, and the truth is as I will say, that a person that understands things does well when he focuses on humankind rather than the individual[2]. I am not saying that this attitude is perfect but it is the most acceptable and is the cause of the least anxiety. There is no choice for a person wishing to understand our well designed existence that was labeled by its Creator “Tov Me’od” – very good – but to concentrate and see the good in the happenings of the whole of humankind rather than trying to see it in the occurrences in the life of each individual. I hope that when you will receive the chapters of the Moreh Hanevuchim dealing with this issue, you will understand this better with God’s help”.
Apparently Rambam wrote this letter while he was still composing the MN, which he published in sections. It confirms our understanding of his attitude towards the misfortunes in our day-to-day life.
It is interesting to contrast this letter with an earlier one (page 228) regarding the death of his brother and his reaction to it. There too, though he admits to depression, illness and still being disconsolate eight years after his death, he consoles himself with the study of Torah and general knowledge. To be translated at a later date.
[1] Although there are different opinions R. Sheilat believes it is Rambam’s daughter.
[2] I translated it as I understand this sentence in the context though it is a little forced. See r. Sheilat’s note that the letter is only available in a poor translation and not in its original Arabic.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Who is Satan?
I have worked very hard on this post and I publish it with much trepidation. It is very easy to be philosophical about human suffering especially when it is about someone else's pain. It is also easy to pontificate when it is impersonal. However I believe it is a subject that needs to be addressed. The whole book of Iyov was written with that issue in mind. I believe the Rabbis who put Iyov's existence into doubt were telling us that it can only be discussed in an impersonal way. It is however a suggested personal contemplation for the sufferer in the hope that it will mitigate his pain. Please take it in that vein and not as a sermon Chas Vechalila.
Satan, Mal’ach Hamavet - angel of death and Yetzer Hara are synonyms. Rambam is very enraptured with this insight.
“…listen to the following useful instruction given by our Sages, who in truth deserve the title of "wise men"; it makes clear that which appears doubtful, and reveals that which has been hidden, and discloses most of the mysteries of the Law. They said in the Talmud as follows: R. Simeon, son of Lakish, says: "The adversary (Satan), evil inclination (Yetzer Hara), and the angel of death, are one and the same being." Here we find all that has been mentioned by us in such a clear manner that no intelligent person will be in doubt about it. It has thus been shown to you that one and the same thing is designated by these three different terms, and that actions ascribed to these three are in reality the actions of one and the same agent.”(MN3:22)
What is the great insight and what makes it so praiseworthy?
There is a concept that is common to all medieval thinkers that is very difficult to translate into our contemporary way of thinking. It is the idea of Matter and Form. Already in antiquity the idea of Form meant different things to different philosophers. While Plato saw it as a mental construct of “the permanent reality that makes a thing what it is, in contrast to the particulars that are finite and subject to change. Each form is the pattern of a particular category of thing in the world; thus, there are forms of human, stone, shape, color, beauty, and justice. Whereas the physical world, perceived with the senses, is in constant flux and knowledge derived from it restricted and variable, the realm of forms, apprehensible only by the mind, is eternal and changeless.” Aristotle saw it as “the arrangement or organization through which such elements (matter) have become the thing in question”. (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia)
I believe Plato’s understanding is easier to translate into our language though Aristotle’s approach can also be interpreted similarly. I can visualize the “idea” of a tree, for example, as always being out there even when the tree itself no longer exists. All the science that goes into a tree growing is there before and after the tree. It is eternal and changeless. It exists even without a human being around who apprehends it with his mind. In fact it was there before a human understood it just like Relativity existed before Einstein described it. Every physical entity from the simplest to the most complex has its “idea”, its underlying science. In other words everything we know and we will ever know and experience in the physical world we live in, is potentially out there in the form of a scientific concept. This is what Rambam refers to as Form.
Form as described starts of as a potential and is actualized in matter. Matter is the actualization of Form, which is the idea behind it. Of course it is difficult to visualize a concept without a mind that conceptualizes it. This issue is a discussion that falls in the philosophical realm of the mind–body connection and problem. Let us, for this discussion sake, simplify and say it is God’s mind that conceptualizes the science underlying existence. I will return to it in my discussions of Hashgacha and Yediah.
In terms of eternity therefore, while Form is eternal and unchanging, matter is temporal and always changing. Matter comes into existence, not having been extant before nor is it after it no longer exists. Destruction and death is a necessary quality of matter.
When discussing the story of Adam and Chava, Rambam differentiates between truth and falseness and good and bad. “Through the intellect man distinguishes between truth and falsehood. This faculty Adam possessed perfectly and completely. Fine and bad belong to the things generally accepted as known, not to those cognized by the intellect.” (MN 1:2) Good and bad are terms that are subjective categorizations that we use in describing our relationship with physical existence. Existence is good while destruction is bad. It is a relative and subjective assessment. On the other hand our intellectual quest in understanding our physical existence is an objective analysis which can be either true or false. The human intellect is thus the potential that is actualized in physical reality in the same manner Form is actualized in matter.
In the story of Iyov, which is the subject of the chapter of MN I quoted; Satan is contrasted with Bnei Ha’elohim. Rambam understands the story as a description of reality. The Bnei Ha’elohim represent the Form of existence, the concept, while Satan is matter. The word Lehityatzev, to stand firmly, is always used with the Bnei Ha’elohim while only the second time with Satan. Form is eternal while Satan, matter, is temporal.
Iyov had suffered great losses and was despondent. His suffering was related to his physical existence and not to his intellect. Rambam notes that Iyov is described as a just man –“It is remarkable in this account that wisdom is not ascribed to Job. The text does not say he was an intelligent, wise, or clever man; but virtues and uprightness, especially in actions, are ascribed to him.” Virtue and uprightness deal with Good and Bad, relative and subjective matters that focus on our day-to-day physical well-being. It does not address Truth and Falseness which are the realm of wisdom. Human suffering is always related to the physical part of existence, to life and death, good and bad. It is only when Satan, the symbol of matter and the physical reigns that bad things happen. Understanding this does not mitigate the pain but puts it in a proper perspective. The perceived injustice and unfair suffering, is related to the temporal, our physical existence, while our intellectual self remains intact eternally and can only be affected by truth and falseness.
I believe that there is an even deeper message here. As I discussed in my earlier posts on Hashgacha, it is only when man takes the long-term view that Providence comes into play. The examples we use are the Avot who had a long-term goal of building a nation of seekers. If the long-term goal is reached, the tribulations and pain suffered along the way are retrospectively much easier to understand and deal with. The individual while he is acting, doing and living can only do his best, use his intellect in trying to understand the meaning of life and what is his role in the history of humankind and existence and act accordingly. That way of thinking in itself helps in mitigating the inevitable pain and suffering of our physical existence.
“This lesson is the principal object of the whole Book of Job; it establishes the foundation for the belief and the drawing attention to the inference to be drawn from natural matters, so that we should not fall into the error of imagining His knowledge to be similar to ours, or His intention, providence, and rule similar to ours. When we know this we shall find everything that may befall us easy to bear; mishap will create no doubts in our hearts concerning God, whether He knows our affairs or not, whether He provides for us or abandons us.”(MN3:23)
When we contemplate another person’s misfortune it is crass to minimize it by being philosophical. It is wrong and shows a lack of empathy and caring. However for the person that goes through the trauma, the sufferer, this is a way of dealing with the misfortune. By energizing himself, being introspective and acting on it, there is the possibility of growth and better long-term outcome.
יב וַיהוָה, בֵּרַךְ אֶת אַחֲרִית אִיּוֹב--מֵרֵאשִׁתוֹ; וַיְהִי לוֹ אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר אֶלֶף צֹאן, וְשֵׁשֶׁת אֲלָפִים גְּמַלִּים, וְאֶלֶף צֶמֶד בָּקָר, וְאֶלֶף אֲתוֹנוֹת.
12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning; and he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she-asses.
יג וַיְהִי לוֹ שִׁבְעָנָה בָנִים, וְשָׁלוֹשׁ בָּנוֹת.
13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.
יד וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הָאַחַת יְמִימָה, וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית קְצִיעָה; וְשֵׁם הַשְּׁלִישִׁית, קֶרֶן הַפּוּךְ.
14 And he called the name of the first, Jemimah; and the name of the second, Keziah; and the name of the third, Keren-happuch.
טו וְלֹא נִמְצָא נָשִׁים יָפוֹת, כִּבְנוֹת אִיּוֹב--בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם נַחֲלָה, בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵיהֶם.
15 And in all the land were no women found as fair as the daughters of Job were; and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.
טז וַיְחִי אִיּוֹב אַחֲרֵי זֹאת, מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה; וירא (וַיִּרְאֶה), אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנֵי בָנָיו--אַרְבָּעָה, דֹּרוֹת.
16 And after this Job lived a hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations.
יז וַיָּמָת אִיּוֹב, זָקֵן וּשְׂבַע יָמִים. {ש}
17 So Job died, being old and full of days. {P}
Satan, Mal’ach Hamavet - angel of death and Yetzer Hara are synonyms. Rambam is very enraptured with this insight.
“…listen to the following useful instruction given by our Sages, who in truth deserve the title of "wise men"; it makes clear that which appears doubtful, and reveals that which has been hidden, and discloses most of the mysteries of the Law. They said in the Talmud as follows: R. Simeon, son of Lakish, says: "The adversary (Satan), evil inclination (Yetzer Hara), and the angel of death, are one and the same being." Here we find all that has been mentioned by us in such a clear manner that no intelligent person will be in doubt about it. It has thus been shown to you that one and the same thing is designated by these three different terms, and that actions ascribed to these three are in reality the actions of one and the same agent.”(MN3:22)
What is the great insight and what makes it so praiseworthy?
There is a concept that is common to all medieval thinkers that is very difficult to translate into our contemporary way of thinking. It is the idea of Matter and Form. Already in antiquity the idea of Form meant different things to different philosophers. While Plato saw it as a mental construct of “the permanent reality that makes a thing what it is, in contrast to the particulars that are finite and subject to change. Each form is the pattern of a particular category of thing in the world; thus, there are forms of human, stone, shape, color, beauty, and justice. Whereas the physical world, perceived with the senses, is in constant flux and knowledge derived from it restricted and variable, the realm of forms, apprehensible only by the mind, is eternal and changeless.” Aristotle saw it as “the arrangement or organization through which such elements (matter) have become the thing in question”. (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia)
I believe Plato’s understanding is easier to translate into our language though Aristotle’s approach can also be interpreted similarly. I can visualize the “idea” of a tree, for example, as always being out there even when the tree itself no longer exists. All the science that goes into a tree growing is there before and after the tree. It is eternal and changeless. It exists even without a human being around who apprehends it with his mind. In fact it was there before a human understood it just like Relativity existed before Einstein described it. Every physical entity from the simplest to the most complex has its “idea”, its underlying science. In other words everything we know and we will ever know and experience in the physical world we live in, is potentially out there in the form of a scientific concept. This is what Rambam refers to as Form.
Form as described starts of as a potential and is actualized in matter. Matter is the actualization of Form, which is the idea behind it. Of course it is difficult to visualize a concept without a mind that conceptualizes it. This issue is a discussion that falls in the philosophical realm of the mind–body connection and problem. Let us, for this discussion sake, simplify and say it is God’s mind that conceptualizes the science underlying existence. I will return to it in my discussions of Hashgacha and Yediah.
In terms of eternity therefore, while Form is eternal and unchanging, matter is temporal and always changing. Matter comes into existence, not having been extant before nor is it after it no longer exists. Destruction and death is a necessary quality of matter.
When discussing the story of Adam and Chava, Rambam differentiates between truth and falseness and good and bad. “Through the intellect man distinguishes between truth and falsehood. This faculty Adam possessed perfectly and completely. Fine and bad belong to the things generally accepted as known, not to those cognized by the intellect.” (MN 1:2) Good and bad are terms that are subjective categorizations that we use in describing our relationship with physical existence. Existence is good while destruction is bad. It is a relative and subjective assessment. On the other hand our intellectual quest in understanding our physical existence is an objective analysis which can be either true or false. The human intellect is thus the potential that is actualized in physical reality in the same manner Form is actualized in matter.
In the story of Iyov, which is the subject of the chapter of MN I quoted; Satan is contrasted with Bnei Ha’elohim. Rambam understands the story as a description of reality. The Bnei Ha’elohim represent the Form of existence, the concept, while Satan is matter. The word Lehityatzev, to stand firmly, is always used with the Bnei Ha’elohim while only the second time with Satan. Form is eternal while Satan, matter, is temporal.
Iyov had suffered great losses and was despondent. His suffering was related to his physical existence and not to his intellect. Rambam notes that Iyov is described as a just man –“It is remarkable in this account that wisdom is not ascribed to Job. The text does not say he was an intelligent, wise, or clever man; but virtues and uprightness, especially in actions, are ascribed to him.” Virtue and uprightness deal with Good and Bad, relative and subjective matters that focus on our day-to-day physical well-being. It does not address Truth and Falseness which are the realm of wisdom. Human suffering is always related to the physical part of existence, to life and death, good and bad. It is only when Satan, the symbol of matter and the physical reigns that bad things happen. Understanding this does not mitigate the pain but puts it in a proper perspective. The perceived injustice and unfair suffering, is related to the temporal, our physical existence, while our intellectual self remains intact eternally and can only be affected by truth and falseness.
I believe that there is an even deeper message here. As I discussed in my earlier posts on Hashgacha, it is only when man takes the long-term view that Providence comes into play. The examples we use are the Avot who had a long-term goal of building a nation of seekers. If the long-term goal is reached, the tribulations and pain suffered along the way are retrospectively much easier to understand and deal with. The individual while he is acting, doing and living can only do his best, use his intellect in trying to understand the meaning of life and what is his role in the history of humankind and existence and act accordingly. That way of thinking in itself helps in mitigating the inevitable pain and suffering of our physical existence.
“This lesson is the principal object of the whole Book of Job; it establishes the foundation for the belief and the drawing attention to the inference to be drawn from natural matters, so that we should not fall into the error of imagining His knowledge to be similar to ours, or His intention, providence, and rule similar to ours. When we know this we shall find everything that may befall us easy to bear; mishap will create no doubts in our hearts concerning God, whether He knows our affairs or not, whether He provides for us or abandons us.”(MN3:23)
When we contemplate another person’s misfortune it is crass to minimize it by being philosophical. It is wrong and shows a lack of empathy and caring. However for the person that goes through the trauma, the sufferer, this is a way of dealing with the misfortune. By energizing himself, being introspective and acting on it, there is the possibility of growth and better long-term outcome.
יב וַיהוָה, בֵּרַךְ אֶת אַחֲרִית אִיּוֹב--מֵרֵאשִׁתוֹ; וַיְהִי לוֹ אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר אֶלֶף צֹאן, וְשֵׁשֶׁת אֲלָפִים גְּמַלִּים, וְאֶלֶף צֶמֶד בָּקָר, וְאֶלֶף אֲתוֹנוֹת.
12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning; and he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she-asses.
יג וַיְהִי לוֹ שִׁבְעָנָה בָנִים, וְשָׁלוֹשׁ בָּנוֹת.
13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.
יד וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הָאַחַת יְמִימָה, וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית קְצִיעָה; וְשֵׁם הַשְּׁלִישִׁית, קֶרֶן הַפּוּךְ.
14 And he called the name of the first, Jemimah; and the name of the second, Keziah; and the name of the third, Keren-happuch.
טו וְלֹא נִמְצָא נָשִׁים יָפוֹת, כִּבְנוֹת אִיּוֹב--בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם נַחֲלָה, בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵיהֶם.
15 And in all the land were no women found as fair as the daughters of Job were; and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.
טז וַיְחִי אִיּוֹב אַחֲרֵי זֹאת, מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה; וירא (וַיִּרְאֶה), אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנֵי בָנָיו--אַרְבָּעָה, דֹּרוֹת.
16 And after this Job lived a hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations.
יז וַיָּמָת אִיּוֹב, זָקֵן וּשְׂבַע יָמִים. {ש}
17 So Job died, being old and full of days. {P}
Sunday, February 18, 2007
How dogmatic is Rambam's dogma? A review of an article by Eli Gurfinkel.
I just received the latest issue of Da’at #60 and read a very interesting article by a doctoral student Eli Gurfinkel “Maimonides – Between Dogmatism and Liberalism”. He is addressing the issue of the famous 13 Ikarim and the many problems that critics over time had with this supposed[1] Rambam innovation. After listing all the different important beliefs Rambam sets out in his different writings he comes up with a list of 17 dogmas. He then places them all on a table[2],[3] where he lists 16 of them and where Rambam discusses them. Although I have some problem with the choice of sources he decides to list, skipping many important citations, he does bring home that Rambam seems to be inconsistent regarding what is dogma. This issue is old and has been discussed by both Rambam’s classic commentators and the moderns.
Mr. Gurfinkel proposes a very intriguing idea and I think it is probably correct, though I would like to think about it some more. He suggests that there are according to his count at least 17 dogmas or necessary beliefs and they are all meant to be accepted. However what they mean is up to interpretation. Some have more room for interpretation than others, others have to be accepted but what exactly they mean can only be known after much study and contemplation while others are understood differently by different people at whatever stage of development they are. He even suggests that there some beliefs that Rambam himself is not sure exactly how to define. He is using as an example the three mentioned in his Pirush Hamishna[4] where he says that when we find an argument in matters of Hashkafah, we cannot decide who is right, as it is something that belongs to God.
This seems to fit very nicely with the following two citations in MN.
MN 1:35 –
“Those who are not sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the true interpretation of these passages in the Bible, or to understand that the same term admits of two different interpretations, may simply be told that the scriptural passage is clearly understood by the wise, but that they should content themselves with knowing that God is incorporeal, that He is never subject to external influence, as passivity implies a change, while God is entirely free from all change, that He cannot be compared to anything besides Himself, that no definition includes Him together with any other being, that the words of the Prophets are true, and that difficulties met with may be explained on this principle. This may suffice for that class of persons, and it is not proper to leave them in the belief that God is corporeal, or that He has any of the properties of material objects, just as there is no need to leave them in the belief that God does not exist, that there are more Gods than one, or that any other being may be worshipped.”
Even the unintelligent or those at earlier stages of development have to be taught that God is Incorporeal, unchanging, unique, cannot be compared to other physical beings, that prophecy is true and that there are explanations to the problems one might face when confronted with these beliefs in the process of learning. Note that the exact meaning of what some of these beliefs are is left open.
In MN 3:28 he says:
“IT is necessary to bear in mind that Scripture only teaches the chief points of those true principles which lead to the true perfection of man, and only demands in general terms faith in them. Thus Scripture teaches the Existence, the Unity, the Omniscience, the Omnipotence, the Will, and the Eternity of God. All this is given in the form of final results, but they cannot be understood fully and accurately except after the acquisition of many kinds of knowledge. Scripture further demands belief in certain truths, the belief in which is indispensable in regulating our social relations: such is the belief that God is angry with those who disobey Him, for it leads us to the fear and dread of disobedience [to the will of God]. There are other truths in reference to the whole of the Universe which form the substance of the various and many kinds of speculative sciences, and afford the means of verifying the above-mentioned principles as their final result…”
What I like about this explanation is that it is simple, logical and flows with the way I understand Rambam’s developmental approach to religion. It is not set in stone and dogma but a subject of study and discovery. Torah and Judaism are a lifetime project for individuals and an eternal study and development for generations of humans. There is however a core belief system that one has to adhere to in that developmental process. There was only one Avraham who started from scratch and it is our job to finish the work he began.
I would love to hear your thoughts.
[1] My term.
[2] He shows that the first two, Existence of God and His unity, are discussed in all the following writings: MT Hil Yesodei Hatorah (YH) Chapters 1-4, Hilchot Teshuvah (HT) Ch. 3 to 8, Iggeret Teiman (IT), Iggeret Techyat Hametim (ITH) and MN 3:28[2]. Non Physicality of God and eternity is not mentioned in the IT and ITH, creation of the world and exclusive service only in YH, Prophecy, Moshe’s prophecy, TMS, eternity of the Torah in all except MN 3:28, God’s providence and His knowing everything in MN 3:28, HT and YH. He them lists Reward and Punishment as mentioned only in MN3:28 which is surprising as it is discussed extensively in HT, Mashiach he lists in YH and HT (I am not sure where in YH), Techyat Hametim in HT and ITH, Israel as a special nation in IT and freedom of choice in HT.
[3] The 17th being the existence of angels which is mentioned in MN 3:45 is not listed here for some reason, although repeatedly mentioned in the article.
[4] Sotah 3:3, Sanhedrin 10:3, Shavuot 1:4.
Mr. Gurfinkel proposes a very intriguing idea and I think it is probably correct, though I would like to think about it some more. He suggests that there are according to his count at least 17 dogmas or necessary beliefs and they are all meant to be accepted. However what they mean is up to interpretation. Some have more room for interpretation than others, others have to be accepted but what exactly they mean can only be known after much study and contemplation while others are understood differently by different people at whatever stage of development they are. He even suggests that there some beliefs that Rambam himself is not sure exactly how to define. He is using as an example the three mentioned in his Pirush Hamishna[4] where he says that when we find an argument in matters of Hashkafah, we cannot decide who is right, as it is something that belongs to God.
This seems to fit very nicely with the following two citations in MN.
MN 1:35 –
“Those who are not sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the true interpretation of these passages in the Bible, or to understand that the same term admits of two different interpretations, may simply be told that the scriptural passage is clearly understood by the wise, but that they should content themselves with knowing that God is incorporeal, that He is never subject to external influence, as passivity implies a change, while God is entirely free from all change, that He cannot be compared to anything besides Himself, that no definition includes Him together with any other being, that the words of the Prophets are true, and that difficulties met with may be explained on this principle. This may suffice for that class of persons, and it is not proper to leave them in the belief that God is corporeal, or that He has any of the properties of material objects, just as there is no need to leave them in the belief that God does not exist, that there are more Gods than one, or that any other being may be worshipped.”
Even the unintelligent or those at earlier stages of development have to be taught that God is Incorporeal, unchanging, unique, cannot be compared to other physical beings, that prophecy is true and that there are explanations to the problems one might face when confronted with these beliefs in the process of learning. Note that the exact meaning of what some of these beliefs are is left open.
In MN 3:28 he says:
“IT is necessary to bear in mind that Scripture only teaches the chief points of those true principles which lead to the true perfection of man, and only demands in general terms faith in them. Thus Scripture teaches the Existence, the Unity, the Omniscience, the Omnipotence, the Will, and the Eternity of God. All this is given in the form of final results, but they cannot be understood fully and accurately except after the acquisition of many kinds of knowledge. Scripture further demands belief in certain truths, the belief in which is indispensable in regulating our social relations: such is the belief that God is angry with those who disobey Him, for it leads us to the fear and dread of disobedience [to the will of God]. There are other truths in reference to the whole of the Universe which form the substance of the various and many kinds of speculative sciences, and afford the means of verifying the above-mentioned principles as their final result…”
What I like about this explanation is that it is simple, logical and flows with the way I understand Rambam’s developmental approach to religion. It is not set in stone and dogma but a subject of study and discovery. Torah and Judaism are a lifetime project for individuals and an eternal study and development for generations of humans. There is however a core belief system that one has to adhere to in that developmental process. There was only one Avraham who started from scratch and it is our job to finish the work he began.
I would love to hear your thoughts.
[1] My term.
[2] He shows that the first two, Existence of God and His unity, are discussed in all the following writings: MT Hil Yesodei Hatorah (YH) Chapters 1-4, Hilchot Teshuvah (HT) Ch. 3 to 8, Iggeret Teiman (IT), Iggeret Techyat Hametim (ITH) and MN 3:28[2]. Non Physicality of God and eternity is not mentioned in the IT and ITH, creation of the world and exclusive service only in YH, Prophecy, Moshe’s prophecy, TMS, eternity of the Torah in all except MN 3:28, God’s providence and His knowing everything in MN 3:28, HT and YH. He them lists Reward and Punishment as mentioned only in MN3:28 which is surprising as it is discussed extensively in HT, Mashiach he lists in YH and HT (I am not sure where in YH), Techyat Hametim in HT and ITH, Israel as a special nation in IT and freedom of choice in HT.
[3] The 17th being the existence of angels which is mentioned in MN 3:45 is not listed here for some reason, although repeatedly mentioned in the article.
[4] Sotah 3:3, Sanhedrin 10:3, Shavuot 1:4.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Of Angels, Prophets and Moshe.
On my last post the discussion somehow ended up about angels – instigated by Rabbi Maroof of http://www.vesomsechel.blogspot.com/ – and the angel in last week’s Parsha came to mind.
כ הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ מַלְאָךְ, לְפָנֶיךָ, לִשְׁמָרְךָ, בַּדָּרֶךְ; וְלַהֲבִיאֲךָ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר הֲכִנֹתִי.
20 Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
כא הִשָּׁמֶר מִפָּנָיו וּשְׁמַע בְּקֹלוֹ, אַל-תַּמֵּר בּוֹ: כִּי לֹא יִשָּׂא לְפִשְׁעֲכֶם, כִּי שְׁמִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ.
21 Take heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; be not rebellious against him; for he will not pardon your transgression; for My name is in him.
כב כִּי אִם-שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע, בְּקֹלוֹ, וְעָשִׂיתָ, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר--וְאָיַבְתִּי, אֶת-אֹיְבֶיךָ, וְצַרְתִּי, אֶת-צֹרְרֶיךָ.
22 But if thou shall indeed hearken unto his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.
כג כִּי-יֵלֵךְ מַלְאָכִי, לְפָנֶיךָ, וֶהֱבִיאֲךָ אֶל-הָאֱמֹרִי וְהַחִתִּי, וְהַפְּרִזִּי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי הַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי; וְהִכְחַדְתִּיו.
23 For Mine angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Canaanite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; and I will cut them off.
Who is this angel?
Rambam considers this so important that he dedicates the whole of MN 2:34 to this angel. After introducing the different concepts of prophecy held by the different philosophers in chapter 32, Rambam discusses Ma’amad Har Sinai in chapter 33. He then discusses our angel followed by a declaratory chapter (35) where he tells us that the type of prophecy that Moshe experienced is not the subject of this treatise. He shows a series of verses that differentiate Moshe’s prophecy from that of the prophets and only then in Chapter 36 can he begin the discuss prophecy. Apparently he felt that one had to understand these three chapters before he could address prophecy. He further emphasizes the importance of these chapters ending 33 and 34 with De’ehu – know this - and 35 with a statement that one must differentiate Moshe’s prophecy in one’s mind before continuing.
Rambam is addressing the context of these verses. After describing the Sinai experience and reporting the laws promulgated during that time, those listed at the end of Parshat Yitro and Mishpatim, Moshe tells them that this kind of prophecy is unique. The type of prophecy that Moshe experienced was such that he could tell them directly what he apprehended from God without having to translate and interpret it, as Rambam in his introduction to Chelek describes it “as a scribe who writes what is dictated to him”. Prophets would lead them in the future; advise them on how to act and how to protect themselves. Their prophecy will no longer be the direct type. They will apprehend the necessary information through intermediaries. They will have to filter and interpret the visions that they have before transmitting it to the people in an intelligible form. The metaphor for this process is that the prophecy comes via an angel. Whenever that metaphor is used it is an indication of prophecy. That is the meaning of Rambam in MN 2:41
“You must know that whenever Scripture relates that the Lord or an angel spoke to a person, this took place in a dream or in a prophetic vision".
This is exactly what Rambam is trying to impress on us. He understands that the Torah is giving us the message he is insisting on as he starts to address prophecy; Moshe’s prophecy is completely different from the one experienced by other prophets.
“The meaning of the passage quoted above is this: God informs the Israelites that He will raise up for them a prophet, to whom an angel will appear in order to speak to him, to command him, and to exhort him; he therefore cautions them not to rebel against this angel, whose word the prophet will communicate to them. … The object of all this is to say to the Israelites, This great sight witnessed by you, the revelation on Mount Sinai, will not continue forever, nor will it ever be repeated. Fire and cloud will not continually rest over the tabernacle, as they are resting now on it: but the towns will be conquered for you, peace will be secured for you in the land, and you will be informed of what you have to do, by an angel whom I will send to your prophets; he will thus teach you what to do, and what not to do. Here a principle is laid clown which I have constantly expounded, viz., that all prophets except Moses receive the prophecy through an angel. Note it.”
From a practical point the Torah is warning that although a regular prophet does not have the same authority that Moshe had, he must still be obeyed because prophecy is real. A genuine prophet, although his prophecy requires involving an intermediary and he has to interpret his vision, can be relied upon if he meets the criteria laid out by Halacha.
Shavua Tov.
כ הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ מַלְאָךְ, לְפָנֶיךָ, לִשְׁמָרְךָ, בַּדָּרֶךְ; וְלַהֲבִיאֲךָ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר הֲכִנֹתִי.
20 Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
כא הִשָּׁמֶר מִפָּנָיו וּשְׁמַע בְּקֹלוֹ, אַל-תַּמֵּר בּוֹ: כִּי לֹא יִשָּׂא לְפִשְׁעֲכֶם, כִּי שְׁמִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ.
21 Take heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; be not rebellious against him; for he will not pardon your transgression; for My name is in him.
כב כִּי אִם-שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע, בְּקֹלוֹ, וְעָשִׂיתָ, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר--וְאָיַבְתִּי, אֶת-אֹיְבֶיךָ, וְצַרְתִּי, אֶת-צֹרְרֶיךָ.
22 But if thou shall indeed hearken unto his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.
כג כִּי-יֵלֵךְ מַלְאָכִי, לְפָנֶיךָ, וֶהֱבִיאֲךָ אֶל-הָאֱמֹרִי וְהַחִתִּי, וְהַפְּרִזִּי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי הַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי; וְהִכְחַדְתִּיו.
23 For Mine angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Canaanite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; and I will cut them off.
Who is this angel?
Rambam considers this so important that he dedicates the whole of MN 2:34 to this angel. After introducing the different concepts of prophecy held by the different philosophers in chapter 32, Rambam discusses Ma’amad Har Sinai in chapter 33. He then discusses our angel followed by a declaratory chapter (35) where he tells us that the type of prophecy that Moshe experienced is not the subject of this treatise. He shows a series of verses that differentiate Moshe’s prophecy from that of the prophets and only then in Chapter 36 can he begin the discuss prophecy. Apparently he felt that one had to understand these three chapters before he could address prophecy. He further emphasizes the importance of these chapters ending 33 and 34 with De’ehu – know this - and 35 with a statement that one must differentiate Moshe’s prophecy in one’s mind before continuing.
Rambam is addressing the context of these verses. After describing the Sinai experience and reporting the laws promulgated during that time, those listed at the end of Parshat Yitro and Mishpatim, Moshe tells them that this kind of prophecy is unique. The type of prophecy that Moshe experienced was such that he could tell them directly what he apprehended from God without having to translate and interpret it, as Rambam in his introduction to Chelek describes it “as a scribe who writes what is dictated to him”. Prophets would lead them in the future; advise them on how to act and how to protect themselves. Their prophecy will no longer be the direct type. They will apprehend the necessary information through intermediaries. They will have to filter and interpret the visions that they have before transmitting it to the people in an intelligible form. The metaphor for this process is that the prophecy comes via an angel. Whenever that metaphor is used it is an indication of prophecy. That is the meaning of Rambam in MN 2:41
“You must know that whenever Scripture relates that the Lord or an angel spoke to a person, this took place in a dream or in a prophetic vision".
This is exactly what Rambam is trying to impress on us. He understands that the Torah is giving us the message he is insisting on as he starts to address prophecy; Moshe’s prophecy is completely different from the one experienced by other prophets.
“The meaning of the passage quoted above is this: God informs the Israelites that He will raise up for them a prophet, to whom an angel will appear in order to speak to him, to command him, and to exhort him; he therefore cautions them not to rebel against this angel, whose word the prophet will communicate to them. … The object of all this is to say to the Israelites, This great sight witnessed by you, the revelation on Mount Sinai, will not continue forever, nor will it ever be repeated. Fire and cloud will not continually rest over the tabernacle, as they are resting now on it: but the towns will be conquered for you, peace will be secured for you in the land, and you will be informed of what you have to do, by an angel whom I will send to your prophets; he will thus teach you what to do, and what not to do. Here a principle is laid clown which I have constantly expounded, viz., that all prophets except Moses receive the prophecy through an angel. Note it.”
From a practical point the Torah is warning that although a regular prophet does not have the same authority that Moshe had, he must still be obeyed because prophecy is real. A genuine prophet, although his prophecy requires involving an intermediary and he has to interpret his vision, can be relied upon if he meets the criteria laid out by Halacha.
Shavua Tov.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Prof. Menachem Kellner's "Maimonides' Confrontation with Mysticism" Reviewed in the Forward
I just finished reading this excellent review of Menachem Kellner's latest book "Maimonides' Confrontation with Mysticism" by Allan Nadler at
http://www.forward.com/articles/the-radical-rationalism-of-maimonides/
Contrast this with the nonsense I picked off a blog . http://zchusavos.blogspot.com/2007/02/sforim-that-have-segulas-associated.html
Rambam – Magid of Mezrich wrote in a letter to the Baal Hatanya that he should learn Rambam after Maariv, because it is a segula for yiras shomayim and to get rid of chitzonim. The Apta Rov says the golden language of the Rambam is a segula for the Nefesh, Ruach and Neshoma.
What is galling is that the Mezritcher and Apter Rav are talking about learning the Sefarim of Rambam which are the work of the great Ma'amin and Oved Hashem. Learning his non- mystical approach to Judaism is the greatest source of Yre'at shamayim. These nitwits understand this segula as a kind of amulet, keeping the Sefer under a baby's pillow, in the house etc... It is pure Avodah Zara and Chilul Hashem.
And they consider themselves hassidim and Frum! What a travesty!
http://www.forward.com/articles/the-radical-rationalism-of-maimonides/
Contrast this with the nonsense I picked off a blog . http://zchusavos.blogspot.com/2007/02/sforim-that-have-segulas-associated.html
Rambam – Magid of Mezrich wrote in a letter to the Baal Hatanya that he should learn Rambam after Maariv, because it is a segula for yiras shomayim and to get rid of chitzonim. The Apta Rov says the golden language of the Rambam is a segula for the Nefesh, Ruach and Neshoma.
What is galling is that the Mezritcher and Apter Rav are talking about learning the Sefarim of Rambam which are the work of the great Ma'amin and Oved Hashem. Learning his non- mystical approach to Judaism is the greatest source of Yre'at shamayim. These nitwits understand this segula as a kind of amulet, keeping the Sefer under a baby's pillow, in the house etc... It is pure Avodah Zara and Chilul Hashem.
And they consider themselves hassidim and Frum! What a travesty!
Rabbi Kret Z"L
A touching Hesped for one of the last remnants of pre war Europe.
http://apt3w.blogspot.com/2007/02/blog-post.html
I spent a few minutes Sunday with his son Norman and he reminisced about his father's dedication to his congregants in Harlem. He was the paradigm of a gentle Talmid Chacham who was mekarev people through his warmth and tolerance.
Just watching him walk down the street on the way to Shul, especially in the last few years, with his aristocratic demeanor and smiling face, got you into a happy mood.
Deracheha Darchei No'am. Yehei Zichro Baruch.
http://apt3w.blogspot.com/2007/02/blog-post.html
I spent a few minutes Sunday with his son Norman and he reminisced about his father's dedication to his congregants in Harlem. He was the paradigm of a gentle Talmid Chacham who was mekarev people through his warmth and tolerance.
Just watching him walk down the street on the way to Shul, especially in the last few years, with his aristocratic demeanor and smiling face, got you into a happy mood.
Deracheha Darchei No'am. Yehei Zichro Baruch.
Sinai - Risks and Rewards.
I have written about prophecy according to Rambam on this blog and in greater depth in the two articles published in Hakirah and available fully online at www.hakirah.org for viewing and download. To summarize Rambam has a very naturalistic view of the experience. There are two different types of prophecy; the one experienced by all prophets including Moshe and another, called prophecy for lack of a better word, which only Moshe experienced.
The prophecy experienced by all prophets results from a very thorough and deep understanding of the physical universe, the metaphysics behind it and an ontological perspective of our existence. It is an amalgam of concrete facts and abstract concepts seen from the perspective of a universe caused to exist by the First Cause. A person to successfully speculate and arrive at prophecy corrals both his rational and imaginative faculties where the former controls the outcome. That is the meaning of the Gemara in Hagigah 14b where Rabbi Akivah tells the other three that joined him in the vineyard “when you see the clear marble stones do not say “water! water!” for it says “My eyes will not countenance falsehood”.[1] The imagination needs to be reined in. The way I understand it is that by assimilating all that one can absorb about our existence and filtering it through our rational faculty we then translate the abstract concepts into pictures or allegories using our imaginative faculty. The prophet then interprets it into a concrete action, advice or forecast injecting his own personality and state of mind into the prophecy. That is why we find two prophets describing essentially the same idea with a different emphasis. For example if you compare Yechezkel’s understanding (chapters 1 and 5) God and His relationship to existence with Yeshayahu’s (chapter 6) we see the same concept described in two similar but different allegories.
Moshe’s prophecy on the other hand operated differently. While he experienced regular prophecy when dealing with day-to-day issues and decisions, when he legislated he used only his rational faculty. In a process that only Moshe could have known, he was able to rationally connect with the “active intellect” (an Aristotelian concept which I understand to be the underlying idea behind existence – more in a separate post to come). As Rambam in his introduction to Chelek puts it “his imaginative and sensory faculties were not in effect during his apprehension, his instinctual faculty was dampened, and he was purely rational.” That is the meaning of Bamidbar 12:8
ח פֶּה אֶל-פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר-בּוֹ, וּמַרְאֶה וְלֹא בְחִידֹת, וּתְמֻנַת יְהוָה, יַבִּיט; וּמַדּוּעַ לֹא יְרֵאתֶם, לְדַבֵּר בְּעַבְדִּי בְמֹשֶׁה.
8 with him do I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD doth he behold; wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?'
[2]
Moshe’s prophecy is what is referred to as Kol – voice in the context of Matan Torah and when referred to Moshe’s legislation. That is the meaning of
פט וּבְבֹא מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ, וַיִּשְׁמַע אֶת-הַקּוֹל מִדַּבֵּר אֵלָיו מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל-אֲרֹן הָעֵדֻת, מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים; וַיְדַבֵּר, אֵלָיו. {פ}
89 And when Moses went into the tent of meeting that He might speak with him, then he heard the Voice speaking unto him from above the ark-cover that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and He spoke unto him. {P}
Not only at Sinai was the Voice (Kol) central but afterwards too whenever Moshe needed to legislate he experienced Kol; the Kodesh Kodoshim where the Aron and its cover that was adorned by the Cherubs was the new source[3] of that Kol. That Kol could only be deciphered by Moshe. He was the only person that had succeeded in suppressing his physicality to the point that he could apprehend, without interpreting, the pure logic and abstract concepts necessary to legislate laws and rituals that will be eternally meaningful. Laws promulgated by even great and thoughtful legislators, are rooted only in the physical and as society changes, they tend to lose their meaning and arte abandoned. The laws promulgated by Moshe are meant to be adaptable to all times without changing their core concept.
The people at Sinai needed to experience this Kol so that they would be convinced of the eternity of the Torah. They had to accept that the laws promulgated by Moshe cannot be changed ever, they are eternally immutable. Moshe prepared them to a certain extent during the three days of preparation, which as Rabbeinu Avraham Rambam’s son explains, included contemplation coupled with philosophical discourse and teachings. This apparently was the culmination of a process of teaching started immediately at the Exodus from Egypt as commemorated with the Mitzvah of counting of the Omer. They were prepared enough that thy all could experience enough Kol to convince them. However each experience was particular to each individual. That explains
א וְאֶל-מֹשֶׁה אָמַר עֲלֵה אֶל-יְהוָה, אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא, וְשִׁבְעִים, מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתֶם, מֵרָחֹק.
1 And unto Moses He said: 'Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadav, and Avihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off;
ב וְנִגַּשׁ מֹשֶׁה לְבַדּוֹ אֶל-יְהוָה, וְהֵם לֹא יִגָּשׁוּ; וְהָעָם, לֹא יַעֲלוּ עִמּוֹ.
2 and Moses alone shall come near unto the LORD; but they shall not come near; neither shall the people go up with him.'
It also explains the repeated warnings against going up the mountain. Ascending the mountain is an allegory for metaphysical speculation. Having experienced the Kol, experiencing it without really understanding it, there was a natural urge to speculate further. Moshe warned the people not to do so as they were not prepared enough, had not acquired enough knowledge, to pursue further understanding without being derailed. Looking at Sinai from this perspective, there clearly is a risk associated with this sudden flooding of new ideas and concepts. It did not take much time and the people could not resist the temptation of further speculation which resulted in the Egel – the Golden Calf. Not only the people but also the elite got derailed. More in next post.
[1] תלמוד בבלי מסכת חגיגה דף יד עמוד ב
תנו רבנן: ארבעה נכנסו בפרדס, ואלו הן: בן עזאי, ובן זומא, אחר, ורבי עקיבא. אמר להם רבי עקיבא: כשאתם מגיעין אצל אבני שיש טהור אל תאמרו מים מים! משום שנאמר +תהלים ק"א+ דובר שקרים לא יכון לנגד עיני.
[2] As an aside note the allegory of Peh el Peh and Mitat Neshikah - dying with a kiss.
[3] When we say source we do not mean physical place but rather a focal point of concentration. More in other posts.
The prophecy experienced by all prophets results from a very thorough and deep understanding of the physical universe, the metaphysics behind it and an ontological perspective of our existence. It is an amalgam of concrete facts and abstract concepts seen from the perspective of a universe caused to exist by the First Cause. A person to successfully speculate and arrive at prophecy corrals both his rational and imaginative faculties where the former controls the outcome. That is the meaning of the Gemara in Hagigah 14b where Rabbi Akivah tells the other three that joined him in the vineyard “when you see the clear marble stones do not say “water! water!” for it says “My eyes will not countenance falsehood”.[1] The imagination needs to be reined in. The way I understand it is that by assimilating all that one can absorb about our existence and filtering it through our rational faculty we then translate the abstract concepts into pictures or allegories using our imaginative faculty. The prophet then interprets it into a concrete action, advice or forecast injecting his own personality and state of mind into the prophecy. That is why we find two prophets describing essentially the same idea with a different emphasis. For example if you compare Yechezkel’s understanding (chapters 1 and 5) God and His relationship to existence with Yeshayahu’s (chapter 6) we see the same concept described in two similar but different allegories.
Moshe’s prophecy on the other hand operated differently. While he experienced regular prophecy when dealing with day-to-day issues and decisions, when he legislated he used only his rational faculty. In a process that only Moshe could have known, he was able to rationally connect with the “active intellect” (an Aristotelian concept which I understand to be the underlying idea behind existence – more in a separate post to come). As Rambam in his introduction to Chelek puts it “his imaginative and sensory faculties were not in effect during his apprehension, his instinctual faculty was dampened, and he was purely rational.” That is the meaning of Bamidbar 12:8
ח פֶּה אֶל-פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר-בּוֹ, וּמַרְאֶה וְלֹא בְחִידֹת, וּתְמֻנַת יְהוָה, יַבִּיט; וּמַדּוּעַ לֹא יְרֵאתֶם, לְדַבֵּר בְּעַבְדִּי בְמֹשֶׁה.
8 with him do I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD doth he behold; wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?'
[2]
Moshe’s prophecy is what is referred to as Kol – voice in the context of Matan Torah and when referred to Moshe’s legislation. That is the meaning of
פט וּבְבֹא מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ, וַיִּשְׁמַע אֶת-הַקּוֹל מִדַּבֵּר אֵלָיו מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל-אֲרֹן הָעֵדֻת, מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים; וַיְדַבֵּר, אֵלָיו. {פ}
89 And when Moses went into the tent of meeting that He might speak with him, then he heard the Voice speaking unto him from above the ark-cover that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and He spoke unto him. {P}
Not only at Sinai was the Voice (Kol) central but afterwards too whenever Moshe needed to legislate he experienced Kol; the Kodesh Kodoshim where the Aron and its cover that was adorned by the Cherubs was the new source[3] of that Kol. That Kol could only be deciphered by Moshe. He was the only person that had succeeded in suppressing his physicality to the point that he could apprehend, without interpreting, the pure logic and abstract concepts necessary to legislate laws and rituals that will be eternally meaningful. Laws promulgated by even great and thoughtful legislators, are rooted only in the physical and as society changes, they tend to lose their meaning and arte abandoned. The laws promulgated by Moshe are meant to be adaptable to all times without changing their core concept.
The people at Sinai needed to experience this Kol so that they would be convinced of the eternity of the Torah. They had to accept that the laws promulgated by Moshe cannot be changed ever, they are eternally immutable. Moshe prepared them to a certain extent during the three days of preparation, which as Rabbeinu Avraham Rambam’s son explains, included contemplation coupled with philosophical discourse and teachings. This apparently was the culmination of a process of teaching started immediately at the Exodus from Egypt as commemorated with the Mitzvah of counting of the Omer. They were prepared enough that thy all could experience enough Kol to convince them. However each experience was particular to each individual. That explains
א וְאֶל-מֹשֶׁה אָמַר עֲלֵה אֶל-יְהוָה, אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא, וְשִׁבְעִים, מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתֶם, מֵרָחֹק.
1 And unto Moses He said: 'Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadav, and Avihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off;
ב וְנִגַּשׁ מֹשֶׁה לְבַדּוֹ אֶל-יְהוָה, וְהֵם לֹא יִגָּשׁוּ; וְהָעָם, לֹא יַעֲלוּ עִמּוֹ.
2 and Moses alone shall come near unto the LORD; but they shall not come near; neither shall the people go up with him.'
It also explains the repeated warnings against going up the mountain. Ascending the mountain is an allegory for metaphysical speculation. Having experienced the Kol, experiencing it without really understanding it, there was a natural urge to speculate further. Moshe warned the people not to do so as they were not prepared enough, had not acquired enough knowledge, to pursue further understanding without being derailed. Looking at Sinai from this perspective, there clearly is a risk associated with this sudden flooding of new ideas and concepts. It did not take much time and the people could not resist the temptation of further speculation which resulted in the Egel – the Golden Calf. Not only the people but also the elite got derailed. More in next post.
[1] תלמוד בבלי מסכת חגיגה דף יד עמוד ב
תנו רבנן: ארבעה נכנסו בפרדס, ואלו הן: בן עזאי, ובן זומא, אחר, ורבי עקיבא. אמר להם רבי עקיבא: כשאתם מגיעין אצל אבני שיש טהור אל תאמרו מים מים! משום שנאמר +תהלים ק"א+ דובר שקרים לא יכון לנגד עיני.
[2] As an aside note the allegory of Peh el Peh and Mitat Neshikah - dying with a kiss.
[3] When we say source we do not mean physical place but rather a focal point of concentration. More in other posts.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Shmuel, Saul, Moshe and Sinai - intriguing similarities - any ideas?
My son Alex sent me the following email. I thought that it was quite intriguing and decided to put it out for discussion. I have not checked the verses inside and will do so overnight. In the meantime how about some input from readers.
Check out Perakim 9 -11 in Shmuel 1
The first passuk introducing Saul is extremely similar to the intro of Mordechai in Megilat Esther.
א וַיְהִי-אִישׁ מבן ימין (מִבִּנְיָמִין), וּשְׁמוֹ קִישׁ בֶּן-אֲבִיאֵל בֶּן-צְרוֹר בֶּן-בְּכוֹרַת בֶּן-אֲפִיחַ--בֶּן-אִישׁ יְמִינִי: גִּבּוֹר, חָיִל.
1 Now there was a man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Becorath, the son of Aphiah, the son of a Benjamite, a mighty man of valour.
ה אִישׁ יְהוּדִי, הָיָה בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה; וּשְׁמוֹ מָרְדֳּכַי, בֶּן יָאִיר בֶּן-שִׁמְעִי בֶּן-קִישׁ--אִישׁ יְמִינִי.
5 There was a certain Jew in Shushan the castle, whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the son of Kish, a Benjamite,
Similarities between Moshe, mount Sinai and Saul
1-Saul's father loses donkeys and Saul finds the donkeys through Shmuel (Mal’ach Elohim - Navi) while Moshe tending his sheep finds G-D in a vision of the burning bush
2-On the way to finding Shmuel they run into young maidens that are going to draw water. The story of Moshe and the daughters of Yissro are similar
יא הֵמָּה, עֹלִים בְּמַעֲלֵה הָעִיר, וְהֵמָּה מָצְאוּ נְעָרוֹת, יֹצְאוֹת לִשְׁאֹב מָיִם; וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָהֶן, הֲיֵשׁ בָּזֶה הָרֹאֶה.
11 As they went up the ascent to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them: 'Is the seer here?'
3-Saul goes up onto to the high place with Shmuel to partake in the sacrifice (Shmuel delivers from the high place a king) .Moshe goes up on Har Sinai and delivers the Torah to the Jews.
4-Moshe tells pharaoh that he wants to take the Jews for a three-day journey to worship G-D. Shmuel tells Saul that his Donkeys are three days distance from where he is.
5-Saul meets prophets and prophesies. The Jewish people prophesy at Har Sinai.
6-Shmuel in Perek 10 passuk 19 is upset at the Jewish people for deserting G-D and wanting a physical king. Moshe when confronted with the golden calf reacts similarly. Also look at passuk 27 where it mentions Bnei blial are they the equivalent to the Erev Rav of Moshe?
כו וְגַם-שָׁאוּל--הָלַךְ לְבֵיתוֹ, גִּבְעָתָה; וַיֵּלְכוּ עִמּוֹ--הַחַיִל, אֲשֶׁר-נָגַע אֱלֹהִים בְּלִבָּם.
26 And Saul also went to his house to Gibeah; and there went with him the men of valour, whose hearts God had touched.
כז וּבְנֵי בְלִיַּעַל אָמְרוּ, מַה-יֹּשִׁעֵנוּ זֶה, וַיִּבְזֻהוּ, וְלֹא-הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ מִנְחָה; וַיְהִי, כְּמַחֲרִישׁ. {פ}
27 But certain base fellows said: 'How shall this man save us?' And they despised him, and brought him no present. But he was as one that held his peace. {P}
7-King Saul kingship is eventually shattered .Moshe shatters the first tablets.
8-King David is appointed king without the ritual of prophecy while Saul is. (See Shmuel chapter 10). The second tablets are written by Moshe without the Jewish people receiving prophecy again.
9-Moshe dies after his mission is completed. Shmuel dies after his mission of anointing King David is completed.
10-Moshe's adversary was Korach. Shmuel was a descendant of Korach.
There are countless other similarities in the book of Shmuel but I would like to stop at ten so it can be similar to the tests of Abraham, the 10 plagues of Egypt and the 10 trials that took place in the desert-Alex
Any thoughts?
Check out Perakim 9 -11 in Shmuel 1
The first passuk introducing Saul is extremely similar to the intro of Mordechai in Megilat Esther.
א וַיְהִי-אִישׁ מבן ימין (מִבִּנְיָמִין), וּשְׁמוֹ קִישׁ בֶּן-אֲבִיאֵל בֶּן-צְרוֹר בֶּן-בְּכוֹרַת בֶּן-אֲפִיחַ--בֶּן-אִישׁ יְמִינִי: גִּבּוֹר, חָיִל.
1 Now there was a man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Becorath, the son of Aphiah, the son of a Benjamite, a mighty man of valour.
ה אִישׁ יְהוּדִי, הָיָה בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה; וּשְׁמוֹ מָרְדֳּכַי, בֶּן יָאִיר בֶּן-שִׁמְעִי בֶּן-קִישׁ--אִישׁ יְמִינִי.
5 There was a certain Jew in Shushan the castle, whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the son of Kish, a Benjamite,
Similarities between Moshe, mount Sinai and Saul
1-Saul's father loses donkeys and Saul finds the donkeys through Shmuel (Mal’ach Elohim - Navi) while Moshe tending his sheep finds G-D in a vision of the burning bush
2-On the way to finding Shmuel they run into young maidens that are going to draw water. The story of Moshe and the daughters of Yissro are similar
יא הֵמָּה, עֹלִים בְּמַעֲלֵה הָעִיר, וְהֵמָּה מָצְאוּ נְעָרוֹת, יֹצְאוֹת לִשְׁאֹב מָיִם; וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָהֶן, הֲיֵשׁ בָּזֶה הָרֹאֶה.
11 As they went up the ascent to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them: 'Is the seer here?'
3-Saul goes up onto to the high place with Shmuel to partake in the sacrifice (Shmuel delivers from the high place a king) .Moshe goes up on Har Sinai and delivers the Torah to the Jews.
4-Moshe tells pharaoh that he wants to take the Jews for a three-day journey to worship G-D. Shmuel tells Saul that his Donkeys are three days distance from where he is.
5-Saul meets prophets and prophesies. The Jewish people prophesy at Har Sinai.
6-Shmuel in Perek 10 passuk 19 is upset at the Jewish people for deserting G-D and wanting a physical king. Moshe when confronted with the golden calf reacts similarly. Also look at passuk 27 where it mentions Bnei blial are they the equivalent to the Erev Rav of Moshe?
כו וְגַם-שָׁאוּל--הָלַךְ לְבֵיתוֹ, גִּבְעָתָה; וַיֵּלְכוּ עִמּוֹ--הַחַיִל, אֲשֶׁר-נָגַע אֱלֹהִים בְּלִבָּם.
26 And Saul also went to his house to Gibeah; and there went with him the men of valour, whose hearts God had touched.
כז וּבְנֵי בְלִיַּעַל אָמְרוּ, מַה-יֹּשִׁעֵנוּ זֶה, וַיִּבְזֻהוּ, וְלֹא-הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ מִנְחָה; וַיְהִי, כְּמַחֲרִישׁ. {פ}
27 But certain base fellows said: 'How shall this man save us?' And they despised him, and brought him no present. But he was as one that held his peace. {P}
7-King Saul kingship is eventually shattered .Moshe shatters the first tablets.
8-King David is appointed king without the ritual of prophecy while Saul is. (See Shmuel chapter 10). The second tablets are written by Moshe without the Jewish people receiving prophecy again.
9-Moshe dies after his mission is completed. Shmuel dies after his mission of anointing King David is completed.
10-Moshe's adversary was Korach. Shmuel was a descendant of Korach.
There are countless other similarities in the book of Shmuel but I would like to stop at ten so it can be similar to the tests of Abraham, the 10 plagues of Egypt and the 10 trials that took place in the desert-Alex
Any thoughts?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
May one just simply believe? Emunah Peshutah as a Commandment and as Idolatry.
Is there a place for Emunah Peshutah in Judaism? I know that it is a theology proposed by Rav Nachman of Breslov. I am not well versed in his writings but from the little I have read I suspect that it is much more complex than meets the eye. I also suspect that the Emunah Peshutah that is bandied around by his contemporary followers is not what he had in mind. Be it as it may, the popular understanding of this idea is that it is a goal to work on oneself not to ask questions, ignore reality and deny our rational capacity. Just accept that there is a God that may or may not be physical, that sometimes gets angry at other times not, He is one but we do not exactly know what that means (one God or unique?) and so on. This latter version of Emunah Peshutah is anathema to everything Judaism was meant to teach the world and us and according to Rambam contravenes the second commandment, Lo Y’heyeh Lecha elohim acherim.
The Ten Commandments start with two Mitzvot. The first is the positive command Anochi Hashem Elokecha which Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah defines as the obligation to “know” (not just believe) that God is 1) the First Cause, 2) if He did not exist nothing else would 3) if nothing else existed, He would, 4) He is the only ultimate truth, 5) He is the force that makes the universe move (in Aristotelian parlance moves the Spheres). These are quite complicated concepts and require a lot of study and contemplation to grasp them. This type of positive commandment means that one has to spend a lifetime, if necessary, until one arrives at the understanding of these concepts about God. In other words it is a constant obligation on us.
The second Mitzvah is Lo Y’heyeh Lecha elohim acherim Al Panay. Rambam defines this Mitzvah together with the first in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 1:6. After telling us that one has to “know” the concepts covered by the first mitzvah, one who thinks that there is a different God, (different than the concepts listed above) transgresses the negative commandment of Lo Y’heyeh and is “Kofer Be’ikar”, errs in the most fundamental dogma (literally “root”) because this is the great dogma (root) that everything depends upon.
[ו] וידיעת דבר זה מצות עשה, שנאמר "אנוכי ה' אלוהיך" (
וכל המעלה על דעתו שיש שם אלוה אחר, חוץ מזה--עובר בלא תעשה, שנאמר "לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים, על פניי"
וכפר בעיקר, שזה הוא העיקר הגדול שהכול תלוי בו.
Rambam holds that one who has a concept of God that does not agree with those listed above transgresses this Mitzvah and denies the most important and fundamental ideas of Judaism.
In MN 1:36 Rambam defines the words Kefirah as follows: “by "infidelity" (Kefirah) I mean the belief that a thing is different from what it really is”. He goes on to say: “How great, then, must be the offense of him who has a wrong opinion of God Himself, and believes Him to be different from what He truly is, i.e., assumes that He does not exist, that He consists of two elements, that He is corporeal, that He is subject to external influence, or ascribes to Him any defect whatever. Such a person is undoubtedly worse than he who worships idols in the belief that they, as agents, can do good or evil.”
On the one hand Rambam expects us to “know” all these difficult concepts and at the same time he warns us that if we have incorrect concepts of God we are transgressing a commandment. These ideas are very complex and take a lot of study and contemplation, sometimes years. What are we to do until we get there?
In MN 1:35 Rambam discusses what we should teach children and beginners in general about God and the educational impact of our teaching.
“That God is incorporeal, that He cannot be compared with His creatures, that He is not subject to external influence; these are things which must be explained to every one according to his capacity, and they must be taught by way of tradition to children and women, to the stupid and ignorant, as they are taught that God is One, that He is eternal, and that He alone is to be worshipped. Without incorporeality there is no unity, for a corporeal thing is in the first case not simple, but composed of matter and form which are two separate things by definition, and secondly, as it has extension it is also divisible. When persons have received this doctrine, and have been trained in this belief, and are in consequence at a loss to reconcile it with the writings of the Prophets, the meaning of the latter must be made clear and explained to them by pointing out the homonymity and the figurative application of certain terms discussed in this part of the work. Their belief in the unity of God and in the words of the Prophets will then be a true and perfect belief.”
We are supposed to teach children and beginners to accept that God exists, cannot be influenced, He is incorporeal and unique. We explain to them the last two as they are easier to grasp. As they grow in understanding and are confronted in their learning with texts that seem to contradict what they were taught, they are introduced to the philosophical discourse and the ways of interpretation. It is almost as if there is an intentional contradiction between what the Torah asks us to accept and believe and the different narratives within it. By confronting them a person develops to the point that he “knows” the first Mitzvah of Anochi and the five principles it incorporates. The negative commandment is thus the tool that helps us keep the positive commandment of knowing God. This is the Emunah Peshutah that we have as we start our quest, as opposed to the one touted by some segments of our community. This Emunah Peshutah is also not a goal but the first step in Avodat Hashem. It is also the belief of those who do not have the capacity to understand.
Those who are not sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the true interpretation of these passages in the Bible, or to understand that the same term admits of two different interpretations, may simply be told that the scriptural passage is clearly understood by the wise, but that they should content themselves with knowing that God is incorporeal, that He is never subject to external influence, as passivity implies a change, while God is entirely free from all change, that He cannot be compared to anything besides Himself, that no definition includes Him together with any other being, that the words of the Prophets are true, and that difficulties met with may be explained on this principle. This may suffice for that class of persons, and it is not proper to leave them in the belief that God is corporeal, or that He has any of the properties of material objects, just as there is no need to leave them in the belief that God does not exist, that there are more Gods than one, or that any other being may be worshipped.”
Not everyone has the capacity to “know”. Those who do not, we ask to believe and accept. Usually the people who do not have the intellectual capacity to learn the philosophical discourse are also not bothered by the questions. Emunah Peshutah, accepting things on belief, suffices for them.
This kind of Emunah Peshutah is not only acceptable, it is mandatory and fulfills the obligations imposed by the negative commandment of Lo Y’heyeh Lecha. The popular one contravenes it.
The Ten Commandments start with two Mitzvot. The first is the positive command Anochi Hashem Elokecha which Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah defines as the obligation to “know” (not just believe) that God is 1) the First Cause, 2) if He did not exist nothing else would 3) if nothing else existed, He would, 4) He is the only ultimate truth, 5) He is the force that makes the universe move (in Aristotelian parlance moves the Spheres). These are quite complicated concepts and require a lot of study and contemplation to grasp them. This type of positive commandment means that one has to spend a lifetime, if necessary, until one arrives at the understanding of these concepts about God. In other words it is a constant obligation on us.
The second Mitzvah is Lo Y’heyeh Lecha elohim acherim Al Panay. Rambam defines this Mitzvah together with the first in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 1:6. After telling us that one has to “know” the concepts covered by the first mitzvah, one who thinks that there is a different God, (different than the concepts listed above) transgresses the negative commandment of Lo Y’heyeh and is “Kofer Be’ikar”, errs in the most fundamental dogma (literally “root”) because this is the great dogma (root) that everything depends upon.
[ו] וידיעת דבר זה מצות עשה, שנאמר "אנוכי ה' אלוהיך" (
וכל המעלה על דעתו שיש שם אלוה אחר, חוץ מזה--עובר בלא תעשה, שנאמר "לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים, על פניי"
וכפר בעיקר, שזה הוא העיקר הגדול שהכול תלוי בו.
Rambam holds that one who has a concept of God that does not agree with those listed above transgresses this Mitzvah and denies the most important and fundamental ideas of Judaism.
In MN 1:36 Rambam defines the words Kefirah as follows: “by "infidelity" (Kefirah) I mean the belief that a thing is different from what it really is”. He goes on to say: “How great, then, must be the offense of him who has a wrong opinion of God Himself, and believes Him to be different from what He truly is, i.e., assumes that He does not exist, that He consists of two elements, that He is corporeal, that He is subject to external influence, or ascribes to Him any defect whatever. Such a person is undoubtedly worse than he who worships idols in the belief that they, as agents, can do good or evil.”
On the one hand Rambam expects us to “know” all these difficult concepts and at the same time he warns us that if we have incorrect concepts of God we are transgressing a commandment. These ideas are very complex and take a lot of study and contemplation, sometimes years. What are we to do until we get there?
In MN 1:35 Rambam discusses what we should teach children and beginners in general about God and the educational impact of our teaching.
“That God is incorporeal, that He cannot be compared with His creatures, that He is not subject to external influence; these are things which must be explained to every one according to his capacity, and they must be taught by way of tradition to children and women, to the stupid and ignorant, as they are taught that God is One, that He is eternal, and that He alone is to be worshipped. Without incorporeality there is no unity, for a corporeal thing is in the first case not simple, but composed of matter and form which are two separate things by definition, and secondly, as it has extension it is also divisible. When persons have received this doctrine, and have been trained in this belief, and are in consequence at a loss to reconcile it with the writings of the Prophets, the meaning of the latter must be made clear and explained to them by pointing out the homonymity and the figurative application of certain terms discussed in this part of the work. Their belief in the unity of God and in the words of the Prophets will then be a true and perfect belief.”
We are supposed to teach children and beginners to accept that God exists, cannot be influenced, He is incorporeal and unique. We explain to them the last two as they are easier to grasp. As they grow in understanding and are confronted in their learning with texts that seem to contradict what they were taught, they are introduced to the philosophical discourse and the ways of interpretation. It is almost as if there is an intentional contradiction between what the Torah asks us to accept and believe and the different narratives within it. By confronting them a person develops to the point that he “knows” the first Mitzvah of Anochi and the five principles it incorporates. The negative commandment is thus the tool that helps us keep the positive commandment of knowing God. This is the Emunah Peshutah that we have as we start our quest, as opposed to the one touted by some segments of our community. This Emunah Peshutah is also not a goal but the first step in Avodat Hashem. It is also the belief of those who do not have the capacity to understand.
Those who are not sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the true interpretation of these passages in the Bible, or to understand that the same term admits of two different interpretations, may simply be told that the scriptural passage is clearly understood by the wise, but that they should content themselves with knowing that God is incorporeal, that He is never subject to external influence, as passivity implies a change, while God is entirely free from all change, that He cannot be compared to anything besides Himself, that no definition includes Him together with any other being, that the words of the Prophets are true, and that difficulties met with may be explained on this principle. This may suffice for that class of persons, and it is not proper to leave them in the belief that God is corporeal, or that He has any of the properties of material objects, just as there is no need to leave them in the belief that God does not exist, that there are more Gods than one, or that any other being may be worshipped.”
Not everyone has the capacity to “know”. Those who do not, we ask to believe and accept. Usually the people who do not have the intellectual capacity to learn the philosophical discourse are also not bothered by the questions. Emunah Peshutah, accepting things on belief, suffices for them.
This kind of Emunah Peshutah is not only acceptable, it is mandatory and fulfills the obligations imposed by the negative commandment of Lo Y’heyeh Lecha. The popular one contravenes it.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Hakirah articles available on the website.
“It seems there was this parush (ascetic) who decided that he
would bring his newborn son up to be a perfect tzaddik.
Thus, immediately after the child’s bris, he isolated him in a
room and allowed only his mother to care for him. No
other females were to come close to him. When the child
turned three and had his first haircut, new rules were
made. Henceforth no female, including his mother, would
be allowed to enter the child’s room. Only his father and a
rebbe would enter so as to teach him Torah. This regimen
of pure Torah learning was carried on for 15 years. Even
for his bar mitzvah, only a select group of ten men were
allowed in to see him, to hear his drashah and to wish him
mazal tov. When our young man turned 18, it became
necessary to look for a shidduch. But before this could be
done, he would go visit the rav of the town to obtain
semichah, rabbinical ordination. There was really no choice.
He had to leave his protected premises and go see the rav.
So, the father accompanied his son to the rav’s house. As
hashgachah would have it, on the way, they passed a group
of young ladies. “Tatte, father, what are those?” the young
man asked. “Katchkes [geese],” his father replied, and they
continued on their way. A few minutes later, the young
man spoke up again, “Tatte?” he asked. “Yes?” replied his
father. “Buy me a katchke,” said the son.”
This is just one of the stories in Dr. Aharon Hersh Fried’s article in the current issue of Hakirah about how to educate and prepare our children to face the outside world. The full article is now available at http://www.hakirah.org/ . You can also access the letters commenting on Dr. Sprecher’s article on Mezizah Be-Peh which appeared in the previous issue and his responses to them. Hakirah will be ready for full distribution sometimes next week.
would bring his newborn son up to be a perfect tzaddik.
Thus, immediately after the child’s bris, he isolated him in a
room and allowed only his mother to care for him. No
other females were to come close to him. When the child
turned three and had his first haircut, new rules were
made. Henceforth no female, including his mother, would
be allowed to enter the child’s room. Only his father and a
rebbe would enter so as to teach him Torah. This regimen
of pure Torah learning was carried on for 15 years. Even
for his bar mitzvah, only a select group of ten men were
allowed in to see him, to hear his drashah and to wish him
mazal tov. When our young man turned 18, it became
necessary to look for a shidduch. But before this could be
done, he would go visit the rav of the town to obtain
semichah, rabbinical ordination. There was really no choice.
He had to leave his protected premises and go see the rav.
So, the father accompanied his son to the rav’s house. As
hashgachah would have it, on the way, they passed a group
of young ladies. “Tatte, father, what are those?” the young
man asked. “Katchkes [geese],” his father replied, and they
continued on their way. A few minutes later, the young
man spoke up again, “Tatte?” he asked. “Yes?” replied his
father. “Buy me a katchke,” said the son.”
This is just one of the stories in Dr. Aharon Hersh Fried’s article in the current issue of Hakirah about how to educate and prepare our children to face the outside world. The full article is now available at http://www.hakirah.org/ . You can also access the letters commenting on Dr. Sprecher’s article on Mezizah Be-Peh which appeared in the previous issue and his responses to them. Hakirah will be ready for full distribution sometimes next week.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Why Sinai? R. Nissim Gaon and R. Yehudah Halevi in Kuzari -
In this post http://yediah.blogspot.com/2007/01/purpose-of-event-at-sinai-questions.html#links I laid out some of the difficulties with the various verses presenting the events at Sinai. One of the earliest comments on the issue can be found in the Megilat Setarim by Nissim Ben Jacob (Rav Nissim Gaon, 990-1062, Hebrew: ניסים בן יעקב) (courtesy answers.com) which can be found in the appendix to Kuzari, Even Shmuel edition. His idea is that until Sinai the existence of God was only a rational philosophical argument. It is only when one experiences God with his physical senses that one really believes. He takes all the Midrashim literally for example the writing of the words in the air inside the dark clouds. It is this physical experience that was the highlight of the event and proved the existence of God. The existence of prophecy was another idea that was confirmed at the event. The way he puts it, many people overtly showed that they believed in prophecy but deep in their hearts they had doubts. By God talking openly with Moshe and the people witnessing that, removed any further doubt. In another segment he discusses God’s physicality and admits that God cannot be seen and is therefore not a physical body. It seems to contradict the earlier statements. Without seeing God it is not clear how they knew God was doing all these things and not some other entity. I believe that we only have fragments of the Megilat Setarim. It is therefore impossible to fully explore Rav Nissim’s thoughts on the subject. What I find interesting is that he put such emphasis on the physical aspects of the experience.
Not much later R. Judah Halevy c.1075–1141, in his Kuzari (1:87) ignores the idea that Sinai proves the existence of God. He focuses in on Prophecy. He puts it in a very interesting way reminiscent of the Rashba I quoted in an earlier post. After all the miracles in Egypt and the Red Sea the people still doubted that God spoke to man. Is it possible that the Torah (I guess he refers to the ideas proposed by the prophecy) starts off in the prophet’s mind and only afterwards does he receive confirmation from God? The people could not accept that a non-physical entity like God could speak which is a physical attribute. After experiencing God’s speech with Moshe, where they heard Him giving the Ten Commandments, there was no doubt in their mind that prophecy is a miraculous experience from outside the self. It proved to them that the philosopher’s understanding of prophecy, an internal human ability, is incorrect. God speaks to his prophets just as he spoke to Moshe and the people experienced it with their own senses. He now has to confront the issue of god’s physicality. How does a non-physical entity talk? His answer is that it is miraculous. We cannot understand how that worked but it did. At the end he feels a little cornered and demurs a little. “I cannot guarantee that things happened the way I describe them, as it is possible that it was a much “deeper” experience. All we know is that there was an experience that whoever participated was convinced that the Torah is true and (now he adds surprisingly) that the world was created”. Every time I read this piece I am struck at how far he is from Rambam’s way of thinking. I am no expert on the Kuzari but I have read some comments of those who know him. Apparently his writings in Kuzari and his Piyuttim are completely different. He is much closer to Rambam’s thought in the Piyuttim.
What is interesting in both R. Nissim and R. Yehudah Halevi is that they do not address the obvious problem; if one cannot see the speaker how did they know it was God speaking? We will see that Ramban, who has at the core of his thinking some similarities to these two thinkers, addresses this in his discussions of Sinai. What is also interesting is Kuzari’s idea of prophecy. While he discusses it at length many times in his writings, he introduces us here to the premise that prophecy cannot result from a human capacity. It is tainted and needs to be from the outside totally. Only then can it be authentic. Prophecy is therefore a purely miraculous event. That is what Sinai proved.
Next I will discuss Rambam’s understanding of Sinai followed by Ramban.
Not much later R. Judah Halevy c.1075–1141, in his Kuzari (1:87) ignores the idea that Sinai proves the existence of God. He focuses in on Prophecy. He puts it in a very interesting way reminiscent of the Rashba I quoted in an earlier post. After all the miracles in Egypt and the Red Sea the people still doubted that God spoke to man. Is it possible that the Torah (I guess he refers to the ideas proposed by the prophecy) starts off in the prophet’s mind and only afterwards does he receive confirmation from God? The people could not accept that a non-physical entity like God could speak which is a physical attribute. After experiencing God’s speech with Moshe, where they heard Him giving the Ten Commandments, there was no doubt in their mind that prophecy is a miraculous experience from outside the self. It proved to them that the philosopher’s understanding of prophecy, an internal human ability, is incorrect. God speaks to his prophets just as he spoke to Moshe and the people experienced it with their own senses. He now has to confront the issue of god’s physicality. How does a non-physical entity talk? His answer is that it is miraculous. We cannot understand how that worked but it did. At the end he feels a little cornered and demurs a little. “I cannot guarantee that things happened the way I describe them, as it is possible that it was a much “deeper” experience. All we know is that there was an experience that whoever participated was convinced that the Torah is true and (now he adds surprisingly) that the world was created”. Every time I read this piece I am struck at how far he is from Rambam’s way of thinking. I am no expert on the Kuzari but I have read some comments of those who know him. Apparently his writings in Kuzari and his Piyuttim are completely different. He is much closer to Rambam’s thought in the Piyuttim.
What is interesting in both R. Nissim and R. Yehudah Halevi is that they do not address the obvious problem; if one cannot see the speaker how did they know it was God speaking? We will see that Ramban, who has at the core of his thinking some similarities to these two thinkers, addresses this in his discussions of Sinai. What is also interesting is Kuzari’s idea of prophecy. While he discusses it at length many times in his writings, he introduces us here to the premise that prophecy cannot result from a human capacity. It is tainted and needs to be from the outside totally. Only then can it be authentic. Prophecy is therefore a purely miraculous event. That is what Sinai proved.
Next I will discuss Rambam’s understanding of Sinai followed by Ramban.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Ramban on Hashgacha Pratit - Individual Providence.
As discussed in earlier posts http://yediah.blogspot.com/2007/01/acquiring-providence-arduous-task-part_11.html Rambam understands Hashgacha to be a function of a person getting close to God by learning His ways and, emulating them and thus partaking in His running of the universe and its inhabitants. Clearly only those who apprehend God enjoy this special status, each to his level, while those who do not are subject to the laws of nature and chance.
Surprisingly Ramban seems to be saying the same thing. Especially in his Pirush on Iyov 36:7, after explaining his position in words that echo Rambam in MN 3:18 and 51, he ends by saying that the Rav (Rambam) explained this well in his Sefer Hamoreh. (I could not find this Ramban online. I suggest that the reader look it up as I will be addressing it indirectly throughout this post.)
Ramban first lays out his position in Breishis 18:19 on the verse:
יט כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו, לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת-בָּנָיו וְאֶת-בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו, וְשָׁמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ יְהוָה, לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט--לְמַעַן, הָבִיא יְהוָה עַל-אַבְרָהָם, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר, עָלָיו.
19 For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice; to the end that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him.'
רמב"ן בראשית פרק יח פסוק יט
והנכון בעיני שהיא ידיעה בו ממש. ירמוז, כי ידיעת השם שהיא השגחתו בעולם השפל, היא לשמור הכללים. וגם בני האדם מונחים בו למקרים עד בא עת פקודתם. אבל בחסידיו ישום אליו לבו לדעת אותו בפרט, להיות שמירתו דבקה בו תמיד, לא תפרד הידיעה והזכירה ממנו כלל. כטעם לא יגרע מצדיק עיניו (איוב לו ז). ובאו מזה פסוקים רבים, כדכתיב (תהלים לג יח) הנה עין ה' אל יראיו, וזולת זה:
Paraphrasing:
Knowing Avraham is meant literally. God’s knowledge of the world manifests itself in His watching over the generalities. People are also left to chance until their time of judgment arrives[1]. As to His righteous, he watches over every detail of their life constantly, He never takes His attention from them keeping them in mind always. He proceeds to bring proof texts one of which is the Passuk in Iyov I mentioned earlier.
Ramban thus agrees that only the righteous deserve personal Hashgacha. However we have to remember Ramban’s worldview and his understanding of nature and chance. To him nature is a front for reality. Reality is the constant interference of either the stars as servants of God in the day-to-day occurrences in the lives of the general population or God himself in the lives of the righteous Jews. The stars do not react to good deeds; they are indifferent and act according to their own agenda. God on the other hand is a just judge and rewards those that serve Him well by keeping His Mitzvot. Punishment means reverting to the control of the stars. To Ramban, science is the study of the recurring phenomenon. The fact that things seem to run in a pattern is deceiving. At any moment things can and may change without reason. Science is therefore a very mediocre way of understanding nature, how things are being run and predicting future events. Metaphysics which includes necromancies, magic and all spiritual studies as well as the knowledge of God, are the real sciences (magic and necromancies forbidden by the Torah although they are real and work). He therefore comments in his Torat Hashem Temimah (page 155 Chavel Hebrew edition) that the amount of hard work needed to learn sciences is not worth the effort. There is therefore no direct cause and effect between man’s action and Providence. Good and bad things that happen to a person do not relate directly and result from his actions. There is only an indirect relationship. Just by acknowledging God by keeping his Mitzvot[2], man is thrown under His direct aegis and no harm can befall him miraculously. It is when man forgets to acknowledge God that he reverts to the control of the stars and chance. That is the meaning of God knowing Avraham. Avraham having chosen to follow God’s ways came under His direct protection.
Thus in the context of the verse, this statement of knowing Avraham has two meanings. In addition to protecting Avraham and his family from the forthcoming cataclysm because of his way of life, God also wants to share the destruction of Sodom with him because He knows that he will learn and teach his children God’s ways.
רמב"ן בראשית פרק יח פסוק יח[3]
כי ידעתי בו שהוא מכיר ויודע שאני ה' אוהב צדקה ומשפט, כלומר, שאני עושה משפט רק בצדקה, ולכך יצוה את בניו וביתו אחריו לאחוז דרכי
By being part of this process, observing even partaking in God’s cogitation, Avraham will learn how God acts towards Sodom and teach this insight to his children. It is not by contemplating nature but rather by experiencing God’s direct involvement that one learns His ways. Although the destruction of Sodom seems to be a natural event, Avraham is made privy to the reality that God is involved constantly and acts justly rewarding the good (Avraham) by protecting them and punishing the evil. God’s justice is further highlighted by the way He arrives at His verdict during His discussions with Avraham. That is the lesson that Avraham will pass on to his children.
A careful read of Ramban in Iyov highlights the difference between these two giants. Although Ramban paraphrases Rambam, he subtly adapts him to fit his own understanding of how the world is run. After explaining that those who are close to God are protected, he addresses the fact that at war soldiers are called up, the fearful are sent home and all the preparations before battle we see in Tanach. After all if they are following God’s orders why do they need to prepare themselves? Who needs armies? This question could only be asked if natural events are really miraculous and cannot be predicted. Ramban in fact answers that the only reason these preparations are needed is because most people cannot be constantly in touch with God. Had they been they would have won all battles with their bare hands and minimal numbers. In Rambam's worldview this question would not even come up.
Although both Ramban and Rambam agree that only the righteous are subject to God’s providence, they have two different ideas of what providence is. Rambam sees it as an understanding of nature and God’s ways where the good outcome is a direct result of one’s actions. Ramban sees it as the indirect result of following God’s Mitzvot which when followed properly makes one acknowledge God’s existence and miraculous ways in running things. One who does this is rewarded by falling under God’s direct aegis and from then on all is miraculous. The implications of these two different outlooks are far reaching and cover almost every aspect of Judaism from prayer to Ta’amei Hamitzvot. (I will address Rambam’s reading of the verse in Breishit 18:19 in a future post as this one is already much too long.)
As I compare Rambam to Ramban in these areas, I am again amazed and puzzled at why Ramban’s approach has nowadays become mainstream Judaism while Rambam is relegated to a few intellectuals. One would think that with the advances in sciences and the better understanding of how our universe operates, Rambam’s view would prevail. I guess it is easier to believe that by being meticulous in rituals, following every Chumra, one buys a ticket into God’s club rather than taking responsibility for one’s actions and their direct consequences.
[1] Exactly the meaning of these last two words is a little unclear.
[2] The purpose of keeping Mitzvot is just that – acknowledging God. (See the last Ramban in Parshat Bo quoted in my earlier post).
[3] The following quote is just the pertinent segment in a different interpretation of this verse.
Surprisingly Ramban seems to be saying the same thing. Especially in his Pirush on Iyov 36:7, after explaining his position in words that echo Rambam in MN 3:18 and 51, he ends by saying that the Rav (Rambam) explained this well in his Sefer Hamoreh. (I could not find this Ramban online. I suggest that the reader look it up as I will be addressing it indirectly throughout this post.)
Ramban first lays out his position in Breishis 18:19 on the verse:
יט כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו, לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת-בָּנָיו וְאֶת-בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו, וְשָׁמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ יְהוָה, לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט--לְמַעַן, הָבִיא יְהוָה עַל-אַבְרָהָם, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר, עָלָיו.
19 For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice; to the end that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him.'
רמב"ן בראשית פרק יח פסוק יט
והנכון בעיני שהיא ידיעה בו ממש. ירמוז, כי ידיעת השם שהיא השגחתו בעולם השפל, היא לשמור הכללים. וגם בני האדם מונחים בו למקרים עד בא עת פקודתם. אבל בחסידיו ישום אליו לבו לדעת אותו בפרט, להיות שמירתו דבקה בו תמיד, לא תפרד הידיעה והזכירה ממנו כלל. כטעם לא יגרע מצדיק עיניו (איוב לו ז). ובאו מזה פסוקים רבים, כדכתיב (תהלים לג יח) הנה עין ה' אל יראיו, וזולת זה:
Paraphrasing:
Knowing Avraham is meant literally. God’s knowledge of the world manifests itself in His watching over the generalities. People are also left to chance until their time of judgment arrives[1]. As to His righteous, he watches over every detail of their life constantly, He never takes His attention from them keeping them in mind always. He proceeds to bring proof texts one of which is the Passuk in Iyov I mentioned earlier.
Ramban thus agrees that only the righteous deserve personal Hashgacha. However we have to remember Ramban’s worldview and his understanding of nature and chance. To him nature is a front for reality. Reality is the constant interference of either the stars as servants of God in the day-to-day occurrences in the lives of the general population or God himself in the lives of the righteous Jews. The stars do not react to good deeds; they are indifferent and act according to their own agenda. God on the other hand is a just judge and rewards those that serve Him well by keeping His Mitzvot. Punishment means reverting to the control of the stars. To Ramban, science is the study of the recurring phenomenon. The fact that things seem to run in a pattern is deceiving. At any moment things can and may change without reason. Science is therefore a very mediocre way of understanding nature, how things are being run and predicting future events. Metaphysics which includes necromancies, magic and all spiritual studies as well as the knowledge of God, are the real sciences (magic and necromancies forbidden by the Torah although they are real and work). He therefore comments in his Torat Hashem Temimah (page 155 Chavel Hebrew edition) that the amount of hard work needed to learn sciences is not worth the effort. There is therefore no direct cause and effect between man’s action and Providence. Good and bad things that happen to a person do not relate directly and result from his actions. There is only an indirect relationship. Just by acknowledging God by keeping his Mitzvot[2], man is thrown under His direct aegis and no harm can befall him miraculously. It is when man forgets to acknowledge God that he reverts to the control of the stars and chance. That is the meaning of God knowing Avraham. Avraham having chosen to follow God’s ways came under His direct protection.
Thus in the context of the verse, this statement of knowing Avraham has two meanings. In addition to protecting Avraham and his family from the forthcoming cataclysm because of his way of life, God also wants to share the destruction of Sodom with him because He knows that he will learn and teach his children God’s ways.
רמב"ן בראשית פרק יח פסוק יח[3]
כי ידעתי בו שהוא מכיר ויודע שאני ה' אוהב צדקה ומשפט, כלומר, שאני עושה משפט רק בצדקה, ולכך יצוה את בניו וביתו אחריו לאחוז דרכי
By being part of this process, observing even partaking in God’s cogitation, Avraham will learn how God acts towards Sodom and teach this insight to his children. It is not by contemplating nature but rather by experiencing God’s direct involvement that one learns His ways. Although the destruction of Sodom seems to be a natural event, Avraham is made privy to the reality that God is involved constantly and acts justly rewarding the good (Avraham) by protecting them and punishing the evil. God’s justice is further highlighted by the way He arrives at His verdict during His discussions with Avraham. That is the lesson that Avraham will pass on to his children.
A careful read of Ramban in Iyov highlights the difference between these two giants. Although Ramban paraphrases Rambam, he subtly adapts him to fit his own understanding of how the world is run. After explaining that those who are close to God are protected, he addresses the fact that at war soldiers are called up, the fearful are sent home and all the preparations before battle we see in Tanach. After all if they are following God’s orders why do they need to prepare themselves? Who needs armies? This question could only be asked if natural events are really miraculous and cannot be predicted. Ramban in fact answers that the only reason these preparations are needed is because most people cannot be constantly in touch with God. Had they been they would have won all battles with their bare hands and minimal numbers. In Rambam's worldview this question would not even come up.
Although both Ramban and Rambam agree that only the righteous are subject to God’s providence, they have two different ideas of what providence is. Rambam sees it as an understanding of nature and God’s ways where the good outcome is a direct result of one’s actions. Ramban sees it as the indirect result of following God’s Mitzvot which when followed properly makes one acknowledge God’s existence and miraculous ways in running things. One who does this is rewarded by falling under God’s direct aegis and from then on all is miraculous. The implications of these two different outlooks are far reaching and cover almost every aspect of Judaism from prayer to Ta’amei Hamitzvot. (I will address Rambam’s reading of the verse in Breishit 18:19 in a future post as this one is already much too long.)
As I compare Rambam to Ramban in these areas, I am again amazed and puzzled at why Ramban’s approach has nowadays become mainstream Judaism while Rambam is relegated to a few intellectuals. One would think that with the advances in sciences and the better understanding of how our universe operates, Rambam’s view would prevail. I guess it is easier to believe that by being meticulous in rituals, following every Chumra, one buys a ticket into God’s club rather than taking responsibility for one’s actions and their direct consequences.
[1] Exactly the meaning of these last two words is a little unclear.
[2] The purpose of keeping Mitzvot is just that – acknowledging God. (See the last Ramban in Parshat Bo quoted in my earlier post).
[3] The following quote is just the pertinent segment in a different interpretation of this verse.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Of Rocks, Water and Miracles.
This week’s Parsha does not lack interesting stories and one could spend a whole year just analyzing Kryat Yam Suf, Mann, Amalek, the “sweet wood” and the “Water Rock”. I would like to focus in on the latter.
The people were about to enter the desert and were quite restless and concerned first regarding the availability of food and then about the lack of water. They were still uncomfortable with Moshe and as I quoted Rashba in my earlier post http://yediah.blogspot.com/2007/01/skepticism-is-jewish-thing-and-healthy.html
they remained skeptical of his abilities until Sinai. Responding to the quasi uprising, God told Moshe to go find a rock at Chorev and hit it with the staff he used in Egypt and water will flow. That is the plain reading of the story. As with every story in Chumash, there is much more than meets the eye. I would like to focus on this verse: (Shemot 17:6)
ו הִנְנִי עֹמֵד לְפָנֶיךָ שָּׁם עַל-הַצּוּר, בְּחֹרֵב, וְהִכִּיתָ בַצּוּר וְיָצְאוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מַיִם, וְשָׁתָה הָעָם; וַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן מֹשֶׁה, לְעֵינֵי זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Chorev; and thou shall smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it that the people may drink.' And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
Since when does God stand on a rock? What does this mean? It behooves us to try to understand what standing means when referred to God. The usage of the word Tzur translated as Rock is also intriguing. Rambam addresses the latter in MN 1:16:
“THE word Tzur (rock) is a homonym. First, it denotes "rock," as "And thou shall smite the rock" (Tzur) (Exod. xvii. 6).”
Clearly the word is understood literally as a physical rock. However a rock takes on a central role in a different context: (Shemot 33:21)
כא וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, הִנֵּה מָקוֹם אִתִּי; וְנִצַּבְתָּ, עַל-הַצּוּר.
21 And the LORD said: 'Behold, there is a place by Me, and thou shall stand upon the rock.
In Moshe’s quest for an understanding of God he is told to stand on a rock (See Ramban ad locum[1]). In this context how does Moshe’s standing on a rock promote his understanding of God? Rambam addresses this in MN1:16:
“It is next employed to signify the quarry from which the stones are hewn; comp. "Look unto the rock (Tzur) whence ye are hewn" (Yeshayahu 51:1). From this latter meaning of the term another figurative notion was subsequently derived, meaning “the root and origin" of all things… It is in the latter sense that the Almighty is called "rock," He being the origin and the efficient cause of all things besides Himself… Again, "And thou shall stand upon the Rock" (Exod. xxxiii. 21), i.e., be firm and steadfast in the conviction that God is the source of all things, for this will lead you towards the knowledge of the Divine Being. We have shown (chap. viii.) that the words "Behold, a place is with me" (Exod. xxxiii. 21) contain the same idea.”
In his quest for an understanding of God, Moshe is told to contemplate Him as the source of everything. The way I understand it is that El Shaday is the apprehension of God as First Cause. By analyzing cause and effect in nature one arrives at an Entity, referred to as El Shaday, that only causes but is not the effect of a cause. Tzur, on the other hand, is the contemplation of the effects caused by this Entity, in other words God’s creation. It is through that contemplation that one can learn of God’s ways and emulate them. At that same event Moshe was asking for guidance on how to lead the people[2] and also asked to know God’s essence. He was told that this type of contemplation is productive in understanding how to lead. In addition it is also a contemplation of what God is not which is the closest one can come to God. All we observe about our existence and surroundings are God’s creations, not His essence. When God said to Moshe “Behold there is a place by Me” must therefore not be understood literally. God has no place and in the context a physical place seems quite irrelevant at least at first blush. In MN 1:8 Rambam explains:
“But you must understand that the word makom has the same signification in the passage "Behold, a place (makom) is with me" (Exod. xxxiii. 26). It signifies a rank in theoretical speculation and in the contemplation of the intellect – not that of the eye; this being in addition to its literal meaning alluding to a local place that was to be found on that mountain on which the separation and the achievement of perfection came to pass.”
Rambam understands the verse to mean that Moshe was directed into the type of speculation and contemplation that I described earlier. Rambam does not negate the literal meaning of place. On the contrary in this context there is a need for isolation when one speculates about these issues. The words thus have a double meaning. Moshe was told to go to a place, a rock, and in his isolation, contemplate whence everything came from and who caused it to be. That is the meaning of speculating about “rank”, the First or highest in the system of cause and effect.
The word Omed as in our verse הִנְנִי עֹמֵד לְפָנֶיךָ שָּׁם עַל-הַצּוּר, בְּחֹרֵבwhich literally means stand has several additional meanings and we need to figure out which fits in the context. In MN 1:12, Rambam suggests it means getting up in contrast to sitting down. This is a literal variant of standing. When used in reference to god in this context, it implies what we perceive as action – changing from apparent inactivity to activity. In MN1:13 he suggests that when it is used in the context of God, it should be seen as permanence. When someone moves one changes constantly while standing in contrast can be seen as permanence, no longer changing. In MN 1:15 he compares Omed to Nitzav as in וְנִצַּבְתָּ, עַל-הַצּוּר which we saw earlier, means that Moshe is entreated to be firm and steadfast.
“The phrase "stood upon it" indicates the permanence and constancy of God, and does not imply the idea of physical position. This is also the sense of the phrase "Thou shall stand upon the rock" (Exod. xxxiii. 21). It is therefore clear that Nitzav and ‘amad are identical in this figurative signification. Comp. "Behold, I will stand (‘Omed) before thee there upon the rock in Chorev" (Exod. xvii. 6).”
Both Omed and Nitzav in the context of these verses cannot refer to a physical position. The interesting point here is the comparison. Although ostensibly one verse refers to Moshe and the other to God, they both mean the same thing. In both cases it is Moshe who apprehends God as permanent and constant.
Coming back to our story, where Moshe is confronted with the dilemma of a whole people going into the desert without water, he realizes that the solution is in finding an anomaly in nature to solve the problem. The Mishna in Avot 5:5 enumerates the ten things that were created Friday afternoon, the last day of Creation. All are unusual natural events, each being unique occurring once in History. Among those listed is the “Well” which the Rabbis connect with this event. This was when Moshe discovered the unique anomaly that kept them watered during their sojourn in the desert[3]. Another one listed in the Mishna is the Mann, another unique anomaly that kept them fed during the same sojourn. The Mishna is telling us that these anomalies were embedded in nature at Creation, discovered and taken advantage of by Moshe at the appropriate time, an outlook on miracles that I have discussed many times. As Moshe made these discoveries, he internalized not only the physical but also just as importantly, the ontological aspects of this anomaly. He apprehended a greater understanding of God, how He has structured the natural world and His relation to it.
Interestingly, although coming from a completely different perspective regarding the essence of nature, Ramban makes a comment that is quite similar. (This was brought to my attention by R. Koppel Schwartz in his Yekev Ephraim; in fact his comment got me thinking resulting in this post).
רמב"ן שמות פרק יז פסוק ו
(ו) הנני עומד לפניך שם על הצור בחורב - בעבור כי הפלא במים במקום הזה עתה היה קבוע, שיהיה הבאר עמהם כל ימי המדבר כדברי רבותינו (במדב"ר יט כה), בעבור זה נגלית עליו השכינה במקום ההוא, כמו שאמר במן (לעיל טז ז) ובקר וראיתם את כבוד ה', בעבור היותו פלא קיים:
Just as the Mann, an anomaly that existed for 40 years, made people realize that God is the creator, so too the continuity of the other anomaly, the supply of water, did the same. Ramban also understands the appearance of God on the rock as something that people apprehend and not an actual placement. The interesting thing though is that Ramban sees the word Omed as referring to the longevity of the anomaly, which to him is identical with God’s presence. Constantly seeing the wondrous keeps God in front of one’s eyes. He has a different take than Rambam but in a similar thought process.
[1] רמב"ן שמות פרק לג פסוק כא
(כא) הנה מקום אתי - בהר הזה אשר שכינתי שם:
ונצבת על הצור - שהוא בהר, כמו שנאמר (לעיל יז ו) הנני עומד לפניך שם על הצור בחורב:
Ramban notices the word Hatzur which indicates a specific rock and also connotes familiarity with it. There is no evidence that Rambam agrees with that. The choice of this homonym is intriguing.
[2]
יג וְעַתָּה אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ, הוֹדִעֵנִי נָא אֶת-דְּרָכֶךָ, וְאֵדָעֲךָ, לְמַעַן אֶמְצָא-חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ; וּרְאֵה, כִּי עַמְּךָ הַגּוֹי הַזֶּה.
13 Now therefore, I pray Thee, if I have found grace in Thy sight, show me now Thy ways, that I may know Thee, to the end that I may find grace in Thy sight; and consider that this nation is Thy people.'
[3] It goes against my grain to conjecture what the anomaly could be. My first thought was an underground aquifer, but that would not be an anomaly. Maybe the access to it could be. I prefer however to leave both the Be’er and the Mann as mysteries.
The people were about to enter the desert and were quite restless and concerned first regarding the availability of food and then about the lack of water. They were still uncomfortable with Moshe and as I quoted Rashba in my earlier post http://yediah.blogspot.com/2007/01/skepticism-is-jewish-thing-and-healthy.html
they remained skeptical of his abilities until Sinai. Responding to the quasi uprising, God told Moshe to go find a rock at Chorev and hit it with the staff he used in Egypt and water will flow. That is the plain reading of the story. As with every story in Chumash, there is much more than meets the eye. I would like to focus on this verse: (Shemot 17:6)
ו הִנְנִי עֹמֵד לְפָנֶיךָ שָּׁם עַל-הַצּוּר, בְּחֹרֵב, וְהִכִּיתָ בַצּוּר וְיָצְאוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מַיִם, וְשָׁתָה הָעָם; וַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן מֹשֶׁה, לְעֵינֵי זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Chorev; and thou shall smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it that the people may drink.' And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
Since when does God stand on a rock? What does this mean? It behooves us to try to understand what standing means when referred to God. The usage of the word Tzur translated as Rock is also intriguing. Rambam addresses the latter in MN 1:16:
“THE word Tzur (rock) is a homonym. First, it denotes "rock," as "And thou shall smite the rock" (Tzur) (Exod. xvii. 6).”
Clearly the word is understood literally as a physical rock. However a rock takes on a central role in a different context: (Shemot 33:21)
כא וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, הִנֵּה מָקוֹם אִתִּי; וְנִצַּבְתָּ, עַל-הַצּוּר.
21 And the LORD said: 'Behold, there is a place by Me, and thou shall stand upon the rock.
In Moshe’s quest for an understanding of God he is told to stand on a rock (See Ramban ad locum[1]). In this context how does Moshe’s standing on a rock promote his understanding of God? Rambam addresses this in MN1:16:
“It is next employed to signify the quarry from which the stones are hewn; comp. "Look unto the rock (Tzur) whence ye are hewn" (Yeshayahu 51:1). From this latter meaning of the term another figurative notion was subsequently derived, meaning “the root and origin" of all things… It is in the latter sense that the Almighty is called "rock," He being the origin and the efficient cause of all things besides Himself… Again, "And thou shall stand upon the Rock" (Exod. xxxiii. 21), i.e., be firm and steadfast in the conviction that God is the source of all things, for this will lead you towards the knowledge of the Divine Being. We have shown (chap. viii.) that the words "Behold, a place is with me" (Exod. xxxiii. 21) contain the same idea.”
In his quest for an understanding of God, Moshe is told to contemplate Him as the source of everything. The way I understand it is that El Shaday is the apprehension of God as First Cause. By analyzing cause and effect in nature one arrives at an Entity, referred to as El Shaday, that only causes but is not the effect of a cause. Tzur, on the other hand, is the contemplation of the effects caused by this Entity, in other words God’s creation. It is through that contemplation that one can learn of God’s ways and emulate them. At that same event Moshe was asking for guidance on how to lead the people[2] and also asked to know God’s essence. He was told that this type of contemplation is productive in understanding how to lead. In addition it is also a contemplation of what God is not which is the closest one can come to God. All we observe about our existence and surroundings are God’s creations, not His essence. When God said to Moshe “Behold there is a place by Me” must therefore not be understood literally. God has no place and in the context a physical place seems quite irrelevant at least at first blush. In MN 1:8 Rambam explains:
“But you must understand that the word makom has the same signification in the passage "Behold, a place (makom) is with me" (Exod. xxxiii. 26). It signifies a rank in theoretical speculation and in the contemplation of the intellect – not that of the eye; this being in addition to its literal meaning alluding to a local place that was to be found on that mountain on which the separation and the achievement of perfection came to pass.”
Rambam understands the verse to mean that Moshe was directed into the type of speculation and contemplation that I described earlier. Rambam does not negate the literal meaning of place. On the contrary in this context there is a need for isolation when one speculates about these issues. The words thus have a double meaning. Moshe was told to go to a place, a rock, and in his isolation, contemplate whence everything came from and who caused it to be. That is the meaning of speculating about “rank”, the First or highest in the system of cause and effect.
The word Omed as in our verse הִנְנִי עֹמֵד לְפָנֶיךָ שָּׁם עַל-הַצּוּר, בְּחֹרֵבwhich literally means stand has several additional meanings and we need to figure out which fits in the context. In MN 1:12, Rambam suggests it means getting up in contrast to sitting down. This is a literal variant of standing. When used in reference to god in this context, it implies what we perceive as action – changing from apparent inactivity to activity. In MN1:13 he suggests that when it is used in the context of God, it should be seen as permanence. When someone moves one changes constantly while standing in contrast can be seen as permanence, no longer changing. In MN 1:15 he compares Omed to Nitzav as in וְנִצַּבְתָּ, עַל-הַצּוּר which we saw earlier, means that Moshe is entreated to be firm and steadfast.
“The phrase "stood upon it" indicates the permanence and constancy of God, and does not imply the idea of physical position. This is also the sense of the phrase "Thou shall stand upon the rock" (Exod. xxxiii. 21). It is therefore clear that Nitzav and ‘amad are identical in this figurative signification. Comp. "Behold, I will stand (‘Omed) before thee there upon the rock in Chorev" (Exod. xvii. 6).”
Both Omed and Nitzav in the context of these verses cannot refer to a physical position. The interesting point here is the comparison. Although ostensibly one verse refers to Moshe and the other to God, they both mean the same thing. In both cases it is Moshe who apprehends God as permanent and constant.
Coming back to our story, where Moshe is confronted with the dilemma of a whole people going into the desert without water, he realizes that the solution is in finding an anomaly in nature to solve the problem. The Mishna in Avot 5:5 enumerates the ten things that were created Friday afternoon, the last day of Creation. All are unusual natural events, each being unique occurring once in History. Among those listed is the “Well” which the Rabbis connect with this event. This was when Moshe discovered the unique anomaly that kept them watered during their sojourn in the desert[3]. Another one listed in the Mishna is the Mann, another unique anomaly that kept them fed during the same sojourn. The Mishna is telling us that these anomalies were embedded in nature at Creation, discovered and taken advantage of by Moshe at the appropriate time, an outlook on miracles that I have discussed many times. As Moshe made these discoveries, he internalized not only the physical but also just as importantly, the ontological aspects of this anomaly. He apprehended a greater understanding of God, how He has structured the natural world and His relation to it.
Interestingly, although coming from a completely different perspective regarding the essence of nature, Ramban makes a comment that is quite similar. (This was brought to my attention by R. Koppel Schwartz in his Yekev Ephraim; in fact his comment got me thinking resulting in this post).
רמב"ן שמות פרק יז פסוק ו
(ו) הנני עומד לפניך שם על הצור בחורב - בעבור כי הפלא במים במקום הזה עתה היה קבוע, שיהיה הבאר עמהם כל ימי המדבר כדברי רבותינו (במדב"ר יט כה), בעבור זה נגלית עליו השכינה במקום ההוא, כמו שאמר במן (לעיל טז ז) ובקר וראיתם את כבוד ה', בעבור היותו פלא קיים:
Just as the Mann, an anomaly that existed for 40 years, made people realize that God is the creator, so too the continuity of the other anomaly, the supply of water, did the same. Ramban also understands the appearance of God on the rock as something that people apprehend and not an actual placement. The interesting thing though is that Ramban sees the word Omed as referring to the longevity of the anomaly, which to him is identical with God’s presence. Constantly seeing the wondrous keeps God in front of one’s eyes. He has a different take than Rambam but in a similar thought process.
[1] רמב"ן שמות פרק לג פסוק כא
(כא) הנה מקום אתי - בהר הזה אשר שכינתי שם:
ונצבת על הצור - שהוא בהר, כמו שנאמר (לעיל יז ו) הנני עומד לפניך שם על הצור בחורב:
Ramban notices the word Hatzur which indicates a specific rock and also connotes familiarity with it. There is no evidence that Rambam agrees with that. The choice of this homonym is intriguing.
[2]
יג וְעַתָּה אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ, הוֹדִעֵנִי נָא אֶת-דְּרָכֶךָ, וְאֵדָעֲךָ, לְמַעַן אֶמְצָא-חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ; וּרְאֵה, כִּי עַמְּךָ הַגּוֹי הַזֶּה.
13 Now therefore, I pray Thee, if I have found grace in Thy sight, show me now Thy ways, that I may know Thee, to the end that I may find grace in Thy sight; and consider that this nation is Thy people.'
[3] It goes against my grain to conjecture what the anomaly could be. My first thought was an underground aquifer, but that would not be an anomaly. Maybe the access to it could be. I prefer however to leave both the Be’er and the Mann as mysteries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)