In a private communication with Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, we touched on Rambam in Hilchot De’ot that deals with Anavah, the virtue of humbleness or humility. I decided to interrupt the current discussion to address this, as it is very important and also is relevant to the subject that I am dealing with.
Rambam in Hilchot De’ot 1:10-11 –
ט כל אדם שדעותיו כולן דעות בינונייות ממוצעות, נקרא חכם; [ה] ומי שהוא מדקדק על עצמו ביותר ויתרחק מדעה בינונית מעט לצד זה או לצד זה, נקרא חסיד.
י כיצד: מי שיתרחק מגובה הלב עד הקצה האחרון, ויהיה שפל רוח ביותר--נקרא חסיד; וזו היא מידת חסידות. ואם נתרחק עד האמצע בלבד, ויהיה עניו--נקרא חכם; וזו היא מידת חכמה. ועל דרך זו, שאר כל הדעות.
Whoever observes in his disposition the mean is termed wise. Whoever is particularly scrupulous and deviates somewhat from the exact mean in disposition, in one direction or the other is called a Chassid. For example, if one avoids haughtiness to the utmost extent and is exceedingly humble, he is termed a Chassid, and this is the standard of Chassidus. If one only departs from haughtiness as far as the mean, and is humble, he is called wise, and this is the standard of wisdom. And so it is with all other dispositions. (Translation, courtesy of A Maimonides Reader by Isadore Twersky).
Rambam explains that a Chassid is one who is working on himself to improve his Midot [disposition] while a Chacham is one who has perfected himself to the point that he can be exactly on the mean and needs no further improvement. The Chacham is therefore the paradigm of perfection.
ומצווין אנו ללכת בדרכים אלו הבינוניים, והם הדרכים הטובים והישרים, שנאמר "והלכת, בדרכיו
“We are commanded to follow these middle paths as they are good and correct [and also the paths of God] as it says “and you should walk in His paths”.
As an example of a Chassid Rambam portrays someone who “is exceedingly humble” and a Chacham as “one who only departs from haughtiness as far as the mean, and is humble”. The clear implication is that humility is the preferred disposition and “exceedingly humble” is perfection in the making.However, in the second chapter of Hilchot De’ot Rambam presents a different picture.
ויש דעות שאסור לו לאדם לנהוג בהן בבינונית, אלא יתרחק עד הקצה האחר--והוא גובה הלב, שאין הדרך הטובה שיהיה האדם עניו בלבד, אלא שיהיה שפל רוח, ותהיה רוחו נמוכה למאוד. ולפיכך נאמר במשה רבנו "עניו מאוד" (במדבר יב,ג), ולא נאמר עניו בלבד. ולפיכך ציוו חכמים, מאוד מאוד הוי שפל רוח.
“There are some dispositions in regard to which it is forbidden merely to keep to the middle path. They must be shunned to the extreme. Such a disposition is pride. The right way in this regard is not merely to be meek, but to be humble-minded and lowly of the spirit to the utmost. And therefore, it is said of Moshe that he was “exceedingly humble”. Hence our sages exhorted us, “Be exceedingly, exceedingly lowly of spirit”.” (Translation as above)
The contradiction is glaring and it is obvious that Rambam is not in the habit of contradicting himself. However, as usual, Rambam is very subtle and one has to read thoroughly all his discussions on a subject in its various contexts. In his introduction to Avot, the Eight Chapters, Rambam has a lengthy discussion about perfecting one’s disposition. In the fourth chapter, he discusses the idea of how to go about changing an inborn disposition. While he summarized in Hilchot De’ot, he expands this discussion in the Eight Chapters. In chapter 4 he describes the process of changing the natural disposition of individuals by moving away from the mean in the opposite direction of one’s natural disposition. For example, one whose natural disposition tends towards haughtiness should be scrupulous and be extremely humble for a while until he can slowly move back to the mean of humility. The same goes for all dispositions. At the end of a lengthy discussion, Rambam then makes a few revealing statements.
וזאת התורה השלמה המשלמת אותנו, כמו שהעיד עליה יודעה:
תורת ה' תמימה, משיבת נפש,
עדות ה' נאמנה מחכימת פתי (תהלים י"ט, ח')
לא ציוותה דבר מעין זה. ואין כונתה אלא שיהיה האדם טבעי, הולך בדרך האמצעי:
יאכל מה שיש לו לאכול בשווי,
וישתה מה שיש לו לשתות בשווי.
ויישב המדינות ביושר ובאמונה.
לא שישכון במערות ובהרים,
ולא שילבש השער והצמר,
ולא שיטריח גופו ויענה אותו.
“And this perfect Torah whose mission is to perfect us as one who knew her [David] testified,” God’s Torah is whole, it soothes the soul, God’s testament is reliable, it enlightens a fool”, did not command any of this [self-flagellation]. Its mission is for a person to be natural and follow the mean path; eat and drink a balanced diet and inhabit lands with correctness and honesty. Not that he should in mountainous caves or wear hair shirts or punish his body.”
In other words, the Torah’s goal is to develop people so that they become perfect and follow the middle path. That is however a utopian goal. The human condition will not allow such perfection. As the Torah deals with real human beings and is the tool that will bring people as close to perfection as possible, its laws are NOT the mean. They are always a little to one side or the other depending on the disposition.
וזה, שהתורה
לא אסרה מה שאסרה, ולא צוותה מה שצוותה, אלא מפני הסיבה הזאת. רצוני לומר: כדי
שנתרחק מן הצד האחד יותר על דרך ההרגל. שכן איסור "המאכלות האסורים" כולם, ואיסור
הביאות האסורות, והאזהרה מן הקדשה, וחיוב כתובה וקידושין, ועם כל זה לא תהיה מותרת תמיד, אלא תיאסר בעתות הנידה והלידה, ועם זה סייגו חכמינו למעט התשמיש, והזהירו מזה ביום, כמו שבארנו בסנהדרין - הנה לא צווה אלוהים אלא כדי שנתרחק מקצה "רוב התאווה" ריחוק רב, ונצא מעט מן המיצוע אל צד "העדר הרגשת ההנאה", עד שתתיישב בנפשותינו תכונת הזהירות
“The law did not lay down its prohibitions or enjoin its commandments except for just this purpose, namely, that by its disciplinary effects we may persistently maintain the proper distance from either extreme. For the restriction regarding all the forbidden foods, the prohibitions of illicit intercourse, the forewarning against prostitution, the duty of performing the legal marriage rites – which nevertheless does not permit intercourse at all times, as, for instance, during the period of menstruation and after childbirth, besides its being otherwise restricted by our sages and entirely interdicted during the daytime, as we have explained in the tractate of Sanhedrin- all of these God commanded in order that we should keep entirely distant from the extreme of inordinate indulgence of the passions, and, even departing from the exact medium, should incline somewhat toward self-denial, so that there may be firmly rooted in our souls the disposition for moderation.”
The Torah is not for the perfect utopian individual but rather for the human being who is working his way towards perfection. It is realistic about human frailties and allows for them setting the rules with that in mind. These rules are a little off the mean, tending a little to one or the other side depending on the type of disposition and the tendency of the majority of humanity towards that disposition. In the case of haughtiness, even a perfected person such as Moshe Rabbeinu cannot feel safe and must be exceedingly humble to counteract the human tendency to self-aggrandizement. A similar disposition is anger where too the human disposition tends towards it and that tendency has to be counterbalanced. Rambam in the first chapter of Hilchot De’ot describes the utopian perfected human being the Torah’s has as a goal to develop. In Chapter 2, he explains the method the Torah uses and points out that certain human traits can never be completely overcome. Haughtiness and anger are two such traits where even the most perfected person must be wary about recidivism.
It is important to note that to Rambam, a person that follows the Torah and does the Mitzvot is embarked on the path to perfection; he is on the right track in his quest for the perfect disposition, a necessary and integral ingredient in the search for God and His ways.
Showing posts with label The Eight Chapters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Eight Chapters. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Moshe Not Losing Sight Of God's Back -
In the previous post, I discussed Rambam’s understanding that metaphysical speculation leads to insights that are fleeting and can be compared to flashes of light. Considering that the essence of God, in fact the whole concept of transcendental existence cannot be fathomed by the human mind, what do these flashes of insight consist of?
“I will give you in this chapter some illustrations, in order that you may better understand the propriety of forming as many negative attributes as possible, and the impropriety of ascribing to God any positive attributes. A person may know for certain that a "ship" is in existence, but he may not know to what object that name is applied, whether to a substance or to an accident. A second person then learns that the ship is not an accident. A third, that it is not a mineral. A fourth, that it is not a plant growing in the earth. A fifth, that it is not a body whose parts are joined together by nature. A sixth, that it is not a flat object like boards or doors. A seventh, that it is not a sphere. An eighth, that it is not pointed. A ninth, that it is neither round-shaped nor equilateral. A tenth, that it is not solid. It is clear that this tenth person has almost arrived at the correct notion of a "ship" by the foregoing negative attributes. It is as if he had exactly the same notion as those have who imagine it to be a wooden substance which is hollow, long, and composed of many pieces of wood, that is to say, who know it by positive attributes. Of the other persons in our illustration, each one is more remote from the correct notion of a ship than the next mentioned, so that the first knows nothing about it but the name. In the same manner, you will come nearer to the knowledge and comprehension of God by the negative attributes. But you must be careful, in what you negate, to negate by proof, not by mere words, for each time you ascertain by proof that a certain thing, believed to exist in the Creator, must be negated, you have undoubtedly come one step nearer to the knowledge of God.” (MN 1:60)
When we look at the universe we live in - the only reality we know - we see that it operates on a system of cause and effect. We conclude that there must be, “exist”, one entity that is non-contingent, the cause of everything without being effected by anything else – a self-standing independent entity. (For a concise and clear exposition of this idea, see my earlier post here). Just like a person who has never seen a ship but knows that one must exist because he knows that people and products can be shipped across oceans, so too do we know from our own existence that there must be a non-contingent First Cause. Unlike a ship, which we can construct and eventually observe and touch, this non- contingent entity, by definition, cannot even be conceived by our minds. We therefore cannot describe it in positive terms. All we can do is explain what it is not, what makes it different from everything else. It is a much more cumbersome process, because we have to know and understand everything else that exists and conceptualize why this entity cannot be any of those things. If we were to take the same approach with the ship, we eventually would get to know and understand what a ship is, and even build one. However, we will never be able to even conceive anything about the makeup of this non-contingent entity which we call God. On the other hand, the more we know and understand why God is different from anything else that we know and understand, the better can we construct a vague sense in our minds about this entity whose traces we see in everything. That vague sense is metaphorically described as ““and you shall see my back”. As we develop more knowledge about our universe, we keep on expanding our knowledge of what God is not and the vague sense we develop, though closer to the truth, is different from the one we experienced before. That is how I understand Rambam in Shemona Perakim that I quoted here “On the other hand, when he sees him only from the back, although he does recognize him during that sighting, he will eventually have doubts and confuse him with another”. As these insights are vague and come in flashes, there is a lack of continuity as new information is processed and new insights develop. Is it the same entity I sensed during the last experience or was I wrong then? Am I wrong now? The only resolution of this dilemma is to maintain constancy in the process so that there is a continuous flow of insights that are built on each other and thus connected. It is like when someone catches fleeting sight of the back of a person he is following and does not let his eyes stray from that person, although he does not know how that person looks, he knows that he is following the same person he first saw from the back. Should he however lose sight for a second, he will never be sure that it is the same person he is following now. Moshe Rabbeinu was the paradigm of the person who never loses sight of Gods’ back once he caught a glimpse of it. Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 7:14 -
ובזה הבטיחו האל, שנאמר "לך, אמור להם: שובו לכם, לאוהליכם. ואתה, פה עמוד עימדי"
הא למדת שכל הנביאים, כשהנבואה מסתלקת, חוזרין לאוהלם, שהוא צורכי הגוף
כולן כשאר העם; לפיכך אינן פורשין מנשותיהן. ומשה רבנו, לא חזר לאוהלו
הראשון; לפיכך פירש מן האישה לעולם ומכל הדומה לה, ונקשרה דעתו בצור
העולמים, ולא נסתלק ההוד מעליו לעולם וקרן עור פניו, ונתקדש כמלאכים.
It is this that God promised him saying, “Go tell them [the people] return to your tents whilst you stand here with me”, teaching that all prophets return to their tents, namely their material lives, after prophecy ends, just as the rest of the people do, remaining with their wives. On the other hand, Moshe Rabbeinu never returned to his original tent, [his material life], separating from his wife and all similar matters forever. His mind became entwined with the rock of the worlds, the grace never lifted from him, the skin of his face shone and he became sanctified like the angels.
One of the outstanding features of Moshe was that once he caught sight of God’s back he never let go. It is true that he never was able to “see God’s face” and therefore, should he have taken his eyes off even for a short moment, he could doubt if he reconnected with the same entity. He however never took his eyes off the ball. I believe this explains the apparent contradiction between Rambam in Shemona Perakim and Mishne Torah that I discussed here.
How this affects our own religious life and the implications this has to prayer and Mitzvot will be discussed in upcoming posts.
“I will give you in this chapter some illustrations, in order that you may better understand the propriety of forming as many negative attributes as possible, and the impropriety of ascribing to God any positive attributes. A person may know for certain that a "ship" is in existence, but he may not know to what object that name is applied, whether to a substance or to an accident. A second person then learns that the ship is not an accident. A third, that it is not a mineral. A fourth, that it is not a plant growing in the earth. A fifth, that it is not a body whose parts are joined together by nature. A sixth, that it is not a flat object like boards or doors. A seventh, that it is not a sphere. An eighth, that it is not pointed. A ninth, that it is neither round-shaped nor equilateral. A tenth, that it is not solid. It is clear that this tenth person has almost arrived at the correct notion of a "ship" by the foregoing negative attributes. It is as if he had exactly the same notion as those have who imagine it to be a wooden substance which is hollow, long, and composed of many pieces of wood, that is to say, who know it by positive attributes. Of the other persons in our illustration, each one is more remote from the correct notion of a ship than the next mentioned, so that the first knows nothing about it but the name. In the same manner, you will come nearer to the knowledge and comprehension of God by the negative attributes. But you must be careful, in what you negate, to negate by proof, not by mere words, for each time you ascertain by proof that a certain thing, believed to exist in the Creator, must be negated, you have undoubtedly come one step nearer to the knowledge of God.” (MN 1:60)
When we look at the universe we live in - the only reality we know - we see that it operates on a system of cause and effect. We conclude that there must be, “exist”, one entity that is non-contingent, the cause of everything without being effected by anything else – a self-standing independent entity. (For a concise and clear exposition of this idea, see my earlier post here). Just like a person who has never seen a ship but knows that one must exist because he knows that people and products can be shipped across oceans, so too do we know from our own existence that there must be a non-contingent First Cause. Unlike a ship, which we can construct and eventually observe and touch, this non- contingent entity, by definition, cannot even be conceived by our minds. We therefore cannot describe it in positive terms. All we can do is explain what it is not, what makes it different from everything else. It is a much more cumbersome process, because we have to know and understand everything else that exists and conceptualize why this entity cannot be any of those things. If we were to take the same approach with the ship, we eventually would get to know and understand what a ship is, and even build one. However, we will never be able to even conceive anything about the makeup of this non-contingent entity which we call God. On the other hand, the more we know and understand why God is different from anything else that we know and understand, the better can we construct a vague sense in our minds about this entity whose traces we see in everything. That vague sense is metaphorically described as ““and you shall see my back”. As we develop more knowledge about our universe, we keep on expanding our knowledge of what God is not and the vague sense we develop, though closer to the truth, is different from the one we experienced before. That is how I understand Rambam in Shemona Perakim that I quoted here “On the other hand, when he sees him only from the back, although he does recognize him during that sighting, he will eventually have doubts and confuse him with another”. As these insights are vague and come in flashes, there is a lack of continuity as new information is processed and new insights develop. Is it the same entity I sensed during the last experience or was I wrong then? Am I wrong now? The only resolution of this dilemma is to maintain constancy in the process so that there is a continuous flow of insights that are built on each other and thus connected. It is like when someone catches fleeting sight of the back of a person he is following and does not let his eyes stray from that person, although he does not know how that person looks, he knows that he is following the same person he first saw from the back. Should he however lose sight for a second, he will never be sure that it is the same person he is following now. Moshe Rabbeinu was the paradigm of the person who never loses sight of Gods’ back once he caught a glimpse of it. Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 7:14 -
ובזה הבטיחו האל, שנאמר "לך, אמור להם: שובו לכם, לאוהליכם. ואתה, פה עמוד עימדי"
הא למדת שכל הנביאים, כשהנבואה מסתלקת, חוזרין לאוהלם, שהוא צורכי הגוף
כולן כשאר העם; לפיכך אינן פורשין מנשותיהן. ומשה רבנו, לא חזר לאוהלו
הראשון; לפיכך פירש מן האישה לעולם ומכל הדומה לה, ונקשרה דעתו בצור
העולמים, ולא נסתלק ההוד מעליו לעולם וקרן עור פניו, ונתקדש כמלאכים.
It is this that God promised him saying, “Go tell them [the people] return to your tents whilst you stand here with me”, teaching that all prophets return to their tents, namely their material lives, after prophecy ends, just as the rest of the people do, remaining with their wives. On the other hand, Moshe Rabbeinu never returned to his original tent, [his material life], separating from his wife and all similar matters forever. His mind became entwined with the rock of the worlds, the grace never lifted from him, the skin of his face shone and he became sanctified like the angels.
One of the outstanding features of Moshe was that once he caught sight of God’s back he never let go. It is true that he never was able to “see God’s face” and therefore, should he have taken his eyes off even for a short moment, he could doubt if he reconnected with the same entity. He however never took his eyes off the ball. I believe this explains the apparent contradiction between Rambam in Shemona Perakim and Mishne Torah that I discussed here.
How this affects our own religious life and the implications this has to prayer and Mitzvot will be discussed in upcoming posts.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Lightning Flashes As Metaphor.
This post is a continuation of this earlier one.
In the Moreh, Rambam addresses the issue of Moshe’s apprehension of God in several places. In the introduction to MN, Rambam discusses what a person can expect to apprehend in metaphysics.
“Do not imagine that these most difficult problems can be thoroughly understood by any one of us. This is not the case. At times, the truth flashes so brilliantly that we perceive it as clear as day. Our nature and habit then draw a veil over our perception, and we return to darkness almost as dense as before. We are like those who, though beholding frequent flashes of lightning, still find themselves in the thickest darkness of the night. On some, the lightning flashes in rapid succession, and they seem to be in continuous light, and their night is as clear as the day. This was the degree of prophetic excellence attained by (Moses) the greatest of prophets, to whom God said, "But as for thee, stand thou here by Me" (Deut. v. 31), and of whom it is written, "The skin of his face shone," etc. (Exod. xxxiv. 29)… The degrees in the perfection of men vary according to these distinctions.”
The metaphor for apprehension used here is flashes of light. In moments when a person is able to distance himself from his “nature and habits”, from his personal physical needs and existence, he acquires a fleeting apprehension of the transcendental. That apprehension is so tenuous that it cannot be retained for more than a few moments. However, a trace of that insight is retained for “we return to darkness almost as dense as before”. When the next flash arrives, we start from a different level but we still “find ourselves in the thickest darkness of the night”. In other words, we cannot retain the full insight we gained. It flashes in front of our eyes and disappears just like a dream. It is the intensity and constancy of these flashes that defines the different levels of perfection attained by the various seekers. Moshe, the paradigm of perfection, never stopped having these flashes with great intensity, one after the other. However even to him these insights were only “flashes”. There was a fleeting quality to them but their constancy made it seem as if he was in a “continuous light”.
Rambam puts this idea into practical terms in MN 3:51. He first discusses the need to have the proper intellectual preparation and development when dealing with apprehension of God. He warns that one must beware from confusing God with figments of one’s imagination. After having acquired sufficient intellectual knowledge, one focuses the mind on trying to grasp all that is possible about God. It is at those times that the “flashes of light” that he spoke about in the introduction occur. Here he presents in practical terms how these insights must be handled.
“You must know that even if you were the wisest man in respect to the true knowledge of God, you break the bond between you and God whenever you turn entirely your thoughts to the necessary food or any necessary business. You are then not with God, and He is not with you: for that relation between you and Him is actually interrupted in those moments.”
He then describes a process of training that one must undergo over years, to retain this focus at all times. One starts with the daily prayers, concentrating on what we are saying, each time more and longer to the point that even after prayer is finished, we are still thinking about God. One then develops self-control and discipline to limit the times one deals with worldly affairs to a minimum leaving more time for the focus on God. He then again cautions:
“When you are alone by yourself, when you are awake on your couch, be careful to meditate in such precious moments on nothing but the intellectual worship of God, to approach Him and to minister before Him in the true reality which I have described to you and not by way of affections of the imagination. This I consider as the highest perfection wise men can attain by the above training.”
Here we are talking about a person that has attained intellectual knowledge sufficient to meditate about God must always be vigilant against straying into the imaginary. I understand that to mean that as these insights come in flashes that are fleeting, the next insight may not be properly anchored in the earlier understanding which is only a trace by now, especially if time has elapsed. That is the meaning of Rambam in the introduction, “We are like those who, though beholding frequent flashes of lightning, still find themselves in the thickest darkness of the night”. The “darkness of night” is the result of “you break the bond between you and God whenever you turn entirely your thoughts to the necessary food or any necessary business”. Here is however how Moshe is depicted:
“It is only when we have acquired a true knowledge of God, and we rejoice in that knowledge in such a manner, that whilst speaking with others, or attending to our bodily wants, our mind is all that time with God. It is only when we are with our heart constantly near God, even whilst our body is in the society of men. It is only when we are in that state which the Song on the relation between God and man poetically describes in the following words: "I sleep, but my heart wakes: it is the voice of my beloved that knocks" (Song v. 2). Then have we attained not only the height of ordinary prophets, but of Moses, our Teacher, of whom Scripture relates: "And Moses alone shall come near before the Lord" (ibid. xxxiv. 28); "But as for thee, stand thou here by me" (Deut. V. 28)”.
This is the practical presentation of “On some, the lightning flashes in rapid succession, and they seem to be in continuous light, and their night is as clear as the day”, which is how Moshe was described in the introduction. The constancy of the insights, these flashes coming uninterrupted, assures that the imaginative does not distort the proper apprehension. The traces of the insight that we retain tend to weaken as time goes on and the longer the interval the less remains of them. The resulting apprehension may therefore be inconsistent. To Moshe the flashes of insight were uninterrupted and therefore he was able to attain a level of apprehension no one else could or would.
The problem is that Rambam always cautions us that we can never apprehend the essence of God. So what kind of apprehension are the fleeting flashes?
I will discuss this in upcoming posts.
In the Moreh, Rambam addresses the issue of Moshe’s apprehension of God in several places. In the introduction to MN, Rambam discusses what a person can expect to apprehend in metaphysics.
“Do not imagine that these most difficult problems can be thoroughly understood by any one of us. This is not the case. At times, the truth flashes so brilliantly that we perceive it as clear as day. Our nature and habit then draw a veil over our perception, and we return to darkness almost as dense as before. We are like those who, though beholding frequent flashes of lightning, still find themselves in the thickest darkness of the night. On some, the lightning flashes in rapid succession, and they seem to be in continuous light, and their night is as clear as the day. This was the degree of prophetic excellence attained by (Moses) the greatest of prophets, to whom God said, "But as for thee, stand thou here by Me" (Deut. v. 31), and of whom it is written, "The skin of his face shone," etc. (Exod. xxxiv. 29)… The degrees in the perfection of men vary according to these distinctions.”
The metaphor for apprehension used here is flashes of light. In moments when a person is able to distance himself from his “nature and habits”, from his personal physical needs and existence, he acquires a fleeting apprehension of the transcendental. That apprehension is so tenuous that it cannot be retained for more than a few moments. However, a trace of that insight is retained for “we return to darkness almost as dense as before”. When the next flash arrives, we start from a different level but we still “find ourselves in the thickest darkness of the night”. In other words, we cannot retain the full insight we gained. It flashes in front of our eyes and disappears just like a dream. It is the intensity and constancy of these flashes that defines the different levels of perfection attained by the various seekers. Moshe, the paradigm of perfection, never stopped having these flashes with great intensity, one after the other. However even to him these insights were only “flashes”. There was a fleeting quality to them but their constancy made it seem as if he was in a “continuous light”.
Rambam puts this idea into practical terms in MN 3:51. He first discusses the need to have the proper intellectual preparation and development when dealing with apprehension of God. He warns that one must beware from confusing God with figments of one’s imagination. After having acquired sufficient intellectual knowledge, one focuses the mind on trying to grasp all that is possible about God. It is at those times that the “flashes of light” that he spoke about in the introduction occur. Here he presents in practical terms how these insights must be handled.
“You must know that even if you were the wisest man in respect to the true knowledge of God, you break the bond between you and God whenever you turn entirely your thoughts to the necessary food or any necessary business. You are then not with God, and He is not with you: for that relation between you and Him is actually interrupted in those moments.”
He then describes a process of training that one must undergo over years, to retain this focus at all times. One starts with the daily prayers, concentrating on what we are saying, each time more and longer to the point that even after prayer is finished, we are still thinking about God. One then develops self-control and discipline to limit the times one deals with worldly affairs to a minimum leaving more time for the focus on God. He then again cautions:
“When you are alone by yourself, when you are awake on your couch, be careful to meditate in such precious moments on nothing but the intellectual worship of God, to approach Him and to minister before Him in the true reality which I have described to you and not by way of affections of the imagination. This I consider as the highest perfection wise men can attain by the above training.”
Here we are talking about a person that has attained intellectual knowledge sufficient to meditate about God must always be vigilant against straying into the imaginary. I understand that to mean that as these insights come in flashes that are fleeting, the next insight may not be properly anchored in the earlier understanding which is only a trace by now, especially if time has elapsed. That is the meaning of Rambam in the introduction, “We are like those who, though beholding frequent flashes of lightning, still find themselves in the thickest darkness of the night”. The “darkness of night” is the result of “you break the bond between you and God whenever you turn entirely your thoughts to the necessary food or any necessary business”. Here is however how Moshe is depicted:
“It is only when we have acquired a true knowledge of God, and we rejoice in that knowledge in such a manner, that whilst speaking with others, or attending to our bodily wants, our mind is all that time with God. It is only when we are with our heart constantly near God, even whilst our body is in the society of men. It is only when we are in that state which the Song on the relation between God and man poetically describes in the following words: "I sleep, but my heart wakes: it is the voice of my beloved that knocks" (Song v. 2). Then have we attained not only the height of ordinary prophets, but of Moses, our Teacher, of whom Scripture relates: "And Moses alone shall come near before the Lord" (ibid. xxxiv. 28); "But as for thee, stand thou here by me" (Deut. V. 28)”.
This is the practical presentation of “On some, the lightning flashes in rapid succession, and they seem to be in continuous light, and their night is as clear as the day”, which is how Moshe was described in the introduction. The constancy of the insights, these flashes coming uninterrupted, assures that the imaginative does not distort the proper apprehension. The traces of the insight that we retain tend to weaken as time goes on and the longer the interval the less remains of them. The resulting apprehension may therefore be inconsistent. To Moshe the flashes of insight were uninterrupted and therefore he was able to attain a level of apprehension no one else could or would.
The problem is that Rambam always cautions us that we can never apprehend the essence of God. So what kind of apprehension are the fleeting flashes?
I will discuss this in upcoming posts.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Rambam on Moshe - Apprehension and Doubt - An Apparent Contradiction.
I learned this Shabbat with two young men Rambam’s introduction to Avot – the Shemona Perakim. As usual when you learn Rambam, no matter how many times you have read him, every time you reread him you get a new insight or a new thread of thinking is triggered.
In the seventh chapter, Rambam discusses the perfection of knowledge and character necessary for a person to acquire prophecy. The level of prophecy is commensurate with how perfected the person’s character is. (Interestingly, the level of perfection in character is what creates the variation between different prophets and not knowledge, but that belongs in a separate post.) Moshe Rabbeinu is seen as the paradigm of the limits of how high a human being can aspire to, when it comes to this dual perfection and consequently prophecy, yet he too had limits in apprehending God. To illustrate Rambam uses three verses in Shemot 33 (the weekly reading in two weeks) where Moshe asks to know God.
יח וַיֹּאמַר: הַרְאֵנִי נָא, אֶת-כְּבֹדֶךָ.
18 And he said: 'Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory.'
כ וַיֹּאמֶר, לֹא תוּכַל לִרְאֹת אֶת-פָּנָי: כִּי לֹא-יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם, וָחָי.
20 And He said: 'You cannot see My face, for man shall not see Me and live.'
כג וַהֲסִרֹתִי, אֶת-כַּפִּי, וְרָאִיתָ, אֶת-אֲחֹרָי; וּפָנַי, לֹא יֵרָאוּ. {פ}
23 And I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.'
Rambam explains this as follows: (I will translate only the pertinent segment to this post, using selectively both the Rav Kafieh and Tibon versions and paraphrase the rest. The Hebrew below is the Tibon version at www.daat.co.il ) -
וכאשר ידע משה רבנו,
שלא נשאר לו מסך שלא קרעו, וכי נמשלו מעלות המידות כולן והמעלות הדיבריות
כולן. ביקש להשיג את האלוהים באמיתת מציאותו, אחר שלא נשאר מונע. אותה שעה
אמר:
הראני נא את כבודך (שמות ל"ג, י"ח).
והודיעו, יתברך, שאי אפשר לו דבר זה, להיותו שכל נמצא בחומר. רצוני לומר: באשר הוא אדם. והוא אמרו:
כי לא יראני האדם וחי (שמות ל"ג, כ')
הנה לא נשארה בינו ובין השגת האלוהים באמיתת מציאותו זולת מחיצת וילון אחת בהירה, והיא השכל האנושי שאינו נפרד. וגמל עליו האלוהים יתברך חסד, בתיתו לו מן ההשגה, אחר שאלתו, יותר ממה שהיה לו קודם שאלתו. והודיעו, שהתכלית אי אפשרית לו כל עוד שהוא בעל גשם. וכינה אמיתת ההשגה
בראיית פנים. כי האדם כשיראה פני חברו, הגיעה לנפשו צורתו ולא יערבבנו
בזולתו. אבל כשיראה אחוריו, ואם גם הבחינו באותה ראייה, אף על פי כן סופו
שיסופק בו ויערבבנו בזולתו כמו כן השגתו יתברך באמיתות היא, שיגיע לנפש מאמיתת מציאותו, שלא יהא שותף
לאותה מציאות שום נמצא אחר. עד שימצא בנפשו מציאותו קבועה ונבדלת ממה
שימצא בנפשו ממציאות שאר הנמצאים. ואי אפשר לאדם להשיג שעור השגה זה, אלא שהוא, עליו השלום, השיג מעט למטה מזה. והוא שנאמר בו:
וראית את אחורי (שמות ל"ג, כ"ג).
Moshe having understood that he had reached the ultimate human perfection (note that there is no self-modesty here, yet Moshe is the “Anav Mikol Adam” – knowing one’s self worth does not contradict humility), wanted to apprehend the essence of God. The answer he received was that it is impossible for a human being to achieve this, as man’s existence is materialistic. We are physical entities and therefore cannot grasp transcendence in its essence.
“He [God] informed him that this ultimate goal [apprehending the divine essence] is impossible whilst he is in a physical body. He metaphorically referred to the true apprehension of God’s essence as “seeing a face”, because when a person sees another person’s face, it leaves an imprint so that he does not confuse him with another. On the other hand, when he sees him only from the back, although he does recognize him during that sighting, he will eventually have doubts and confuse him with another. So too does true apprehension [of God] occur, when a person apprehends in his mind His true essence in such a way that no other existent shares that existence, to the point that he permanently establishes His existence in his mind so that His existence is different from the existence of all other existents. That level of apprehension is impossible. He, Moshe Rabbeinu, apprehended a level below this one and that is the meaning of “and you shall see my back”.”
Rambam is saying that a human being can never know with absolute certainty that what he is apprehending, what he is picturing in his mind as God, is really God and not another entity or a figment of his imagination. God is not physical therefore He does not have a face nor any other feature that when “seen” could identify Him just as we would identify an individual. God can only be identified as “being” different from the “being” of anything else. In other words to have absolute certainty that one apprehends God and not another, requires that one apprehend God’s “existence” as unique. The most a man can apprehend is that God exists but not even what “existence” in this context means. As we cannot “see”, or better, apprehend God’s essence because our minds are bound in materialism we cannot fathom existence in this context. There always remains a certain level of unknown and insecurity even to a man of Moshe Rabbeinu’s stature. Rambam however adds that although Moshe could not see God’s face, he reached a level of apprehension just below that. The implication is that he could still “confuse Him with another” because he could not fully apprehend the uniqueness of God’s “existence”.
In MT Hil Yesodei Hatorah 1:12 Rambam gives a slight variation -
והודיעו ברוך הוא מה שלא ידע אדם לפניו ולא יידע לאחריו, עד
שהשיג מאמיתת הימצאו דבר שנפרד הקדוש ברוך הוא בדעתו משאר הנמצאים, כמו
שייפרד אחד מן האנשים שראה אחוריו, והשיג כל גופו ומלבושו בדעתו משאר
האנשים; ועל דבר זה רמז הכתוב, ואמר "וראית, את אחוריי; ופניי, לא ייראו
The Blessed One informed him [Moshe] of something no other man before him knew nor [any man] after him will know. He apprehended about His essence a matter that differentiated God in his mind from other existents, just as he would differentiate a person from another person when he sees his back and apprehends his body and clothing in his mind [note: not his face]. That is what the verse signaled by saying “and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.”
Here Rambam is giving Moshe a level of security that comes when one is at the limit of human apprehension of the transcendent. When one meets another person and sees him only from behind, notices his body language and shape, notices his clothing but does not see his face and then meets him again in the same manner, he cannot be absolutely certain that it is the same person that he is seeing. Let us however imagine that this observer lives in a contained environment where he knows everyone that is there and discovers one detail that differentiates this person from all the others, knowing that no one else shares that feature, he still would not know how this person’s face looks but he will know it is that person and no other. In this presentation, although others, who do not know that particular detail that differentiates God from all other existents, are never sure that it is the same God they are meeting again, Moshe had no such doubt. Apparently, Moshe was able to identify something different in God’s “existence”, enough to, in his mind, separate God from any other existent, although he could not fully apprehend “existence” in this context.
Did Rambam change his mind? I do not know at this time how to explain this apparent contradiction. In upcoming posts, I will look at how Rambam addresses this issue in various other places and in the Moreh. Hopefully things will clarify as I move along.
In the seventh chapter, Rambam discusses the perfection of knowledge and character necessary for a person to acquire prophecy. The level of prophecy is commensurate with how perfected the person’s character is. (Interestingly, the level of perfection in character is what creates the variation between different prophets and not knowledge, but that belongs in a separate post.) Moshe Rabbeinu is seen as the paradigm of the limits of how high a human being can aspire to, when it comes to this dual perfection and consequently prophecy, yet he too had limits in apprehending God. To illustrate Rambam uses three verses in Shemot 33 (the weekly reading in two weeks) where Moshe asks to know God.
יח וַיֹּאמַר: הַרְאֵנִי נָא, אֶת-כְּבֹדֶךָ.
18 And he said: 'Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory.'
כ וַיֹּאמֶר, לֹא תוּכַל לִרְאֹת אֶת-פָּנָי: כִּי לֹא-יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם, וָחָי.
20 And He said: 'You cannot see My face, for man shall not see Me and live.'
כג וַהֲסִרֹתִי, אֶת-כַּפִּי, וְרָאִיתָ, אֶת-אֲחֹרָי; וּפָנַי, לֹא יֵרָאוּ. {פ}
23 And I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.'
Rambam explains this as follows: (I will translate only the pertinent segment to this post, using selectively both the Rav Kafieh and Tibon versions and paraphrase the rest. The Hebrew below is the Tibon version at www.daat.co.il ) -
וכאשר ידע משה רבנו,
שלא נשאר לו מסך שלא קרעו, וכי נמשלו מעלות המידות כולן והמעלות הדיבריות
כולן. ביקש להשיג את האלוהים באמיתת מציאותו, אחר שלא נשאר מונע. אותה שעה
אמר:
הראני נא את כבודך (שמות ל"ג, י"ח).
והודיעו, יתברך, שאי אפשר לו דבר זה, להיותו שכל נמצא בחומר. רצוני לומר: באשר הוא אדם. והוא אמרו:
כי לא יראני האדם וחי (שמות ל"ג, כ')
הנה לא נשארה בינו ובין השגת האלוהים באמיתת מציאותו זולת מחיצת וילון אחת בהירה, והיא השכל האנושי שאינו נפרד. וגמל עליו האלוהים יתברך חסד, בתיתו לו מן ההשגה, אחר שאלתו, יותר ממה שהיה לו קודם שאלתו. והודיעו, שהתכלית אי אפשרית לו כל עוד שהוא בעל גשם. וכינה אמיתת ההשגה
בראיית פנים. כי האדם כשיראה פני חברו, הגיעה לנפשו צורתו ולא יערבבנו
בזולתו. אבל כשיראה אחוריו, ואם גם הבחינו באותה ראייה, אף על פי כן סופו
שיסופק בו ויערבבנו בזולתו כמו כן השגתו יתברך באמיתות היא, שיגיע לנפש מאמיתת מציאותו, שלא יהא שותף
לאותה מציאות שום נמצא אחר. עד שימצא בנפשו מציאותו קבועה ונבדלת ממה
שימצא בנפשו ממציאות שאר הנמצאים. ואי אפשר לאדם להשיג שעור השגה זה, אלא שהוא, עליו השלום, השיג מעט למטה מזה. והוא שנאמר בו:
וראית את אחורי (שמות ל"ג, כ"ג).
“He [God] informed him that this ultimate goal [apprehending the divine essence] is impossible whilst he is in a physical body. He metaphorically referred to the true apprehension of God’s essence as “seeing a face”, because when a person sees another person’s face, it leaves an imprint so that he does not confuse him with another. On the other hand, when he sees him only from the back, although he does recognize him during that sighting, he will eventually have doubts and confuse him with another. So too does true apprehension [of God] occur, when a person apprehends in his mind His true essence in such a way that no other existent shares that existence, to the point that he permanently establishes His existence in his mind so that His existence is different from the existence of all other existents. That level of apprehension is impossible. He, Moshe Rabbeinu, apprehended a level below this one and that is the meaning of “and you shall see my back”.”
Rambam is saying that a human being can never know with absolute certainty that what he is apprehending, what he is picturing in his mind as God, is really God and not another entity or a figment of his imagination. God is not physical therefore He does not have a face nor any other feature that when “seen” could identify Him just as we would identify an individual. God can only be identified as “being” different from the “being” of anything else. In other words to have absolute certainty that one apprehends God and not another, requires that one apprehend God’s “existence” as unique. The most a man can apprehend is that God exists but not even what “existence” in this context means. As we cannot “see”, or better, apprehend God’s essence because our minds are bound in materialism we cannot fathom existence in this context. There always remains a certain level of unknown and insecurity even to a man of Moshe Rabbeinu’s stature. Rambam however adds that although Moshe could not see God’s face, he reached a level of apprehension just below that. The implication is that he could still “confuse Him with another” because he could not fully apprehend the uniqueness of God’s “existence”.
In MT Hil Yesodei Hatorah 1:12 Rambam gives a slight variation -
והודיעו ברוך הוא מה שלא ידע אדם לפניו ולא יידע לאחריו, עד
שהשיג מאמיתת הימצאו דבר שנפרד הקדוש ברוך הוא בדעתו משאר הנמצאים, כמו
שייפרד אחד מן האנשים שראה אחוריו, והשיג כל גופו ומלבושו בדעתו משאר
האנשים; ועל דבר זה רמז הכתוב, ואמר "וראית, את אחוריי; ופניי, לא ייראו
Here Rambam is giving Moshe a level of security that comes when one is at the limit of human apprehension of the transcendent. When one meets another person and sees him only from behind, notices his body language and shape, notices his clothing but does not see his face and then meets him again in the same manner, he cannot be absolutely certain that it is the same person that he is seeing. Let us however imagine that this observer lives in a contained environment where he knows everyone that is there and discovers one detail that differentiates this person from all the others, knowing that no one else shares that feature, he still would not know how this person’s face looks but he will know it is that person and no other. In this presentation, although others, who do not know that particular detail that differentiates God from all other existents, are never sure that it is the same God they are meeting again, Moshe had no such doubt. Apparently, Moshe was able to identify something different in God’s “existence”, enough to, in his mind, separate God from any other existent, although he could not fully apprehend “existence” in this context.
Did Rambam change his mind? I do not know at this time how to explain this apparent contradiction. In upcoming posts, I will look at how Rambam addresses this issue in various other places and in the Moreh. Hopefully things will clarify as I move along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)