Resag's verdict on the Belief in the Transmigration of Souls - Gilgul - Nonsense!

In the most recent issue of the Jewish Review of Books there is a rather acerbic exchange between professors Flatto and Nadler about whether the Noda Beyehuda was a crypto-Kabbalist or not.  That exchange then migrated to the web in the form of at times insulting comments and exchanges on a post on the Hirhurim blog here which led to the removal by the blog owner of all comments. I am really not interested in getting into the debate although I am more inclined to side with Nadler, especially since one of the NB’s greatest and most famous pupil, Rabbi Eliezer Fleckeles is noted for his public anti-Kabbalist stand in his Teshuvah Me’ahava, see also here . I however would like to translate a segment of Rav Sa’adyah Gaon (Resag) on the subject in the sixth Ma’amar of his Hanivchar Be’emunot Vede’ot (page 214 in Rav Kafieh’s edition) which is illuminating about the worldview of one of our classical greats.

“I will further say[1] that there are some people amongst those that are referred to as Jews that I discovered that they believe in Gilgul referring to it as “transmigration”. The idea, to their mind, is that the soul of Reuven passes to Shimon, then to Levi and then to Yehuda. Most of them believe that it is possible for the soul of a human to be present in an animal and the soul of an animal in a person, and other such nonsense and confusions. It became clear to me what illusions has brought them to believe in this and I found that there are four mistakes that caused this, which I will mention and refute. The first mistake of theirs is their erroneous following of four of the theories about the soul which I have disproven, or possibly because they follow the theory of those who believe there can be more than one spiritual entity[2], all theories that I have already disproven[3]. Their second mistake is because they observed the personality of many people and noted that they resemble the nature of animals. Some people are meek like sheep while others are aggressive like feral beasts, while others are nasty and debased like dogs and others are fleet like birds and so on. They therefore deduced that the only possibility for this wide variety amongst humans is because of their animalistic souls. This demonstrates, God preserve you from such calamity, their great stupidity, for they think that the human body causes essential changes to the soul, so much so that it can transform it from an animal one to a human one. That [transformed] soul then changes the human being to the point that he takes on animal behavior while he looks human. It is not enough that they made the soul into an entity that continuously changes essence without establishing for it an individual essence, they also contradicted themselves by giving it the power to change the body by overturning its essence while at the same time the body changes it. This is totally irrational.”

Resag then addresses the two other arguments for transmigration. One argument is that without transmigration it would be unjust on the part of God to let young children die. It is only if we believe they lived in the past that their death can be seen as a punishment for deeds done in a past life and thus see it as justice. He dismisses the argument summarily by pointing to their misunderstanding God’s justice and the concept of reward and punishment. The other argument is from various texts and verses in Tanach.  He addresses every one separately showing how they misinterpret and at times read verses out of context. Finally he adds –

“I would not have bothered to mention their theory, rightfully so, as it is quite ridiculous, if not for fear of causing fools to be misguided.”

It is interesting to see how Resag took it for obvious that the idea of Gilgul is irrational and even questions the Jewishness of those who believe in it. Of course other Rishonim felt otherwise and by the time Ramban wrote his Pirush on Chumash he saw it as an essential part of reality as the underlying rationale for certain Mitzvot such as Yibum.  By the time the Arizal arrived it became central Jewish dogma with some of the more mystically inclined considering it heresy to deny such evident “truth”.  I personally am happy and feel quite comfortable to agree with Resag relying on him to pull me out of Gehinom for my heresy in this matter.

---

[1] This is an idiomatic curiosity of many of the medieval writers.

[2] This segment is a little difficult to decipher (see Rav Kafieh’s note 3). Apparently Resag is saying that they base their understanding of Gilgul on a foreign, non-Jewish, concept of spirituality.

[3] This segment is at the end of a lengthy discussion about the soul and spirituality which I hope to address separately.

Theological Methodology by Rav Sa'adyah Gaon.

Emunot Vede’ot by Rav Sa’adyah Gaon (Resag) is divided into 10 Ma’amarim or sections, each composed of various chapters.  The sections were part of the original while the chapters are a later addition and are not always well thought out according to Rav Kafieh. Rav Kafieh in the introduction to his edition which contains the original Judeo-Arabic and a brand new translation, notes that Resag kept on editing the book after publication and for his last version changed the name to Hanivchar Be’emunot Vede’ot (HBV), an interesting change as it suggests a subjective evaluation amongst different beliefs and opinions. It also seems to give legitimacy to other opinions giving preference to the one proposed in this book. I am not sure at this point what to make of it.

Each section discusses a different theological subject beginning with creation, followed by Divine Unity, Mitzvot and so on. The sefer precedes Rambam’s MN by approximately 200 years and although written in Judeo-Arabic was well known in Europe. Although the first proper translation to Hebrew was only written in the 11^th century by R. Yehuda Ibn Tibon, a paraphrased translation was available much earlier and was used as the source for those who were interested in Resag’s thought in early medieval Europe. Along with the Resag Pirush on Sefer Yetzira, HBV was an important source for Jewish thought used by the Kalonimus family in developing the theology of the Chassidei Ashkenaz. (See Professor Joseph Dan’s magnum opus (Hebrew) Toldot Torat Hasod Ha’ivrit volumes 4 and 5). We also hear echoes of Resag in Rambam’s MN.  As I continue writing about Resag’s Torah I will address these issues more.

At the beginning of the first section, which is titled “That all existents are created from nothingness” and deals with Creation, Resag makes an important statement.

“It is necessary to preface this section by clarifying that one, who speculates about the subjects [discussed] in it, is involved in matters that eyes have never seen nor were they apprehended by any of the senses. That person is trying to establish, through rational methods of thought, how things were at the beginning of time. His quest is for something very abstract and fine which he is trying to establish in his mind as it cannot be apprehended by the senses. As the person knows going in what the goal is, when he does apprehend the subject in its expected form, he may not now deny it or look for it in a different form. Knowing how things were in the past is something no human being has seen and therefore the goal is to apprehend with our minds matters of great profundity that are the farthest removed from our senses as the Chassid says about it: Far away that which was and deep, deep – who can find it? (Qohelet 7:24). So, when we conclude that things were created from nothingness and our senses have never experienced such a possibility, it is wrong for us to be thrown and back away saying how can we accept something we have never seen? After all, from the start we knew that the answer will be something that is beyond our experience. We must therefore get used to this and rejoice having found that which we were looking for.”

This is a very important point that needs to be made when dealing with speculative matters such as theology. By making claims that things can be empirically proven about matters that are not scientifically provable one ends up denigrating religion. Claiming that creation from nothingness is scientifically provable is doomed to failure. All we can say is that it is compatible with scientific theory and does not contradict it. The argument made by many of our compatriots especially those working in the kiruv movement, that the theory that explains the beginning of the universe with the Big Bang proves creation from nothingness cannot be further from the truth. All it does is deny a universe that was eternally as we know it and nothing more. It allows for various explanations as to what triggered the event including the possibility that it was triggered by God’s will, which the eternal universe theory does not, but it does not prove that before the Big Bang there was nothing. In fact there probably was a highly compressed point of matter and energy that expanded as the Big Bang occurred. We would have to go back and argue that that compressed matter and energy came into being from nothingness before the event, to argue for creation from nothingness. That argument is possible but not provable. We can accept it if it is not contradicted by science. Chances of it being contradicted are negligible as Resag points out that the answer to the question was never expected to be scientifically provable.

“I found it necessary to make this preface so that the reader of this book should not fool himself and believe that I will bring forth something from nothingness in front of his eyes. That is why I prefaced to him that if that were possible there would be no need for proofs and discussions, and we and everyone else would be in agreement about this matter requiring no further proof.  Proofs and demonstrations are necessary because this matter cannot be seen nor sensed.”

Resag proceeds to argue that all theories about creation, whether those who believe in an eternal universe and all the other theories in between are all based on this kind of speculation. None argue for empirically provable theories. It is therefore incumbent to see which argument is stronger.

“After all this we [believers in creation from nothingness] trump all other believers because of the signs and wonders we experienced. Therefore hold on to these three things at every section of this book; your proofs are stronger, you have answers to all the questions of those who disagree with you and the signs of your prophets tip the scale in your favor.”

That our arguments are stronger is subjective and would not stand up alone. The second statement that we have answers to all questions is a requirement that makes or breaks our position. If the question would have no answer, if it would contradict reality or empirical scientific fact, our position could not be maintained. It would be completely disproven. If on the other hand it does not contradict reality, it can stand. But the basis for our defending this position so strongly even though it is not empirically provable is because we experienced through our prophets things that support this position. The wonders we experienced demonstrate that the world was created by God who has will and therefore was responsible for creation in time which allows for creation from nothingness. However, we must accept that wonders by themselves are not sufficient proof for creation from nothingness. It is not the same as us seeing something coming from nothingness with our own eyes which would not require any further proof. We still have to develop arguments and proofs to support the positions these prophetic wonders point to.

Resag with this statement has laid down a process that one needs to follow to develop a proper knowledge of theological truths. We start with the text, the prophetic position as presented by the prophet. We then make sure that the prophetic idea is indeed well understood by checking its viability in the real world.  Is it compatible with reality and scientific theory? If yes then we still have to compare the arguments for our belief with those for the different beliefs and make sure that our arguments are strong enough to allow to, even if subjectively, consider them superior.  It is only after proceeding through these steps that one can say that we have demonstrated the viability and truth of our theology and that we really understand it.

I have written about this many times in the past quoting Rambam on the same subject. Resag makes the same point as he starts his work on theology. A seeker must be anchored in reality and having unrealistic expectations is counterproductive. This is most difficult to those who are mathematically inclined and are accustomed to the proofs and demonstrations used in mathematical and scientific investigations. Theology requires a different set of tools and the reader must be forewarned.  

A Poetic Presentation of The Active Intellect - A Poetic Description In Mishlei According To Rav Sa'adyah Gaon.

The concept of Sechel Hapoel – Active Intellect is difficult to grasp for us who no longer accept Aristotelian philosophy. I came across a comment of Resag on a verse in Mishlei Chapter 8 quoted in a note by Rav Kafieh on Hanivchar Be’emunot Vede’ot (HBV) which I think is very helpful and also presents the concept in Jewish terms.

כב  יְהוָה--קָנָנִי, רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ:    קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז.	22 The LORD created me at the outset of His way, the first of His works of old.
כג  מֵעוֹלָם, נִסַּכְתִּי מֵרֹאשׁ--    מִקַּדְמֵי-אָרֶץ.	23 In remote eons I was shaped at the start of the first things of earth.
כד  בְּאֵין-תְּהֹמוֹת חוֹלָלְתִּי;    בְּאֵין מַעְיָנוֹת, נִכְבַּדֵּי-מָיִם.	24 When there were no deeps, I was spawned; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
כה  בְּטֶרֶם הָרִים הָטְבָּעוּ;    לִפְנֵי גְבָעוֹת חוֹלָלְתִּי.	25 Before the mountains were anchored down, before hills I was spawned;
כו  עַד-לֹא עָשָׂה, אֶרֶץ וְחוּצוֹת;    וְרֹאשׁ, עַפְרוֹת תֵּבֵל.	26 He had not yet made earth and open land, and the world’s first clods of soil.
כז  בַּהֲכִינוֹ שָׁמַיִם, שָׁם אָנִי;    בְּחֻקוֹ חוּג, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם.	27 When He established the heavens, I was there; when He set a circle upon the face of the deep,
כח  בְּאַמְּצוֹ שְׁחָקִים מִמָּעַל;    בַּעֲזוֹז, עִינוֹת תְּהוֹם.	28 When He made firm the skies above, when the fountains of the deep showed their might,
כט  בְּשׂוּמוֹ לַיָּם, חֻקּוֹ, וּמַיִם, לֹא יַעַבְרוּ-פִיו;    בְּחוּקוֹ, מוֹסְדֵי אָרֶץ.	29 When He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not transgress His commandment, when He appointed the foundations of the earth;
ל  וָאֶהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ, אָמוֹן:    וָאֶהְיֶה שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים, יוֹם יוֹם; מְשַׂחֶקֶת לְפָנָיו בְּכָל-עֵת.	30 And I was by Him, an intimate; I was His delight day after day, playing before Him at all times,
לא  מְשַׂחֶקֶת, בְּתֵבֵל אַרְצוֹ;    וְשַׁעֲשֻׁעַי, אֶת-בְּנֵי אָדָם.	31 Playing in the world, His earth and my delight with humankind {P}

(Full Disclosure: Though I copied the above from Mechon Mamre, I edited the English translation wherever I thought it would help for clarity using the Robert Alter excellent translation of the Books of Wisdom. I did not accept his suggested alterations to the Masoretic text.)

These verses are part of a series of short essays about Chochma – wisdom.  Resag in his Pirush explains as follows:

“If we consider, as logic dictates and the verses clarify, that the Creator made everything with wisdom and considering that [creation is] complete and perfect, we can accept as true the prophet’s declaration that she [wisdom], must have preceded all creation.”

Resag is explaining that the verse is indeed suggesting that wisdom existed before anything physical. This understanding of the verse conforms to the Midrash Breishit Rabah that illustrates the idea by suggesting that God looked into the Torah using it as a blueprint to create the world.

“That is so because everything was created thanks to wisdom and she was there at the first instant of time when it came into existence, for time itself was created through wisdom.”

The science, the concepts that underlie all things that exist can be visualized as a separate entity that must precede everything that comes into being if not in time at least hierarchically. Time itself is one such existent brought into being by wisdom.

“Although wisdom itself does not really exist independently, it is however a necessary component of every creation that God created. [The prophet] then lists the actions [of the seven days] of creation. He describes the first day with מִקַּדְמֵי-אָרֶץ and בַּהֲכִינוֹ שָׁמַיִם – [the creation of heaven and earth]. The separation of the waters [on the second day is alluded to] with בְּחֻקוֹ חוּג, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם. Let the waters gather creating the seas [of the third day] with בְּשׂוּמוֹ לַיָּם, חֻקּוֹ. Let there be lights in the vaults of the heaven [of the fourth day] with בְּאַמְּצוֹ שְׁחָקִים מִמָּעַל…. Wisdom now declares with pride and says “And I was by Him, an intimate” for she is the tool He uses to innovate all that He innovates, using her to create, bring forth and into existence everything. [The prophet] also depicts metaphorically that wisdom rejoices daily, because she is present for everything that is created on a daily basis, renewing herself and rejoicing with every moment of time as it continuously comes into existence. That is so because she is the essence of every creation and every split moment of time.”        

As the prophet contemplates the world around him, he perceives the boundless wisdom that underlies every little component of that world. He marvels at how they all interact with each other insuring their collective continued existence. Even time itself, the measurement of change of the physical world, is essentially a function of that same wisdom. The prophet sees that wisdom as the connector between the world and its Creator as it is His wisdom that underlies every bit of existence. He metaphorically describes wisdom as basking in the results of its plans, seeing itself as an intimate of both the Creator and His creations.

“She [wisdom] then deciphers the metaphor. She says, “When I suggested that I rejoiced, I did not mean I myself did so for I am not an entity. I was talking about my friends and surroundings - “Playing in the world, His earth”. When I said that I was playing, I did not refer to my own essence for I do not have any essence; I was talking about those who deserve me and possess me namely humankind”. All this is an expression of praise and glory of the wise men, for their deeds are deeds that [perpetuate] existence.”    

Wisdom is the connector between man and God through God’s creation. God’s wisdom permeates everything including man, and the wise man in his self-awareness, perceives that wisdom, internalizes it and acts according to that wisdom in a constructive manner.

I think that this is a beautiful and masterful description of the Sechel Hapoel – the Active Intellect.

Shabbat Shalom.

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