Reward and Punishment: Reality or Myth? Zechor Yemot Olam.

As I was discussing reward and punishment in my last post, I would like to share some thoughts on the subject.

The idea that there are consequences to all our actions is something that is accepted by most of us as an axiom that we acquire growing up. However, we do not always see the outcome from our deeds. Sometimes consequences are immediate and at other times, they may take a long time to become manifest, at times even generations pass before the outcome(s) from an action can be known. Sometimes, the long-term outcome from an action that, at the time it was done looked to be good or bad, may turn out in the long term to have the opposite result of the intended outcome. The question that comes to mind then is, is this belief in consequences a myth or reality? I believe that looking at reward and punishment from this perspective, highlights why Rambam considers this to be a commanded belief rather than an empirical fact. It is listed among the 13 principles and is a necessary and required a-priori belief. Like all these principles, we have to accept them at first and then, as we acquire further knowledge about the world and our environment and how it operates, we develop a deeper understanding of exactly what they mean. A child’s understanding of God’s uniqueness is not the same as that of an adult especially one who has philosophic tendencies, nor is how a child understands reward and punishment the same as how an adult does. 

Assuming actions are judged by their consequences, there is a certain amount of prophecy required at the time the decision how to act correctly is made. Prophecy in this instance being the ability to understand how God’s world operates and adapt one’s actions to conform to His original will. That is exactly how Rambam understands Hashgacha – Divine Providence. The closer a person is to prophecy, the more he acts in a way that agrees with Divine Providence – Hashgacha. Is a person ever certain about his actions? Of course not: even the greatest prophets doubted themselves and constantly questioned their decisions. We see this with Avraham, the first to have developed a philosophy about God and how he runs His world. As we are introduced to him in Breishit 12, we immediately are told that his goal was to build a nation of believers.

ב  וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ, לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל, וַאֲבָרֶכְךָ, וַאֲגַדְּלָה שְׁמֶךָ; וֶהְיֵה, בְּרָכָה.

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing.

And a little further, in Breishit 15 he questions himself and falls into a great depression fearing that he did not act correctly, that he misunderstood how things work.

א  אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה,

הָיָה דְבַר-יְהוָה אֶל-אַבְרָם, בַּמַּחֲזֶה, לֵאמֹר:  אַל-תִּירָא

אַבְרָם, אָנֹכִי מָגֵן לָךְ--שְׂכָרְךָ, הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד.

1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying: 'Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield, thy reward shall be exceeding great.

וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם, אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה מַה-תִּתֶּן-לִי, וְאָנֹכִי,

הוֹלֵךְ עֲרִירִי; וּבֶן-מֶשֶׁק בֵּיתִי, הוּא דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

2 And Abram said: 'O Lord GOD, what wilt Thou give me, seeing I go hence childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?'

  וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם--הֵן לִי, לֹא נָתַתָּה זָרַע; וְהִנֵּה בֶן-בֵּיתִי, יוֹרֵשׁ אֹתִי.

 3 And Abram said: 'Behold, to me Thou hast given no seed, and, lo, one born in my house is to be mine heir.'

Avraham was questioning whether he was living in a fantasy, as he was childless and he was unsure that Eliezer, his sole inheritor at the time, could be the biological father of such a nation. As he meditated further on the matter, he came to realize that if one acts to the best of his knowledge with the goals clearly in mind, one must believe that there will be a good outcome. That is the crux of the belief in Reward and Punishment.

 וְהֶאֱמִן, בַּיהוָה; וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ, צְדָקָה.

6 And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.

Rambam in MN 3:53 discusses the meaning of the word צְדָקָה .

“The term ẓedakah is derived from ẓedek, "righteousness"; it denotes the act of giving every one his due, and of showing kindness to every being according as it deserves.”

In other words, צְדָקָה has two meanings, one ethical the other moral:  giving someone what is due to him, an ethical obligation, and charity, a moral obligation.  

“In Scripture, however, the expression ẓedakah is not used in the first sense, and does not apply to the payment of what we owe to others…. But we do perform an act of ẓedakah when we fulfill those duties towards our fellow-men which our moral conscience imposes upon us; e.g., when we heal the wound of the sufferer….Thus Scripture says, in reference to the returning of the pledge [to the poor debtor]: "And it shall be ẓedakah (righteousness) unto thee" (Deut. xxiv. 11).”

When the word צְדָקָה is used in Torah, it is used in its moral sense rather than its ethical one. Returning collateral to a poor debtor is a moral obligation, not an ethical one. The true understanding of moral obligation in Judaism comes from contemplating how God runs His world. Judaism understands God as an entity that is completely separate from any physicality yet at the same time sees Him as the Creator responsible for existence. That existence in itself is seen as charity; there is no obligation for God to bring us into existence. Charity is thus an act of emulating God once one has apprehended this concept. Charity is therefore a rational and knowledge based act rather than an emotional one. The natural emotions that charity triggers are controlled and induced by the rational faculty. 

 

“When we walk in the way of virtue we act righteously towards our intellectual faculty, and pay what is due unto it; and because every virtue is thus ẓedakah, Scripture applies the term to the virtue of faith in God. Comp. "And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him as righteousness" (Gen. xv. 6); "And it shall be our righteousness" (Deut. vi. 25).”  

This to me is one of the most amazing and inspiring comments of Rambam. Charity, the one described above, which is based on knowledge and not on pure emotion, benefits not only our fellow man, the recipient of that charity, but also the giver who arrived at this act through developing his rational faculty. The two benefits are independent of each other. One does charity with oneself by developing the mind and actualizing the rational faculty. It is this charity that Avraham did to himself by believing that by emulating God’s ways the way he understood them, a good outcome was to be expected. It is the belief that “good” actions bring about “good” consequences that allows us to act. Without that acceptance, we would be paralyzed. Is that belief really true or is it just a utilitarian belief?  We believe it is real and we stake our whole raison d’etre on it. It is at the root of how we understand ourselves as the standard-bearers of true monotheism to the world. Our long-term survival as a nation working towards perfecting ourselves proves it. It proves that the “good” deeds and plans for us started with Avraham and his children, the divine Torah Moshe gave us and the way of life it set out for us, were really “good” by accomplishing their intent. Their influence of so many thousands of years is still very much felt in the here and now. That is how I understand when we invoke the memory of our ancestors, the Avot, during prayer; we say that by our mere continued existence we confirm that they read correctly God’s will.

Moadim Lesimcha and Chag Sameach.

Is Reward And Punishment A True or A Necessary Belief? Musings on MN 3:28.

The end goal of Torah and Mitzvot is to create a society with great knowledge of their environment and through that knowledge develop an understanding of God and His ways fulfilling their role in existence by emulating Him. This society will bring along the rest of humanity to the same developed state. If we look back at the history of the human species, we have evolved from a hunter-gatherer society where immediate survival was the central focus of day-to-day life into a (relatively) technologically advanced one. This evolution took many millennia, was gradual with many hiccups and regressions along the way with humanity still a long way from having fulfilled its potential.

We know that early man was baffled by his environment and completely at the mercy of it. His understanding was guided by his imagination as there were no tools available to perform any experiments that would provide empirical data. Man developed a theological system based on imaginary myths that tried to explain his existence. Those myths developed into a complicated system of gods,  some benevolent others malevolent, operating on a reciprocal approach where these gods were to be mollified and bribed if man wanted to be saved from their wrath or deserve their munificence. This system based on imagination created societies with hierarchies of slave and ruler abetted by priests who preyed on their fears presenting themselves as “god specialists” who knew how to bribe and manipulate the deities. Having sunk into this system based on imagination, humanity needed to expend great effort to break away from it and begin looking objectively at the world so that it could develop and become more than just another animal species amongst many. The Torah and its Mitzvot is the tool given to us, Jews, by HKBH to help us pull out from these ages of intellectual darkness and bring humanity along with us. In a macro sense, the Torah has three categories of Mitzvot: (i) Societal Law, (ii) Guide for Self-Improvement and (iii) Intellectual/Theological Teachings. The first two categories are focused on our physical well-being so that we can dedicate ourselves to the third category which is the ultimate objective.

“The general object of the Law is twofold: the well-being of the soul and the well-being of the body… The well-being of the body is established by a proper management of the relations in which we live one to another. This we can attain in two ways: first by removing all violence from our midst: that is to say, that we do not do every one as he pleases, desires, and is able to do; but every one of us does that which contributes towards the common welfare. Secondly, by teaching every one of us such good morals as must produce a good social state.” (MN3:27)

The societal laws can be summarized as “do not unto your friend what you would not do unto yourself”. In other words, there are obvious consequences to how we act with each other. Society operates on a reciprocal basis where generally we react in kind to kindness, fairness, nastiness and injustice. Narcissism and selfishness are at the root of the latter two and controlling our natural impulses is the key to controlling these inclinations. Looked at from this perspective, reward and punishment are natural outcomes of ethics and morals or the lack thereof.  One does not need to be a scientist or a philosopher to grasp this concept of reward and punishment. In fact, every child is taught that there are consequences to his actions whether explicitly or implicitly and it is a key component of education.

On the other hand, when it comes to intellectual development, the process is long and arduous. One cannot teach Algebra, to someone who has not mastered basic arithmetic or any other advanced theory in any science without having understood the basics. Correct theology is based on correct science. Rambam teaches that if we want to have a correct understanding of God and our existence in relation to Him, we must first have a good and correct grasp of all the sciences. Theology and science go hand in hand; they are not two disparate things, as many thinkers want us to believe.

“There may thus be a man who after having earnestly devoted many years to the pursuit of one science, and to the true understanding of its principles, till he is fully convinced of its truths, has obtained as the sole result of this study the conviction that a certain quality must be negated in reference to God, and the capacity of demonstrating that it is impossible to apply it to Him.” (MN1:59)

Myths are the antithesis to science. They offer alternate explanations based on imaginary fantasies for reality. For science to flourish, myths and idol worship, the practical outcome of myths, must be eradicated. Rambam sees Avodah Zara as falsehood. Eradication of falsehood is at the core of the prohibition to have anything to do with Avodah Zara. The Torah teaches that Avodah Zara leads humanity away from seeking the truth and thus away from God the ultimate Truth.

Teaching a developing society, one has no trouble discussing consequences. One can be explicit and describe consequences as reward and punishment. Although simplistic, reward and punishment lends itself to a presentation that allows for dual meanings: the simplistic obvious one and the more advanced and sophisticated understanding thereof. Both understandings are helpful for the promotion of responsible behavior, though the simplistic approach may be inaccurate at face value. From a practical standpoint, there is value in a detailed description of consequences for bad behavior and the Torah indeed repeats the concept many times in places in excruciating detail. 

However, teaching correct theology is impossible to a society that has not yet reached its ultimate perfection, never mind a primitive one at the start of its journey toward intellectual perfection. As long as a man has not grasped the sciences and all it means, he cannot really know God and Truth. He can be told that the goal, the end-purpose is to know God and he must learn all he can about the world he lives in to achieve that. The real meaning of knowing God however can only be pointed to, not taught.

“It is necessary to bear in mind that Law only teaches the chief points of those true principles which lead to the true perfection of man, and only demands in general terms faith in them. Thus, Scripture teaches the Existence, the Unity, the Omniscience, the Omnipotence, the Win, and the Eternity of God. All this is given in the form of final results, but they cannot be understood fully and accurately except after the acquisition of many kinds of knowledge.” (MN3:28)

However when it comes to reward and punishment, consequences –

“In the same way the Law also makes a call to adopt certain beliefs, belief in which is necessary for political welfare. Such is the belief that God is angry with those who disobey Him, for it leads us to the fear and dread of disobedience [to the will of God]. There are other truths in reference to the whole of the Universe which form the substance of the various and many kinds of speculative sciences, and afford the means of verifying the above-mentioned principles as their final result. But Scripture does not so distinctly prescribe the belief in them as it does in the first case; it is implied in the commandment, "to love the Lord" (Deut. xi. 13).” (MN3:28)

Reward and punishment is presented in the Torah in its simplistic way, “the belief that God is angry with those who disobey Him”, and in great detail (see Vaykra 25:14-42 and Devarim 28:15-69) while theology is presented in a very limited and allusive way, “it is implied in the commandment, "to love the Lord"”.

When practical commands - Mitzvot – are given and their reason presented we have the same situation. The Mitzvot that have a theological underpinning, their reason is often omitted and if presented, they are only in an allusive way, while those that are societal, their reason and consequences for transgressing them, are laid out clearly.

“Consider what we said of Beliefs: In some cases the law contains a truth which is itself the only object of that law, as e.g., the truth of the Unity, Eternity, and Incorporeality of God. In other cases, that belief is necessary for securing the removal of injustice, or the acquisition of good morals. Such is the belief that God is angry with those who oppress their fellow men, as it is said, "Mine anger will be kindled, and I will slay," etc. (Exod. xxii. 23). Or the belief that God hears the crying of the oppressed and vexed, to deliver them out of the hands of the oppressor and tyrant, as it is written, "And it shall come to pass, when he will cry unto me, that I will hear, for I am gracious" (Exod. xxii. 25).” (MN3:28)

Some classic interpreters of Rambam as well as modern scholars pointed to this chapter as an example of Rambam’s “true” esoteric beliefs about reward and punishment. They argue that he did not believe in reward and punishment as true belief but rather as a utilitarian one. I have difficulty accepting that, after studying his presentation of Divine Providence. It is obvious that Rambam sees providence as a natural phenomenon and it is up to man to act in ways that fall in line with God’s will which by definition is “good” as it promotes continued existence. Reward and punishment is thus a natural consequence of our actions. As we believe that God willed things into existence, consequences are therefore traceable to that original will (see MN2:47). When we say that God punishes we are saying that He created the world in a way that there are consequences to actions. This is the sophisticated understanding of reward and punishment. However, the simplistic understanding, that God Himself indeed punishes for every transgression can be understood by all and offers the same result; incentivize good ethics and morals. In fact, the two examples Rambam brings for explicit reward and punishment, both deal with ethical and moral issues that affect society and where the consequences can be traced to reciprocal societal norms.

I understand this as being the message of this chapter and not an “esoteric” view of reward and punishment. As further support for my understanding, this chapter is placed in the midst of chapters that deal with the reason for commandments and not among those that deal with Hashgacha - providence. It explains why some reasons for Mitzvot are explicit and others are not and why some are detailed while others only allude to the reason.

Chag Sameach.   

Why Does The Torah Not Explain The Reason For Many Mitzvot?

The end goal of the Torah and the commandments is to turn us into thinking people who know God and understand Him and how He runs the world so that we can emulate Him and His goals and partake in the world by fulfilling our role in its continuity. The Torah proposes a regimen that purports to transform, over time and generations, a family of semi-illiterate slaves of Pharaoh into a nation that will lead humanity in this endeavor. It has to take into account our humanity, our weaknesses and strengths and mold these into disciplined purposeful human beings while at the same time teaching us a perspective on the world that will lead us to finding God and knowing Him. To accomplish this, the Torah is a complex and multifaceted system. It teaches basic as well as advanced theology; it works on our biases and narcissism to create a lawful society that does not waste its energy on day-to day survival and self-defense and at the same time helps us to think objectively.

“The general object of the Law is twofold: the well-being of the soul, and the well-being of the body. The well-being of the soul is promoted by correct opinions communicated to the people according to their capacity. … The well-being of the body is established by a proper management of the relations in which we live one to another. This we can attain in two ways: first by removing all violence from our midst: that is to say, that we do not do every one as he pleases, desires, and is able to do; but every one of us does that which contributes towards the common welfare. Secondly, by teaching every one of us such good morals as must produce a good social state. Of these two objects, the one, the well-being of the soul, or the communication of correct opinions, comes undoubtedly first in rank, but the other, the well-being of the body, the government of the state, and the establishment of the best possible relations among men, is anterior in nature and time.” (MN 3:27)

In other words, the second objective, the establishment of a lawful society based on morals and ethics is a stepping-stone towards the ultimate goal of acquiring correct theological opinions.

“It is also the object of the perfect Law to make man reject, despise, and reduce his desires as much as is in his power. He should only give way to them when absolutely necessary. It is well known that it is intemperance in eating, drinking, and sexual intercourse that people mostly rave and indulge in; and these very things counteract the ulterior perfection of man, impede at the same time the development of his first perfection, and generally disturb the social order of the country and the economy of the family. For by following entirely the guidance of lust, in the manner of fools, man loses his intellectual energy, injures his body, and perishes before his natural time; sighs and cares multiply; there is an increase of envy, hatred, and warfare for the purpose of taking what another possesses.” (MN 3:33)

Moral and ethics are not only necessary for the good and lawful functioning of society, they are also necessary to our intellectual development. If all our intellectual energies are directed towards self-gratification, there is no room for intellectual development. Furthermore, our perspective becomes distorted where banal things take on great importance clouding our judgment.

The commandments have to address not only individuals with their great variation of personality and nature but also society as a whole while at the same time stimulating their thinking, both the individual and the collective. A commandment will affect different people differently. It will affect different societies and cultures differently. As humanity advances and as the Jewish people develop, the same Mitzvah may affect them differently than it did other generations. The Torah tells us that the Mitzvot are eternal and will be binding on all generations no matter how developed we are. Indeed, even when the utopian society develops, the Messianic times, no Mitzvah will become obsolete. Obviously, for the commandments to remain relevant at all times, their meaning changes with every person and for every society. Blowing the Shofar may take on a different meaning for someone who lived in medieval times when noisemaking was part of warfare and someone who lives in modern times when such methods are obsolete. It will take on a different meaning for someone who is philosophically inclined and one who is not. It will however affect everyone in his own way and accomplish its underlying purpose which is to make us aware and think about the One who commanded it, again each of us at his level of understanding. Clearly, giving an explicit reason for the commandment would be counterproductive. That is how I understand Rambam at the end of Hilchot Me’ilah –

ו [ח] ראוי לאדם להתבונן במשפטי התורה הקדושה, ולידע סוף עניינם

כפי כוחו. ודבר שלא ימצא לו טעם, ולא ידע לו עילה--אל יהי קל בעיניו; ואל

יהרוס לעלות אל ה', פן יפרוץ בו. ולא תהא מחשבתו בו, כמחשבתו בשאר דברי

החול.

A person should contemplate the laws of the Holy Torah and [strive to] understand their ultimate purpose to the best of his ability. When confronted by something [a Mitzvah] that he cannot find a reason for nor a purpose, it should not be made light of and he should not attempt to climb to high levels [make up reasons that are not rational – DG] lest he stray [outside the fence]. He should also not think about them in a way he would about mundane matters. (I will leave the rest without translation).

בוא וראה, כמה החמירה תורה במעילה: ומה אם עצים ואבנים ועפר

ואפר--כיון שנקרא שם אדון העולם עליהם בדברים בלבד, נתקדשו; וכל הנוהג בהן

מנהג חול, מעל בה'--ואפילו היה שוגג, צריך כפרה. קל וחומר למצוות שחקק לנו

הקדוש ברוך הוא--שלא יבעוט אדם בהן, מפני שלא ידע טעמן; ולא יחפה דברים

אשר לא כן על ה', ולא יחשב בהן מחשבתו בדברי החול. הרי נאמר בתורה "ושמרתם

את כל חוקותיי ואת כל משפטיי, ועשיתם אותם" (ויקרא יט,לז; ויקרא כ,כב)--ואמרו

חכמים ליתן שמירה ועשייה, לחוקים כמשפטים: והעשייה ידועה, והיא שיעשה

החוקים; והשמירה, שייזהר בהן ולא ידמה שהן פחותין מן המשפטים. והמשפטים,

הן המצוות שטעמן גלוי, וטובת עשייתן בעולם הזה ידועה, כגון איסור גזל

ושפיכות דמים וכיבוד אב ואם; והחוקים, הן המצוות שאין טעמן ידוע. אמרו

חכמים, חוקים שחקקתי לך, ואין לך רשות להרהר בהן. ויצרו של אדם נוקפו בהן,

ואומות העולם משיבין עליהן--כגון איסור בשר חזיר, ובשר בחלב, ועגלה ערופה,

ופרה אדומה, ושעיר המשתלח.

ז וכמה היה דויד המלך מצטער מן המינים והגויים, שהיו משיבין על

החוקים; וכל זמן שהיו רודפין אותו בתשובות השקר שעורכין לפי קוצר דעת האדם,

היה מוסיף דבקה בתורה, שנאמר "טפלו עליי שקר, זדים; אני, בכל לב אצור פיקודיך" (תהילים קיט,סט),

ונאמר שם בעניין "כל מצוותיך, אמונה; שקר רדפוני, עוזרני" (תהילים קיט,פו).

ח וכל הקרבנות כולן, מכלל החוקים הן. לפיכך אמרו חכמים שאף על

עבודת הקרבנות, העולם עומד--שבעשיית החוקים והמשפטים, זוכין הישרים לחיי

העולם הבא; והקדימה תורה ציווייה על החוקים, שנאמר "ושמרתם את חוקותיי ואת

משפטיי, אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם" (ויקרא יח,ה).

I wish all my friends and readers a Ketiva Vechatima Tova and a good and meaningful year.

Are Commandments Arbitrary?

In earlier posts, I showed that the underlying goal of Mitzvot is to keep us focused on God who commanded these Mitzvot. The question that comes to mind though is how is a particular commandment to be understood? Is it arbitrary without any special reason other than to make us aware that God commanded it? Is it possible for example, that just as the Torah commanded us to slaughter an animal from the neck it could have commanded us to do so by hitting the animal with a hammer over the head? After all, since either one method would be coming from God and being restrictive, meaning that there would be only one way permissible to kill an animal, it would remind us of the same thing, His existence, and trigger our mind to think about Him. Or is there a deeper wisdom that not only reminds us of God but also has another practical objective? Is slaughtering from the neck in itself the only correct way of doing it? Was it chosen randomly among other methods?

Let us take the Halacha of Shechita – slaughtering. Rambam when he organized his Mishne Torah he divided it into 14 books, one of which is the Sefer Kedusha – the Book of Holiness. The Book of Holiness comprises three groupings of Halachot – Forbidden Relations, Forbidden Foods and the laws of Shechita – slaughter. The concept of holiness is uniqueness and separation by acting in a way that is different from those who act following their urges and animal instinct. People are holy when they act for other than selfish reasons, which is our natural urging. Holiness is therefore, acting with self-control, setting limits to those natural urges. The areas that we humans need the most control are where our natural appetites are the strongest, namely sex and food. Just by classifying these halachot together - although at first blush they would seem to be quite different - Rambam tells us a little about the specific goal of these Mitzvot; self-control. The method of killing a permitted animal – Shechita – thus falls under the rubric of self-control. The idea is that having allowed us to eat certain animals while forbidding others for the same reason, namely curbing our appetite, these permitted animals cannot be killed any which way. They require that we prepare a specially sharpened instrument and perform the slaughter in very specific ways, setting limits to our urge for instant gratification. The choice of this specific method of killing when other methods could have been used too with their own detailed rules, accomplishing the same goal of setting limits, has an additional purpose; to teach us to be conscious about the pain of others. Slaughtering from the neck is considered one of the most humane methods of killing. There may be others just as humane but one had to be chosen, and it was this one. The final choice of one humane way over another is practical – one that is easily accessible and does not require a lot of technology or extensive preparations – which would be too much of a burden and eventually lead to people not being able to adhere to the rule. The exact method of killing, in our case using a sharpened instrument to cut from the neck below and not from the neck above, is arbitrary. Both methods would have been equally humane and equally accessible but one was chosen arbitrarily. Although arbitrary, it is however, binding and any other method would not allow us to eat the meat. This arbitrary but binding rule again teaches us discipline and makes us aware that a command from God is binding on us even when it appears to be arbitrary.

“Since, therefore, the desire of procuring good food necessitates the slaying of animals, the Law enjoins that the death of the animal should be the easiest. It is not allowed to torment the animal by cutting the throat in a clumsy manner, by poleaxing, or by cutting off a limb whilst the animal is alive.” (MN3:48) “This is their dictum in that passage: What does it matter to the Holy one that animals are slaughtered by cutting their neck in front or in back? Say therefore that the commandments were only given in order to purify the people. For it is said: the word of the Lord is purified…. What everyone that is endowed with a sound intellect ought to believe on this subject is what I shall set forth to you: The generalities of the commandments necessarily have a cause and have been given because of a certain utility. Their details are that about which it is said of the commandments that they were given merely for the sake of commanding something. For instance, the killing of animals because of the necessity of having good food is manifestly useful, as we shall make clear. But the prescription that they should be killed through having the upper and not the lower part of their throat cut, and having their esophagus and windpipe severed at one particular place is, like other prescriptions of the same kind, imposed with a view to purifying the people. The same is made clear to you through their example: slaughtered by cutting their neck in front or in the back. I have mentioned this example to you merely because one finds in their text: slaughtering by cutting their neck in front or in back. However, if one studies the truth of the matter, one finds it to be as follows: As necessity occasions the eating of animals, the commandment was intended to bring about the easiest death in an easy manner; for beheading would only be possible with the help of a sword or something similar, whereas a throat can be cut with anything. In order that the death should come about more easily, the condition was imposed that the knife be sharp.” (MN 3:26)




 We see here a multifaceted approach to Mitzvot where the same action has many purposes but mostly to educate and change our way of thinking while also developing our ethical sense and imposing controls and our natural urges.

As is typical of Rambam, the philosophical and Halachik go hand in hand. Rambam’s Sefer Hamitzvot begins laying down fourteen rules on the conditions a commandment must meet to be counted as a mitzvah that make up the traditional 613 Mitzvot that were given to Moshe. The significance and the high level of importance that Rambam assigns to this number is a lengthy discussion which I will leave for another time. What interests us here is the fourth Shoresh or basic rule.

 וכבר טעו בשורש הזה גם כן, עד שמנו "קדושים תהיו" מצווה מכלל מצוות עשה,

ולא ידעו שאומרו "קדושים תהיו" "והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים" הם ציוויים לקיים

כל התורה, כאילו יאמר 'היה קדוש בעשותך כל מה שציוויתיך בו, והיזהר מכל מה

שהזהרתיך ממנו'. ולשון ספרא "קדושים תהיו - פרושים תהיו", רוצה לומר

היבדלו מן הדברים המגונים כולם שהזהרתי אתכם מהם.

Although the Torah seems to be commanding us specifically to be holy, holiness is not counted as a separate Mitzvah. It is a generalized explanation and reason for our keeping Mitzvot in general. Some Mitzvot have as their central focus holiness such as those in sefer Kedusha, but every Mitzvah has a component of holiness in it – namely separation from our natural narcissistic and self-serving urges and tendencies by imposing and demanding self-control. For a Mitzvah to be counted, the specific commandment must be identified as a sub-category within the whole corpus of Mitzvot with its own identifiable teaching and character other than the ones applicable to all Mitzvot. I wonder whether that in itself points to the fact that there must be a rational reason for each commandment and therefore they cannot be arbitrary.





In following posts, I want to understand why the Torah at times is specific and offers a reason for a Mitzvah while at others it does not.

Gaza - Pictures of A Humanitarian Crisis

And The Likeness of God He Beholds - The Limitations of Human Knowledge.

In the previous two posts, I explained, based on my reading of Rambam, the two terms, Peh el Peh – Mouth to Mouth – and Panim el Panim – Face to Face – he uses to explain Moshe Rabbeinu’s unique type of prophecy. Mouth to mouth describes the end result of an advanced level of a certain kind of metaphysical speculation which is referred to metaphorically as face to face. When Moshe attained an advanced level of understanding which I refer to as Negative knowledge, a full appreciation of God’s unknowability, he was able to bypass his imaginative faculty and deliver prophecies verbatim as he received them, without his own personal interpretation. That level of prophecy was unique to him based on his unique apprehension of the divine. Rambam offers a third prooftext for Moshe’s prophecy –

 יא  

כל הנביאים, על ידי מלאך; לפיכך רואין מה שהן רואין במשל וחידה.  ומשה רבנו, לא על ידי מלאך, שנאמר "פה אל פה אדבר בו" (

ונאמר "ודיבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים

ונאמר "ותמונת ה', יביט"

כלומר שאין שם משל, אלא רואה הדבר על בורייו בלא חידה בלא משל; הוא שהתורה

מעידה עליו, "ומראה ולא בחידות" (שם), שאינו מתנבא בחידה אלא במראה, שרואה

הדבר על בורייו

And it says “and the likeness of God he beholds”, namely that there are no metaphors. He sees the matter as it is without a riddle, without a metaphor. That is what the torah testifies about him, “and vision and not in riddles”. [Meaning] that he did not prophesize in a riddle but in a vision, seeing the matter as it is.

What does the likeness [Temunah] of God he beholds mean?

“As for the term figure [Temunah] it is used equivocally in three different senses. It is used to designate the form of a thing outside the mind that is apprehended by the senses; I mean the shape and configuration of the thing. … It is also used to designate the imaginary form of an individual object existing in the imagination after the object of which it is the form is no longer manifest to the senses. … The term is also used to designate the true notion grasped by the intellect. It is with a view to this third meaning that the word figure is used with reference to God. Thus, it says and the figure [likeness] of God he beholds. The meaning and interpretation of this verse are: he grasps the truth of God.” (MN 1:3)

Clearly, Rambam is forewarning us that in this context Temunah – figure - does not mean a physical entity as in the first meaning, or even a physical representation as in the second but an intellectual abstract concept. When I say abstract concept I am talking about a notion that is totally removed from our experience. Being that Panim el Panim – face to face – describes a kind of apprehension based on negating any connection or comparison with the physical, how is to “grasp the truth of God” different? Rambam in MN 1:5 explains that before allowing himself to engage in metaphysical speculation, a person must prepare himself by learning the “sciences and the different kinds of knowledge”, truly improve his character “having extinguished the desires and cravings engendered in him by his imagination.”

“When doing this [metaphysical speculation] he should not make categorical affirmations in favor of the first opinion that occurs to him and should not from the outset strain and impel his thoughts toward the apprehension of the deity. He should rather feel awe and refrain and hold back until he gradually elevates himself. It is in that sense that it is said, “And Moshe hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.” …  And God let overflow upon him so much of His bounty and goodness that it became necessary to say of him: “And the figure of God shall he look upon”. The Sages have stated that this is a reward for his having at first hidden his face so as not to look upon God.”

When one engages in metaphysical speculation trying to “grasp the truth of God”, one must come to it with a cautious attitude and an awareness of one’s limits. As Moshe had his first experience with prophecy at the episode of the Sneh – the Burning Bush – his caution and reticence to jump to conclusions was evident. The Rabbis tell us that it is this trait that predicted that he would eventually reach the advanced level of “beholding the likeness of God”.

What we have here is a contradictory [dialectic] approach. On the one hand, the prophet wants to grasp God’s likeness but at the same time, he knows that he cannot. Should he think he did grasp it, he knows that he is on the wrong path. But it is not enough to accept that it cannot be grasped, the great prophet knows *why* he cannot grasp God’s likeness. The more he understands why he cannot grasp God’s likeness, the closer he is to God and the greater is his appreciation and feeling of awe towards the Great unknown.

“For this reason a man sometimes labors for many years in order to understand a certain science and to gain true knowledge of its premises so that he should have certainty with regard to this science. The only conclusion from this science in its entirety consists in our negating with reference to God some notion of which it has been learnt by means of a demonstration that it cannot possibly be ascribed to God. To someone else who falls short in his knowledge of speculation, this speculation will not be clear; and he will consider it doubtful whether or not this notion exists with reference to God.” (MN1:59)

Rambam explains that the difference between different levels of advancement in metaphysical speculation is dependent on how well one understands *why* God cannot be described in a way that confuses Him and physicality. Sciences no matter how abstract depict our physical world while God is completely removed from it. The awareness of the human limits in speculation, understanding those limits denotes the greatness of the thinker. Moshe Rabbeinu was able to attain the highest level of this apprehension, a level no one else has ever nor will ever achieve, thus his prophetic uniqueness. At the episode of Nikrat Hatzur during the Golden Calf episode, Moshe asked for clarification -

“One request consisted in his asking Him to let him know His essence and true reality…. The answer the two requests that He gave him consisted in His promising him to let him know all His attributes, making it known to him that they are His actions, and teaching him that His essence cannot be grasped as it really is. Yet He drew his attention to a subject of speculation through which he can apprehend to the furthest that is possible for man. For what has been apprehended by Moshe has not been apprehended by anyone before him nor will it be apprehended by anyone after him.” (MN 1:54)

The limit of human knowledge is at the center of Jewish theology as explained by Rambam. That knowledge brings about humility and awe. Moshe who had reached the highest possible level of apprehension knowing that after all he could still not grasp God’s essence but only His “likeness” – Temunah – what He is not – was the humblest of man.

ב  וכשמחשב בדברים האלו עצמן, מיד הוא נרתע לאחוריו, ויירא ויפחד

ויידע שהוא בריה קטנה שפלה אפלה, עומד בדעת קלה מעוטה לפני תמים דעות, כמו

שאמר דויד "כי אראה שמיך . . . מה אנוש, כי תזכרנו

As he speculates about these matters [metaphysics] he immediately staggers backwards, [is overcome by] fear and terror, knowing that he is a lowly, small and dark entity, that stands in front of the Perfect Intellect with minimal knowledge as David says ‘when I see your heavens … what is man that You should notice him?” (Yesodei Hatorah 2:2)

The fear and terror is inspired not by contemplating the greatness of creation [Ma’aseh Breishit] but by contemplating the vast chasm between what we know and what we cannot know [Ma’aseh Merkavah] – the lowly creature in front of the Perfect Intellect which he cannot even grasp. (The prooftext here is fascinating and I will address it separately at another opportunity).

Moshe came to metaphysical speculation with an attitude of caution and humility accepting his own human limitations. He was therefore able to understand that the “likeness of God” true reality is incomprehensible. That understanding led him to an apprehension of Panim el Panim, where he understood clearly not only that we humans cannot apprehend God but also why that is impossible. That understanding led him to the ability to transmit prophecies as received – verbatim – without the interpretation necessary when the prophecy passes through the imaginative faculty.

From a practical sense, this whole discussion about Moshe seems to be academic. We are so far removed from Moshe’s state that we cannot fathom his greatness never mind understand it. Not only are we removed but so too are all prophets besides Moshe; none ever got close to his level of prophecy. So why does Rambam expend so much on this topic. This brings us back to the issue of Ta’amei Hamitzvot which we were talking about a few posts back. The Torah is the fruit of that superior prophecy of Moshe, it came verbatim from God as we know it, and will forever remain, as it is, unchanged. That is so because there can never be another Moshe who could reach the levels of prophecy that allow for verbatim transmission. How can the word of God as transmitted be changed by divine messages that require human interpretation?

 

Face To Face - Panim El Panim - An Introduction To Negative Knowledge.

In the previous post, I explained that Peh el Peh is a metaphor for a type of prophecy that does not involve the imaginative faculty and therefore can be transmitted verbatim without the prophet’s personal interpretation. I will continue translating Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah chapter 7 where he describes the differences between the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu and that of other prophets.

כל הנביאים, על ידי מלאך; לפיכך רואין מה שהן רואין במשל וחידה. ומשה רבנו, לא על ידי מלאך,

שנאמר "פה אל פה אדבר בו"

ונאמר "ודיבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים

And it says, and God spoke to Moshe face to face.

As an additional prooftext that Moshe’s prophecy did not involve the imaginative, Rambam brings this verse located towards the end of the story of the golden calf (Shemot 33) which describes the dialogue between God and Moshe as being “face to face”. In discussing the term Panim “face”, Rambam in MN1:37 writes –

“It is also a term denoting the presence and station of an individual…. In this sense it is said: And the lord spoke unto Moshe face to face – which means, as a presence to another presence without an intermediary, as is said: Come let us look one another in the face.”

Lest we think that “presence” in this case would denote that there was some kind of tangible entity that Moshe experienced as facing him, Rambam continues:

“Thus Scripture says: The lord spoke to you face to face. In another passage, it explains, saying: You heard the voice of words but you saw no figure, only a voice. Hence, this kind of speaking and hearing are described as being face to face.”

Clearly the “presence” that was apprehended in this face off between God and the people was just a sense of an entity, the source of the “voice”. In other words, there is a kind of apprehension during a prophetic experience that changes the perception of the prophet. Rambam explains the uniqueness of this apprehension as being –

“Similarly the words, And the Lord spoke to Moshe face to face, describe His speaking as being in the form of an address [to Moshe]. Accordingly, it is said: Then he heard the voice speaking to him. It has accordingly been made clear to you that the hearing of a speech without the intermediary of an angel is described as being face to face.”

When the prophet experiences the prophecy as coming directly from the source without the intermediary of an angel, when it requires no interpretation of the hearer, it is called “face to face”. And again lest we think that the prophet perceives the source as coming from an entity that speaks with a sound, like all human speech, Rambam again forewarns us –

“In this sense it is also said: But my face shall not be seen, meaning that the true reality of My existence as it veritably is cannot be grasped.”

I read here Rambam as telling us that for a prophecy to not require the intermediary of the imaginative faculty, the prophet must understand that the reality of God’s existence cannot be grasped. When one can accept the truth that God exists but that all we say about Him including existence is only a linguistic necessity, that the reality is that we humans cannot grasp His essence, only then can the intellect alone operate when speculating about God. The apprehension that includes attributes and cannot completely divest God from the physical, requires the imaginative to distill the information and transmit it to the intellect for rational analysis and interpretation.

To elaborate a little further and attempt to put this into practical terms, I am suggesting that there are two levels of speculation about God. As human beings, we have to start looking for God through nature. If we accept that God has willed this existence, we see Him in that same existence. We analyze His actions and their result and extrapolate from that what God had in mind in creation. It requires a small step to conclude erroneously that God is in nature as His will is in it from our perspective. Our imaginative faculty which is experience based takes us to that thinking as that is our experience with our physical existence. We see the life force in all living things and we assume that God the ultimate life force of everything as another though necessary component of existence. But our intellectual understanding of God is that He is the only unique non-contingent entity and thus totally removed from the physical. He therefore cannot be that ultimate life force in the sense that we experience these things and the picture we have in our mind as a result of this speculation is only that – a picture.

Knowing God through nature was the level of understanding of the divine until Moshe came. He introduced the idea that we can only know what God is “not”. He is not anything that can be defined by humans. In human terms when we say that something “exists”, we are really saying that it “came” into existence from not existing. In other words, “existence” is a relative term. We therefore cannot use the term “existent” when talking about God who existed always and was never non-existent. We just use it for lack of another word to indicate that singularity - eternal existence. So when we say that God exists from eternity to eternity, we are really saying that he is NOT existent in the sense that we know existence to be. The same would apply to every attribute that we use about Him. Explaining the meaning of God telling Moshe in response to his question of how to explain to the people about God that sent him to take them out of Egypt, Rambam in MN 1:63 writes –

“Accordingly God made known to Moshe the knowledge that he was to convey to them and through which they would acquire a true notion of the existence of God, this knowledge being: I am that I am (Shemot 3:14)…. Accordingly, Scripture makes, as it were, a clear statement that the subject [I am] is identical with the predicate [I am]. This makes it clear that He is existent not through existence. This notion may be summarized and interpreted in the following way: the existent that is the existent, or the necessarily existent. That is what demonstration necessarily leads to: namely, to the view that there is a necessarily existent thing that has never been, or ever will be, nonexistent.”

Coming back to where this post started, Panim el Panim – face to face – connotes a kind of sophisticated apprehension of the divine which perceives a “presence” that in reality is a non-presence in our definition of “presence”. It is that apprehension that results in a prophecy that is described as Peh el Peh where the prophet repeats the prophecy word for word – verbatim – without his own interpretation. In his presentation of Moshe’s prophecy Rambam first brings the text peh el peh which is the end result followed by Panim el Panim which describes the process of apprehension that resulted in this prophecy.

Next post will address the third prooftext in this Halacha - ונאמר "ותמונת ה', יביט .

Moshe's Prophecy - the metaphor "Mouth to Mouth" - Peh El Peh.

In a private exchange with Rabbi Yoni Sacks, we touched on the subject of Moshe Rabbeinu’s prophecy. When talking about his prophecy, the Torah refers to it with two different expressions - peh el peh and panim el panim.

וְדִבֶּר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה פָּנִים אֶל-פָּנִים, כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר אִישׁ אֶל-רֵעֵהוּ

And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend. (Shemot 33:11)

And

ח  פֶּה אֶל-פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר-בּוֹ, וּמַרְאֶה וְלֹא

 בְחִידֹת, וּתְמֻנַת יְהוָה, יַבִּיט;.

8 Mouth to mouth do I speak with him, and vision and not in riddles, and the likeness of the Lord he beholds … (Bamidbar 12:8)

Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 7 explains the features of Moshe’s prophecy as compared to that of the other prophets. Among a list of differences he points to these two verses –

  

כל הנביאים, על ידי מלאך; לפיכך רואין מה שהן רואין במשל וחידה.  ומשה רבנו, לא על ידי מלאך,

שנאמר "פה אל פה אדבר בו"

ונאמר "ודיבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים

ונאמר "ותמונת ה', יביט

כלומר שאין שם משל, אלא רואה הדבר על בורייו בלא חידה בלא משל; הוא שהתורה

מעידה עליו, "ומראה ולא בחידות", שאינו מתנבא בחידה אלא במראה, שרואה

הדבר על בורייו

.

יכל הנביאים, יראין ונבהלין ומתמוגגים.  ומשה רבנו, אינו כן; הוא שהכתוב אומר "כאשר ידבר איש אל ריעהו"

כמו שאין אדם נבהל לשמוע דברי חברו, כך היה כוח בדעתו של משה רבנו להבין דברי הנבואה; והוא עומד על עומדו שלם.

I will translate and comment as I go along.

“All prophets prophesize via an angel, which causes them to see that which they see, in parables and riddles while Moshe Rabbeinu [does not prophesize] via an angel.”

What exactly is an angel? Rambam in MN 2:6 explains that it is a very broad term that indicates a messenger or intermediary in all its meanings. It is used in Tanach as a description for the fulfillment of God’s will whether it is through natural events such as winds or fires or singularities. In the context of prophecy, Rambam is explicit –

“Accordingly Midrash Kohelet has the following text: When man sleeps, his soul speaks to the angel, and the angel to the cherub. Thereby they have stated plainly to him who understands and cognizes intellectually that the imaginative faculty is likewise called an angel and that the intellect is called a cherub. How beautiful must this appear to him who knows, and how distasteful to the ignorant!”

One of the most common forms of prophecy is through dreams. The way those prophetic dreams work, is by stimulating the imaginative faculty [angel] which apprehends abstract matters in their physical forms which are then deciphered by the intellect [cherub] as to their true meaning. The way the prophecy is then transmitted by the prophet to others, is subject to the prophet’s own interpretation and thus is dependent on his level of intellectual perfection. A prominent example of this in Tanach is the short cryptic description of the divinity by Yeshayahu and the more expansive one by Yechezkel. The Rabbis (Hagigah 13b) comment that Yeshayahu was as a Ben Krach – a city dweller – while Yechezkel was a Ben Kfar – a village dweller – a metaphor for their respective level of perfected apprehension which resulted in the different depiction of the same vision. On the other hand, Moshe apprehended the prophecy with his intellect thus the prophecy did not require interpretation by him. He was able to transmit it verbatim without his personal input. This is the kind of prophecy that was needed to transmit laws, whose presentation need to be precise.   

“After we have spoken of the essence of prophecy, have made known its true reality, and have made clear that the prophecy of Moshe our master is different from that of the others, we shall say that the call to the Law followed necessarily from that apprehension alone” (MN2:39)

Rambam goes on to explain that the uniqueness of Moshe Rabbeinu’s prophecy is necessary for the immutability of the Torah. In other words, the repeated insistence by the Torah of the uniqueness of his prophecy is to make that point that the Torah cannot ever be changed by any subsequent prophet including Elyahu or Mashiach.

Rambam offers the following textual support for Moshe’s unique prophecy -

1. “Mouth to mouth do I speak with him”

Rambam in MN2:45 explains this term cryptically.

“You will perhaps ask this question: among the different degrees of prophecy there is one in which prophets, e.g., Isaiah, Micah, appear to hear God addressing them. How can this be reconciled with the principle that all prophets are prophetically addressed through an angel, except Moses our Teacher, in reference to whom Scripture says, "Mouth to mouth I speak to him" (Num. xii. 8)? I answer, this is really the case, the medium here being the imaginative faculty that hears in a prophetic dream God speaking; but Moses heard the voice addressing him "from above the covering of the ark from between the two cherubim" (Exod. xxv. 22) without the medium of the imaginative faculty.”

Mouth to mouth is identical to hearing the voice from “between the two cherubim”. We saw earlier that Cherub is a metaphor for the intellect. The two cherubim are thus the two intellects, men’s and the source of prophecy, the Active Intellect which in Medieval Philosophy stood for knowledge at its source. A prophet may imagine that God is speaking to him and delivering a message which needed deciphering while Moshe “knew” with his intellect that God was speaking to him. The message that Moshe apprehended needed no further interpretation and could be transmitted further in the form he “heard” it.

If we were to categorize Peh el Peh, we would say that it describes the process of transmission/reception of prophecy – it goes directly from the mouth of the Giver so to say, to the mouth of the prophet without the prophet’s interpretation.

As an aside, it is worthwhile to consider that a metaphor for mouth to mouth is kissing. When we say that Moshe, Aharon and Miriam died through kissing, Mitat Neshikah, we are saying that their physical end came about in the ecstasy of this highest level of prophecy and apprehension where there was no interference of the imaginative.

2. And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face.

Another description of Moshe’s prophecy is the metaphor “face to face”. I will address this aspect of Moshe’s prophecy in the next post as I continue with the translation/comment of this Halacha.

Note: this series of posts, though at first blush seem to be a detour in my discussion of Ta’amei Hamitzvot, are really part of that same discussion. The connection will become clearer as I continue.

Are Mitzvot Arbitrary Rituals?

In my last post, I showed that the underlying reason for Mitzvot is to foster an awareness of God in our daily life. As the Mitzvot involve us almost constantly, we are always connected to God in our thinking. Whether doing  things such as prayer, blessings, Tefillin, Tzitzit, mezuzah and the time-sensitive Mitzvot such as Shabbat and Yom Tov or refraining from things such as eating forbidden foods or when dealings with others we do so with honesty and ethical behavior, we are always brought back to God who commanded us to act this way by doing these Mitzvot. Of course this only works if we accept and understand that Mitzvot are not just some kind of mystical ritual but a tool for our own betterment. Having such an overarching reason one may argue that there is no further need to find reasons for each particular Mitzvah.

Rambam begins his discussion of Ta’amei Hamitzvot with a fascinating introduction in MN 3:26 -  

 “Just as men of speculation among the adherents of the Law are divided on the question whether the actions of God are the result of His wisdom or only of His will without being intended for any purpose whatever, they are also divided as regards the object of the commandments which God gave us. Some of them hold that the commandments have no object at all; and are only dictated by the will of God. Others are of opinion that all commandments and prohibitions are dictated by His wisdom and serve a certain aim; consequently, there is a reason for each one of the precepts: they are enjoined because they are useful.”

The comparison is surprising because unlike Mitzvot where Rambam holds there is an overarching reason for them, when it comes to why there is existence in general, Rambam argues that the question is moot and has no answer except that God so wanted.

“After this explanation you will understand that there is no occasion to seek the final cause of the whole Universe, neither according to our theory of the Creation, nor according to the theory of Aristotle, who assumes the Eternity of the Universe…" (MN3:13).

This chapter is the introductory chapter to Rambam’s exposition of Providence. Before he can discuss Providence, Rambam must establish whether there is an end goal for existence. His conclusion is that there really is no way for us to know other than accept that God willed existence. However, as he continues with the discussion he shows that we can discern from the world we live in, a certain pattern from which we can develop an understanding of how God wants to run the world and allows us to partake in His wishes. Although we cannot fathom the goals of the whole of existence, we see that the goal of man’s existence is to develop this understanding of God’s actions using the mind that he has and the freedom of will that he enjoys and act emulating those actions. Rambam rejects the popular arguments given by other thinkers such as Ramban and later Ramchal that God wanted people that worship Him so that He can bestow good upon them and bring into actuality His goodness. Or others who claim that humanity are the reason for existence. However, once we are here we humans have a role to play, though what that role is, is for us to find out.

On the other hand, when it comes to finding a reason for Mitzvot, the overarching reason is keeping the awareness of God’s presence in the forefront of our thinking according to Rambam. We are not talking about an existential issue but about the whys of commandments. The question that confronts us is whether the acts dictated by these commandments are arbitrary. After all any directed action or inaction would serve the purpose of reminding us of God as the One commanding us, even if it were an irrational or arbitrary act. In fact, maybe a counterintuitive commandment would attain the goal of making us aware more efficiently. How then can Rambam link these two subjects, the whole of existence and Mitzvot, and suggest that the same logic goes for both of them?

If we really think about Rambam’s proposal that Mitzvot are to keep God present in our awareness, the question that comes to mind is what concept of God are we striving to be aware of?  Unless we develop our understanding of what God is, what is the point of thinking and being aware of an imaginary entity that exists only in our fantasy? Rambam makes a strikingly strong statement on this issue in MN3:51 -

“Those, however, who think of God, and frequently mention His name, without any correct notion of Him, but merely following some imagination, or some theory received from another person, are, in my opinion, like those who remain outside the palace and distant from it. They do not mention the name of God in truth, nor do they reflect on it. That which they imagine and mention does not correspond to any being in existence: it is a thing invented by their imagination, as has been shown by us in our discussion on the Divine Attributes (Part I. chap. 1.). The true worship of God is only possible when correct notions of Him have previously been conceived.”

How does one develop correct notions about God? As followers on this blog must know by now, we cannot conceptualize God at all. We can only know Him through His actions. By contemplating the universe we are in and the way it works, learning about physics, chemistry, biology and all the other sciences that explain its workings, we can try to decipher God’s mind and will so to say. But how does knowing the sciences in general teach us about God? Is God really involved in all this? Maybe God is what is referred to as the God of the philosophers, an entity that has no involvement in the physical but only the first and only non-contingent entity? Does God really have will? Is He really responsible for existence or is He just a necessary being, a singularity that explains the existence of a chain of cause and effect? These questions cannot be answered by scientific investigation. There is a limit to human knowledge and it stops at the beginning of physical existence. We can investigate how the universe works but we will never be able to definitely answer how it came into being, what triggered that singular event. We can have theories, and there are new ones developed by scientist on a daily basis. We are pushing back the envelope of what can be known, but there always will be a place that human knowledge will not be able to reach. Rambam puts this into words using the medieval scientific language of his time where Aristotelian science was considered the limit of human knowledge.

“What I said before I will repeat now, namely, that the theory of Aristotle, in explaining the phenomena in the sublunary world, is in accordance with logical inference: here we know the causal relation between one phenomenon and another; we see how far science can investigate them, and the management of nature is clear and intelligible. But of the things in the heavens man knows nothing except a few mathematical calculations, and you see how far these go. … This is in reality the truth. For the facts which we require in proving the existence of heavenly beings are withheld from us: the heavens are too far from us, and too exalted in place and rank. Man's faculties are too deficient to comprehend even the general proof the heavens contain for the existence of Him who sets them in motion. It is in fact ignorance or a kind of madness to weary our minds with finding out things which are beyond our reach, without having the means of approaching them. We must content ourselves with that which is within our reach, and that which cannot be approached by logical inference let us leave to him who has been endowed with that great and divine influence, expressed in the words: "Mouth to mouth do I speak with Him" (Num. xii. 8).” (MN 2:24)

Of course, as I said earlier, since that time humankind has pushed back the envelope of knowledge and the heavens are much better understood. There are many things we still do not understand and many of them will be explained as science advances. There is however a point that we will never go beyond and that is before existence began, how it began, how the creation event was triggered and by whom or what. It is in that area of speculation that theology has a role and by definition is based on subjective judgments and what is referred to as revelation – Nevuah – “to him who has been endowed with that great and divine influence, expressed in the words: "Mouth to mouth do I speak with Him".” The singularity that was the coming into being of existence can be attributed to a natural phenomenon, negating will to God or as something willed by God, which accepts that God wills and acts. Will we ever be able to definitely prove one possibility over the other? Probably not but which perspective we chose to accept will definitely have a great impact on our behavior and sense of right and wrong.  Our personal biases and natural inclinations, our built in need for self-satisfaction and self-indulgence will influence on how we chose.

Although the overall concept of Mitzvot is to make us think about God, they also have a role in helping us decide what we believe about God. Do we believe in a transcendental unknowable God for whom we have an insatiable yearning to get to know or do we believe in an emotional god who is there to serve us? Do we believe in a god who takes sides and defends those who supplicate the most or do we believe in God who in His great wisdom has put us in a world were our success or failure is consequent on how we act? It is this role of Mitzvot that Rambam addresses in the comparison to existence. By training us in thinking beyond the self, teaching us how to think when we study the minutia of how these Mitzvot are implemented, the Havayot of Abaye and Rava, we become better equipped to deal with these subjective questions with the proper perspective. Although we do not know why God willed existence, we know that He has a role for us in that existence, a role that we have to discover for ourselves. So too He commanded us the Mitzvot so that we perfect ourselves and get closer to Him by knowing Him and believing in Him, as He really is - unknowable. How the Mitzvot accomplish that is the subject of following posts.