Important Post at Lamalikra.

I have been following this excellent blog for several years and the latest post is amazing. I highly recommend it to anyone who reads Hebrew.

Resag and The Authorship of Sefer Yetzirah. Avraham Avinu May Have Been Wrong!

Rav Sa’adyah Gaon here, is known as the author of Emunot Vede’ot an early and probably the first Jewish philosophical work written in the middle ages.  Less known is that he was also the author of an Arabic translation and commentary on the Sefer Yetzira. Traditionally, Sefer Yetzira is thought to be a mystical/kabalistic book transmitted from antiquity attributed to Avraham Avinu. Rav Sa’adyah (Resag) explains it in a philosophical rationalist way. I got interested in it through reading a chapter in Yosef Dan’s History of Kabbalah where he dissects Resag’s commentary. Rav Kafieh Z”L, the great and prolific Yemmenite scholar and writer, translated the commentary into Hebrew and made it accessible to a contemporary reader. I started reading it and if I have the fortitude and perseverance will continue to do so and comment as I come across interesting subjects. As a start I will translate a short segment in the introduction which I find fascinating and again illustrates how close-minded and far we have come from our great medieval Halachists and thinkers.

Sefer Yetzira deals with creation as the name suggests. It discusses the transition from absolute nothingness to existence. Resag explains that it does not discuss science as we know it but how science came into existence. It is not metaphysics which deals with the non-physical; it is also not physics which attempts to understand physical existence. It attempts to understand what we would call in modern parlance the moment of the “Big Bang”. As I was reading this, I had an insight about how Resag understands Ma’aseh Breishit as opposed to Ma’aseh Merkavah from one side and Physics from the other. Ma’aseh Breishit is the divider or rather the transition from one to the other. I am not sure if Rambam agrees with that though I have a hunch he may. I will have to think further about that as I read further. Sorry, I am digressing.

In the introduction, Resag presents nine different theories about how the world came into existence starting from the Aristotelian eternal universe ending with the Torah creation from nothingness and every other rational possibility in between. The eighth theory argues for God creating what he calls “air” and placing “numbers” and “words” in it. The idea is that everything can be described mathematically considering everything physical has substance that can be represented by numbers while the concept that holds things together is represented by words. This is the idea described in Sefer Yetzira and Resag suggests that as we read on we will get a clearer picture. I will come back to this in a separate post as Resag gives a very interesting insight on what occurred at Sinai. The ninth theory, is what Resag calls the Torah approach and the correct one which holds that physical existence came into being in one leap without the intermediate period of “air”, “numbers” and “words”. This theory accepts that there are “numbers” and “words” but they are part of existence as we know it rather that the cause for existence. The cause for existence is God and we do not know, nor can we ever know, how that transition from nothingness to existence came about.

This presentation indicates that the proponent of the eighth theory, namely the author of Sefer Yetzira, though not wrong intrinsically, is however wrong conceptually. In other words, his concept of creation is lacking as he conflates process with actuality. Now comes the surprising and shocking to some, very instructive to others, part which I will translate verbatim (almost).    

“Having presented these nine theories…. We will now complete the introduction to this book by commenting on the tradition that we received from the ancients as well as it is noted at the end of this book itself, that Avraham Avinu authored this book, and that once he understood God appeared to him. They are not suggesting that he [Avraham] set down the words [orally or to paper] in this form but rather that he developed these ideas [concepts] in his mind, establishing that words and numbers are the source of everything as we will explain [in the book and commentary]. He taught these ideas to himself and to his monotheistic followers. These were transmitted continuously orally within our nation [community], just as the Mishna was transmitted orally and unwritten and as parts of the Scriptures were transmitted orally, for example Shlomo’s parables which were copied by Chizkyahu the Judean king and his people. At the time that the nation’s sages gathered to collect the ideas [concepts] of the Mishna and attach their own words to them thus setting them down so too did they do with the concepts of this book. That is why we find [in this book] some verses and this [specific] order. (I am not sure what these last few words mean – DG). The place this book was written is Eretz Israel, as the letters are based on their language where there are two Dalets and so on and Resh with a Dagesh and without as is their custom.”

I find this fascinating especially in view of the traditional point of view that is common in our contemporary community. First, it tells us that when a sefer is attributed to someone it means that it is based on that person’s ideas rather than authorship. But even more fascinating is that it presents Jewish theology as an evolving process. In other words, Avraham developed his own ideas about God and creation which were not necessarily complete until Sinai (see the first chapter in MT Hilchot Avodah Zara for an identical presentation and my article here for a discussion on the subject as it pertains to the apprehension of God). It is at Sinai that the completed Jewish theologies of creation was established and were put to words in the first chapters of Breishit. Avraham’s ideas were a stepping-stone to the concepts at Sinai but fell short of the true understanding of creation.

I leave you with these thoughts.

Shabbat Shalom.

       

Rambam and Aristotles - A Complex and Nuanced Relationship. - Creation From Nothingness - The Creation of Time. (Part two of a series)

Stephen Hawking in a lecture about creation from nothingness makes the following statement:

“The problem of whether or not the universe had a beginning was a great concern to the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He felt there were logical contradictions, or Antimonies, either way. If the universe had a beginning, why did it wait an infinite time before it began? He called that the thesis. On the other hand, if the universe had existed forever why did it take an infinite time to reach the present stage? He called that the anti thesis. Both the thesis, and the anti thesis, depended on Kant's assumption, along with almost everyone else, that time was Absolute. That is to say, it went from the infinite past, to the infinite future, independently of any universe that might or might not exist in this background.

This is still the picture in the mind of many scientists today. However, in 1915, Einstein introduced his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity. In this, space and time were no longer Absolute, no longer a fixed background to events. Instead, they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole. It is not defined.” (For the whole lecture, see here )

In MN 2:13 Rambam has the following discussion:

“Even time itself is among the things created; for time depends on motion, i.e., on an accident in things which move, and the things upon whose motion time depends are themselves created beings, which have passed from non-existence into existence. … For time is undoubtedly an accident and according to our opinion one of the created accidents like blackness and whiteness. It is not a quality, but an accident connected with motion. This must be clear to all who understand what Aristotle has said on time and its real existence…. We consider time a thing created: it comes into existence in the same manner as other accidents, and the substances which form the substratum for the accidents. For this reason, viz., because time belongs to the things created, it cannot be said that God produced the Universe in the beginning…. Consider this well; for he who does not understand it is unable to refute forcible objections that are raised against the theory of Creatio ex nihilo. If you admit the existence of time before the Creation, you will be compelled to accept the theory of the Eternity of the Universe. For time is an accident and requires a substratum. You will therefore have to assume that something [beside God] existed before this Universe was created, an assumption which it is our duty to oppose.”

I am not a historian of medieval philosophy and I do not have the expertise to know whether this insight of Rambam about time was accepted generally in his time. From the presentation (including the pieces I skipped), it would seem that Rambam considered his opinion as novel in his time. This however is very important in Rambam’s thinking and has major implication in our ongoing discussion. In the previous post, I explained that although Rambam bases his thinking on Aristotelian physics, when it comes to metaphysics he deviates strongly and disagrees with Aristotles. It is not because he can prove that Aristotle is wrong but rather because Aristotle cannot prove his position nor is there a possibility that anyone will ever be able to do so.

“Everything produced comes into existence from non-existence. Even when the substance of a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from potentiality to reality, or before that time… It is therefore quite impossible to infer from the nature which a thing possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the condition of the thing has been in the moment when this process commenced; nor does the condition of a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into great confusion: you will reject evident truths and admit false opinions.” (MN2:17)

We extrapolate how things were based on the nature we know and the science we develop to explain it. That is based on the world we know. It is however impossible to extrapolate from the present state of our existence to how it was before everything we know came into existence. Therefore, Rambam argues that Aristotle when he talks about things that are beyond or before our existence is only conjecturing and trying to argue for what he considers the most likely, not truly what it was. In other words, Aristotle when he talks about creation is talking about something no one can ever know based on science and factual evidence.

The important thing that we have to take away from this is that Rambam believes that a scientific answer to how the Universe came into existence will never be demonstrated. We live in this universe, the physical one and we will never be able to extrapolate and definitely prove how it was before existence came to be. It is with this preamble in mind that we read Rambam in (MN2:25)

“Owing to the absence of all proof, we reject the theory of the Eternity of the Universe; and it is for this very reason that the noblest minds spent and will spend their days in research. For if, the Creation had been demonstrated by proof, even if only according to the Platonic hypothesis, all arguments of the philosophers against us would be of no avail. If, on the other hand, Aristotle had a proof for his theory, the whole teaching of Scripture would be rejected, and we should be forced to other opinions. I have thus shown that all depends on this question. Note it.”

Many have picked on these words of Rambam that he had an esoteric position that Aristotle was right. Some even made him out to be a hidden heretic, a precursor of Spinoza. But if read in the proper context it is clear that Rambam rejects Aristotle’s position and even Plato’s Materia Prima theory as conjectures that can never be proven. The answer to the question is therefore relegated to religion and revelation. It is a matter of accepting a position taught by prophecy without worrying that it can ever be disproved. We can confidently accept it.

Clearly, this confirms Rabbeinu Avraham rejection of those who accused Rambam of being an Aristotelian. In an upcoming post, I will discuss and show how Rambam was cautious and when it came to a matter that Aristotle believed to be scientific while Rambam felt that science might one day find a different explanation, he was extremely cautious and accepted Aristotle for lack of a better explanation.

Before I leave this, Hawking in his presentation does not necessarily accept that creation from nothingness was a result of God’s will. He conjectures a merging of Einstein’s relativity and quantum physics as the explanation of how things came into being from nothing. That will still only be a theory and will also leave us with the question: was this a spontaneous singularity or a willed one. I am confident that a scientific answer is impossible.

Reading a Theological or an Historical Text -

Although there is some overlap between the categories and there also is some controversy among the interpreters to which category certain texts belong, the Torah, the Five Books of Moshe, contain legal, theological and historical texts. While legal texts are almost exclusively found in the Torah, the other two categories are common to all the prophetic books including Nach, the Books of the Prophets. The legal portions are addressed in the Halachik discourse and comprise what is generally known as Talmud Torah, the learning done in Yeshivot and on a daily basis by most observant Jews. Although generally ignored, there is a very important theological and philosophical foundation to the Halachik discourse which therefore affects legal decisions and how Mitzvot are practiced. Practice however can be defined while theology and philosophy are much more fluid and therefore much more controversial. Furthermore, philosophy and theology should be seen as developmental processes that span millennia and generations. As I explained in earlier posts, the scriptures posit beliefs that we are then tasked to convince ourselves of their veracity and correctness. It is this process of learning and searching that moves us along as individuals, a people and through us the whole world towards the goal of attaining the ultimate Truth,

כִּי-מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ, דֵּעָה אֶת-יְהוָה, כַּמַּיִם, לַיָּם מְכַסִּים.

For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. (Yeshayahu 11:9)

It is with this in mind that we have to approach the theological texts as we try to understand them and interpret them.

The way I understand it, Torah theology is a way of looking and interpreting our observations of our surroundings and existence. In other words, we observe and try to understand the science underlying the physical world we live in, a developmental process in itself that also spans millennia and generations, and at the same time try to make sense of our raison d’etre, why we are here and what is the purpose of this whole enterprise. For ease, I will refer to all science as physics while metaphysics is included in theology. Looking at physics, although we are still far from having a complete understanding of it and may never understand it all the way, at least theoretically we should eventually be able to acquire full knowledge thereof. That is so, because physics is an objective and empirical science. Theology with its underlying belief system and metaphysical theories, on the other hand, is subjective and cannot be proven empirically. It is a way of looking at things based on a combination of deductive thinking, intuition and prophecy, revelation. However, these two different types of knowledge go together and are interdependent. As humanity develops its knowledge of physics, it also develops its understanding of theology which is de facto a commentary and interpretation of the first.

The Torah sets down an axiom – God exists. Rambam holds that it is empirically provable but requires a lot of work and effort. He therefore considers it a Mitzvah – a commandment – to “know” that God exists.

…יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות, לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון
וידיעת דבר זה מצות עשה, שנאמר "אנוכי ה' אלוהיך

The way I understand Rambam is that this axiom is at the intersection of physics and theology. That God “exists” is empirically provable however, what God “is” and even how the word “exists” relates to Him is a matter that belongs to the realm of theology. Everything about God, omniscience, omnipotence, will, whether He created the world from nothingness, His providence and His relationship to our own existence, all belongs to theology and is subjective, a way we look at things rather than something empirically provable. It is theology that the Torah presents in its non-legal texts and is the subject of Nach. It tells us how we should look at things and it lays out markers that we should follow as we try to understand and make sense of it all but it ultimately leaves it to us to fill in the blanks. It is through the combination of this process of thinking, keeping the Mitzvot and understanding them, which in itself depends on our theological insights, that we will eventually fulfill the first Mitzvah of “knowing” that God exists.

It is with this in mind that the Torah starts off by describing creation. It certainly does not intend to tell us a scientific truth as that is left to us to discover – it therefore should not be read literally, even if the literal reading were to agree with current science which it does not. It is teaching us that as we observe our world and develop an understanding of how it works, we have to keep in mind that it was willed into existence by HKBH from nothingness. Whatever scientific theory for the world’s beginning is in vogue, whether it is the Big Bang or any other such theory that may arise, the prior cause for that singularity is God and His will and not some other subjective explanation. The Torah presentation of creation also tells us that all components of the universe are interrelated and interdependent and all, including humans have a role to play in its continuity. It also tells us that God has put into place in this universe a self-sustaining system that does not require any further intervention on His part – He “rested” on the seventh day. It also tells us about man and his mental and psychological makeup, abilities and responsibilities. What it does not tell us is the scientific and physical makeup of the world.

“First, the account given in Scripture of the Creation is not, as is generally believed, intended to be in all its parts literal. For if this were the case, wise men would not have kept its explanation secret, and our Sages would not have employed figurative speech [in treating of the Creation] in order to hide its true meaning, nor would they have objected to discuss it in the presence of the common people. The literal meaning of the words might lead us to conceive corrupt ideas and to form false opinions about God, or even entirely to abandon and reject the principles of our Faith. It is therefore right to abstain and refrain from examining this subject superficially and unscientifically. We must blame the practice of some ignorant preachers and expounders of the Bible, who think that wisdom consists in knowing the explanation of words, and that greater perfection is attained by employing more words and longer speech.” (MN 2:29)

This is the approach that we have to take to every text that deals with theology. Its purpose is to tell us how we should look at our physical reality, the world we live in, at things that happen to us as a nation, as individuals and as humanity. It tells us how we should interpret the good and bad things that happen to us and how we should act when we are presented with choices, basing ourselves on certain ethical or moral imperatives. The same thinking applies to historical events. The Torah is not interested in passing along to us historical events but rather how we should look at them and learn from them.

“Know that all stories that you will find mentioned in the Torah serve a certain purpose in connection with religious teaching. They either help to establish a principle of faith, or to regulate our actions, and to prevent wrong and injustice among men.” (MN 3:50)

Although I see no reason why I should question the historicity of most of the events related in the Torah, it is really irrelevant to the insight it is intended to teach. The point is the teaching that it is transmitting which is the same regardless of the fine details of the actual event. The story of the flood to me is a lesson on how human beings should behave when they see a calamity coming and how they should interpret it. Unlike the pagan world that developed the Gilgamesh myth to explain the cataclysmic floods that were still alive in human memory thereby shifting the responsibility to the gods, the Torah teaches that Noach acted with foresight when he became aware of the forthcoming cataclysm. Apparently the way the rabbis read it, there were early signs over several centuries that global warming was occurring and a cataclysm was about to occur. The Torah also teaches lessons about the breakdown of society and how that affected its ability to prepare or even foresee the cataclysm. To me that is, among others, the important messages the story sends and not the historical details of how widespread it was and so on. I believe a similar approach should be taken with every Torah narrative.

More to come…

Gmar Chatima Tova.

An Interesting Comment on the Previous Post

An email comment on my last post that I thought worthwhile enough to publish. (With permission and slight editing).

On a micro level- Galgalim (spheres) or nature, seem to have Bechira. An atom can split on its own but for some reason doesn't without us causing it. The more we study science the more we yet have to explain the rules of science but we are always left with a question on why it chooses to work this way instead of another. As soon as we think we figure it out, we find another aspect that seems to be random. This will be a process that will always exist in man’s search for an explanation or understanding how things work. This choosing of nature to work one way versus another or randomness is what the Rambam calls Bechira. This is a much higher level than we are because at the end of the day it is doing solely the Ratzon hashem. Moshe was much closer to that level because whatever Moshe did was in fact Ratzon hashem. Even though on a micro when Moshe hit the rock or the mitzri it seemed like it was his decision and choice and that G-d may seem to have been angry at Moshe (when he hit the rock). The end result was that he did Ratzon hashem. When the water flooded the world in the Mabul or the sea split for the Jews may seem as nature choosing a dif direction. The end result is Ratzon hashem.

At the end of the day the macro is only Ratzon hashem and on the micro what we interpret as Bechira whether in nature or in ourselves is also Ratzon hashem. The difference is that in nature it is more difficult to see Bechira (on a micro level) unless you study science or are a theologian. That is why it is on a higher level than Bechira of man. Moshe was closer to that level of Bechira.

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.

The Rationale for the Many Detailed Rules Against Idolatry - Eradication and Prevention.

In my last post, I analyzed Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot using the verse in Devarim 4:19 to support the prohibition of even contemplating the possibility of astrology being a science and true. I failed to point out that the idea that astrology (and for that matter magic) is false, was one of the most difficult things for a medieval thinker to accept. In fact, almost all ignored this position of Rambam and even his most ardent followers felt forced to disagree. His position was considered revolutionary and it was only much later in the history of human development that the truth of Rambam’s position was finally seen and accepted. Most of Rambam’s followers such as Ralbag, Rabbi Levi Ben Avraham, and Rabbi Yaakov Antuli (author of the seminal Malmad Hatalmidim) to name a few, all believed that astrology is an empirically proven science. As we will see, even direct communication with Rambam in a letter to the sages of Marseilles who queried him and where he clarified his position admonishing them to change their thinking made little impact. Ramban’s position that astrology is real but forbidden was accepted throughout Europe for centuries thereafter. It is a separate subject for discussion, but it is worthwhile to mention that here we see how philosophical thinking affected Halacha and that the two were never divorced from each other during the earlier periods of Jewish learning including the era of the Rishonim. The apparent disconnect and separation between the two in contemporary Jewish Halacha is a more recent development.

I would like to now analyze how Rambam addresses this verse (Devarim 4:19) in his Mishne Torah Hilchot Avodah Zara 2:1.

עיקר הציווי בעבודה זרה, שלא לעבוד אחד מכל הברואים--לא

מלאך, ולא גלגל, ולא כוכב, ולא אחד מארבע היסודות, ולא אחד מכל הנבראים

מהם. ואף על פי שהעובד יודע שה' הוא האלוהים, והוא עובד הנברא הזה על דרך

שעבד אנוש ואנשי דורו תחילה--הרי זה עובד עבודה זרה.

The core [literally: the root] of the commandment [forbidding] idol worship is that one may not worship any creation, whether an angel, a sphere, a star, one of the four elements or anything that is made from them [the elements]. Even if the worshipper knows that God is the [supreme] God and he [only] worships the created entity, the way Enosh and his generation did in the beginning – that is Idol Worship.

According to Rambam in the preceding Chapter, Enosh developed the idea of worshiping the forces of nature that run the world as God’s intermediaries. At first, it was just as a show of respect for God’s tools, just as one respects the king’s minister – which is what Rambam is referring to here with the words “in the beginning”. With time, people attributed independent powers to them. To understand what Rambam means when he introduces this chapter with the words “The core of the commandment” we need to differentiate between goal and method. The goal is the eradication of the concept of idolatry and once eradicated preventing recidivism. The method is the development of laws that will lead people to that goal. These laws will not only forbid idol worship itself but anything that might lead towards it. There is a fine line between being in awe and worshipping God as the source of all the beauty and wisdom we observe in the world around us and worshipping the beautiful and awesome world itself. Crossing that line is dangerous and the laws are there to prevent that from happening. Rambam here is laying out the underlying rationale for the many rules in minute details that follow in the coming chapters. He therefore explains that at the core of the rules, the underlying rationale for all the detailed laws that he will enumerate and discuss in the coming chapters is the eradication and prevention of this kind of thinking. That will explain why actions that at first blush do not seem to be real idol worship are prohibited because of the risk that they will take us across that fine line of seeing independent powers in created entities.

ועניין זה, הוא שהזהירה עליו תורה ואמרה "ופן תישא עיניך

השמיימה, וראית את השמש ואת הירח ואת הכוכבים . . . אשר חלק ה' אלוהיך,

אותם, לכול העמים

כלומר שמא תשוט בעין ליבך ותראה שאלו הם המנהיגים את העולם, והם שחלק ה'

אותם לכל העמים (העולם) להיותם חיים והווים ונפסדים כמנהגו של עולם; ותאמר שראוי

להשתחוות להן, ולעובדן. ובעניין זה ציווה ואמר "הישמרו לכם, פן יפתה

לבבכם"

כלומר שלא תטעו בהרהורי הלב לעבוד אלו, להיותם סרסור ביניכם ובין הבורא.

It is against this that the Torah warns when saying, “lest you raise your eyes heavenward and see the sun, the moon and the stars… for the LORD your God has allotted them unto all the peoples under the heavens”. Namely, should your mind wander and notice that these [the sun etc…] are responsible for the running of the world and God gave them to all the peoples [Rav Kafih edition: world] causing them to come into being [literally: live], exist and be destroyed, as is the natural way of the world. [A poetic way of saying, the cosmos is responsible for the existence of life on earth]. You will therefore think that it is proper to bow down to them and worship them. That is the meaning of the warning “careful, lest your mind be enticed”. Namely, do not stray in your mind thinking that these are worthy to be worshipped as intermediaries between you and the Creator.

To understand what Rambam means with “notice that these [the sun etc…] are responsible for the running of the world”, we need to know a little about how he saw the cosmos and its relationship to the world. Professor Twersky in his “Introduction to the Mishne Torah” writes that the MN is like a Gemara to the MT which is like the Mishna, when dealing with philosophic matters. It fleshes out and expands on the concepts presented in MT in a summary fashion. Rambam in MN 1:72 presents a very concise and clear exposition of his understanding of the Aristotelian cosmos. Summarizing what is pertinent to our discussion, Rambam proposes that we look at the universe as a single body with different interacting components very similar to the Gaia Hypothesis[1]. Our world is composed of the four elements that are inert. When some external force induces them to move, they have a natural tendency to return to their original position. The interplay between these two forces, the external force and the internal tendency, is responsible for the four elements’ interaction with each other. That interaction is responsible for all the things that exist in our world which all are different composites of these four elements in different combinations and ratios. The external force that is responsible for the movement of the four elements emanates from the spheres, the repository of the sun, moon and the stars. The spheres are a fifth element, an element that has the ability to think which is what induces them to stay in constant motion. The thinking that induces the spheres to stay in motion is the wish to emulate God’s perfection by being perfect[2]. Perfection to them is perfect motion which is circular and constant. Their motion in turn creates the movement in our world that is responsible for the four elements’ interaction. The spheres in this scenario are therefore responsible for our existence in this world of ours. The “thinking” that Rambam talks about is gravity which Newton eventually understood and explained. However, to the mind of a pre-Newtonian thinker it is a small step to seeing this force as an independent power. It is therefore not surprising that many did attribute independent thinking and power to the spheres, including great Jewish thinkers. It is to Rambam’s credit that he was able to insist that, though misunderstood by him, they were still only natural forces that were constant and subject to natures’ rules of cause and effect. It is exactly how he reads our verse. Although the spheres seem to be responsible for existence in our world, “responsible for the running of the world”, it warns us not to fall into the trap that they are independent from nature and the laws of cause and effect. Their force is a constant one unchanged since creation. There is therefore no reason to worship them.

Next post will address Rambam’s discussion of this verse in MN 2:5.

---

[1] See - http://www.answers.com/gaia+theory?cat=technology&gwp=11&ver=2.3.0.609&method=3 .

[2] This is the key to the very surprising chapter MN 2:7, very difficult to a contemporary to understand. I hope to discuss in a future post.

Where does Physics Stop and Metaphysics Begin? Rambam and Ramban.

There is very little difference between Rambam and Ramban, the two great representatives of the two schools of Judaism, the rational and the mystical, when it comes to defining the goals and objectives of humanity. They both agree that the goal of Torah is to bring about a perfect civilization that knows God[1]. Rambam’s position is discussed in my earlier posts. We read similar ideas in Ramban in Torat Hashem Temimah (Kitvei Ramban Chavel Edition (Heb.) Vol. 1 page 142-143) and in many of his other writings. The difference between these two greats is how one answers the question of where science stops and metaphysics starts. The implications of the answer to this question underlie the great chasm that developed between the Rambam’s rationalism and the Ramban’s Kabbalah.

Rambam maintained a clear delineation between the physical and the spiritual. Spirituality to him had no place in science. If he did not understand something about the physical world, he assumed it was some mechanism that he had not yet understood. He thought that there are things that humans will never understand through systematic research, only through inspiration or intuition, but ultimately the explanation will be physical. Rambam addresses this in several places in his writing, (I know offhand of three but I am sure there are more), and to me the most telling, especially to a contemporary Jew, is the following one in his introduction to Pirush Hamishna. In a discussion about the purpose of the different components of our world, he makes the following statement -

, ויש שתכליתו עמוקה ונסתרת עד שלא תוודע כלל זולתי אם נודעה בחזון

או בידיעת הנסתרות, אבל בחקירה מדעית אין הדבר אפשרי, לפי שאין ביכולת

האדם לחקור ולדעת מדוע המציא הטבע מן הנמלים בכנפים ומהם בלי כנפים, וכן

מדוע המציא תולע מרבה רגלים, ואחר פחות רגלים ממנו, ומה תכלית התולעת הזו

והנמלה הזו

…some things’ purpose is so deep and hidden that it cannot be known except through a vision or intuition [my paraphrase/explanation - the method used in finding hidden things (see Rabbis Kafieh and Sheilat notes in their respective editions)]. Understanding the purpose of those things through scientific inquiry is impossible. For it is impossible for man to inquire and know why nature has produced ants with and without wings, why it produced a critter with many legs and another with less, and what the purpose of this critter or ant is.

The example he brings is an anachronism for a contemporary reader. Darwin has explained this phenomenon quite conclusively. Rambam however contents himself with stating that there must be a physical reason and explanation that is unknown to him. To him Darwin, who explained it, would be either intuitive or a visionary, which is not so far from the truth. There is no possible “spiritual” explanation to natural phenomena because there is no interaction between the conceptual (to us), non-physical existence and the physical world we live in.

Ramban on the other hand explained scientific mysteries by ascribing them to spiritual entities that emanate from the stars and spheres. Where Rambam saw only unknown physical phenomena, what we now know is gravity, magnetism etc… Ramban saw transitional semi-physical entities that carried out the wishes of the astral powers. In his world, there was no clear delineation between the physical and the metaphysical. There is a category of semi transcendence populated by a multitude of entities such as Sheidim, Ruchot (spirits) and Neshamot (souls) which are found in Tanach and the Gemara. Where Rambam saw allegories and metaphors, Ramban saw science and reality. For a thorough discussion of the contrast between these two thinkers in this area see R. Buchman’s article in Hakirah Vol. 2 http://hakirah.org/Vol%202%20Buchman.pdf .

Ramban could therefore accept many Chazal and verses in the Torah literally. An angel was not just a “form” but also a physical entity albeit ethereal. The soul is similarly a physical entity that God “blows” into man just as the Passuk says. When the rabbis say that there are a finite number of souls stored in the “Guf” created at the same time as the world, he sees that as literal (Kitvei Haramban page 159). That being the case souls must be recycled and a whole body of theories regarding Gilgulim comes into existence. Ramban has support for these ideas from old Midrashim, the Heichalot, and literal reading of more accepted sources. This approach leads to a completely different understanding of Olam Haba, Techyat Hametim and generally has a much more eschatological view of death and its aftermath.

There is no question that some earlier thinkers including some Amoraim and probably Tannaim, held similar positions and Ramban has a rich tradition to rely on. Rambam knew the same sources and either ignored them or when forced to confront them, either interpreted them allegorically or rejected them. Rambam accepted that the Rabbis had no clear tradition when it came to these issues and based their understanding on how they saw their world. He therefore did not have a problem accepting that there are different schools of thought that contradict each other and when looking at a text one has to see to which group the author belonged. When forming our own opinion on which group to follow we have to evaluate which one fits with our reality and follow the Truth as we see it.

Rambam held that there is a limit to what humans can apprehend. Knowing that limit and not going beyond it is a sine qua non of knowledge and perfection.

“A boundary is undoubtedly set to the human mind which it cannot pass. There are things (beyond that boundary) which are acknowledged to be inaccessible to human understanding, and man does not show any desire to comprehend them, being aware that such knowledge is impossible, and that there are no means of overcoming the difficulty. (MN 1:31)

“If, on the other hand, you attempt to exceed the limit of your intellectual power, or at once to reject things as impossible which have never been proved to be impossible, or which are in fact possible, though their possibility be very remote, then you will be like Elisha Acher. You will not only fail to become perfect, but you will become exceedingly imperfect. Ideas founded on mere imagination will prevail over you. You will incline toward defects, and toward base and degraded habits, on account of the confusion which troubles the mind, and of the dimness of its light, just as weakness of sight causes invalids to see many kinds of unreal images, especially when they have looked for a long time at dazzling or at very minute objects.” (MN1:32)

Contrary to popular belief, Rambam was the more conservative of the two. He set limits to how far we may speculate beyond the physical. Ramban with his world of mysticism was much more daring. It was not that Ramban did not accept the limits to human knowledge but rather, though there was no direct evidence for the existence of a spiritual world, there was a lot of circumstantial evidence supporting it. One has to wonder how much his perspective would have changed when confronted with the empirically proven scientific explanations for the once mysterious phenomena. Would he still maintain that magic and astrology work but may not be used because Jews have to rely on God? Or would he accept Rambam’s position that they are forbidden because they do not work and are false? How would this have affected his understanding of the supernal world?

It is important to understand that the two approaches are mutually exclusive. If one accepts Rambam, one has to follow his position to its rational conclusion. Clearly, what to Ramban was science to Rambam was superstition and forbidden. It brought the transcendental into the physical where it does not belong. I find it an affront to my intelligence when I read some who seemingly seamlessly integrate the two approaches. It is insulting to both of these great truth seekers. The approach would have to be with both to try to update their ideas based on our current knowledge. As I quoted in an earlier post, Rav Kook already implied that this would be a much easier task with Rambam’s rational outlook than with Ramban’s mystical one. As I discuss idolatry, we will have to keep in mind the different ways Rambam and Ramban looked at the world. We will see that even in what seems a Halachik issue, the underlying philosophical thinking affects practical rulings.

---

[1] They seem to differ in their respective understanding of Vehalachta Biderachav. That is a subject for a separate analysis.

The New York Times Article on the Laws of Nature.- Rambam vs Ramban or are both true?

Fascinating article in today's Times :

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Interesting quotes:

There is in fact a kind of chicken-and-egg problem with the universe and its laws. Which “came” first — the laws or the universe?

If the laws of physics are to have any sticking power at all, to be real laws, one could argue, they have to be good anywhere and at any time, including the Big Bang, the putative Creation. Which gives them a kind of transcendent status outside of space and time.

On the other hand, many thinkers — all the way back to Augustine — suspect that space and time, being attributes of this existence, came into being along with the universe — in the Big Bang, in modern vernacular. So why not the laws themselves?

Rambam agrees with the latter see MN 2:13 re time and that the laws are created is obvious as he equates them to angels and they are created see Hil Yesodei Hatorah 2:3.

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate from the University of Texas, Austin, described himself in an e-mail message as “pretty Platonist,” saying he thinks the laws of nature are as real as “the rocks in the field.” The laws seem to persist, he wrote, “whatever the circumstance of how I look at them, and they are things about which it is possible to be wrong, as when I stub my toe on a rock I had not noticed.”

Interesting way of describing Tzurah - Form.

I love this idea of intrinsic randomness much for the same reason that I love the idea of natural selection in biology, because it and only it ensures that every possibility will be tried, every circumstance tested, every niche inhabited, every escape hatch explored. It’s a prescription for novelty, and what more could you ask for if you want to hatch a fecund universe?

Is this how Ramban would understand that everything is a hidden miracle?

But it is soon for any Einsteinian to throw in his or her hand. Since cosmologists don’t know how the universe came into being, or even have a convincing theory, they have no way of addressing the conundrum of where the laws of nature come from or whether those laws are unique and inevitable or flaky as a leaf in the wind.

These kinds of speculation are fun, but they are not science, yet. “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” goes the saying attributed to Richard Feynman, the late Caltech Nobelist, and repeated by Dr. Weinberg.

Maybe both alternatives — Plato’s eternal stone tablet and Dr. Wheeler’s higgledy-piggledy process — will somehow turn out to be true. The dichotomy between forever and emergent might turn out to be as false eventually as the dichotomy between waves and particles as a description of light. Who knows?

Who knows indeed!

A New Blog that I Highly Recommend - No One Escapes Censorship - Not Even Rashbam

A very interesting and instructive new Blog http://parshanut.blogspot.com/ has started with this cycle of Torah reading. This year it discusses Rashbam's Pirush on the Torah, selecting each week a few pertinent segments and discussing them in depth. I urge you to read it as it is an eye opener on how to read our great Rishonim and how they were fearless in their quest for truth.

Rashbam, the brother of Rabbeinu Tam, was a grandson of Rashi and one of the main Ba'alei Hatosafot. In spite of the high regard accorded to him as a Posek and his esteemed family position, his Pirush suffered at the hand of the religious censors. It was expunged from the Mikraot Gedolot Chumashim from Breishit through Parshat Vayerah. Not all agree that zealotry was the reason for it going missing. Some claim that the version the printer used to copy the Pirush had that part missing, a common occurrence with old Kitvei Yad. However, the modern frum censor is quite obvious, as we will see.

Parshanut discusses Rashbam on Breishit 1:5 http://parshanut.blogspot.com/2007/10/bereishit-ii-day-and-night.html and as you can see this comment goes against the Halacha that day follows the night. We always start Shabbat Friday at dusk while the simple translation of the verse indicates that as morning arrived the day was completed as Rashbam in fact explains it. Obviously Rashbam was not too bothered by this.

Zealous censorship is obviously alive and well nowadays. I noticed a revealing, pathetic and at the same time comical occurrence. Our shul has a set of the new Mikraot Gedolot recently published(Machon Hamaor, Mosdot Orot Hatorah) that contains a non-Chavel edition of Ramban. They printed Rashbam from the beginning but skipped his explanation on וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר . They simply omitted a whole comment! They probably thought that a "Talmid To'eh" wrote that!

Rashbam however alludes quite clearly to his explanation in an earlier verse.

רשב"ם בראשית פרק א פסוק ד

ויבדל אלהים בין האור ובין החשך - שי"ב שעות היה היום ואח"כ הלילה י"ב. האור תחלה ואח"כ החשך. שהרי תחלת בריאת העולם היה במאמר יהי אור.

God separated between light and darkness – There was twelve hours daylight at first followed by twelve of darkness. Light came first and then darkness for the start of Creation was with the words “let there be light”.

In other words, Rashbam prepares his explanation in the following verse and confirms from here that in fact 12 hours daylight was the start of the first day. The religious censor missed this and left this passage in the “Frum” edition. Maybe it will disappear too in the next reprint!

Ramban on Creation - An Aristotelian Interpretation!

In anticipation of Parshat Breishit, I started learning the Parsha and relearned the Ramban on Breishit Bara for the umpteenth time. I finally understood it clearly, so I decided to write it up and add some thoughts that came to mind.

The word Breishit is difficult to understand in the context it is used. Literally, it would translate “At the beginning of, God created the heaven and the earth”. The question is therefore at the beginning of what?

Rashi and most commentators therefore translate the verse as “In the beginning of the creation (or alternatively, of creating) the heaven and the earth, while the earth was [still] Tohu and Bohu, while it [still] was dark over [atop] the depths and the wind of God was hovering on the water, God said let there be light.” The thrust of the story is to give us an idea in what state the earth was in when God created light. The problem with this approach is that we have to ignore the word Bara as it is read [punctuated] by the Mesora and read it Bero. It also leaves us wondering what the point is telling us about the wind hovering over the water. Rashbam tries to address it by explaining that it introduces how the waters were separated on the second day. It is clearly forced. One great advantage of this approach though is that the Torah is not telling us how God created. It just tells us that certain things were created among a multitude of others. The ones mentioned are those necessary to introduce us to the creation of man who is the subject of the rest of the Torah. It also introduces us to the idea that God created the world, which is a fundamental belief in Judaism. We do not have to worry about explaining the verses in light of reality and science. The Torah is describing phenomena rather than explaining them.

Ramban though is bothered by the text. He prefers to stick to it and translates it as “At first God created heaven and earth. In that process, the earth was at first Tohu and then became Bohu. At this stage, there was darkness on the depth [water] and God’s wind was hovering above the water. And God said let there be light…” This approach reads the text as a sequential description of how things came into being and we now have to deal with sciences and reality. Here is how Ramban does it –

God created the world from absolute nothingness by producing first a formless matter [in the Aristotelian sense see my post http://yediah.blogspot.com/2007/05/form-and-matter-inseparable-duo-glimpse.html ]. However in Aristotelian physics the matter that makes up earth is not the same as the one that makes up the heavens, thus God had to create two such entities, the matter of heaven and the matter of earth. Focusing on the matter that makes up earth, the Torah tells us that at first it was so tiny and indiscernible that people wondered if it even existed thus the word Tohu. It is only after being endowed with Form that it could be discerned and pointed to - thus Bohu – a composite of two words Bo {in it] and Hu [it is]. The components of this matter were darkness which, naturally, is located over the depth. As we know, medieval physics saw matter as a composite of earth, water, fire and air which naturally find their place one above the other, because of their specific “heaviness”, in this particular order. In the natural setting, we would have earth first, which is included in the word “Veha’aretz” followed by water which is “tehom” and above it “Choshech” – darkness which is the basic component of fire or light. Ramban and other medieval thinkers, Rambam included, saw darkness as the lack of light and not a separate entity. One does not make darkness – it just is there when light is removed. They therefore concluded that darkness is light in-potentia[1]. [See my post http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-have-creation-and-darkness-in.html .] Air is on top of fire; however when it is moved by wind – “Ruach” – it insinuates itself between fire and water. Now that this was in place, God transformed darkness – light in-potentia - into light in-actu.

According to this, the verse should be read, “in the beginning God created two matters: the matter of Heaven and the matter of Earth. Earth was at first indiscernible and when it took on form, in its natural state it was composed of earth at the core, water on top of earth on top of which was light in-potentia or darkness. Air was on top of all these but as God made the wind blow, the air moved and insinuated itself between the fire and the water.”

This approach is very similar to the one Rambam presents in MN 2:30 with some variations. One can see it as an interpretation of Rambam read directly into the verses. I find this fascinating. Ramban who attacks Rambam and accuses him of having succumbed to Aristotle and the other Greek philosophers, finds himself interpreting the Torah in light of that same accursed Philosophy!

Ramban, having introduced the concept of “formless matter” that is almost indiscernible, addresses the Gemara in Yoma 54b referring to the Mishna that teaches that in the second Beit Hamikdash, in the Kodesh HaKodashim, there was an Even Shetyiah, which was used on Yom Kippur instead of the Aron, the Ark. The Gemara says that it was called Even Shetyiah because the world was founded from that rock – a play on the words Shetyiah and Nishtat - founded. Ramban suggests that the rock symbolized the first matter, the formless one. The idea is that the purpose of the Beit Hamikdash is to focus us towards our goal of thinking about God and trying to apprehend Him. In the process of looking for His traces in His actions, we arrive at the First Matter, the beginning of material existence. We then acknowledge that there is the Mystery beyond that First Matter, the unknowable God.

This idea of First Matter is very important too in Rambam’s theological world. He explains with that the error of the Princes at Matan Torah. We read there – (Shemot 24:10-11)

י וַיִּרְאוּ, אֵת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר, וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם, לָטֹהַר.

10 and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness.

יא וְאֶל-אֲצִילֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ; וַיֶּחֱזוּ, אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים, וַיֹּאכְלוּ, וַיִּשְׁתּוּ. {ס}

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand; and they beheld God, and did eat and drink. {S}

Rambam understands that they were trying to apprehend God, “they saw the God of Israel”. “Under His feet” is a metaphor for the first object that went from nothingness to existence, or the First Matter. It was transparent like the whiteness of a sapphire and like the cloudless heaven – it was practically indiscernible. These princes confused that First Matter with God. They could not see beyond matter and, like many of our contemporaries, could not accept the possibility of an existence beyond the material. The transcendental escaped them. That is the meaning of the metaphor – “they ate and drank”. They were so steeped in material existence that when they contemplated the Deity they remained in physicality – “eating and drinking”. (See MN 1:5, 1:28)

Moadim Lesimcha.



[1] Rambam in MN 2:30 understands, as I read him, that when God says let there be light, He changed darkness and added to it making it light in-potentia. Until then it was not. That fits with the fact that the sun was only created on the fourth day. It is only then that light in-actu appeared. Ramban had to deviate here as he sees the days as real 24 hours while Rambam does not. But this is for another discussion.

Professor Aviezer, Skeptics,Evolution, Intelligent Design, "Out There" and Existence of God.

Professor Nathan Aviezer in the current Skeptic Magazine has an excellent article refuting an earlier article by Alexander Nussbaum which argued that Orthodox Jews do not accept evolution and other areas of science. The article titled Jews for Darwin goes on to show that evolution is compatible with Torah, demonstrates that Genesis and science are in harmony especially based on Rambam’s understanding of the six days of creation.

Addressing the theory of ID (Intelligent Design) he correctly relegates it to the area of religion arguing that it is not science. As I have argued many times in my posts ID per se does not prove the existence of God. We believe that God willed the world into existence, not as Aristotle thought that God as First Cause and the physical world was always interdependent, God having no choice in the matter. But proving that God exists based on the fact that the universe is too complex for it to have formed on its own and therefore must have had a Creator who set in place the complex and beautiful laws that govern it, is not a good argument. As Professor Aviezer points out, God’s creative activities are usually carried out within the framework of His own laws of nature. That these laws are God’s is a religious belief not science. As I have shown in my article in Hakirah volume 3 http://hakirah.org/Vol%203%20Guttmann.pdf (pages 217-220) God having will, creating the universe, miracles and reward and punishment are all ontological beliefs dictated by religion rather then by empirical proofs.

There is one point however on which I disagree with Professor Aviezer. Professor Aviezer argues that the “prime mover” proof for the Existence of God, in his words, the most famous proof of all, is no longer applicable after Newton’s discovery of gravity. It is true that we no longer believe that constant movement requires impetus and therefore there is no need anymore for a constant “mover” to keep things moving. However we still need to explain how there can be an infinite sequence of cause and effect, which is how the universe functions based on our observations, without there being a First Cause that caused everything without Himself being an effect of another cause. Professor Aviezer left the impression that once the Prime Mover proof is no longer valid we cannot empirically prove the existence of God. I understand Professor Aviezer’s concern that the “God of the gaps” as he puts it, may at some future time play a role in refuting even this argument, that some scientific theory will eventually explain naturalistically how all things are caused. He therefore prefers to relegate the argument for the existence of God to the religious arena rather than the empirical. I have faith that the existence of God will never nor can it ever be disproved. The argument made by Stephen Hawking and the consequences of that position regarding the existence of God as discussed in my post http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/06/professor-stephen-hawking-and-rambam.html I believe will stand eternally.

On a related note there is a fascinating article in this week’s New York Times magazine titled “Out There” which talks about dark matter and dark energy, the problem in physics that is currently at the center of research. This article brings home that, although we infer that there is a force that we call gravity and we also infer that there is dark matter and dark energy that makes up 96% of the matter in the universe, all of these entities’ essence is totally unknown. We know they exist but not what they are. In a way we are back to where Rambam stood 800 years ago when he said in MN 2:24:

“What I said before (ch. xxii.) 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. I say in the words of the poet, "The heavens are the Lord's, but the earth He hath given to the sons of man" (Ps. cxv. 16); that is to say, God alone has a perfect and true knowledge of the heavens, their nature, their essence, their form, their motions, and their causes; but He gave man power to know the things which are under the heavens: here is man's world, here is his home, into which he has been placed, and of which he is himself a portion. This is in reality the truth.”

The difference is that we have expanded what we consider the physical universe. Rambam believed the heavens were in a different realm where the laws of physics as we know them did not apply. The heavens were on the threshold between the physical and the metaphysical. We have moved them firmly into the physical. However the metaphysical issues remain, as Rambam continues:

“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).”

This brings me to the subject of my previous post. Revelation has a place where our own rational intellect cannot go. It is after being properly grounded in the sciences, having understood the limitations of science, the areas that cannot be understood by analysis or inference, that revelation comes along and fills the gap. When we say that we can find everything in the Torah it is when we place scientific knowledge squarely within it and see the revelatory part as the ontological argument that complements where we cannot go alone. Revelation alone without intellectual perfection leads to idolatry and destruction.

What have creation and darkness in common?

Rambam in MN 3:10 discusses how to define something that a certain quality has been removed from it. For example some medieval philosophers saw darkness as a substance. Rambam disagrees and sees it as we do - the absence of light. The ramifications from this way of thinking are how one should look at evil or bad when opposed to good. If good is existence then bad is the absence of existence. It is not a state in its own right but only the absence of good. Rambam then makes a statement that at first blush is quite confusing:

“Just as we say of him who puts out the light at night that he has produced darkness, so we say of him who destroyed the sight of any being that he produced blindness, although darkness and blindness are negative properties, and require no agent. In accordance with this view we explain the following passage of Isaiah: "I form the light and create (Boreh) darkness: I make peace, and create (Boreh) evil" (Yeshayahu 45:7), for darkness and evil are nonbeings. Consider that the prophet does not say, I make (Osseh) darkness, I make (‘osseh) evil, because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which the verb "to make" would apply; the verb Bara "he created" is used, because in Hebrew this verb has a connection with nonbeing e.g., "In the beginning God created" (Bara), etc.; here the creation took place from nothing. Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be produced by a certain action of an agent. In the same way we must explain the following passage: "Who hath made man's mouth? or who makes the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing," etc.”

Rambam is suggesting that the word Bara or Boreh are used when something is created from nothingness and that is why Yeshayahu chose Yotzer for light and Boreh for darkness, Osseh for peace but again Boreh for evil. He then makes a general statement that the word Bara has a connection with nonbeing. What is he trying to say?

Rav Yaakov Koppel Schwartz in his Yekev Ephraim, (introduced to me by R. D.H to whom I am eternally grateful) an excellent commentary on Ramban on Chumash has a very lucid explanation for this Rambam. When the word Bara is used for creating Yesh Me’ayin, something from nothingness, the image one gets is that something just appeared. Before this instant there was nothing and now there is something. That is in contrast with Yotzer or Osseh where one takes something and shapes it into something else. One takes a piece of wood and makes a utensil or a piece of furniture from it. Darkness happens on its own when one puts out the light. Darkness is not made, it just happens just like creation from nothingness.

Ramban in Breishit 1:1 says: “Ve’ein etsleinu belashon Hakodesh be’hotza’at Yesh Me’ayin ela lashon Bara” – Bara is the only word in Hebrew that refers to creation from nothingness. Harav Schwartz suggests that the above Rambam is his source.
The sefer Yekev Ephraim in general shows that Ramban wrote his commentary on Chumash with Rambam in the back of his mind and that Rambam had an enormous influence on his thought process. Anyone interested in understanding how our great Rishonim related to Jewish theology, how truth was their main concern, will really enjoy the sefer.

Of angels and men.

Aristotelian cosmology explains the movements of the heavenly bodies more or less as follows:

The heavens are composed of transparent spheres embedded with stars. The number of spheres depends on the point of view of different philosophers and their understanding of the varying speeds of the heavenly objects. As gravity was an unknown, they explained their motion by attributing to each sphere a mind and a wish to attain perfection by moving at optimal speed and direction. Each sphere’s movement follows a specific intellect that exists for that sphere. That intellect is similar to the Form that we described in the previous post. By apprehending that intellect, each sphere’s movement is circular, which is considered the perfect motion, and moves at a certain speed. The variance in speed of different spheres is the result of differing levels of comprehension. Rambam counted nine intellects that directed the spheres and a tenth one that governs the four elements on earth. That last one is the Active Intellect that man, by connecting with it and assimilating it, learns the sciences.

How do we translate this cosmology into contemporary scientific understanding? It is very important as Rambam uses it to explain angels, prophecy, men’s intellectual attainment and Olam Haba.

We now know that gravity is the underlying force behind movement. We can replace the spheres’ intellect with the natural laws of gravity, the Active Intellect with the totality of the rules of nature. The role of the planets mediated by the forces of gravity on our world is similar to the one observed and described by the Greeks although much better understood. The human mind learns and assimilates those laws and using that knowledge gets an understanding of the Creator that is the cause of it all. That brings us to angels. Rambam in 2:7 makes a very concise statement describing them:

“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”.

Thus an angel is an adjective that describes anything that is an intermediary in the performance of an act. To give the word meaning it must follow, overtly or implicitly, a term that would explain who it is an intermediary for. It is not an independent entity but describes a function. Rambam in 2:6 says as follows:

“This is also the view we meet with in all parts of Scripture: every act of God is described as being performed by angels. But" angel" means" messenger”: hence every one that is entrusted with a certain mission is an angel. Even the movements of the brute creation are sometimes due to the action of an angel, when such movements serve the purpose of the Creator, who endowed it with the power of performing that movement; e.g.," God hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths that they have not hurt me" (Dan. vi. 22). Another instance may be seen in the movements of Bila'am's ass, described as caused by an angel. The elements are also called angels. Comp." Who makes winds His angels, flaming fire His ministers" (Ps. 96: 4). There is no doubt that the word" angel" is used of a messenger sent by man; e.g.," And Jacob sent angels" (Gen. 32:4): of a prophet, e.g.," And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim" (judges ii. I):" And He sent an angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt" (Num. xx. 16). It is also used of ideals, perceived by prophets in prophetic visions, and of man's animal powers, as will be explained in another place”.

Understanding the concept of Form and the idea that an angel is not an entity but a description of a function are two important ideas that we must keep in mind as we try to understand Rambam’s rational theology.

Professor Stephen Hawking and Rambam - two men of faith.

Although Godol has questioned the proof from contingency for the existence of God, http://godolhador.blogspot.com/2006/06/proving-gods-existence.html I think his arguments are quite weak. He is confusing the existence of an Entity and what that Entity’s attributes are. There has to be a non-contingent Entity, what triggered that entity to bring about the subsequent contingent entities is still a question that needs an answer. That is what I will attempt to discuss in my upcoming posts and present one of Judaism’s understandings on that issue. (The reason I refer us to GH, is because he is struggling honestly with the existential issues and is able to so clearly and succinctly present the problems many of us confront when we start reflecting.)

There is a fascinating lecture by Professor Stephen Hawking that I highly recommend for every person that wants to be up to date on the latest theories in Physics and Cosmogony. You can find it here: http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html . Professor Hawking (SH) introduces the lecture as follows:

“All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end.”

He then goes on to discuss what started the ball rolling. The Big Bang happened at some point and scientists are trying to explain what caused the event to occur and the universe was created. There are two possibilities:

1) An outside Entity triggered willfully the start of the event of Creation. (Outside Entity (OE) for short)
2) There is a natural explanation of how this started on its own. (Spontaneous Generation (SG) for short)

For a scientist option SG is preferable because once you introduce an outside Entity, it presents a problem to scientific research. A proof is no longer a total certainty once outside will is introduced into the equation. It is a legitimate concern that will be dealt with in later posts. However the problem that confronts us is that according to the Big Bang theory, before the event, the laws of Physics as we know them did not exist. As Professor Hawking explains:

“At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.”

To explain Creation without resorting to outside will, SH proposes to recruit Quantum physics and comes up with a theory he calls “no boundary condition”. I have not completely grasped it but it suggests that by introducing "Imaginary Time" into the equation, a quantum physics concept, what we consider a singularity without laws of Physics, would from another perspective follow the laws of Physics. This would allow for spontaneous Creation without outside influence. Be it as it may it still is an unproven theory as SH says:

“The no boundary condition, is the statement that the laws of physics hold everywhere. Clearly, this is something that one would like to believe, but it is a hypothesis. One has to test it, by comparing the state of the universe that it would predict, with observations of what the universe is actually like. If the observations disagreed with the predictions of the no boundary hypothesis, we would have to conclude the hypothesis was false. There would have to be something outside the universe, to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going. Of course, even if the observations do agree with the predictions, that does not prove that the no boundary proposal is correct. But one's confidence in it would be increased, particularly because there doesn't seem to be any other natural proposal, for the quantum state of the universe.”

In other words so far there is no hard proof for an explanation of how spontaneous generation of the Universe could have occurred. As SH summarizes the lecture:

“The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the laws of physics would have determined the way the universe began, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but does not have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.”

What is so fascinating is that this discussion so eerily resembles Rambam’s discussion with Aristotles in Moreh chapters 2:13 through 25. Aristotles argued that although there has to be a non-contingent Entity, it had no choice in Creation. The laws of physics have never changed and they are the trigger for contingent entities coming into existence. Aristotle believed that the Universe is eternal, and was not created in time, while the current Big Bang theory does believe in a beginning in time. He therefore did not need to accept the possibility that the laws of physics were ever non-existent. Rambam however believed the universe was created in time. Aristotle’s arguments were that the laws of physics do not allow for non-existence. Rambam argued, that is correct once Creation was in place, but if one believes in Creation in time, before Creation different or no laws would have existed. Rambam accepted the two possibilities we proposed earlier for what triggered Creation; Outside Entity or Spontaneous Generation. He also admitted the remote possibility that the SG theory could be proven and we would then have to deal with it from a religious point of view (Moreh 2:25 although if read carefully could be understood a little differently). He however considered that possibility highly unlikely near impossible.

In Moreh 2:17 Rambam lays out the two positions:

“The Aristotelians oppose us, and base their objections on the properties which the things in the Universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that they are by no means the same as those which the things possessed in the moment of their production; and we hold that these properties themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence. Their arguments are therefore no objection whatever to our theory: they have demonstrative force only against those who hold that the nature of things as at present in existence proves the Creation. But this is not my opinion.”

And now Rambam states what I think is one of the most important statements that are the foundation of his theology:

“Aristotle, or rather his followers, may perhaps ask us how we know that the Universe has been created: and that other forces than those it has at present were acting in its Creation, since we hold that the properties of the Universe, as it exists at present, prove nothing as regards its creation ? We reply, there is no necessity for this according to our plan; for we do not desire to prove the Creation, but only its possibility: and this possibility is not refuted by arguments based on the nature of the present Universe, which we do not dispute. When we have established the admissibility of our theory, we shall then show its superiority.”

In other words, we are dealing with the unknown, which probably will remain unknown to man forever. Man can only deal with the physical and the ultimate question of what triggered physicality to come into existence can have only two answers: OE or SG. As long as neither contradicts facts, both are valid. Which is more likely now becomes a matter of deciding which is superior, fitting in with other issues and facts better than the other argument. I will tackle that in upcoming posts.

As an aside, it is interesting to note the underlying tone of SH and Rambam. SH is confident that science will find a way to explain what I call the pre-Breishis with a scientific theory, while Rambam, the religious thinker, is confident that no such answer will ever come about. Both are men of faith! (A concession to GH ? :-) )

Thank you all for the good wishes for my son Aryeh's wedding. I decided to come back with a Big Bang!

Is intelligent design compatible with Judaism?

The doctrine of Intelligent Design is brought up a lot in discussions of Jewish theology. Although it seems similar to our concept of Creation, it is at heart a fundamentalist Christian import and there is a very basic difference between the two ideas. Intelligent design argues that we cannot explain all of nature without pointing to an intelligent entity that planned it all. The existence of God is dependent on His creations. Rambam in Moreh 1:71 describes a similar method used by Islamic philosophers of his time:

“They set forth the propositions which I shall describe to you, and demonstrated by their peculiar mode of arguing that the Universe had a beginning. The theory of the creation ex nihilo being thus established, they asserted, as a logical consequence, that undoubtedly there must be a Maker who created the Universe. Next they showed that this Maker is One, and from the Unity of the Creator they deduced His Incorporeality. This method was adopted by every Mohammedan Mutakallem in the discussion of this subject, and by those of our co-religionists who imitated them and walked in their footsteps“

Rambam takes strong exception to this approach. The argument he uses sound very much like the argument used by scientist nowadays to attack ID.

“I have examined this method, and find it most objectionable. It must be rejected, because all the proofs for the creation have weak points, and cannot be considered as convincing except by those who do not know the difference between a proof, a dialectical argument, and a sophism. Those who understand the force of the different methods will clearly see that all the proofs for the creation are questionable, because propositions have been employed which have never been proved.”

In Judaism God exists independent of the universe and its Creation. We state it in Davening every day “ato hu ad shelo nivro haolom veato hu meshinevro haolom”. God “is” independently of the world. We are not so concerned about the existence of God. We accept that a priori. What we are concerned about is what God is, or rather as Rambam says what He is not, His actions and wishes. We do this to understand His ways and act according to them – Veholachto Bidrochov ma hu af ato. We have a concept about how God acts that we call Rotzon and Chefetz, will and volition. This Will is not temporal, it is there before the world was created. And because with HKBH there is no potential, everything is in actu, the results of that Will are already in place. In simple language whatever happens, past present and future from our perspective,is already happening from God’s. Just like God’s omniscience does not affect anything from our perspective, we have Bechira in spite of His knowing how we will act, because His knowledge is different than ours so is His will different than our will. It therefore does not affect the physical world from our perspective. All the questions about how the physical world functions is to be resolved from our perspective because we cannot understand what His is. There is no contradiction between Evolution and God’s will, just as there is no contradiction between God’s omniscience and our freedom of choice. This is a very difficult concept for us humans to accept and requires much thought and contemplation. Rambam therefore repast this idea many times in all his writings - it is after all what Echod means - unique. It is also an important yesod in the machshava of Ramban and the genuine Mekubalim. For a very thorough analysis see the Ohr Someach in Hilchos Teshuva.

I believe that if this idea is absorbed properly many of the issues of science versus Torah disappear. This is the deep thought behind Rambam 2:25:

“We answer to all these questions: He willed it so; or, His wisdom decided so. just as He created the world according to His will, at a certain time, in a certain form, and as we do not understand why His will or His wisdom decided upon that peculiar form, and upon that peculiar time, so we do not know why His will or wisdom determined any of the things mentioned in the preceding questions.”

Evolution is a result of God’s will. Nothing is random from His perspective as it has already happened. From our perspective it is all part of natural law and its cause and effect system. Science therefore does not clash with Judaism theologically. If it does not then reconciling Torah with it is only a mechanical process that requires some creativity. As Rambam says in a different context “Nor are the gates of figurative interpretation shut in our faces….” (Moreh 2:25.)

Good Shabbos.