"Why Does The World Exist?" - Towards a Jewish Answer - Part 1.- Divine "Existence".

In his book “Why Does the World Exist?”(Which I highly recommend to all those who think about existential issues), Jim Holt interviews a series of philosophers, physicists and writers. He poses to them the question “why is there a world rather than nothing at all?” and reports their answers.  The answers can be divided into three camps listed by the author as; “optimists” who hold that there has to be a reason for the world to exist; the “pessimists” who believe there might be a reason for the world to exist but we will never know for sure; the “rejectionists” who believe there cannot be a reason for the world to exist and the question itself is meaningless.  The fact that thinkers in each group grapple with the question, while even the rejectionists work hard to explain why the question is meaningless, proves that the question is important and begs for an answer.  With the Big Bang, the currently accepted theory of how the world began, the question is; what triggered the singular event? How did the Big Bang come about? The answers given by the different interviewees vary from, it just happened; to it was started by some quantum induced or other possible scientifically explained event; to God as the Creator being behind the event. Each of these answers leaves us with a mystery as the question still remains; who made God, who or what established the scientific law that triggered the event or what was behind the “just happened” event. The book’s point is that the question still begs for a definite answer and will continue to do so for a long time if not forever.

The same question is posed by Rambam in Hilchot Avodah Zara 1:3 –

ט  [ג] כיון שנגמל איתן זה, התחיל לשוטט בדעתו והוא קטן, ולחשוב ביום ובלילה, והיה תמיה:  היאך אפשר שיהיה הגלגל הזה נוהג תמיד, ולא יהיה לו מנהיג; ומי יסבב אותו, לפי שאי אפשר שיסבב את עצמו.  ולא היה לו לא מלמד ולא מודיע דבר, אלא מושקע באור כשדים בין עובדי עבודה זרה הטיפשים

As this solid individual (Avraham Avinu) matured, while still a youth, his mind began to wander and think day and night pondering; how is it possible for this sphere to always circle without it having a driver? Who is making it circle? After all it cannot do so by itself. He had no teacher or someone who could inform him for he was ensconced in Ur of the Chaldeans amongst the stupid idol worshipers.

Rambam presents the question in context of the Aristotelian physics of his time putting it into Avraham Avinu’s mouth. The movement of the spheres was seen as the force that made earthly existence possible; the movement caused the elements to mix together creating the endless combinations of matter that make up the world. The outer sphere, הגלגל הזה, causes all the other spheres to move. The question is what is behind that moving force just as contemporary thinkers ask what is behind the Big Bang. That question has not changed with our more advanced understanding of how things work and there is no outlook that it will change with further advances in our understanding of our environment and universe. The answer that Avraham arrives at according to Rambam is

וליבו משוטט ומבין, עד שהשיג דרך האמת, והבין קו הצדק, מדעתו הנכונה; וידע שיש שם אלוה אחד, והוא מנהיג הגלגל, והוא ברא הכול, ואין בכל הנמצא אלוה חוץ ממנו.

As his mind wanders and contemplates, he arrives at the true path, and thanks to his straight thinking he develops the correct line of thought; he knows that there is out there one God who directs the sphere, who created all and no other God exists besides Him.

Avraham’s God is the Creator and His existence is a deduction that Avraham arrives at through questioning the provenance of the natural environment he lived in. He deduces that there is a Creator, a unique God that is also the continuous force that is responsible for all physical existence. The exact definition of “unique” had not yet been developed completely and therefore he had not answered the ultimate question; how did God himself come into being? That question remained even with Avraham’s understanding of God’s uniqueness. It is only when Moshe comes onto the scene that the question is finally answered with his introduction of a more advanced concept of God that addresses the question.

“For all men, with few exceptions, were ignorant of the existence of God; their highest thoughts did not extend beyond the heavenly sphere, its forms or its influences. They could not yet emancipate themselves from sensation, and had not yet attained to any intellectual perfection. Then God taught Moses how to teach them, and how to establish amongst them the belief in the existence of Himself, namely, by saying Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, a name derived from the verb hayah in the sense of "existing," for the verb hayah denotes "to be," and in Hebrew no difference is made between the verbs "to be" and "to exist."… This is, therefore, the expression of the idea that God exists, but not in the ordinary sense of the term; or, in other words, He is "the existing Being which is the existing Being," that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute. The proof which he was to give consisted in demonstrating that there is a Being of absolute existence, that has never been and never will be without existence.” (MN 1:63)

Moshe introduces the concept of negative knowledge when dealing with God’s existence leaving us with the only possible expression, “the existent Being which is the existent Being”. When we say that God exists we mean that His existence is absolute. He does not exist in the way we understand and use the word existence which is qualitative. Existence is not a quality of God but His essence meaning that God by definition cannot NOT exist. This concept cannot be grasped by the human mind because our senses attach existence to things. In our experience all things we know are brought into existence by another thing, by an event or another type of cause. We live in a world of cause and effect and that is what we can understand. The only way we can get a sense of God’s existence is by understanding that whatever we understand existence to be it does not apply to God just as the concept of cause and effect does not apply either. The great understanding of Moshe Rabbeinu was that any concept of God we arrive at, that concept cannot be God. God is inconceivable; He is the Great Mystery and also the ultimate Truth. (For a fuller treatment of Rambam’s understanding see my article in Hakirah.) This concept was taught to us as a nation at Sinai where the Torah continuously repeats that God appeared in darkness and clouds on the one hand and fire and sound on the other, a metaphor for this tension between knowing that there is an Entity responsible for existence while at the same time, that Entity is unknowable to the point that even “existence” is equivocal when used in this context. It is only once this new concept of God has been accepted that we can move to the next step and say that this Existent is the Creator. We are thus saying that there is a singular incomprehensible Entity which we call God, an Entity that has a singular existence that is responsible for all that exists.

This understanding of God makes the question “who created God?” incomprehensible. Time, space and therefore location have no meaning when thinking about such an “existent”. He “is” but not in the sense we understand “is” to be. Creation is needed for the common existent who therefore has to have been caused but the kind of “existent” we think of when talking about God is not in the same category. To summarize; we sense that there must be something out there that is responsible for this existence but this something is completely incomprehensible to us to the point we cannot even imagine anything about His essence nor ask questions about His existence which cannot be what “existence” is to us. The closer a person can come to internalizing these opposing ideas, the closer he is to God. At Moshe’s first encounter with God (Shemot 3:6) he immediately hid his face and refrained from looking. He had internalized that God is incomprehensible. The Rabbis tell us metaphorically (TB Brachot 7a) that as a reward for this it is said about Moshe (Bamidbar 12:8) that he saw God’s image. In other words the true apprehension of God is the “not” apprehension, the deep acceptance that whatever one thinks is God, it is not. No wonder Moshe was the humblest of men.  (See Rav Adin Steinsaltz edition of Sha’ar Hayichud Veha’emunah of the Ba’al Hatanya page 98 in his wonderful comments).

This is how Judaism according to Rambam explains existence and how it came to be caused by the incomprehensible God. Had it stopped here we would have a nice abstract explanation of an existential question.  But Judaism goes a step further. This Entity that we sense its "existence" and is responsible for ours whom we find incomprehensible, can however be traced via that same existence. Our own existence results from His existence. We are therefore one of the results of His “actions” and so is everything that surrounds us. By looking at all that objectively and very carefully we can develop a sense of where He wants to take this whole enterprise namely existence. That is the focus Judaism puts on this speculation and redirects it to the practical; how do we emulate God’s actions? In next post(s) I will attempt to address this and how it affects our question “why does the world exist?”    

"But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" - Love and Fear in Judaism.

העובד מאהבה, עוסק בתורה ובמצוות והולך בנתיבות החכמה--לא מפני דבר בעולם, לא מפני יראת הרעה, ולא כדי לירש הטובה:  אלא עושה האמת, מפני שהוא אמת; וסוף הטובה לבוא בכלל.

“One who worships out of love, is occupied with Torah and walks in the paths of knowledge, for no other reason in the world, neither for fear of bad consequences nor hoping for good outcomes, but acts the truth because it is true and eventually good will follow on the whole[1]”. (Hilchot Teshuvah 10:2)

This is one of the most important statements that we can find anywhere in the Jewish literature and it truly defines our religion as it really is – The Quest for Truth - the ultimate Truth. What triggered this post is a quote from Steven Weinberg (Nobel Prize Physicist), in Jim Holt’s excellent book – Why Does the World Exist? – which I am now reading. Weinberg reportedly stated, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”.  My reaction is that he is 100% right and that is because most people do not understand what real religion is all about. I don’t know enough about other religions but I know enough about our religion, Judaism to know that based on the way it is practiced nowadays and understood by the general Jewish religious community, Weinberg is correct. It is only by accepting Rambam’s definition of religion and understanding deeply what he is teaching that Judaism can become what it is supposed to be – to move humanity towards seeking Truth and not a tool for control and manipulation. 

The general rather simplistic and popular concept of Judaism today is that it is good for you. God knows all and watches all human actions and sits in judgment; good deeds are rewarded and bad deeds are punished. As man does not know what is right or wrong, a set of laws has been given – the Torah and Mitzvot – and doing good means following the Mitzvot, bad is ignoring or flouting them. Punishment is when bad things happen and reward is when good things happen. How to define good things and bad things? If a person’s wishes are fulfilled it is good and if they are thwarted it is bad. As human life is short there is an additional bonus, Olam Haba, life after death where if one was good one will bask in perpetual bliss, an undefined concept but said to be something that one cannot grasp while alive. The evil person, the one who flouted the Mitzvot while alive will burn in hell, suffering untold pain eternally. Then there are full panoplies of intermediary systems where one gets reward in this world for the good deeds so that he can be punished eternally for the bad and vice versa.  Interestingly some more “advanced thinkers” will suggest that there are “spiritual” benefits that result from following this path. If you try to delve deeper and ask what they mean by "spiritual" the answer is less anxiety, Bitachon, feeling good about yourself and other such “feel good” experiences. The common denominator is that the rewards are “good things” happening to the individual.  All one has to do is pick up a contemporary Mussar sefer or “theological” sefer to get a picture of this simple and easy to grasp system of reward and punishment. The ultimate goal of this type of religion is to adhere strictly to the Mitzvot and to reap the rewards that God bestows on those that follow rituals strictly.

At first blush, the sources fit very nicely with this understanding of Judaism. However this approach cannot satisfy a thinking person. It is a narcissistic and selfish perspective on life where everything one does is to satisfy personal wishes and needs. It is no better than capitalism, socialism or any other “ism” out there. Egoism and selfishness eventually lead to evil and it is in the name of these “isms” that much of the evil witnessed by humankind has been perpetrated. If there is nothing more to religion, then religion is truly the cause of evil. If religion is there only to better our material life then it will inevitably lead to evil. That is the idea behind Avodah Zara – idolatry - which is the ultimate falsehood and is the underlying theme of all that the Torah teaches away from. So how do we explain the prevalence of this way of thinking in our community? Human beings are endowed with the urge for self-preservation. That urge is common to all living things and is there to perpetuate themselves and their kind or genus.  That urge is narcissistic and selfish and is part of us just like appetite and all our other urges. This type of religious thinking caters to that urge and is attractive to the animalistic instinct, it “feels” good. It is also a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the sources, a distortion of what they teach us as we will see further.

In addition to the survival instinct human beings have another innate capability - consciousness. That capability allows us to see ourselves, ourselves in relation to the other and in relation to our environment and our universe. It gives us the ability to see beyond our natural urges and our immediate needs, to see the other and develop moral and ethical codes that take into account the other and our environment. Moral and ethical societies do not necessarily require religion to function and indeed many societies work well without religion. Thus the first part of Weinberg’s statement is correct, good people will do good and bad people evil without religion. Consciousness and the ability to think abstractly and self-awareness that comes with it bring with them an even more advanced and sophisticated urge; it triggers in us the need to understand our existence why we are here, what is the goal of us being here and all the existential questions that humanity has struggled with for millennia. Judaism is meant to help people address these questions. Rambam counts as the eighth positive commandment

המצווה השמינית

הציווי שנצטווינו להדמות לו ית' כפי יכלתנו, והוא אמרו:

"והלכת בדרכיו" (דברים כח, ט). 

The existential question of how and why we exist and the search for the answer has a practical side to it – to find God so that we can emulate Him. The problem is that to know God, to know how to emulate Him is not easy. God is the Truth but also the Great Mystery and the search to discover Him and interpret His actions correctly is a lifelong task that takes over all aspects of a human being’s day. The greatest challenge is to overcome subjectivity, self-serving bias so that we can see things objectively. It is here that Torah and Mitzvot, the practical side of Judaism come into play. They are the tool that perfects our minds and our emotions so that we think objectively and thus know how to act constructively. Torah and Mitzvot are not the goal and end all of religious life but the most important gift we received from HKBH as tools to perfect us and help us reach our ultimate goal which is finding God and His ways and emulating Him. When religion is focused to help us realize these goals it is a very personal experience and does not lead to control and manipulation that is the source of evil. On the contrary it imbues us with respect to fellow seekers and compels us to enlist others into this quest through example and promotes love for our fellow human beings.

Returning to the question we asked earlier, why is our community so invested in the idea of following the Law for the sake of physical reward and to avoid punishment?  The question is even sharper when we read the strong admonishments and warnings in the last few Parshyot – Ki Tavo and Nitzavim. They all seem to focus on the physical good and bad. As I said earlier it is an attractive approach to the undeveloped person and therefore entices him to grab on to this misinterpretation of the sources. In Hilchot Teshuvah Chapter 9 Rambam addresses these sources  and explains how they are meant to be read. As this is a quite lengthy discussion I will leave it for another post.  Here is a summary of how Rambam understands this –

ו  נמצא פירוש כל אותן הברכות והקללות, על דרך זו:  כלומר אם עבדתם את ה' בשמחה, ושמרתם דרכו--משפיע לכם הברכות האלו ומרחיק הקללות, עד שתהיו פנויים להתחכם בתורה ולעסוק בה, כדי שתזכו לחיי העולם הבא, וייטב לך לעולם שכולו טוב ותאריך ימים לעולם שכולו ארוך.  ונמצאתם זוכין לשני העולמות, לחיים טובים בעולם הזה המביאין לחיי העולם הבא:  שאם לא יקנה הנה חכמה ומעשים טובים--אין לו במה יזכה, שנאמר "כי אין מעשה וחשבון, ודעת וחכמה, בשאול . . ." (קוהלת ט,י).

ז  ואם עזבתם את ה' ושגיתם במאכל ומשקה וזנות ודומה להם--מביא עליכם כל הקללות האלו ומסיר כל הברכות, עד שייכלו ימיכם בבהלה ופחד, ולא יהיה לכם לב פנוי ולא גוף שלם לעשות המצוות, כדי שתאבדו מחיי העולם הבא.  ונמצא שאיבדתם שני עולמות:  שבזמן שאדם טרוד בעולם הזה בחולי ובמלחמה ורעבון, אינו מתעסק לא בחכמה ולא במצוה שבהן זוכין לחיי העולם הבא.

It should be noted that at the end of all the admonishments and warnings where the Torah describes all the physical destruction and punishment that will result from our transgressions, the Torah describes what will happen at the end when we realize our mistake. It promises improvements in our physical wellbeing but ultimately the goal is – (Devarim 30:6)

ו  וּמָל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת-לְבָבְךָ, וְאֶת-לְבַב זַרְעֶךָ:  לְאַהֲבָה אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ--לְמַעַן חַיֶּיךָ.

6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live.

The ultimate goal is to worship God out of love and not out of fear. Love comes with knowledge. We love someone we know; we do not love strangers. It is the search for the answers to our existential questions that leads us to the transcendental God, the mysterious and unknown Entity that we can only know through negating any physical attribute to, that we only perceive the results of His will and which we try to emulate. The understanding that this is the goal of Mitzvot and not just physical wellbeing will go a long way to keep us from falling into the trap Professor Weinberg so eloquently describes – “But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”.

In another post I would like to expand more on this last fundamental issue – what exactly to we mean when we talk about God? When we say we are searching for God, what exactly are we looking for? Because the answer to that sharpens further why Professor Weinstein’s comment and indeed many of the anti-religion arguments of other atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens do not talk to me when I think about real Judaism, the one Rambam teaches.

As this post was inspired by Steven Weinberg, who claims to be an atheist, I would like to share another statement of his regarding the boycotting of Israel by some humanistic/religious groups -

"Given the history of the attacks on Israel and the oppressiveness and aggressiveness of other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, boycotting Israel indicated a moral blindness for which it is hard to find any explanation other than anti-Semitism."

Spoken like a Jew!

I wish all a Ketiva Vechatima Tova and a Shana Tova. Chag Sameach.  

---

[1] “On the whole” indicates the possibility of a rocky road with a good outcome. The immediate result of “acting the Truth” may not be necessarily rosy but in the larger context it will lead to good. This falls into Rambam’s discussion of providence – Hashgacha.

"The Source of Faith is Faith Itself", (Harav Aharon Lichtenstein) .

In a discussion with my friend Rabbi Yoni Sacks we disagreed about the meaning of Faith – Emunah. Is Emunah a purely rational process or is a leap of faith required? Can one believe in God based on rational proofs or must one go beyond the rational and involve the intuitive and the emotional? The discussion arose after we both watched the presentation by Harav Aharon Lichtenstein at an event promoting the book Mevakshei Panecha available here starting at about 1:04:00. Rav Lichtenstein states “the source of faith is faith itself”. Rabbi Sacks objected to that statement based on the Rambam’s rational approach to Yediat Hashem – knowing God.  I felt otherwise and saw this as an opportunity to clarify my thinking.

We start our daily prayers with the Pessukei Dezimra, the verses of praise, and we introduce the concept of contemplative prayer with verses from King David’s repertoire of poetry and thought. The first chapter we recite (Sfardim the first one indeed, Ashkenazim the first after the introductory blessing – Baruch She‘Amar) is from Divrei Hayamim 1:16 verses 10 and 11 -

  י  הִתְהַלְלוּ, בְּשֵׁם קָדְשׁוֹ--  {ס}  יִשְׂמַח, לֵב מְבַקְשֵׁי יְהוָה.  {ר}  

10 Glory ye in His holy name; let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD.

יא  דִּרְשׁוּ יְהוָה, וְעֻזּוֹ--  {ס}  בַּקְּשׁוּ פָנָיו, תָּמִיד.  {ר}      

11 Seek ye the LORD and His strength; seek His face continually.

Those who contemplate God are seekers, they are eternally seeking without any hope of ever finding what they seek - בַּקְּשׁוּ פָנָיו, תָּמִיד – seek His face continually. We humans can never reach the goal we seek of Knowing God – we can only eternally seek Him and by doing so establish in our minds and hearts His presence, without ever really knowing Him. So what is the process of seeking? How does one seek out and spend a lifetime looking for what we know we will never find?  The answer is that we have to really understand and absorb why we cannot know Him, why He is so elusive. By understanding why we cannot ever hope to find Him, we develop an abstract sense of Him. The way we arrive at that understanding is by getting to know our own world, our environment, our material surroundings and realize why that cannot be the same category of being that God is. Rambam presents this Mitzvah as follows:

המצווה הראשונה

היא הציווי שנצטווינו בידיעת האלהות, והוא: שנדע שיש (שם) עילה וסיבה, שהיא הפועל לכל הנמצאים.

וזהו אמרו יתעלה: "אנכי ה' אלקיך"

The Mitzvah is to know God, to know that He is the cause for existence. There is no Mitzvah to “prove” His existence – the Mitzvah is to know Him. We are supposed to define Him not prove His existence. So too in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah when Rambam enumerates the Mitzvot, what is referred to as the short count, he writes

א) לידע שיש שם אלוה

He presents it as knowing that there is an אלוה an attribute that defines God from our perspective as the dominant force that brings and keeps things in existence see MN 2:30[1]. So too in the Halacha itself Yesodei Hatorah 1:1 we read:

א  יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות, לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון.  והוא ממציא כל הנמצא; וכל הנמצאים מן שמיים וארץ ומה ביניהם, לא נמצאו אלא מאמיתת הימצאו.

Again the presentation is not to “prove” that He exists but to know what He is – the First Existent etc… What we are saying is that God is the cause of everything and we know that it is so because it fits with our understanding of the universe we live in. We are further compelled to go one step further and also define exactly what we mean by God –

  לפיכך אין אמיתתו כאמיתת אחד מהם.  [ד] הוא שהנביא אומר "וה' אלוהים אמת" (ירמיהו י,י)--הוא לבדו האמת, ואין לאחר אמת כאמיתו.  והוא שהתורה אומרת "אין עוד, מלבדו" (דברים ד,לה), כלומר אין שם מצוי אמת מלבדו כמותו.

Truth is a word that defines something in relation to something else that is false. Truth is therefore relative. In this case we need to “know” that this is not the case with God. There is no relativity and therefore it is a different type of truth. Understanding this point is the most a human can hope to find in his search for God - that there is no other existent like Him; He is in a category by Himself. We can only know that – that He is NOT like anything else but what He is, is eternally elusive.

“Know that this is really the case, that those who have obtained a knowledge of God differ greatly from each other; for in the same way as by each additional attribute an object is more specified, and is brought nearer to the true apprehension of the observer, so by each additional negative attribute you advance toward the knowledge of God, and you are nearer to it than he who does not negative, in reference to God, those qualities which you are convinced by proof must be negated. There may thus be a man who after having earnestly devoted many years to the pursuit of one science, and to the true understanding of its principles, till he is fully convinced of its truths, has obtained as the sole result of this study the conviction that a certain quality must be negated in reference to God, and the capacity of demonstrating that it is impossible to apply it to Him.” (MN 1:59)

Ultimately the existence of God is a belief because by definition God is unknowable, the only thing we can know about Him is what He is not. How can one prove with scientific and material tools the existence of an entity that does not fall under any category? I must accept “the source of faith is faith itself".

---

[1] אבל אלוהי השמים 4, וכן אל עולם 3, הוא מבחינת שלמותו יתעלה ושלמותם 15, הרי הוא אלוהים, כלומר: שופט והם נשפטים ולא בעניין משילה 16, כי זה הוא עניין קונה 2, אלא הוא מבחינת השפעתו יתעלה במציאות 17 והשפעתם 18, הרי הוא האלוה לא הם, כלומר: השמים.

Reading Mevakshei Panecha - Part 4 - Final - the Holy of Holies of a Person - Emunah.

The last chapter of Mevakshei Panecha I found fascinating. It is entitled “The Holy of Holies of a Person” and it is a response to a Rav Sabato question to Rav Lichtenstein about faith. The first paragraph I believe is probably the most important one and really defines the idea of Emunah – faith – in a rational Jew.

“You want to talk about my Emunah in God? Is that what you want? That is the Holy of Holies of man! That is his Inner Sanctum! That is the most intimate of intimacies!”

We can talk about God, what we think He is, try to define him in words but ultimately we are just walking around a wall that can never be breached by an outsider. The paradox of Emunah is that we work and spend a lifetime searching for God in our surrounding but ultimately we find Him in the silence of the self. Rambam in MN 1:50 when he begins the chapters that discuss God’s attributes and how we can understand them without violating God’s unity (uniqueness) he introduces the subject with the following statement:

כאשר תפשוט מעליך את התאוות והמנהגים17 ותהיה בעל הבנה ותתבונן במה שאגיד בפרקים הבאים על שלילת התארים - תהיה לך בהכרח ודאות בעניין זה, אזי תהיה מאלה המציירים לעצמם18 את יִחוד השם ולא מאלה האומרים אותו בפיהם מבלי לציירו לעצמם19, שהללו בבחינת מי שנאמר עליהם: קרוב אתה בפיהם ורחוק מכִליותיהם (ירמיה י"ב, 2)19. אלא צריך אדם להיות בבחינת מי שמציירים להם את האמת ומשיגים אותה, אף אם אין הם מבטאים אותה, כמו שנצטוו אנשי המעלה ונאמר להם: אִמרו בלבבכם על משכבכם ודֹמו סלה (תהלים ד', 5)20.

Renounce desires and habits, follow your reason, and study what I am going to say in the chapters which follow on the rejection of the attributes; you will then be fully convinced of what we have said: you will be of those who truly conceive the Unity of God, not of those who utter it with their lips without thought, like men of whom it has been said, "Thou art near in their mouth, and far from their reins" (Jer. xii. 2). It is right that a man should belong to that class of men who have a conception of truth and understand it, though they do not speak of it. Thus the pious are advised and addressed, "Commune with your own heart upon your bed and be still. Selah." (Ps. iv. 5.)

Clearly Rav Lichtenstein has internalized Rambam’s admonition. A singular and unique entity which cannot be sensed with human senses, cannot be conceived with human mind, can only be intuited through inductive and deductive reasoning, such an entity cannot be verbalized outside the self, and that is true Emunah. Contemplating this brings us to an understanding of Negative Knowledge which is the key of Rambam’s thought in this matter. See my article here  .

Rav Lichtenstein then proceeds to discuss the subject in a general without getting into specifics. First he addresses a well-known thought that I grew up with and always made me uncomfortable.

“Rav Elhanan Wasserman said that faith [in God] is simple and easy. However the Yetzer Hara interferes and keeps man from worshipping God. I do not accept these words. Firstly, to my mind, that is factually untrue. Secondly, this argument is somewhat insulting. It argues that were it not for bad urges, others too would aspire to faith. True that our natural senses may bring a person to believe, but to argue that it is easy and simple, were it not for our urges, I cannot agree with that. A certain effort is required for one to arrive at belief. The concept of faith is complex. Specifically, one cannot give one answer that one can say with certainty that it will convince every denier.”

Rav Lichtenstein makes two points that always bothered me about Rav Elhanan’s approach. He says that Emunah is self-evident. If it were so why does every thinking person struggle with it? He also accuses those who don’t accept it succumb to their bad urges. We know many ethical and moral people who have no Emunah.  

“When I teach a Sugya –subject - and offer two possibilities as potential explanations, I tell my students, don’t forget that there also is a third possibility; both explanations are correct. Not always must we accept one position and refute the other. In Halachik sugyot it is possible that the resolution depends on circumstances. At times we will rely on one principle and others on another. So too with Emunah one cannot say that it all depends on one argument only. There different perspectives; from a historical and national one I find myself turning to a certain aspect of my personality while for other perspectives I turn to others.”

Rav Lichtenstein then spells out some of what I would term conflicting perspectives. We have to accept that certain truths and arguments that were considered axiomatic during the Middle Ages are no longer applicable. On the other hand reliance on subjective experiences does not work for many and triggers many questions.

“The historical perspective has two sides to it. Some people are inspired by it and it strengthens their Emunah while to others the historical perspective itself is the source of doubt. To anything you tell them they find analogies elsewhere, in the Caribbean or Antarctica. Of course the strongest historical proof is the contemplation of Jewish history and the wondrous survival of the Jewish nation against all odds, one lamb amongst seventy wolves.  That strengthens one’s Emunah. The impetus for religious Emunah is multi-faceted; learning Torah, relying on the Tradition of generations, contemplation of the universe and its perfection, the Historical record and the personal instinct and experience. I hope that we don’t have to choose amongst these. I believe that they are all interdependent each supporting the other. In such a setup, some things are more central and important than others but altogether they lead us to experience Emunah without us having to choose one over the other.”  

Rav Lichtenstein is talking about Emunah very generally without specifying a particular question or particular subject of belief. During the Middle Ages, basing themselves on the science of the times, the Rishonim felt that certain issues of belief can be proven scientifically while others were based on what I refer to as “plausibility” when taking into account all aspects of an issue. Rambam in MN spends several chapters in the beginning of Part 2 differentiating between the different types of arguments for the existence of God and His unity which he bases on what he considered as scientifically objective arguments while will, creation from nothingness and prophecy are based on plausibility rather than irrefutable proofs.  Plausibility is based on a combination of various related propositions that support a certain point of view. This approach is used in matters that are beyond human comprehension, areas that humans cannot experience with their senses and is generally referred to as metaphysical questions. Considering the current state of scientific knowledge, Rav Lichtenstein seems to use the latter argument, the argument from plausibility as the basis for his understanding of Emunah. He also emphasizes that the process of searching, learning and contemplating these issues brings one closer to HKBH and ultimately Emunah becomes a combination of the rational and the experiential – the experiential being internalized and personal which does not lend itself to verbalization.  

I highly recommend for anyone that has the fortitude and facility with the Hebrew language, to work his way through this very interesting, challenging and enlightening book. We need to take advantage and appreciate the few great talmidei Chachamim and thinkers in our community – and unfortunately they are few and precious.

In Memory of My Mother A’H who’s Yahrzeit is today the 22^nd of Tevet.   

  

 

Must a Corporealist Always Be Considered a Min According To Rambam?

I just read a very interesting article by Professor Harry Wolfson A”H  in a collection of his articles translated into Hebrew published by Magnes Press entitled Hamachshava Hayehudit Bi’yemei Habeinay’m (page 283). This article, “The uniqueness of God and His transcendence in Rambam’s thought” (the article was English in its original and I am sure my translation of the Hebrew title is not exactly its original title) discusses the opening halachot of the Mishne Torah (MT) in the first chapter of Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah. Wolfson shows how Rambam was subtly addressing concepts that were prevalent at his time in the writings of different Muslim and Christian philosophers and theologians. That is not the focus of this post but rather an issue he discusses within the context of the article.

Rambam explains God’s absolute uniqueness as meaning that God cannot be compared with any other existent and that is one of the central Halachot in that chapter which then elicits quite a bit of discussion and clarifications.  One Rambam argument is that perfect uniqueness negates corporeality for if God is corporeal even if uniquely so, He would still be comparable to another corporeal entity. Therefore when we declare in Shema that God is One we are saying that God is unique in an absolute uniqueness that cannot be compared to anything else that exists. The understanding of this is according to Rambam the positive commandment of Yichud Hashem as he explains in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 1:4

והואיל ואינו גוף, לא יארעו מאורעות הגופות כדי שיהא נחלק ונפרד מאחר; לפיכך אי אפשר שיהיה אלא אחד.  וידיעת דבר זה--מצות עשה, שנאמר "ה' אלוהינו, ה' אחד"

Being that He is not corporeal, the accidents that occur in a body do not occur to Him that would allow for Him to be divided and separated from another. Therefore He must be One only. Knowing this is a positive commandment as it says “Hashem is our God, Hashem is One”.

In Sefer Hamitzvot, Rambam counts this commandment as the second Mitzvat Asseh - positive commandment. Based on this proposition Rambam then rules in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:7 listing amongst the 5 people considered Minim;

והאומר שיש שם מנהיג, אבל הם שניים או יתר; והאומר שיש שם ריבון אחד, אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה

One who says that there is a Leader, but there are two or more; and one who says that there is one Lord but He has a body and an image [is a Min].

Three questions come to mind about the meaning of the word האומר – one who says - in this context.  

1.      Does it mean that only one who says so, namely is convinced rationally that it is so is considered a Min or even one of the masses who is just going along with the simplistic understanding of things? Wolfson presents the question even more incisively. Let us take the proposition that God has a body, what would be the status of a simple person who cannot conceive of anything “existing” without it having substance. Existence without substance is not something we can recognize with our senses but requires a lot of philosophical training to really appreciate such a possibility. Would a simple person who could not conceive existence without substance but still maintains that God is unique, also be considered a Min?

2.      When Rambam says that one who says that there is a leader but there are more than one is a Min, does he include someone who believes that God has external attributes? Most people would have trouble grasping what Rambam demonstrates that God with accidental attributes is synonymous with Him having substance. Would a person who cannot conceive of such a concept and believes that God has attributes but at the same time has no substance, be considered a Min? Or is a Min only one who is convinced of that philosophically, namely “says so”?

3.      Finally, in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 1:8 Rambam quotes three verses as textual proof that God has no body. One of them

ונאמר "ואל מי תדמיוני, ואשווה" (ישעיהו מ,כה); ואילו היה גוף, היה דומה לשאר גופים

The [prophet] says: “to whom can you liken Me, to whom can I compare?” If He were a body, He would be likened to other bodies. 

Rambam ties God’s unity and incorporeality together; because the prophet says that He is incomparable to other existents, therefore He cannot be corporeal like they are.  This is a philosophical argument that Rambam superimposes on the text to prove that God is not corporeal. Let us say that a person argues that God has a body but it is unique and exclusive to God. Does not that too meet the criteria of incomparability? Would such a person be a Min? 

In this post I will discuss Wolfson’s resolution to the first question leaving his answer to the other two for upcoming posts.

In sefer Hamitzvot Asseh 2, Rambam starts by saying, היא הציווי שנצטווינו להאמין בייחוד – the commandment is to believe in uniqueness. The verse that he uses as the source for this Mitzvah is שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד. He then subtly changes the presentation of the mitzvah by saying

וקוראים למצווה זו גם 'מלכות שמים' כי אומרים כדי לקבל עליו על מלכות שמים, כלומר ההודאה בייחוד והאמונה בו           

This Mitzvah is also referred to as “rule of Heaven” as they [the Rabbis] say “to accept upon himself the rule of Heaven” namely the acknowledgement in unity and the belief in Him.

Rambam moved from belief to acknowledgement. At the beginning of each section of Halachot in MT, Rambam lists all the Mitzvot that underlie the rules that will be discussed in that section and they are supposed to parallel and be traced back to Sefer Hamitzvot[1].  At the beginning of Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah he lists this Mitzvah as לייחדו[2] – literally to make Him unique. What exactly does he mean with that? Wolfson suggests that Rambam is thinking of the Midrash Shir Hashirim 7:11 (and from there this entered into the daily prayer book) ומיחדים שמו שתי פעמים ואומרים שמע ישראל ה' אלוהינו ה' אחד – They declaim His uniqueness twice [daily] by saying Shema … Thus not only is it a requirement that one believe in the uniqueness of God but also one has to declaim acknowledgement of that uniqueness. Halacha takes a theological Mitzvah and turns it into a practical performance; belief becomes a declaration.

Halacha is not satisfied with a positive commandment. It also establishes a negative commandment, the first negative commandment in Rambam’s count -

היא האזהרה שהוזהרנו מלהאמין אלוהות לזולתו יתעלה

It [the commandment] is that we were forbidden to believe that anyone else is a deity.

Here too when the Mitzvah is listed at the beginning of these halachot Rambam changes it slightly to give it a practical performance format –

שלא יעלה[3] במחשבה שיש שם אלוה זולתי ה

One should not bring to mind that there is a deity besides God.

Again, believing is changed to” bringing to mind”, a willful act rather than a simple belief. This is further confirmed as the Halacha describes this prohibition (idem 1:6) -

וכל המעלה על דעתו שיש שם אלוה אחר, חוץ מזה--עובר בלא תעשה, שנאמר "לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים, על פניי.

 Anyone that brings to mind that there is another god in addition to this One – transgresses the negative commandment, “you should not have other gods upon my face” …

But what does “bringing to mind” entail? In Hilchot Avodah Zara 2:6 the detailed description of how this prohibition is transgressed

כל המודה בעבודה זרה, שהיא אמת--אף על פי שלא עבדה, הרי זה מחרף ומגדף את השם הנכבד והנורא

One who acknowledges an Avodah Zara (idol) that it is true, even if he has not worshipped it, he reviles and curses the glorious and fearsome Name [God].

Rambam then adds- ואחד העובד עבודה זרה, ואחד המגדף את השם – whether someone worships an idol or curses the Name … Clearly the two prohibitions are similar both in their context and their action so much so that acknowledging more than one god is seen as cursing Him. Considering that the prohibition of cursing God is only transgressed once one declaims the curse

 אין המגדף חייב סקילה, עד שיפרש את השם המיוחד של ארבע אותיות שהוא אלף דלת נון יוד, ויברך אותו בשם מן השמות שאינן נמחקים

One may therefore assume that acknowledging an idol is done by declamation too. A declarative acknowledgement of an idol as true is the practical transgression of “bringing to mind” that there is more than one God so by extension when Rambam said והאומר שיש שם מנהיג, אבל הם שניים או יתר – a Min is “one who says that there is a Leader, but there are two or more” he is only considered a Min if he says so – if he makes a declarative acknowledgement of a plurality of gods. Thus someone who cannot conceive that God has no substance, that such an entity could “exist”, but maintains that God is unique, however contradictory that position is logically , he is not a Min; he is just a misguided simple unsophisticated Jew. [4]

---

[1] See the introduction to Sefer Hamitzvot where Rambam explains that the work is a preparation for his upcoming Mishne Torah as a way to insure he does not skip over a Mitzvah. Having done that, he again lists all the Mitzvot at the beginning of Mishne Torah and again at the beginning of each Sefer and again at the beginning of each section of Halachot.  

[2] See also the listing at the beginning of MT where he lists the Mitzvah as

לייחדו, שנאמר "ה' אלוהינו, ה' אחד

[3] יעלה can be translated “come” to mind or “enter” the mind which would have a passive connotation or “bring” to mind which is active . However when the Halacha is described Rambam uses וכל המעלה which must be translated anyone who “brings” to mind making it clear that יעלה is meant in its active connotation.

[4] I refer the reader to Hakirah 11 page 232 where Professor Menachem Kellner seems to have missed this Wolfson article. See further Hakirah 10 page 135 in Rabbi Buchman’s article where he seems to have arrived at a similar conclusion as Wolfson from another perspective.

The Waters of Merivah - Punishment Commensurate With The Sin - What Sin?

Last week’s Parsha we read about the waters of Merivah where the people found themselves without water and clamored for Moshe and Aharon to provide it for them. Moshe eventually took care of the problem but his reaction was deemed inappropriate and was the cause for him and Aharon not entering Israel later. The Midrashim followed by the Rishonim discuss at length what exactly the sin that produced such a harsh punishment was and the reasons cover a wide range which I do not want to get into here. Rambam in Shemona Perakim (introduction to Massechet Avot) chapter 4 has a very unique approach which is strongly rejected by Ramban in his Pirush on the Torah. Although this exchange is quite well known I would like to focus on a detail that I have not seen discussed and I believe is a very important point that needs to be fleshed out.  

Here is how to Rambam presents his position:

ואתה יודע, שאדון הראשונים והאחרונים, משה רבנו, כבר אמר עליו השם יתברך:

יען לא האמנתם בי להקדישני לעיני בני ישראל (במדבר כ', י"ב

על אשר מריתם את פי למי מריבה (שם, כ"ד

על אשר לא קדשתם אותי (דברים ל"ב, נ"א

כל זה! וחטאו, עליו השלום, הוא שנטה לצד אחד הקצוות במעלה אחת שבמעלות המידות, והיא הסבלנות!

כאשר נטה לצד הרגזנות, באומרו: שמעו נא המורים (במדבר כ', י'). דקדק עמו הקדוש ברוך הוא: שיהיה אדם כמוהו מתרגז לעיני עדת ישראל, במקום שאין הרגזנות ראויה

וכגון זה באדם שכמותו חילול השם הוא, שכן תנועותיו כולן ודיברותיו, הכל למדים מהם וחומדים בהם האושר בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא. ואיך ייראו בו הרגזנות, והיא ממעשי הרעים כמו שבארנו, ואינה נובעת אלא מתכונה רעה שבנפש.

אבל אמרו בעניין הזה: "מריתם את פי" אינו אלא כמו שאבאר. וזה, שלא היה מדבר עם עמי הארץ, ולא עם מי שאין להם מעלה, אבל עם קהל שהקטנה שבנשיהם הייתה כיחזקאל בן בוזי, כמו שזכרו החכמים. וכל מה שיאמר או יעשה, יבחנוהו. וכאשר ראוהו שהתרגז, אמרו:

“ודאי אין הוא, עליו השלום, מאלה שיש להם פחיתות מידה! ולולא ידע שהאלוהים התאנף בנו על דרישת המים, ושאנחנו הכעסנוהו, יתברך, לא היה מתרגז”.

ואנו לא מצאנו לשם יתברך שהתרגז או שכעס בדברו אליו בעניין הזה; אלא אמר: קח את המטה והקהל את העדה, וגומר (במדבר כ', ח’).

This comes in a discussion of the importance of self-control in the perfection of an individual. Rambam points out that Moshe, the master of all prophets (considered perfected individuals having attained prophecy) was punished, as the quoted verses make clear, in the harshest tone. Moshe and Aharon are accused of (i) not having enough faith which would have sanctified God in the eyes of the people; (ii) to have rebelled against His word; (iii) for not having sanctified Me. Rambam exclaims:

“So much [punishment]?! Moshe’s sin was for having strayed to one of the extremes of a [human] trait namely equanimity, straying toward anger by saying “listen O rebels!” HKBH took issue with him that a man of his caliber should become angry in front of all the people when anger had no place under the circumstances. Such a behavior for a person of his caliber is a Chilul Hashem (desecration of God’s name) for every move and word of his is watched carefully [by the people] so that they can learn from his actions in their desire for happiness in this world and in the world to come. How can they countenance in him anger which is one of the negative [human] traits that stem from an unperfected personality?  I will now explain the meaning of [the accusation] “for you have rebelled against My word”. He [Moshe] was not talking to Amei Ha’aretz [ignoramuses] neither was he talking to persons who did not have a certain level of perfection; he was talking to a crowd where the lowliest amongst its women was at the level of [the prophet] Yechezkel ben Buzi[1].  Everything that Moshe said or did was analyzed [tested]. When they saw his anger they assumed that a perfect person like Moshe would not become angry unless God was angry about our actions too. However we do not find any hint that God was agitated or angry when He spoke with Moshe on this matter; all He told him to do was to take the staff and gather up the people.”  

This last sentence is of utmost importance. When we read the story in the Chumash, our first impression is that the anxiety and fear induced agitation that comes across from the way the people spoke to Moshe is misplaced and wrong. The impression one gets from the way the text reports the reaction of the people is that it is critical of them. Indeed, Moshe and Aharon felt attacked and it would seem almost fled to the tent of gathering from their wrath. However, according to Rambam’s understanding, that was not correct. The people had every right to be angry at Moshe for having brought them to a place without water and without adequate preparation to deal with that shortage. The Rabbis confirm this way of thinking. Several Midrashim (see Yalkut Shimoni ad locum) point out that God criticized Moshe and Aharon for sitting Shiva for the death of Miriam while the people are dying of thirst urging them to do something about it! When a problem faces people they are expected to act to resolve the problem and not turn to what I term misguided “Bitachon”.  The Midah of Bitachon is to have self-confidence and act after having become convinced that the action about to be undertaken is in concord with HKBH’s will and not refraining from acting relying that God will take care of things. Moshe with his reaction misinformed the Jewish people. He taught them an erroneous hashkafah - theology. That is the greatest sin that warrants the harsh punishment - loss of leadership after the goal was reached!

Ramban in his analysis picks up on this idea and seems to agree that in general there is no criticism of the people for acting anxiously when it is warranted. He however reads in between the lines that God was not very pleased with the people and also points to a verse in Tehillim 106:32 that clearly say that the people angered God during this episode. However a careful read of that verse in its context lessens the problem. The important thing about Ramban is that he does not disagree with the premise that it is appropriate for people to be anxious when they are confronted with a situation such as this and that it is required of the leaders to prepare for such eventualities. Even in the desert where the impression we get is that God led them and micromanaged them, ultimately the responsibility fell on the people and their leaders to provide for themselves.

I believe this is an important point that needs to be made in our contemporary society where the mainstream thinking is that frumkeit requires what I term misguided Bitachon. 

---

[1] Rambam refers to Chazal who say the vision seen by a woman slave at the Red Sea, was not seen by Yechezkel ben Buzi (at the vision of the chariots).  According to Rambam’s understanding of prophetic visions, these do not appear to unworthy people. A prophetic vision is the result of a person intellectually advanced and with a developed personality. 

Yediah And Emunah - Resag On Belief and Demonstration -

I started reading Hanivchar Be’emunot Vede’ot (HBV) by Rav Sa’adyah Gaon (Resag). It is a most rewarding experience which I will try to share as I come across ideas that captivate me. HBV was written in Arabic about two years after Resag wrote his commentary on Sefer Yetzira. Resag’s style is to support everything he proposes, directly from Tanach, quoting and then interpreting verses extensively.  Resag also composed the Tafsir, a translation into Arabic of Tanach, accompanied by a full commentary. Not all the commentary is available but a lot of work is ongoing in reconstructing from where it is quoted by others to complement the extant parts of the commentary. Resag’s interpretations of verses are original and the comments on verses in the HBV are many times complementary to the Pirush, at others novel. 

Note: I want to caution that these posts are written before I had a chance to read the whole sefer. I read it years ago and referred back to chapters and subjects many times in the last few years, but this is the first systematic read in a long time. My comments should therefore be taken with caution and I have a feeling my opinions and understanding of Resag may change as I go along.

Here is a segment in the introduction discussing belief and knowledge. (Translation is mine from Rav Kafieh’s Hebrew translation of the original Arabic).

“Know you who are reading this book, May God grant you grace, that the rationale for studying and exploring matters related to our beliefs is to fulfill two goals. One is so that we can verify in actu through [demonstrated] knowledge that which we already know as taught to us by God’s prophets and the second is so that we can refute any that argue against us in matters of our beliefs. God informed us through His prophets, all that we need to know regarding our beliefs, authenticating their prophecy through signs and portents, and thereafter commanded us that we demonstrate [logically for ourselves] these matters and remember them. He also told us that our study and exploration would lead us to verify all that we were told by His messengers giving us assurances that it is impossible for those who argue against us to contradict our religion or those [among us] who have doubts about our beliefs to argue against our beliefs.”     

In the preceding segment, Resag showed that there is a religious obligation to demonstrate for ourselves through logical arguments that which we are commanded to believe and ignore the cautionary warnings of those who worry that speculation may lead to heresy. He now explains that this fear is not only unfounded but shows a lack of confidence that our beliefs are indeed true. If we accept the scriptures and their authors as God’s prophets authenticated by their performance of “signs and portents”, we should feel secure that no one could prove us wrong. I find it interesting that Resag melds the two – co-religionists who have doubts and followers of other religions who argue against our religion – assuring us that should they honestly look for the truth they will find that our beliefs are true and will stand up to all scrutiny. Resag then uses Yeshayahu 44:6-8 in support of his argument which he interprets as follows -

ח  אַל-תִּפְחֲדוּ, וְאַל-תִּרְהוּ--הֲלֹא מֵאָז הִשְׁמַעְתִּיךָ וְהִגַּדְתִּי, וְאַתֶּם עֵדָי; הֲיֵשׁ אֱלוֹהַּ מִבַּלְעָדַי, וְאֵין צוּר בַּל-יָדָעְתִּי.

8 Do not be frightened do not be shaken! Have I not from old predicted to you? I foretold and you are My witnesses. Is there any god then but me? There is no other rock; I know none!

“He [Yeshayahu in the name of God] said; do not be afraid from the numbers and strength of your opponents …. Do not be shaken by the essence of their arguments and of their proofs, consider that I predicted to you future occurrences and told[1] you of past happenings…. He then said “you are My witnesses”, referring to the signs, marvels and great portents that they experienced …. He then said, “Is there any god then but me?” meaning that should you at times wonder about some of the past and the future events I shared with you, thinking that they were not so. That fear would be warranted were I not the sole creator, allowing you to wonder whether I knew all the details. However, [that cannot be the case] considering that I am one and alone, My knowledge encompasses everything that I did and will do. He furthermore said, “There is no rock I know not”[2], included in that [word צוּר] are the respected people and the wise amongst them as the word צוּר is used [allegorically] for respected people for example …. He tells us with this that as God knows all wise and respected men and all that they know, it is therefore impossible that they should come up with anything that would disprove your beliefs and laws considering that I [God] know all and I am the one who told you all this. It is from this perspective that we explore and study [logically demonstrate] that which our Creator has told us”.

The argument seems to be circular. God tells us about the past, namely that the world is not eternal, that it was created and the reason we believe that is so, is because He is the sole Creator and therefore knows all! Also, the last sentence requires some clarification; what does he mean by this apparently a priori perspective? However, before dealing with that Resag appears to digress and asks –

“If all religious matters as told to us by God, are demonstrable through correct research and exploration, what is the wisdom of Him informing us through prophecy authenticated by physical rather than rational proofs? The answer is that the Wise One knows that knowledge acquired through study requires a lot of time and had he left it up to us to learn [these truths], we would have remained ignorant for a long time. Indeed, many would never reach a resolution because of their handicaps, some for lack of ability while others would become mired in uncertainty and questions.  For that reason, God relieved us from this responsibility, sending us His messenger informing us [of these truths], showing us unquestionable signs and portents, ones that cannot be denied as it says “you saw that I spoke with you from heaven” (Shemot 20:22). He also spoke with His messenger in front of our eyes, compelling us to believe in him always as it says …. We were therefore required to accept these religious matters and all they encompass immediately, relying on what our senses experienced, compelling us to accept this reliable transmission. We were then commanded to study [these matters] at our own speed until we demonstrate logically to ourselves [these truths].”

Resag addresses the obvious question first. If these theological truths are demonstrable, and that must be so if there is an obligation to demonstrate these beliefs to ourselves, why then did God present them to us as matters of belief? Why did He not let us work them out on our own?  As Rav Kafieh notes, Rambam in MN 1:34 follows the same line of reasoning and offers a similar answer. If everyone were required to establish philosophical truths starting from scratch, starting as a tabula rasa without even a foreseeable endpoint, most of us would never get to the truth. We are therefore told where our speculation, if performed carefully and thoroughly, will lead us to and commanded to accept these truths at first on Moshe’s say so with the expectation that in time we will demonstrate to ourselves their veracity.

The next question that comes to mind is that we are asked to spend a lifetime following a strict set of rules that cover every aspect of one’s life and work to overcome personal biases with the goal that one speculate towards a foregone conclusion. How is one to know that at the end of the road he will not discover that all this was a lie and a life, nay lives were wasted?

This is where “signs and portents” play their role. They authenticate the prophecy by confirming that the source of the message is God who should know the Truth considering He is the Creator of everything. It gives the seeker a certain amount of psychic comfort and confidence to know that the end goal he is seeking comes from an impeccable source. However, theology dependent on revelation-based belief should only be transitory until the seeker develops personal convictions using logical processes. Because without that a person that uses his God given brains cannot shake off a kernel of doubt. As Rambam says in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 8:1  שהמאמין על פי האותות--יש בליבו דופי, שאפשר שייעשה האות בלאט וכישוף

“One whose beliefs are based on signs cannot avoid having doubts. Those signs could be a sleight of hand or magic.” Skepticism is healthy.

Although Resag does not spell it out here, but taking into account his understanding of what a reliable demonstration consists of, as discussed elsewhere in HBV, I think that he holds that beliefs have to be tested against reality - if they do not contradict reality, we can accept them as true. That is how I read the end of the first piece I translated above “it is impossible for those who argue against us to contradict our religion or those [among us] who have doubts about our beliefs to argue against our beliefs.” I will talk more about his position on demonstration in the future.

Here again we see Resag aligned pretty much with the thought we see in Rambam.

---

[1] Resag translates וְהִגַּדְתִּי – literally as I told, not foretold as in JPS translation

[2] Resag translates, וְאֵין צוּר בַּל-יָדָעְתִּי differently then JPS

Uncertainty and Knowing God and His Ways.

Responding further to Evanston Jew’s (EJ) questions in a comment thread earlier this month:


You say the Torah is the mind of God. How does God have a mind? He doesn’t have a body. Is God more than the mind of God?

Since God has no body, He therefore cannot have a mind as EJ points out. The only way we human can try, and I emphasize, “Try” to decipher God’s overall blueprint for our existence, is by contemplating our environment and ourselves and try to make sense of it. From our perspective, we say that we are searching for God’s mind. We know rationally that God does not “think”, want, wish, have thoughts, emote or do any of the things we humans do, as that would indicate change, qualities that cannot exist in a unique transcendental entity. We however cannot imagine that the results we observe could come about from any entity that does not “think” the way we do; we therefore refer to it as the “mind” of God or Chochmato in philosophical discourse.
This brings us to the next question:

How does love of God equal knowledge of science and/or God? What is knowledge of God?


Love is a feeling that results from intimacy. We love a loved one because we know that person intimately. That differentiates love from lust between man and woman. We cannot try to know God, who does not exist in the sense we know existence, except by observing the results of His actions. Recognizing that there is a First Cause, a non-contingent entity, there is only one way to get some inkling about that entity, by understanding to the extent we can, the results of His actions by observing these results. Understanding our environment and ourselves, the results of His actions [please remember “action” is a human term for how these kinds of results can come about], is the only hope we have of getting to know God. This is not easy and requires discipline, personal self-improvement to overcome our natural narcissistic tendencies and developing our capacity for objectivity. As we acquire more and more knowledge, we become more intimate with God and love develops.

האל הנכבד והנורא הזה--מצוה לאוהבו וליראה ממנו, שנאמר "ואהבת, את ה' אלוהיך

ונאמר "את ה' אלוהיך תירא

והיאך היא הדרך לאהבתו, ויראתו: בשעה שיתבונן האדם במעשיו וברואיו הנפלאים הגדולים, ויראה מהם חכמתו שאין לה ערך ולא קץ--מיד הוא אוהב ומשבח ומפאר ומתאווה תאווה גדולה לידע השם הגדול, כמו שאמר דויד "צמאה נפשי, לאלוהים--לאל חי"

(Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 2:1)

Do we become one with knowledge by knowing the sum total of true beliefs or only a subset, like all true mathematical sentences? What about knowing the names of our children? Optional?


Medieval thinkers understood that knowledge becomes one with the mind and the mind with knowledge. We have a different understanding of how our brain works. However, we still believe that knowledge transforms the human mind from potentially knowing to in-actu knowing. That transformation is described as becoming one with knowledge. Maybe knowing the names of our children is not transformational, but knowing them certainly is.

Do you believe istakel beoraisa oobaraw almaw? [translation: He looked into the Torah and created the world]. Do you accept oraisa vehakadosh borachhoo chad hoo [translation: Torah and God are one] and ditto for yisrael veoraisa [translation: Yisrael and Torah are one]?


These quotes are Zoharic and like all Midrashim cannot be taken literally. These are concisely presented statements of medieval thinkers such as Ramban and Rambam, told in a metaphoric language and these contain a lot of thought in few words. Accepting the idea that Torah encompasses all knowledge [not only Halacha, as contemporary Yeshivot want us to believe], it is not far fetched when Torah is seen as God’s blueprint. It being God’s blueprint makes it one with God whose mind cannot be differentiated from His essence. Yisrael, the committed Torah learners, Torah in its broad sense of course, as they do what they are meant to do, become one with that knowledge. I know that readers will react by saying aren’t the “secular” scientists the ones who developed our understanding of our environment? How can you credit the Torah and those who learn it for the advances in science? The way I see it, myths of antiquity and idolatry and their followers, were a major barrier to open minded inquiry. When one can explain a phenomenon as magical, there is no further need to investigate; indeed investigation is dangerous as it might upset the magical powers that use their esoteric knowledge as tools of control. The core of Halachik Torah is the fight for the abolition of idolatry. The people that practice the Torah, in their human frailty, at times seem to be supporting and going in the wrong direction but then, every so often a person like Rambam appears on the scene and nudges us back onto the right path. It is only because of that partially successful fight against superstition and idolatry that western civilization, greatly influenced by the Judaic culture via its misguided offshoots, Islam and Christianity, made the strides that brought us modern science and empiricism.

In closing, I would like to explain my emphasis on the word “try”, conveying a tentative sense to our knowledge of God and His world and the importance of not deluding ourselves that we have all the answers or even some of them. In Mishlei 16:4-5 we read:



ד כֹּל פָּעַל יְהוָה, לַמַּעֲנֵהוּ; וְגַם-רָשָׁע, לְיוֹם רָעָה. 4

Each act of the Lord has its own end; even the wicked for an evil day.

Rambam in MN3:13 comments on this verse:

The words, " Each act of the Lord has its own end "express therefore the same idea as the following verse, "Everything that is called by my name: I have created it for my glory, I have formed it; yea, I have made it" (Isa. xliii. 7); that is to say, everything that is described as My work has been made by Me for the sake of My will and for no other purpose.

The idea is that in observing that what God made, a person contemplates His will. Lest a person think that he has apprehended God and His will in this contemplation, Shlomo Hamelech immediately warns us –

ה תּוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה, כָּל-גְּבַהּ-לֵב; יָד לְיָד, לֹא יִנָּקֶה. 5

Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; my hand upon it! he shall not be unpunished.



In other words, do not think and act with certainty based on that contemplation. Humans do not have the ability to really apprehend HKBH’s ways, they can try and as long as they are aware of their limitations, they can act with caution and humility. The certainty of the zealot is an abomination to HKBH.