Rambam and Aristotles - A Complex and Nuanced Relationship. (Part 4 of a Series)

Elyahu in a comment on a this post writes: (slightly edited)

“David,

I think the accusations were not far fetched at all. Unlike other thinkers, say R. Yehuda Halevi, Rambam's system of thought doesn't arise from the scriptures but rather the system dictates the scriptures' interpretations; a-priori. This approach can be demonstrated in both the MN, and the MT.

1. MN 2:25:
“WE do not reject the Eternity of the Universe, because certain passages in Scripture confirm the Creation; for such passages are not more numerous than those in which God is represented as a corporeal being; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable interpretation. We might have explained them in the same manner as we did in respect to the Incorporeality of God. We should perhaps have had an easier task in showing that the Scriptural passages referred to are in harmony with the theory of the Eternity of the Universe if we accepted the latter, than we had in explaining the anthropomorphisms in the Bible when we rejected the idea that God is corporeal.”

While there are many passages in the Tanach which describe God in corporeal terms, there are also many that describe him as abstract. Not to mention that the sages also insisted that he is abstract. However, it is very hard to find passages which describe the universe as Eternal.”


I believe that the comment warrants a post as an answer. I will first deal with this quote from MN and follow up with another post for the second proof Elyahu brings from MT.

Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that as Rambam compares the question of Eternity to corporeality as to texts that have to be reinterpreted to be in accord with the accepted belief, yet we do not find texts that argue for eternity. It must therefore be that Rambam interprets texts a-priori. It is true that there are very few verses that may be read as intimating an eternal universe. I do not see where Rambam claims otherwise in the passage above. He only addresses the verses that talk about Creation and says that he would have had an easier time interpreting them in accordance with an eternal universe if that had been proven. Where do you see a-priori interpretation here? I however believe that Rambam reads the scriptural verses in a way that is in harmony with science. There is no question about that. Thus if Eternal Universe were proven scientifically he would have had no problem interpreting the text to conform to that scientific fact. After all, there are a great many corporeal verses that he managed to reinterpret because corporeality is unacceptable.

I want to use this opportunity to further clarify how I see the issue of science and theology especially if we base our thinking on a medieval thinker like Rambam. The problem is where does science end and where does theology begin. As scientific knowledge advances, the transition point from science to theology recedes and some things that were considered to have only a theological explanation are shown to be scientific. The clearest example is the one I discuss about the thinking spheres. Until gravity was understood, the spheres were seen to be composed of a fifth element that could think and therefore self-propelled. Rambam therefore vehemently insists that when the passuk in Tehilim 19:2 says that the “heavens declare the glory of God” they are really speaking (MN2:5) and it is not an allegory.

“SCRIPTURE supports the theory that the spheres are animate and intellectual, i.e., capable of comprehending things. They are not, as ignorant persons believe, inanimate masses like fire and earth, but are, as the philosophers assert, endowed with life, and serve their Lord, whom they mightily praise and glorify; "The heavens declare the glory of God," etc. (Ps. xix. 2). It is a great error to think that this is a mere figure of speech: for the verbs "to declare" and "to relate," when joined together, are, in Hebrew, only used of intellectual beings.”

There are however certain theological concepts that by definition will never be provable scientifically no matter how advanced science becomes. Those theological concepts are therefore taught by tradition and scriptural texts that are indirectly affected by that position. Eternal Universe is one of those positions that can never be proven or refuted scientifically. We are dealing with pre-science. The reason that Jewish theology insists it is not eternal is because theology insists that God has will (Ratzon) and is not just the Platonic demiurge that has no choice or will. With this in mind, we can understand the next few sentences that follow the MN text Elyahu quotes above,

“For two reasons, however, we have not done so, and have not accepted the Eternity of the Universe. First, the Incorporeality of God has been demonstrated by proof: those passages in the Bible, which in their literal sense contain statements that can be refuted by proof, must and can be interpreted otherwise. But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; a mere argument in favor of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text, and explaining it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be supported by an equally good argument. Secondly, our belief in the Incorporeality of God is not contrary to any of the fundamental principles of our religion: it is not contrary to the words of any prophet. Only ignorant people believe that it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture: but we have shown that this is not the case: on the contrary, Scripture teaches the Incorporeality of God. If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion. We should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively”.

Rambam is thus saying first, “the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved”. Furthermore, theology, the foundation of our religion, teaches us about miracles, signs, reward and punishment which all are dependent on a God that has will and can chose how to act. Denying will to God is against these traditions. Accepting an eternal universe accomplishes just that, it takes will away from God. A universe that always existed does not require will to exist. We must therefore reject it and accept creation in time, which can never be proven or disproven by science no matter how far it advances. Rambam dedicates the whole chapter 2:15 to make the argument that shows why eternity of the universe is one of those questions that will never be resolved by science. He further shows that even Aristotle saw it that way and therefore used tentative language when he introduced the theory.

The question of whether creation in time was from absolute nothingness or from an eternal Materia Prima is another matter. From a theological point of view, Rambam can accept both positions because they both require will on the part of the Creator to create whether from nothingness or form the universe from a Materia Prima. Scientifically neither can be proved or disproved. He therefore admits the possibility that Creation was not from nothingness. He therefore sees no reason to interpret the scriptural verses. He reads them as is.

“If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (MN2:23), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion. This theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory. But there is no necessity for this expedient, so long as the theory has not been proved. As there is no proof sufficient to convince us, this theory need not be taken into consideration, or the other one; we take the text of the Bible literally, and say that it teaches us a truth which we cannot prove”.

Some refer to this last passage and claim that Rambam says that we should take the text literally at all times as long as there is no hard proof that it should be read otherwise. If what I said here is correct, and I am sure it is, the reverse is true. One reads the text literally only when it deals with something that is and never can be provable scientifically. If it is something we do not understand now, but it is conceivable that science one day may find a plausible explanation that may contradict the literal text, we must be cautious and not lock ourselves into a position that may prove embarrassing and problematic in the future. However, this last comment of Rambam shows that he did not interpret texts a-priori – “we take the text of the Bible literally, and say that it teaches us a truth which we cannot prove”. It is only when there are actual or potential conflicts with science that texts have to be read and interpreted with great caution so as to not lock ourselves into a position where theology and reality are in conflict. Why have so many of our contemporary leaders ignored this creating so much anxiety, pain and conflict in our community?

"Miracles" as Anomalies in Nature - The Will of God at Creation.

Basing himself on the Mishna Avot 5:5, Rambam sees all “miracles” as anomalies in nature. When HKBH put in place the rules of nature, these rules had in them the possibility for rare phenomena to occur under certain conditions. As Rambam explains in his commentary, God created water with the possible ability for it to flow upwards, against gravity. What or who triggers this anomalous phenomenon? Does it require the input of an outside sentient catalyst? Or does it occur naturally when certain conditions serendipitously[1] come together? As I read him, Rambam opts for the latter but with a twist – God’s will.

The concept of will when attributed to God is very complicated. I have discussed it at length in my article on Miracles (link available on sidebar) and I refer the interested reader to it. Summarizing, if we say that God wills miracles as necessary, reacting to human needs, we are lessening His omniscience. We are saying that He does not have the ability to foresee problems and has to step in to adjust His universe as it goes along. We therefore limit will to one time only – at creation – where all future events that require will were willed. Of course, the terms “at creation”, “were willed” are all equivocal terms that we, as humans, use to express ourselves. God is not time bound and to Him past, present and future are the same. It is only from our perspective that we assign time and even the concept of will to HKBH. Taking this into consideration we can say that all natural anomalies and when they will occur, when the proper conditions will come together for any one of them to occur, has been willed and put in place by God at creation.

If anomalies are natural events, what is miraculous about them? This brings us back to our treatise. Rambam the great teacher that he is, discusses in the treatise concepts that at first blush seem to be side issues and superfluous to the present discussion. It is only after reflection that we realize that it is in fact an integral part of the whole presentation. It is in this vein that almost as a throwaway, Rambam ends the treatise with a section about what defines miracles. He divides miracles into two general categories: those that are “naturally impossible” and those that are “naturally possible”.

Examples of the “naturally impossible” are the transformation of the staff into a serpent, the sinkhole at the Korach rebellion and the splitting of the sea.

הוא שהנפלאות פעמים יהיו בעניינים הנמנעים בטבע, כהתהפך המטה לנחש ושקיעת הארץ בעדת קרח ובקיעת הים

It is noteworthy that of these three examples, two, the sinkhole and serpent are mentioned in the Mishna Avot 5:5 as having been created at dusk on Friday of Creation. The third, the splitting of the sea, Rambam explains in his commentary on the Mishna that it was put into the nature of water at creation[2]. The word טבע is therefore not just nature in this context. It means regularly occurring natural phenomena as opposed to rare anomalies. Anomalies are part of the fabric of nature but are seen as “impossible” because they occur very rarely and therefore unpredictable or “impossible” - הנמנעים בטבע.

So what makes them into miracles? It is the timing. When they occur at the proper time and can be taken advantage of by people, they are seen as miracles. The word miracle in Hebrew is נס which can also translate “flag”. Rambam in MN 3:24 in a related discussion about נסיון – test – explains that it is like bringing up a flag on a flagpole, teaching the whole world a specific lesson. When a natural anomaly occurs at the right time for people to take advantage of, it teaches that God willed it at creation and that it is not just a coincidence, thus a miracle – נס. It also teaches that God wills. It reminds us that God willed the world into existence. It did not exist eternally together with a First Cause that had no will. That is the rationale for the Mitzvot, such as Pessach, other Yamim Tovim and those that require Zachor that demand we remember the miracles.

Now we can understand that “miracles”, natural anomalies that occur at propitious times, are not caused by some outside sentient catalyst. We see them as willed by God at creation. This only works if we accept creation from nothing which was willed by God. In an eternal world, where God is concomitant with it and has no will, the only other possible explanation for a propitious anomalous phenomenon would be magic or trickery.

People at that time all belonged to the Sabeans who believed that the world is eternal. They believed that God is the “spirit” of the sphere as we explained in the Moreh. Their belief necessitates the denial of miracles ascribing them to magic or trickery.

For such events to be seen as “miracles” they cannot be long lasting or they will lose their status as anomalies. Rambam makes the point at length here in the treatise and in his discussion of this in MN 2:29.

I said earlier that the fact that these anomalies happen at a propitious time makes us see them as miracles. In my article, I also showed that the ability of a prophet to predict and take advantage of these anomalies, expecting their occurrence and counting on them through intuitive or whatever other prophetic quality that allows for that, is part of this concept of miracles.

Not only anomalies teach us about God’s will. “Naturally possible” miracles do too.

I will discuss this in my next post.

---

[1] I added serendipitously because of MN 2:29 - For although the rod was turned into a serpent, the water into blood, the pure and noble hand into a leprous one, without the existence of any natural cause that necessitated this. The way I read the underlined is that the conditions that came together to create the anomaly were not necessitated but serendipitous thus attributable to the will of God at creation.

[2] . Rambam bases this on the Midrash Rabah Breishit 5:5

אמר ר' יוחנן

: תנאין התנה הקב"ה עם הים שיהא נקרע לפני ישראל, הדא הוא דכתיב (שמות יד

וישב הים לאיתנו,

לתנאו שהתנה עמו

אמר רבי ירמיה בן אלעזר:

לא עם הים בלבד התנה הקדוש ברוך הוא, אלא עם כל מה שנברא בששת ימי בראשית, הדא הוא דכתיב (ישעיה מה):

אני ידי נטו שמים וכל צבאם צויתי

The Heaven's Freedom of Choice.

We say that someone has freedom of choice when he has the freedom to choose between two actions or between action and inaction. It is also dependent on will, for without will there is no action. We have to will ourselves to act. Therefore, action that is caused by will is seen as resulting from choice – the choice or decision to will. So what about nature? Can we assign will and choice to forces of nature? Medieval philosophers, detecting a tendency in laws of nature to be constructive by promoting survival of the whole of existence, saw that as a kind of will – the will to survive. Although the forces of nature are unchanging and static, the survival pattern that is detected in them, allowed the philosophers to say that they have a will and choice. Of course, it is nothing like human choice and will but equivocally the same terms may be used.

To make sense of this way of thinking we have to differentiate between nature and forces of nature. The philosophers differentiate between Chomer and Tzura – Matter and Form. Everything we know and can touch and feel is composed of both Matter, which is the physical component and Form, which is the underlying concept of that object. Matter is the physical component of existence and the forces of nature that make the physical come into being are the Form. When the philosophers say that the spheres have a mind, will and choice, they say so because they see them as the distant cause or the underlying concept behind all the Forms that make up our physical existence. They are the distant cause for all Forms that interact with Matter because they are the source of movement and change. I am not knowledgeable enough in Physics to translate this into a contemporary scientific presentation but from the little I do know from general readings on the subject, I can visualize it in my mind, and I think I can make sense of it. Commenters that are more knowledgeable are welcome to enlighten us further. Anyone that feels like elaborating is welcome to propose a guest post on the subject.

I also see all this as a way of looking at things rather than an empirically provable fact. The interesting thing about this outlook is that it is only a small step away from a “spiritual” understanding of what moves things. Going from concepts that seem to underlie existence as having a tendency and therefore a will, to semi-physical entities that are the underlying cause of everything is no more than crossing a fine line. Crossing that fine line however is idolatry, “the core of Avodah Zara” Rambam is talking about and discussed in the preceding post.

“We have already explained that the term "angel" is a homonym, and is used of the intellectual beings, the spheres, and the elements: for all these are engaged in performing a divine command. But do not imagine that the Intelligences and the spheres are like other forces which reside in bodies and act by the laws of nature without being conscious of what they do. The spheres and the Intelligences are conscious of their actions, and select by their own free will the objects of their influence, although not in the same manner as we exercise free will and rule over other things, which only concern temporary beings… These passages show that angels are conscious of what they do, and have free will in the sphere of action entrusted to them, just as we have free will within our province, and in accordance with the power given to us with our very existence. The difference is that what we do is the lowest stage of excellence, and that our influence and actions are preceded by non-action; whilst the Intelligences and the spheres always perform that which is good, they contain nothing except what is good and perfect, as will be shown further on, and they have continually been active from the beginning.” (MN 2:7)

The fact that the “intelligences” and spheres perform only what is good, that in itself is considered to be a choice and in poetic language, they are choosing to follow God’s will. This is the meaning of the Birchot Kryat Shema at Shacharit “Vekulam Mekablim Aleihem Ol Malchut Shamayim” – they [God’s servants or tools – the forces of nature] all accept upon themselves the yoke of the kingdom of heaven - and the rest of the Bracha.

“Scripture supports the theory that the spheres are animate and intellectual, i.e., capable of comprehending things. They are not, as ignorant persons believe, inanimate masses like fire and earth, but are endowed with life, as the philosophers assert, and serve their Lord, whom they mightily praise and glorify… The opinion of Aristotle, that the spheres are capable of comprehension and conception, is in accordance with the words of our prophets and our theologians or Sages. The philosophers further agree that this world below is governed by influences emanating from the spheres, and that the latter comprehend and have knowledge of the things which they influence. This theory is also met with in Scripture [the stars and all the host of heaven] "which the Lord thy God hath allotted them to all the peoples" (Deut. iv. 19), that is to say, the stars, which God appointed to be the means of governing His creatures, and not the objects of man's worship.” (MN 2:5)

If we were to read this last quotation without the preamble of the earlier one, it would seem that Rambam is assigning a “spiritual” kind of quality to the spheres and stars. He however, very subtly, shows us that although the plain poetic text would seem to suggest such a possibility, it in reality means no more than how the philosophers understood the forces emanating from the heavens. It is in this context that we meet again the verse in Devarim 6:19 as an example of how one has to read such a text. Rambam again reiterates his understanding that it refers to the stars being the cause and source of all physical occurrences, the natural force that moves the physical world and not spiritual forces as understood by many.

Next, I will analyze the last Rambam I know that addresses this verse in his Iggeret Techyat Hametim.

Is There Purpose and Finality to our Existence?

When we look at man, we see that he can only exist if all the conditions necessary for his survival are in place. Any small deviation such as the distance of earth from the sun would not have allowed for the appearance of man. We also find that same exquisite balance in the interrelationships of all the components of the universe. Looking from the point of view of each component, there is a tendency to see everything outside it as being there for its own existence. Man, the great narcissist, takes it for granted that everything is there to serve him. Of course, this is preposterous. In the evolutionary biological system we exist in, each component that adapts to its environment survives while the rest perish. Each component is wired in a way that it can adapt and survive as a species. Man is no different.

However, we also can see a much larger system where everything is wired for the survival of the species and of the whole universe of species in their interrelationship with each other. Looking at this whole existence from the outside, can we discern a hierarchy?

We know that the world we live in evolved from the original cosmic soup systematically. It went from the inorganic to the organic and eventually to being populated by conscious and sentient beings. If the latter development can be seen as an improvement then, in addition to survival, we can also detect an underlying push towards perfection. The combination of the built in “instinct” for survival and improvement gives us a sense that perfection is the ultimate goal. That becomes the basis for the elitist idea that all is here for humankind and humankind is here for the more perfected human being. We thus have a hierarchy going from lesser perfection to the perfect - man. It fits with our perception of our universe. This is how I understand Rambam in MN 3:13 –

“I infer from the words of Aristotle that according to his opinion the ultimate finality of these species is the preservation of the course of genesis and destruction. This course is absolutely necessary for the successive formation of material objects, because individual beings formed of matter cannot be permanent. Still the production of the best and the most perfected thing that is possible is generated from it. For the ultimate purpose [in these productions] is to arrive at perfection. Now it is clear that man is the most perfect being formed of matter; he is the last and most perfect of earthly beings. Accordingly, even if it is said that all sub lunar beings exist for man’s sake that would be true from this point of view. I mean because the movement of changeable things exists for the sake of coming to be in order for what is as perfect as it is possible to be should come about.”

It is only in this context and in this conditional and tentative sense, that Rambam sees man as the final end of the sub lunar world. The sense I get is that now that sentience exists, perfection has been reached. If perfection was the original goal of existence and thus creation, that goal has now been attained and no further evolving is necessary. To me this is one of the ideas that Shabbat stands for and it always comes to mind when we say

מִזְמוֹר שִׁיר לְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת: טוֹב לְהֹדוֹת לַיהֹוָה וּלְזַמֵּר לְשִׁמְךָ עֶלְיוֹן: לְהַגִּיד בַּבֹּקֶר חַסְדֶּךָ וֶאֱמוּנָתְךָ
בַּלֵּילוֹת: עֲלֵי-עָשׂוֹר וַעֲלֵי-נָבֶל עֲלֵי
הִגָּיוֹן בְּכִנּוֹר: כִּי שִׂמַּחְתַּנִי יְהֹוָה
בְּפָעֳלֶךָ בְּמַעֲשֵׂי יָדֶיךָ אֲרַנֵּן: מַה-גָּדְלוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ יְהֹוָה מְאֹד עָמְקוּ מַחְשְׁבֹתֶיךָ:

This however does not address the larger question of what is the purpose and finality of our existence. We can explain the mechanism and the software that runs the system but why is there is a system in the first place? Why was there a Big Bang? If the cause was a “quantum singularity”, borrowing from Star Trek, there is no point in looking for a reason or purpose for our existence; we are just here! If however, we go the Revelation route and accept that what we are told is the correct ontological perspective, namely that this existence is created by God, one may think that we must know the reason for creation. Considering that man is the most perfected thing, he must be the reason why everything came into being. Another series of questions though come to mind - why is man here? Is he here to worship God? What purpose does his worshipping God accomplish? What does God get out of his worship?

The truth is that the question has no answer. There is no difference if we are here because of a “quantum singularity” or because God created us. We do not know why we are here and we cannot know that. There is however, a difference between the two possibilities namely whether existence was willed or just happened as a natural event. If we see coming into existence a “quantum singularity” it must be a natural consequence of the First Cause, the non- contingent Entity. In this scenario, there is no will or thought. There just “IS” and we just “ARE” and there is no reason to think that there is a purpose or goal for anything. The concept of God in this scenario is just a necessary existent without any other attribute. God is the God of the philosophers.

The reason we do not accept this scenario is not scientific or empirical but because Revelation teaches us the correct way to look at our existence. Revelation tells us that the world was created in time, that at some point it was willed. Revelation tells us that this non-contingent Entity has will and thought and has willed us into existence. Revelation does not tell us and we do not know why we were created although there must be a reason for there cannot be will without reason.

“Actions are divided as regards their object into four classes; they are futile actions, frivolous actions, vain actions, or good and excellent actions… After having explained this division, I contend that no intelligent person can assume that any of the actions of God can be in vain, futile, or frivolous. According to our view and the view of all that follow the Law of Moses, all actions of God are "exceedingly good." Thus Scripture says, "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31)… For although we believe that God created the Universe in time, none of our scholars and none of our men of knowledge believe that this came about through the will and nothing else. For they say that His wisdom, which we are unable to comprehend, necessitated the existence of this world as a whole at the moment when it came into existence, and that the selfsame immutable wisdom necessitated non existence before the world came into existence.” (MN 3:25)

Summarizing, there is an internal raison d’etre for the universe and its components - survival and perfection. We also know that there must be a reason for the whole of existence. We do not know that reason nor can we expect to ever know it. How does this insight affect our daily life? Is there a practical outcome from all this cogitation? That will hopefully be the subject of my next post.

Note: When I refer to Revelation, I mean the teachings of Torah. Outside the Dogma of God’s existence and unity, the other Ikarim or Dogmas proposed by Rambam are based on Revelation and are ontological. They are metaphysical conclusions that cannot be arrived at through empirical, scientific or historical proofs. They are teachings of a way of looking at our existence and reality as religious people. The only other exception is Revelation itself. I believe (note emphasis) that Rambam understands prophecy to be empirically provable and exists at all times to all men, if not in actu at least in potentia. If you are interested further, follow the Prophecy label on my blog.

Shabbat Shalom.

A Maimonidean Perspective contrasted with general belief systems.

A very knowledgeable commenter who calls himself Technician left the following comment on my post about Design. I am posting it as is. For those accustomed to Maimonidean discourse it will be clear. I will however address this comment over a series of posts, agree with many, disagree or reinterpret some and hopefully at the end of the day some more clarity will come out of it. [My edits are in brackets.]

I think you need to spell it out slowly.

Premise 1 – People fear God

Premise 2 - Lucretius and the Epicureans- say that all is random and chance based on the movement of atoms.

Conclusion – there is no need to fear any gods acting in the natural order

P1 - Al-Razi – Aristotle’s fixed world is wrong, the Epicureans are true, and one [cannot] gain anything ethical from the natural order

P2 – Saadyah- Olam Haba will be the place where things will show their order

P3 – Modern Science- we agree with Al-Razi

P4 – Modern atheists say religion is unethical

P5 – We are still scared and need guidance- the random world is scary

P6 - Religious folk say there is no natural ethics, hence one needs a non-rational source of ethics

Conclusion – we need to create an absurd religion outside of the natural order. Torah is now a non-natural lifestyle keeping you ethical. Hashem punishes us the way Zeus punished.

Maimonides

P1 – there is a fixed Aristotelian natural order. God at the minimum is Aristotle’s first cause.

P2 – this natural order is the best of all possible worlds

P3 – we see that the natural order is ethical

P4 – this ethic is labeled “God’s attributes of Action”

P5 – acting ethically imitates God – meaning the attributes of action in the natural order.

P6 – Our goal is to create a virtuous society based on reason.

P7 According to Ibn Tibbon, Radak, Shem Tov, Herman Cohen, and even Isadore Twersky – this is for creating a virtuous society through ethics not ritual. Ritual mizvot are for the betterment of society – tikkun haguf – tikkun hamedinah- not to imitate God.

P8– Meiri, Soloveitchik, Fox, Hartman and other halakhic thinkers connect the mizvot to intimating [imitating] God.

Conclusion1 - therefore the epicureans are wrong about the world as random science, Saadyah is wrong because mizvot have a this worldly reward, religious ethics that are not natural are wrong.

Conclusion2: Mizvot are the means to create a virtuous society

Conclusion3: Providence is part of the natural order

Meshekh Hokhmah

P1 most religion is emotional, fearful, and imagination – including Hasidim and Jewish folk ways

P2 Judaism through Maimonides is rational

Conclusion1: We should choose a rational Torah

Conclusion 2 Even gentiles should choose the rational – and any place they are rational is ipso facto a following of the 7 laws of Noah (no specific Torah connection needed)

I did not include every premise and many of them are subject to multiple interpretations, but this may be a start. The modern world is Epicurean and we look for meaning by returning to ancient fears. Maimonides has a fixed world and mizvot let us follow the natural pattern.

Technician

Free will or God?

The Gemara in Yoma 38b says:

תלמוד בבלי יומא לח ע"ב

אמר ריש לקיש: מאי דכתיב +משלי ג+ אם ללצים הוא יליץ ולענוים יתן חן. בא לטמא - פותחין לו, בא לטהר - מסייעין אותו.

Resh Lakish explains the verse: If it concerns the scorners, He scorns them, but unto the humble He gives grace - If someone wants to defile himself they open the door; if someone wants to become pure they help him.

Who is the “they”?

Rashi explains:
רש"י מסכת יומא דף לח עמוד ב

כיון שבא אדם לטמא - להיות רשע.
פותחין לו - פתח הטומאה ליכנס בו, מספיקין בידו, ואין מונעין ממנו מן השמים לעכבו.

If someone wants to defile himself – to become evil – they open the door to impurity to allow him to enter it. Heaven does not stop him.

Rashi’s is the common understanding of this popular saying. “They” is God (Heaven). God does not stop a person when he wants to defile himself but helps him when he wants to improve himself.

What exactly does this mean? Especially if we accept that we have free will, what part does God play in our choices?

Rambam, explains this as follows:


רמב"ם תשובה ו:ה

מהו זה שאמר דוד טוב וישר ה' על כן יורה חטאים בדרך ידרך ענוים וגו', זה ששלח נביאים להם מודיעים דרכי ה' ומחזירין אותן בתשובה, ועוד שנתן בהם כח ללמוד ולהבין, שמדה זו בכל אדם שכל זמן שהוא נמשך בדרכי החכמה והצדק מתאוה להן ורודף אותם, והוא מה שאמרו רז"ל בא לטהר מסייעין אותו כלומר ימצא עצמו נעזר על הדבר,

What did David mean when he said, "Good and upright is the Lord - therefore He instructs sinners in the way, He directs the humble in justice, and He shows the meek His way"? This is referring to the Prophets who were sent to publicize the ways of God and to make the people return by repentance.

It could also mean that people have been given the power to learn and understand. This is characteristic of any person: Whenever he follows the ways of wisdom and righteousness he desires them and pursues them. That is the saying of the Rabbis “if someone wants to become pure, they help him” i.e. that one will find oneself helped in this matter. (Courtesy of Jonathan Baker with my edits).

In other words “finding oneself helped in this matter” means that it is the characteristic of any person. God is not involved other than having created man all the way at the beginning of time with this characteristic of wanting to pursue wisdom and righteousness. “They” is human nature! Free will has been preserved!

But you shall love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD

Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843-1926) has a fascinating approach to the following verse in this week’s Parsha:

, וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ: אֲנִי, יְהוָה.
but you shall love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD.

The first thing that comes to mind is what is the connection of loving your neighbor with Hashem? It is as if loving a fellow Jew proves the existence of God.

The idea that God is an entity that willed everything into existence in time is a basic belief in Judaism. The concept of a personal God that man can relate to makes sense only if that entity we worship has freedom of choice and will. The God of the philosophers, the First Cause in its pure concept, has no choice or will. It is just the “eminence grise” that is out there and explains how everything is here. We arrive at that concept by looking at the universe and noting that all things are contingent and therefore there must be a non-contingent entity out there. However if we look a little deeper we notice that the continued existence of the universe is dependent on how it evolved and made the right decisions to survive. There seems to be a built in mechanism that insures its survival. When we put living things into the equation, the very minute variations in the development of earth that would have made that impossible, the sense that there is an entity that programmed all this becomes stronger. It may not have been a willing entity - but an entity it is. When we add man into the equation, a being that has free will and choices, the appearance of a being that can think and make choices having developed by chance becomes counter intuitive. The God of the philosophers becomes a more distant possibility. Of course there is no definitive proof and the scientifically minded will bring a series of endless arguments to show how this is just conjecture and not provable. I agree – it is not provable. It is however also not refutable. As we are dealing with a non-material Entity, science which deals with the physical universe cannot show that a willing God cannot exist. Thus our intuition supported by Revelation and our history allows us to rationally believe in a unique God that willed and created everything in time. A God that is good because He put in place the mechanisms and the wherewithal that existence becomes permanent and self-sustaining.

The strongest argument for a willing God is man but an even more compelling one is the Jew. The survival of a nation through all the turmoil and persecutions remaining a unit that carries on for thousands of years against all odds is the greatest indication that there is a God who wills things. How else can we explain our continuity, in the face of all the challenges, if not that we are an integral part of a long term plan put into place by an Eternal, Unique but also a choosing and willing God? The Torah speaking for God is telling us that you yourself and your fellow Jew prove that I exist. Your existence and survival proves that there is order, thought and planning and therefore I am the God, the personal God that you are searching and trying to find. Love yourself and your fellow Jew. (Note that Rambam tells us that real love is a function of intimate knowledge).

Disclaimer: RMS like all great thinkers writes in a way that is understood by each of us according to his level. I have written this based on my understanding of the Meshech Chochma. I suggest that those familiar with Hebrew read it in its original. It is a beautiful piece worth the effort.

Shabbat Shalom.

Must one believe that God created the World? Is it an Ikkar - Dogma?

In the Sinai Journal volume 137 year 69, there is an interesting article by Rav Aryeh Leib Feldman, where he cites comments of Rabbeinu Nissim of Gerona (Rabbi Nissim ben Reuven (1320 - 1380, Hebrew: נסים בן ראובן) also known as RaN, in his Pirush on Torah, in which he defends Rashi against Ramban’s criticisms. The first one addresses the famous first Rashi in Chumash that quotes R. Yitzchak as asking why the Torah starts with Breishit. After all it is a book of laws rather than a history or philosophical treatise. Ramban is surprised by the question. He argues that the Torah has to tell us that God created the world because that is the basis of all our beliefs and anyone that does not accept it is a heretic.

Before I explain Ran’s answer it is necessary to understand Rambam’s position on this as it is the underlying argument in Ran’s exposition. As I have discussed many times in earlier posts and in my two articles in Hakirah, Rambam holds that there is only one thing that can be proven empirically in Jewish theology; the existence of God as the First Cause. By definition, once that is proven, His uniqueness, perfection and omnipotence are self-evident conclusions. Everything else that we as Jews believe about God, are ontological explanations based on revelation, the Torah and other theological considerations. That God has Will and that He willed existence and the universe at a certain time are not self-evident axioms. They are accepted by us because they fit our understanding of what revelation has taught us. The reason I say fit rather than saying revelations teaches us, is because Nevuah is an interpretable medium. Its use of language is flexible enough to allow it to be adapted to a broad range of ideas. The rule that governs how far we can interpret is quite simple; as long as the revelatory statement cannot be overturned by empirical evidence, it stands as is.

The fact that God is the First Cause of everything, that everything depends on His existence while His existence is totally independent of anything else, can be proven empirically without the need for revelation. That statement alone already forces us to accept His uniqueness, His singularity and thus His unknowability. In other words He is transcendent and nothing about Him, except the effects He caused, can be known. Man from time immemorial, in his quest for answers to his existential questions, has engaged in a search for this great unknowable entity that we call God. Revelation, a natural human capability that we learned with time how to use, teaches us that certain beliefs, ontological explanations, are helpful in that quest. That God has Will is the most fundamental and sine qua non of all religious experience. What we are saying is that for us to understand the existence we observe, had we been the ones who caused it to exist; we would have had to have willed it. As will to us is time dependent, at one time we had not yet willed what we are willing now, so too we say that God willed existence other than His own at a certain time. As God is perfect by definition, He exercised His will only one time. That allows us to accept that everything we experience is the result of that one time primordial Will that God exercised. Rambam makes this point very clear in MN 2:25:

“Know that with a belief in the creation of the world in time, all the miracles become possible and the law becomes possible, and all questions that may be asked on this subject, vanish. Thus it might be said: Why did God give prophetic revelation to this one and not to that? Why did God give this law to this particular nation, and why did He not legislate to the other? Why did He legislate at this particular time, and why did He not legislate before it or after? Why did He impose these commandments and these prohibitions? Why did He privilege the prophet with the miracles mentioned in relation to him and not with some others? What was God’s aim in giving this law? Why did He not, if such was His purpose, put the accomplishment of the commandments and the non-transgression of the prohibitions into our nature? The answer to all these questions would be: He wanted it this way; or His wisdom required it this way. And just as He brought the world into existence having the form it has, when He wanted to, without us knowing His will with regard to this or in what wisdom there was in His particularizing the forms of the world and the time of its creation- in the same way we do not know His will or the exigency of His wisdom that caused all the matters, about which questions have been posed above, to be particularized.”

When I say that God has Will is not empirically provable, I am saying that as the First Cause, we can understand God as an entity that is the underlying “concept” of the universe. He and the universe (existence) have eternally been there and will be so eternally. The idea that there is a First Cause is not a temporal statement; it is an explanation of how things exist. They have existed that way eternally. This understanding negates all religious experience as there is no possible relationship with such a God. What relationship can one have with an entity that has no will?

The idea that God having Will is the basis for all Jewish theological discourse is accepted by all the Rishonim. Their arguments are in its application in our analyses of our existence. When reading Rashi’s question, Ramban’s reaction was that once we accept that God has Will does it not include the belief that He created the world in time? Isn’t the belief that God created the world in time a necessary and fundamental idea that underlies the whole Torah and the laws it promulgates? Is it therefore not self-evident why the Torah introduces the idea of Creation before it proceeds to giving laws?

RaN in his Pirush on the Torah, excerpted in the above article, argues that we could accept eternal existence, that God is not the Creator; He can be seen as the First Cause, as long as we accept that He has Will. It is not necessary to assume that because He has Will he must have created. Will and Creation are not synonymous. Although there cannot be Creation without Will, there can be Will without Creation. As long as the Torah teaches us that God has Will and exercises it, the whole Torah makes sense. Rashi’s question is therefore why did the Torah choose to tell us that God has Will by telling us that He is the Creator? Why did it not find it sufficient to tell us this important idea starting with the Exodus? Why is the ontological understanding of that event not enough for the belief that God has Will and exercises it? Why is the Mitzvah of Hachodesh Hazeh Lachem which resulted from that experience not enough to teach that God has Will and exercises it?[1]

RaN then makes a very important statement. The fact that God created the world is not a dogma that we must accept on its own. As long as we accept that God has Will, the rest of the Torah would stand without a problem. An eternal uncreated universe does not negate Will to God. It therefore cannot be a dogma without which Judaism cannot stand. However once the Torah tells us that God did create the world in time, denying it makes one deny a statement in the Torah. That in itself is heresy.

This discussion gives us an insight of how RaN saw the Ikkarim and I believe is how Rambam saw them. They are not arbitrary stand-alone dogma. They are what Rambam understood to be fundamental ideas without which the rest of Jewish theology and practice have no meaning. When later Rishonim such as RaN followed by his pupils R. Hasdai ben Abraham Crescas (Hebrew: חסדאי קרשקש) (born in Barcelona, Catalonia c. 1340 - 1410/1411) and R. Yosef Albo (15th century Spain) argued against the Ikkarim, they were arguing that Judaism can be understood rationally with a smaller number of dogma. In other words they tried to show that the Torah can stand on its own independently of certain dogma. They were not denying the validity of the beliefs nor the fact that someone who does not believe in them is stepping outside the boundaries of Jewish theology. They just argued that if one does not accept several of Rambam’s Ikkarim the rest of Judaism does not crumble.




[1] This argument has implication on how we understand miracles. Rambam who does not see God exercising His Will all the time, just at Creation, sees the Exodus as the result of that original Will at Creation. Ramban and His school of thought see God exercising Will constantly. But this is a lengthy discussion for another time.

The Dangers of a Revelatory Experience - The Egel Hazahav - The Golden Calf-

I just relearned a beautiful Meshech Chochma by R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk on this week’s Parsha which shows us how to interpret what seems to be an innocuous saying of the Rabbis. In its superficial reading it sounds like a myth. Properly understood it teaches an incredibly deep philosophical idea.

I want to caution that R. Meir Simcha himself, when he addresses these deep philosophical ideas writes in a quite obfuscating way. It requires interpretation and what follows is my understanding of what he wrote. There is no guarantee that it is the only reading.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף קד עמוד א

ואמר רב חסדא: כתב שבלוחות נקרא מבפנים ונקרא מבחוץ, כגון נבוב - בובן, רהב – בהר סרו - ורס.

Rav Hisda said the writing of the Luchot could be read from the inside and from the outside e.g. נבוב - בובן, רהב – בהר סרו – ורס

The first thing that catches one’s attention is that the words that R. Hisda uses as examples do not appear in the Luchot. Rashi notes that and comments that the choice of words is unintentional and meant to convey only examples of how a reading from two sides would appear. But even more baffling is what is R. Hisda telling us? What significance does this curiosity have?

R. Meir Simcha explains that there are two approaches to finding and understanding God. The regular approach which was followed by Avraham is to contemplate the universe and in analyzing cause and effect arrive at the conclusion that there is a First Cause that causes everything without Himself being caused. The laws of morality and ethics can also be learned from nature, what is commonly referred to as natural law and morality. It is a searching process from the bottom up. We look at our existence and surroundings to find God and establish laws.

The other approach is the revelatory experience similar to the one the Jewish people experienced at Sinai. They experienced God through revelation and received laws from God. The difference between the two is that when it occurs through revelation it becomes clear that God has Will, having willed existence just like He willed this revelatory experience. Apprehending God as having Will and choice makes one imagine tools that He uses to create and maintain what He created. Those are the ideas behind creation, the laws of nature set in place by God, the separate intellects or what we refer to as angels. They all are separate entities put in place by God to make things happen.

On the other hand finding the First Cause from the bottom up does not necessarily prove that God has choice. He can be seen as Aristotle saw Him, a spiritual power behind physicality. The spiritual and physical are interdependent and both are there eternally without any choice. Spinoza developed a completely atheistic philosophy on that basis. It is through revelation that we conclude that God, the First Cause, created in time and chose to will everything. Revelation is an adjunct and not the sole basis for an understanding of existence and God. When one arrives at God through this combination of intellectual development and revelation, it is illogical to confuse the First Cause with the laws of nature which are its effects.

It is therefore the miraculous revelatory experience, without a rigorous understanding of First Cause as a logical necessity, which allows for a misunderstanding of where everything begins.

R. Hisda refers to these two approaches to God using the metaphor of reading from the inside and from the outside or from the bottom up and the top down. Some, like Moshe and those close to him, experienced revelation as an addition to their bottom up understanding. Others, the Jewish people, the masses having just been liberated from Egyptian slavery, having been immersed in an idolatrous society that knew many gods and who saw the forces of nature as gods were not ready to grasp a transcendental unique God. Having experienced God through revelation only, without the proper philosophical grounding, they could not distinguish between the separate intellects, the angels that they perceived as the forces that guide existence and their Creator. They confused the Creator with His creations and that was the cause of their mistake in demanding an idol to replace Moshe. God cannot be represented because He is outside nature; He is a singularity, the only Entity that is not caused. It is when one confuses God with nature, when He is no longer seen as transcendental, that there is a need to represent that idea with a symbol. The golden calf was a representation of this mistaken concept. It was thus the experience of apprehending the existence of angels, separate intellects in medieval philosophic parlance, through revelation and the accompanying misconceptions that was at the root of the Egel.

Where do we find in the Torah an allusion to the revelation of separate intellects? Where does it mention anything about the people “seeing” angels which led to their misconception? R. Hisda tells us that if we read carefully the verse in Shemot 27:8 describing the construction of the Altar, we will find a clear allusion to that experience.

ח נְבוּב לֻחֹת, תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ: כַּאֲשֶׁר הֶרְאָה אֹתְךָ בָּהָר, כֵּן יַעֲשׂוּ. {ס}
8 Hollow with planks shall thou make it; as he has shown you in the mount, so shall they make it. {S}

What is intriguing is that whereas in Shemot 26:30[1] and 25:40[2], in the discussion of the Mishkan and the menorah respectively, the reference is unspecific, here it is very specific; “as he has shown you in the mount”. “He” being their perception of a specific entity that showed them the altar. Just as angels represent the concept of laws of nature so do they represent the concept behind the construction of the altar. Clearly the Torah is alluding that the people “saw” angels at Sinai. There was a revelatory experience that let them “see” the significance of the construction of the Mizbeach just as they “saw” the general concepts underlying God’s world

Note how two out of the three words R. Hisda used as examples for his metaphor appear in this verse – נְבוּב and בָּהָר. The third word סָרוּ appears in Shemot 32:8

ח סָרוּ מַהֵר, מִן-הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִם--עָשׂוּ לָהֶם, עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה; וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ-לוֹ, וַיִּזְבְּחוּ-לוֹ, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
8 they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed unto it, and said: This is thy god, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.'

In other words R. Hisda was telling us that the cause for the people’s mistake in making the Egel was their apprehending through revelation, philosophical and metaphysical concepts of God and the laws of nature that make up our existence, without proper grounding in philosophy. The mistake came about because they could not differentiate God the Creator from His creations which they so vividly “saw”.

I believe this to be an exemplary interpretation of what is referred to as Aggadah and shows how much thought went into a superficially simplistic statement. The literal minded reader will not be harmed and understand it as he is wont to; literally. He will be filled with wonderment about the miraculous tablets that were found with words carved into them from side to side. Presenting that reader with the concept of separate intellects, laws of nature, God’s will and methods of contemplation would have no meaning to him. R. Meir Simcha or other scholars of his caliber, on the other hand, would be able to decipher the message and share it with those who can see the truth behind it.

In the posts below I showed how Rambam interprets other verses and comments of Chazal in a similar vein.

http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/02/revelation-at-sinai-white-sapphire.html
http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-on-revelation-jewish-nobles.html

Clearly R. Meir Simcha had Rambam in front of his eyes when he wrote this piece.


[1]
ל וַהֲקֵמֹתָ, אֶת-הַמִּשְׁכָּן: כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ--אֲשֶׁר הָרְאֵיתָ, בָּהָר. {ס}
30 And thou shall rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which hath been shown thee in the mount. {S}

[2]
מ וּרְאֵה, וַעֲשֵׂה: בְּתַבְנִיתָם--אֲשֶׁר-אַתָּה מָרְאֶה, בָּהָר. {ס}
40 And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount. {S}

Miracles: Ramban and Rambam - two opposing views.

Continuing with the comparison of the theology of the two great medieval Jewish thinkers, Rambam and Ramban, I would like to contrast their respective understanding of miracles.

Ramban’s view: As we saw earlier Ramban sees nature as a manipulated system. To the general population of the world, the non-Jewish, the stars control and run nature. The Jewish population[1], the one that follows the Mitzvot, God controls directly through a constant series of hidden miracles which also feel like nature. In reality every minute happening in the life of a Jew is the result of a specific decision of God. (The same goes for the non-Jew just replacing God with the stars as His intermediates.) It just so happens that normally things follow a certain pattern which cloaks the involvement of the spiritual and disguises itself as nature. That is just an illusion. That illusion is unmasked when the unexpected happens. The unexpected being unquestionably the result of a specific decision of a thinking entity, proves that what we see as a pattern is in reality not so. The miraculous, the unexpected, the anomalous proves without any doubt that God (or some other power such as the stars) is needed constantly to decide on every little occurrence whether it seems to have a pattern or not. The fact that God has the power to override the decision of the stars is what makes Him the superpower, the ultimate arbiter. It is only because He so desires that the stars run things. They are just His servants. Ramban sees this power to control every little detail constantly, as the greatest attribute of God. When the Torah says
יב וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ-מִצְרַיִם, בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, וְהִכֵּיתִי כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, מֵאָדָם וְעַד-בְּהֵמָה; וּבְכָל-אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים, אֲנִי יְהוָה.
12 For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD.
Ramban comments that the gods of Egypt are the stars that control it. God took away their power to control the Egyptians. It is just this ability to overrule stars that proves that “I am the Lord”.[2]

Rambam’s view: Rambam argues that a perfect Creator does not need to constantly adjust things. It is demeaning to God to see Him as unable to set things in motion making sure that everything will fall in place at the right time and moment. In fact there is an underlying predeterminism in the universe. It is part of the conundrum of how man can have Bechira (freedom of choice) when God knows the future. Rambam addresses this by arguing that God’s knowledge is just a word we use for lack of a better one. The question therefore is only a problem relative to our perspective but in reality it is like comparing two completely different concepts. (I have posted on this a little and will address more in the future). Therefore from God’s perspective everything that will happen has already happened. The universe follows natural rules set down by God at creation. The singularities which are what we see as miracles have been set in place and it is up to humans to find out about them and use them. A prophet is such a man, who through the study of physics coupled with metaphysics, senses or knows about the upcoming singular event and takes advantage of it. That is what happened at Kryat Yam Suf and all the other miracles.[3] From this perspective miracles have just the opposite effect; they make one question God’s omnipotence. It is therefore a good idea to try to explain them as natural events. Thus Rambam’s comment in MN 2:29:

“He made it part of these properties [nature], that they should produce certain miracles at certain times, and the sign of a prophet consisted in the fact that God told him to declare when a certain thing will take place, but the thing itself was effected according to the fixed laws of Nature. If this is really the meaning of the passage referred to, it testifies to the greatness of the author, and shows that he held it to be impossible that there should be a change in the laws of Nature, or a change in the will of God [as regards the physical properties of things] after they have once been established. He therefore assumes, e.g., that God gave the waters the property of joining together, and of flowing in a downward direction, and of separating only at the time when the Egyptians were drowned, and only in a particular place… It is said there: R. Jonathan said, God made an agreement with the sea that it should divide before the Israelites: thus it is said, "And the sea returned to its strength when the morning appeared" (Exod. xiv. 27). R. Jeremiah, son of Elazar, said: Not only with the sea, but with all that has been created in the six days of the beginning [was the agreement made]: this is referred to in the words, "I, even my hands have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded" (Isa. xlv. 12); i.e., I have commanded the sea to divide, the fire not to hurt Hananya, Mishael, and Azaryah, the lions not to harm Daniel, and the fish to spit out Jonah. The same is the case with the rest of the miracles.”

As we can see Rambam and Ramban come from two opposite directions. Ramban lives in a miraculous world. Sciences are just illusions and patterns can be discerned. But the underlying laws that make things happen will never be discovered. They just do not exist. Rambam disagrees. Man has to learn about his environment and harness it to the point that he can use even the irregular and unexpected to his advantage.

So far we have seen how the two points of view of these greats affect the understanding of Providence and Miracles. We still need to look at Olam Haba and Techyat Hametim.

On a personal note again, I have a hard time accepting Ramban’s worldview and fit it into our contemporary understanding of science and nature. Rambam’s approach requires hard work to translate his understanding of nature which is based on Aristotelian Science to our contemporary one. It is doable though. For the life of me I cannot fathom how to deal with Ramban’s worldview in the same context. Ironically it is Ramban’s approach that is accepted nowadays by a majority of Orthodox Jews. It therefore cannot be ignored. That is why I got interested in Rav Kook’s thought. From the little I have read he seems to try to address it. As I read I will periodically share some insights.


[1] Ramban goes even farther and assigns EY as the place where God really runs things. It is another discussion but results from this position of his.
[2] רמב"ן שמות פרק יב פסוק יב

ועל דעתי ירמוז הכתוב לשרי מעלה, אלהי מצרים, כענין יפקוד ה' על צבא המרום במרום ועל מלכי האדמה על האדמה (ישעיה כד כא). והנה השפיל מזלם ושרי המזלות שעליהם. והכתוב ירמוז ויקצר בנעלם:


[3] For a thorough discussion of Rambam’s position see my article at Hakirah http://hakirah.org/Vol%203%20Guttmann.pdf

Providence and Theodicy.

(Please read this post together with my three previous ones on Providence and Reward and Punishment – you can use the tags.)

The connection between Providence and Reward and Punishment is now obvious. Providence equals reward and its opposite Randomness equals punishment. At the same time we saw that Providence is result oriented and at times it is not always immediately clear what the result of an action will be. What we sometimes see as a bad outcome may be temporary and in the long term turn out to be good and meet the goal the person who acted has set for himself. That explains why we see people who act poorly seem to thrive at first. This brings us to the question of theodicy. It is one that has perplexed many and is the cause of much skepticism about God and His justice. Why do good people suffer and bad ones seem to flourish? Rambam in MN 3:19 addresses this as follows:

“The Prophets have already stated the proof which ignorant persons offer for their belief that God does not know our actions: the fact that wicked people are living in prosperity and abundance. This fact leads also righteous and pious persons to think that it is of no use for them to aim at that which is good and to suffer for it through the opposition of other people. But the Prophets at the same time relate how their own thoughts were engaged on this question, and how they were at last convinced that in the instances to which these arguments refer, only the final outcome and not the beginning ought to be taken into account.”

Again we see the emphasis on the long term rather than the immediate. The underlying idea though in this whole issue of providence is that there is a rational Entity that set existence into motion, and that that Entity willed certain things and outcomes. Humans are expected to decipher that will and act in conformity with it. If they do that correctly they can only bring good which is the permanence of whatever their action affects. That explains the Torah’s insistence on the permanency of the Jewish people. The Torah is telling us that the actions of the founders of our religion the Avot, Moshe and the prophets who followed them understood God’s will and therefore their actions will result in the eternal existence of their progeny and followers.

Coming back to where we started with the question of the contradiction in Rambam http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/12/rambam-on-providence-contradiction.html . He first introduces man’s ability to think and that reward and punishment depend on it. He then explains the shipwreck and collapsing roof as follows:

“It may be by mere chance that a ship goes down with all her contents, as in the above-mentioned instance, or the roof of a house falls upon those within; but it is not due to chance, according to our view, that in the one instance the men went into the ship, or remained in the house in the other instance: it is due to the will of God, and is in accordance with the justice of His judgments, the method of which our mind is incapable of understanding.”

An observer of this calamity cannot know whether the long-term outcome of this event is good or bad thus, the method of which our mind is incapable of understanding. The will of God here is that man has freedom of choice and is a thinking being. Here is Rambam’s definition of God’s will in this context: (MN 2:48)

“It is clear that everything produced must have an immediate cause which produced it; that cause again a cause, and so on, until the First Cause of all things is reached, I mean God’s will and free choice… After having heard this remark, listen to what I will explain in this chapter; direct your special attention to it more than you have done to the other chapters of this part. It is this: As regards the immediate causes of things produced, it makes no difference whether these causes consist in substances, physical properties, freewill, or chance--by freewill I mean that of man--or even in the will of another living being besides man. The prophets ascribe the production directly to God and use such phrases as, God has done it, commanded it, or said it: in all such cases the verbs "to say," "to speak," "to command," "to call," and "to send" are employed. What I desired to state in this chapter is this: According to the hypothesis and theory accepted, it is God that gave will to dumb animals, freewill to the human being, and natural properties to everything.”

In other words the fact that God gave man freewill and the person that boarded the ship availed himself of that ability, it is seen as if he boarded at God’s will. This same ability however puts him under the regime of reward and punishment. If he acted properly his actions will eventually be meaningful otherwise his death was meaningless and that in itself is his punishment.

I now need to go to Hilchot Teshuvah and Shemona Perakim, Iggeret Teiman, letter to the Cachmei Marseilles and Ma’amar Techyat Hametim where Rambam also discusses his stand on Providence and see if this explanation is correct and fits. I will do that In January after I return from my vacation where I will not have Seforim at hand.

Providence - an acquired state.

In my earlier post I ended up with two components of providence; freedom of choice of a kind that is universal and extant in all living. We also saw that Reward and Punishment is a direct result of an action; it is the consequence of any act.

(If the reader wants to verify my understanding of Rambam, the following chapters in MN are pertinent and should be read carefully: 3:17-18-51.)

If Reward and Punishment is a consequence of an action it should theoretically apply to all things that act, all living things. Why then do we not find the idea of Reward and Punishment in the Torah for any living thing other than man? Why are we permitted to slaughter animals for food? What did the animal do wrong to deserve that? This question really supports the understanding of Aristotle that what we consider a consequence of Divine will is nothing more than pure randomness. There is no empirical impetus for differentiating between humans and animals. The sentience of man just increases the randomness of his actions, adding a component to man’s decision process. Animals are impelled by their natural instincts and suffer the consequences thereof while man is restrained or pushed by his ability to think, which makes it more difficult to predict how he will act.

Because there is no empirical evidence for his position, Rambam introduces his understanding of Hashgacha with a strong proviso:

“My opinion on this principle of Divine Providence I will now explain to you. In the principle which I now proceed to expound I do not rely on demonstrative proof, but on my conception of the spirit of the Divine Law, and the writings of the Prophets. The principle which I accept is far less open to objections, and is more reasonable than the opinions mentioned before.”(MN3:17)

It is how Rambam understands the ontological point of view of the Torah and the prophets. The importance of this statement cannot be minimized. What it says is that all observe the same phenomena; we see things happening in exactly the same way, the interpretation of the event, the perspective from which we look at it, are different and fit with the total teachings of the Torah and prophets.

Before we go further we need to define exactly what the word Hashgacha, usually translated as Providence, really means. When discussing Aristotle’s position earlier in chapter 17, Rambam states:

“In short, the opinion of Aristotle is this: Everything is the result of management which is constant, which does not come to an end and does not change any of its properties, as e.g., the heavenly beings, and everything which continues according to a certain rule, and deviates from it only rarely and exceptionally, as is the case in objects of Nature. All these are the result of management, i.e., in a close relation to Divine Providence.”

Divine Providence is constancy. When there is no randomness and things are predictive, it is considered to be under Divine Providence. The movements of the stars are predictable and therefore are considered under Divine Providence. Of course this assessment is based on Aristotelian physics. We now know that things are different and there is randomness there too especially over long periods of time. The idea though remains that Hashgacha / Providence refers to predictable events. Rambam in fact contrasts Hashgacha with randomness:

“But that which is not constant, and does not follow a certain rule, as e.g., incidents in the existence of the individual beings in each species of plants or animals, whether rational or irrational, is due to chance and not to management; it is in no relation to Divine Providence. Aristotle holds that it is even impossible to ascribe to Providence the management of these things.”

We can summarize by saying Hashgacha / Providence is the opposite of randomness. Humans who have free will and choice are therefore the most random entities in the universe followed by animals and other living things according to Aristotle.

Rambam sees it quite differently. Once man is able to understand the universe created by God and extrapolate from that the direction it is headed, or in religious parlance, understand the will of God and wants to partake in that endeavor, his actions are no longer random. They are goal oriented and therefore predictable.

“Divine Providence is connected with Divine intellectual influence, and the same beings which are benefited by the latter so as to become intellectual, and to comprehend things comprehensible to rational beings, are also under the control of Divine Providence, which examines all their deeds in order to reward or punish them.”

It is incumbent on man to develop his intellect to the point where he understands the will of God. At that point he no longer acts in a random fashion. Hashgacha which is the opposite of randomness takes over. He becomes predictable and as he achieves his goal, that achievement is his reward. However if man does not develop his potential, he is left to randomness just like all other living entities. That is his punishment. Intellect and its proper use leads to predictable goal oriented behavior and consequent outcome. That is Hashgacha / Providence which therefore affects only humans who use their intellect constructively. Other living things remain under the influence of randomness, their natural state.

The problem is that it is not a simple matter to know with certainty what the will of God is. It will sometimes take more than a lifetime, many lifetimes and generations, before we find out if the understanding and consequent actions of a particular individual were correct. Reward and Punishment is no longer just how an individual fares in his own physical well-being. It takes on a macro view. It is the impact that a life has that counts. I understand that to be the unknown that Rambam refers to; “and is in accordance with the justice of His judgments, the method of which our mind is incapable of understanding”. The good outcome of an individual’s action is the only evidence whether he acted correctly. That is why we find even our patriarchs like Yaakov full of doubt about their actions and goals as the Rabbis say it “Shema yigrom hacheit”. It is also why Rambam sees Moshe and the patriarchs as the paradigms of people who were blessed with Hashgacha. After all their actions are still felt thousands of years later by their descendants, their goal of building a nation that knows God still evolving.

“All that is mentioned of the history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a perfect proof that Divine Providence extends to every man individually.”

It therefore makes sense that Providence is a function of the correctness of a person’s understanding and consequent actions.

“The relation of Divine Providence is therefore not the same to all men; the greater the human perfection a person has attained, the greater the benefit he derives from Divine Providence. This benefit is very great in the case of prophets, and varies according to the degree of their prophetic faculty: as it varies in the case of pious and good men according to their piety and uprightness. For it is the intensity of the Divine intellectual influence that has inspired the prophets, guided the good in their actions, and perfected the wisdom of the pious. In the same proportion as ignorant and disobedient persons are deficient in that Divine influence, their condition is inferior, and their rank equal to that of irrational beings: and they are "like unto the beasts."” (MN3:18)

And again Rambam sees Moshe and the patriarchs as the paradigm of perfect recipients of Divine Providence:

“Consider how the action of Divine Providence is described in reference to every incident in the lives of the patriarchs, to their occupations, and even to their passions, and how God promised to direct His attention to them. Thus God said to Abraham, "I am thy shield" (Gen. 15:1); to Isaac, "I will be with thee, and I will bless thee" (ibid. 26:3); to Jacob, "I am with thee, and will keep thee" (ibid. 28:15); to [Moses] the chief of the Prophets, "Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be a token unto thee" (Exod. 3:12); to Joshua, "As I was with Moses, so I shall be with thee" (Josh. 1:5). It is clear that in all these cases the action of Providence has been proportional to man's perfection.”

We can sum up that Hashgacha / Providence is a state a person acquires through his intellect and proper actions. It is only a posteriori, when the consequences of these actions are evaluated, that we know the correctness of the original act. However every human has the potential to emulate God and partake in acts that have long-term constructive goals – or under the umbrella of divine Hashgacha / Providence.

God and First Cause: Is there a difference?

I have been confronted with critical comments about my position on proving the existence of God. R. Phil Goode has even gone so far (to my great satisfaction and gratitude for such a thorough reading of my blog) as to find a contradiction between a comment I made in February and later posts. You can find the exchange here https://beta.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21749731&postID=36511173123204758&isPopup=true .

First I have to make a disclaimer. So far on this blog I have focused on understanding Rambam’s views. I know that sometimes I come across too forcefully; I therefore want to make it clear that these opinions are my own interpretation of Rambam’s views. I do not purport to know whether I am correct in my understanding. Several commenters have taken me to task several times on my opinions and they were not always wrong. I also reserve the right to change my mind as I go along and relearn something. It is my hope to learn as much as possible from the discussions. I try, not always successfully, to keep my ego at bay my goal being to get as close to the truth as possible. I always try to keep Rambam’s

הוא שהנביא אומר "וה' אלוהים אמת" ירמיהו י,י--הוא לבדו האמת, ואין לאחר אמת כאמיתו

in front of my eyes. So far the experience of writing and learning has been exhilarating and I thank all readers for helping to make it so.

I have endorsed in the past the argument for the existence of a First Cause referred to as “from contingency”. The argument goes as follows: We see that everything is contingent on something else. Nothing exists on its own but is always caused by something else. If we follow the chain of cause and effect up the line there must be one entity that is not contingent on anything else which is the cause of everything. That entity we refer to as the First Cause. It is the first of several arguments Rambam uses to prove the existence of God (MN 2:1). This argument is not a Rambam original. Aristotle and other Greeks discuss it and arrive at the same conclusion that there must be a First Cause.

Although Rambam states that Aristotle believed in the existence of God, that is not exactly correct. He believed in a First Cause but that is not synonymous with the God of religion. It is a vague concept of an uncreated or self-created entity that causes everything. It is not tied into time thus eternal. Although a little simplistic I view that as the concept behind existence. It is an entity that we know must exist but we cannot really grasp or define – it is just there.

What can we prove about that entity? We can prove it is unlike anything else, that it is not time dependent, it does not change thus never in a state of potential and is not physical. This concept of First Cause is just an attempt at explaining how things exist. It does not give that entity freedom of will or any connection with its effects. It is just an inanimate entity that has a very distant connection with us. Religion makes that connection. It tells us what to do with that information. It tells us that although that entity that we now call God is unknowable, we have to seek ways of understanding Him through observing the results of His actions. It tells us to accept that God is not just an abstract concept, an inanimate entity, but a so to say (kevayachol) conscious entity that caused everything in a manner we, humans, would consider willingly.

In his Sefer Hamitzvot Rambam’s first Mitzvat Asseh reads as follows:

המצוה הראשונה היא הצווי אשר צוונו להאמין האלוהות והוא שנאמין שיש שם עלה וסבה הוא פועל לכל הנמצאות והוא אמרו ית' אנכי י"י אלהיך. ובסוף גמר מכות (כג ב, כד א) אמרו תרי"ג מצות נאמרו לו למשה בסיני מאי קראה תורה צוה לנו משה כלומר מנין תור"ה והקשו על זה ואמרו תורה בגימטריא הכי הואי שית מאה וחדסרי הואי והיתה התשובה אנכי ולא יהיה מפי הגבורה שמעום. הנה כבר התבאר לך כי אנכי י"י מכלל שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות והוא צווי באמונה כמו שבארנו:


The first Mitzvah is Yediat Hashem[1] is to know intellectually that there is a First Cause. Note how he ties it with the Chazal that Anochi and Lo Y’heyeh are “MiPi Hagevurah” which we know he understands as Gevurat Hasechel or intellect, not revelation. In other words it is empirically provable. This is a distant and impersonal God and other than being an obligation to know and demonstrate this to oneself, this God is quite distant. It is only when we try to understand His attributes, what He is or is not, that we personalize Him. Some of these attributes can be proven empirically, such as His unity or as I prefer to say uniqueness and Rambam’s understanding of prophecy and how humans connect with it. (BTW the test of whether it is empirically provable is when Rambam, in Mishne Torah, uses the term Leidah as opposed to Leha’amin.) Others are things we accept because they make sense even though there is no way that we humans can definitely prove them. We can only show that it is an acceptable position to take that most plausibly fits with our way of thinking and other empirically proven positions. That God wills is one of those positions.

In short we can prove empirically the existence of a First Cause. To personalize that First Cause and turn Him into our God we have to employ different types of proofs, plausibility tests and acceptance of the yoke of heaven. It is only then that this belief in a distant God takes on practical connotations affecting our way of thinking and day-to-day life. It does not mean relying on beliefs as XGH always comments and posts. It means using every ounce of our rational capacity to make sense of our existence using the tools and information at our disposal.


[1] The Sefer Hamitzvot was written in Arabic. This translation reads Leha’amin which in English is to believe. Rav Kafih translates Leidah- to know. See note 1 in Rav Chaim Heller’s edition published by Mossad Harav Kook.

Why are we here?

Is there a purpose to existence? How do we answer the question why we are here? When we look at the biological systems that perpetuate life on earth we perceive a mechanism where waste is eliminated, the fittest survive and everything seems to be geared towards self-preservation and perpetuation. Laws of physics and chemistry also seem to operate with a precision that is elegant and awe-inspiring. The existence of humankind can very easily be seen in the same light as just another element in the self-perpetuation of the universe. Humans have freedom of will, mental and physical abilities to change their environment. Their role in the perpetuation of the universe can easily be understood. However the larger question still remains unanswered what is the purpose of the whole enterprise? Is there indeed such a thing as purpose?

Let us first assume that the universe is eternal in some form or other, for even if we accept the Big Bang theory, there still had to be something physical out there, a particularity from which everything started. That being the case there really is nothing that forces us to find a purpose for existence other than existence itself and its perpetuation. Everything just has been there in some form or other forever.

However if we assume that the universe was created in time ex - nihilo, there must then be a Creator and therefore, at first blush it would appear that there must be a purpose. An intelligent entity that willed existence must have done so for a reason and a purpose. As we observe our surroundings, focusing on the biological system we are part of, we notice that there seems to be a hierarchy where lesser animals are a source of food for more advanced ones. Man is ultimately the most powerful and everything seems to be serving his needs. To the question of why man the answer may be so that he serve God and get to know Him. But again the question is why? What purpose is there in doing that? Does God need our worship? Does it add anything to Him? The answer is of course not. We are therefore left with the answer that we are here because God wished it so. He willed the universe into existence because that is what will is, it wills. MN 3:13 –

“Even if the Universe existed for man's sake and man existed for the purpose of serving God, as has been mentioned, the question remains, what is the end of serving God? He does not become more perfect if all His creatures serve Him and comprehend Him as far as possible; nor would He lose anything if nothing existed beside Him. It might perhaps be replied that the service of God is not intended for God's perfection; it is intended for our own perfection,--it is good for us, it makes us perfect. But then the question might be repeated, What is the object of our being perfect? We must in continuing the inquiry as to the purpose of the creation at last arrive at the answer, It was the Will of God, or His Wisdom decreed it; and this is the correct answer. The wise men in Israel have, therefore, introduced in our prayers (for Ne‘ilah of the Day of Atonement) the following passage:--"Thou hast distinguished man from the beginning, and chosen him to stand before Thee; who can say unto Thee, What dost Thou? And if he be righteous, what does he give Thee?" They have thus clearly stated that it was not a final cause that determined the existence of all things, but only His will.”

Will as it relates to God is a word we use to describe the idea of a cause for a resulting action. Those who believe in physical eternity see a mechanistic system where the First Cause, assuming they accept one, is just another natural component of that system. The same mechanism that produces gravity for example induces the First Cause to cause everything to exist. There is no wisdom just existence. On the other hand those who believe in creation in time have a choice. They can also see a mechanistic universe without wisdom or thought. They can see the Creator as another component of a natural system. They however can also accept that there is thought and therefore Will in that Creator.

There is no possibility of ever proving any of the three positions; it is a matter of accepting one or the other. Judaism, led by its prophets, chose to accept the concept that God willed the universe into existence. Mishlei 3:19 puts out the idea very succinctly:

יט יְהוָה--בְּחָכְמָה יָסַד-אָרֶץ; כּוֹנֵן שָׁמַיִם, בִּתְבוּנָה.
19 The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding He established the heavens.

God willed us into existence and we know only one thing; our existence fulfills His will. It is our responsibility to perpetuate our and the whole universe’s existence. We do good when we are creative; we do evil when we are destructive. Torah and Mitzvot are tools that we have to help us fulfill our responsibility. This idea is quite dialectic, it contains an internal tension, as it on the one hand sees man as just another cog in a wheel. On the other hand it gives him the power to change his environment and affect the whole universe and generations in the future. Ultimately however there is only one purpose; fulfill God’s will. “Vatelamdem chukei Chaim La’asot retzoncha belevav shalem”.

Are we deluding ourselves? Maybe. There is no certainty that we are right otherwise there would be no Bechira – freedom of choice.


טו רְאֵה נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ הַיּוֹם, אֶת-הַחַיִּים וְאֶת-הַטּוֹב, וְאֶת-הַמָּוֶת, וְאֶת-הָרָע.
15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil,
יט הַעִדֹתִי בָכֶם הַיּוֹם, אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ--הַחַיִּים וְהַמָּוֶת נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ, הַבְּרָכָה וְהַקְּלָלָה; וּבָחַרְתָּ, בַּחַיִּים--לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה, אַתָּה וְזַרְעֶךָ.
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that thou may live, thou and thy seed;
(Devarim 30:15 and 19)

Life, creativity is good- death or destruction is evil; the choice is ours. We can see the choice of good as a self-serving goal which depends on whim or as an obligation that binds us with a higher authority. Some will call it belief. I prefer to see it as choice based on an intelligent analysis of alternatives. In his discussions regarding the creation of the universe Rambam discusses different types of proofs and how they are applied. Here is an excerpt of some of his statements:

“I will not deceive myself, and consider dialectical methods as proofs; and the fact that a certain proposition has been proved by a dialectical argument will never induce me to accept that proposition, but, on the contrary, will weaken my faith in it, and cause me to doubt it. For when we understand the fallacy of a proof, our faith in the proposition itself is shaken… When I have established the admissibility of our theory, I will, by philosophical reasoning, show that our theory of the Creation is more acceptable than that of the Eternity of the Universe; and although our theory includes points open to criticism, I will show that there are much stronger reasons for the rejection of the theory of our opponents.” (MN 2:16)

Certain things are just not provable. All one can do is see if either one of the different theories is admissible. Having established that they are, one has to then look at the different things that will help to decide which to choose. If the system that we received from the prophets and that we live by cannot be proven inadmissible, we may chose it.

“IN comparing the objections raised against one theory with those raised against the opposite theory, in order to decide in favor of the least objectionable, we must not consider the number of the objections, but the degree of improbability and of deviation from real facts [pointed out by the objections]; for one objection may sometimes have more weight than a thousand others… for a person might some day, by some objection which he raises, shake your belief in the theory of the Creation, and then easily mislead you: you would then adopt the theory [of the Eternity of the Universe) which is contrary to the fundamental principles of our religion, and leads to "speaking words that turn away from God." You must rather have suspicion against your own reason, and accept the theory taught by two prophets who have laid the foundation for the existing order in the religious and social relations of humankind. Only demonstrative proof should be able to make you abandon the theory of the Creation: but such a proof does not exist in Nature.” (MN 2:23).

This is the basis of our acceptance of God as the willing Creator of our existence. We will now have to define what we mean by Will and the ramification thereof in our understanding of providence and our day-to-day life.