Mumbai, the Holtzbergs A"H and Some Thoughts on Hashgacha (Divine Providence).

A close friend of mine was in Mumbai two weeks ago and visited with the Holtzbergs A”H on Wednesday, exactly a week before the tragic events begun. He was debating whether to stay on for another week for business reasons finally deciding to leave, thus possibly saving his life. This got me into thinking and rereading some pertinent chapters in MN.

Rambam MN3:17 writes:

“For I do not believe that it is through the interference of Divine Providence that a certain leaf drops [from a tree], nor do I hold that when a certain spider catches a certain fly, that this is the direct result of a special decree and will of God in that moment. It is not by a particular Divine decree that the spittle of a certain person moved, fell on a certain gnat in a certain place, and killed it; nor is it by the direct will of God that a certain fish catches and swallows a certain worm on the surface of the water. In all these cases the action is, according to my opinion, entirely due to chance, as taught by Aristotle. … It may be by mere chance that a ship goes down with all her contents, as in the above-mentioned instance, or the roof of a house falls upon those within. But it is not due to chance, according to our view, that in the one instance the men went into the ship, or remained in the house in the other instance: it is due to the will of God, and is in accordance with the justice of His judgments, the method of which our mind is incapable of understanding.”

Let us analyze the case of the falling leaf. Wind is a natural occurrence. That a leaf drops when wind blows is another natural event. Both of these events have nothing to do with chance. They are predictable results of the natural system of cause and effect put into place at creation .The winds result from variable temperatures and thus air pressure on different expanses of the earth. These are natural events that exist within nature and allow for the existence of life on earth. Theoretically, this event could be predictable. A powerful enough computer, a well-developed mathematical model of probability with adequate data input of all the variables should be able to foresee this event. Looking at the world this way it is pretty much deterministic. However, the fact that a “certain” leaf, this specific leaf falls is the result of pure chance. The natural event is not chance; the particular entity impacted by the event that is present at that particular moment in that particular place is chance. No cause and effect is involved in the choice of that entity. Looking at chance in this case, it can be said that it is spontaneous, there being no outside sentient influence on that particular leaf. The wind blew and that leaf just happened to be there.

In the case of the man who spits and kills a gnat with his spittle, a variant is introduced. This particular gnat is where it is because in its quest for food or protection from the environment it arrived at that particular place at that exact moment. The initial act or movement it undertook was natural, a result of the survival instinct all creature are endowed with. The gnat however could have gone slightly to the right or the left, the fact that it was exactly here where the spittle fell at that exact moment is purely chance. The man too spat to clear his throat, a natural act of self-indulgence and comfort. It is no different from the gnat’s instinct for survival. The man too could have chosen to spit a little to the right or the left and the fact that he spat at the exact moment the gnat was here at the exact spot is too pure chance.

Now let us look at the sinking ship. The wind that caused the storm is a natural event and as we said earlier, has nothing to do with chance and is theoretically predictable. The fact that this ship is present at that place at that time however, has to do with the decision of the sailor to place it there and we will talk some more about that a little further. In this case, the sailor’s sentience plays a part in the event’s outcome, the sinking of the ship. However, as far as the ship itself is concerned, this particular ship being where it is can be ascribed to chance which in this case is non-spontaneous; it comes from the outside - the sailor. What about the sailor himself? The passengers? Here things get a little more complicated.

Sentience in man is no different from the survival instinct in any other creature. Sentience is just a tool that developed in man to make up for other deficiencies he has compared to other creatures and is necessary for his survival. The normal decision process is no different from the gnat’s choice of place and time, though maybe a little more sophisticated. A man has the ability to assimilate data about his environment and depending on his sophistication, predict that a storm is brewing and avoid entering the area. His decision to go or not to go is based on self-preservation and is just an added tool that a man has, to use for that purpose. It all is part of the natural system that governs our universe and is ascribed to God who created the system.

“As regards phenomena produced regularly by natural causes, such as the melting of the snow when the atmosphere becomes warm, the roaring of the sea when a storm rages.... Events caused by man's freewill, such as war, the dominion of one nation over another, the attempt of one person to hurt another, or to insult him are ascribed to God….” (MN2:48)

The day-to-day decisions that people make using their mind and freewill that are necessary for their personal wellbeing and survival are seen as being natural just as wind and rain are. They are also ascribed to God who established these natural laws at creation. But that is only if the decision is based on personal survival and narcissistic self-preservation. If only the personal interest is taken into consideration, even if it encompasses others such as family and children, it is no more than a natural process some of which are subject to chance. However when a man develops the potential that comes with sentience, the ability to think beyond the immediate, beyond the self, when he can look at the whole of creation and act according to the insights he gains from this contemplation, he takes nature into his own hands and controls it. A man who tries to “read the mind of God”, who searches for Him and tries to understand His ways no longer acts with only self-preservation in mind. He acts in a way that fulfills the role he sees for himself as part of God’s universe. Chance does not play a role when he acts in this way. Chance has a place in the normal acts of self-preservation but not in the actions of a man that works towards the loftier goal of emulating God. Hashgacha – Divine Providence (as opposed to Providence) is a word that is used to describe the state a person is in when he acts towards these higher goals. In Hebrew, the word Hashgacha is the opposite of Mikreh – attention or watchfulness versus chance or randomness.

“If man frees his thoughts from worldly matters, obtains knowledge of God in the right way, and rejoices in that knowledge, it is impossible that any kind of evil should befall him while he is with God and God with him. When he does not meditate on God, when he is separated from God, then God is also separated from him; then he is exposed to any evil that might befall him, for it is only that intellectual link with God that secures the presence of Providence and protection from evil accidents…. It is now clearly established that the cause of our being exposed to chance, and abandoned to destruction like cattle, is to be found in our separation from God.” (MN3:51)

The sailor and the passengers in the example of the sinking ship made a decision to board it at this time, to this destination and to brave the storm. The question is on what basis was the decision to travel made? If it was done for personal interests, without trying to “read God’s mind” and act accordingly, they are subject to chance. Their death is tragic and senseless. On the other hand, if the decision was based on “knowledge of God in the right way”, no evil can befall them. Their death, tragic as it is, was not in vain. It was at the service of the greater good.

Looking at my friend’s visit to Mumbai and his timely departure, his decision to leave was induced by a combination of rational thought, emotion and instinct totally unrelated to the unfolding events. He could have gone on this trip a week later and be caught up in the events. He was lucky. He can ascribe his departure to God who gave him the ability to think and act freely, but I do not think that we can refer to this as Hashgacha.

On the other hand the Holtzbergs A”H, unquestionably led a life of “knowledge of God in the right way”. The fact that they are tragically dead, “it is due to the will of God, and is in accordance with the justice of His judgments, the method of which our mind is incapable of understanding.” The good they did in their lifetime, short as it was, affected many over the years. Lives have been changed thanks to them and generations will be affected by that. The result of their hard work will remain for a long time among the people who knew them.

מג
הַרְנִינוּ גוֹיִם עַמּוֹ, כִּי
דַם-עֲבָדָיו יִקּוֹם; וְנָקָם יָשִׁיב לְצָרָיו, וְכִפֶּר
אַדְמָתוֹ עַמּוֹ.

43 Sing aloud, O ye nations, of His people; for He doth avenge the blood of His servants, and doth render vengeance to His adversaries, and doth make expiation for the land of His people.


Shabbat Shalom

Avraham's Prophetic Vision - Sdom's Destruction.

(I recommend that Breishit Chapters 18 and 19 be read before reading this post.)

The story of Avraham and the angels has generated a lot of controversy among the Rishonim. The discussion centers round Rambam’s famous statement that this is a report of a prophetic vision rather than a real life occurrence. Rambam in MN 2:42 as usual, is a little cryptic and I will try to flesh him out. After explaining that whenever the presence of an angel is mentioned in the text in any part of the story, it must be a prophetic vision, Rambam brings the following example:

“This important principle was adopted by one of our Sages, one of the greatest among them, R. Hiya the Great (Bereshit Raba, xlviii.), in the exposition of the Scriptural passage commencing, "And the Lord appeared unto him in the plain of Mamre" (Gen. Xviii.). The general statement that the Lord appeared to Avraham is followed by the description in what manner that appearance of the Lord took place. Avraham at first saw three men and ran whereupon they spoke and were spoken to. R. Hiya, the author of this allegorical explanation, says of Avraham’s words, "My Lord, if now I have found grace in thy sight, do not, I pray thee, pass from thy servant," were spoken by him in a prophetic vision to one of the men; he says in fact that Avraham addressed these words to the greatest of these men. Note this well, for it is one of the great mysteries [of the Law].”

Rambam reads the scriptural text as follows –

א וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְהוָה, בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא; וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל, כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם.

1 And the LORD appeared unto him by the plains of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day.

This verse is an introduction stating that Avraham, sitting in the heat of the day got lost in thought and experienced a prophetic vision. It must be a vision, as God is not physical and can only be “seen” in the mind’s eyes. The rest of the story is a description of that vision. Thus, when Avraham speaks, his mind sees him as speaking and when the “angels” speak, it is Avraham’s mind that hears them speak. In other words, Avraham was contemplating how HKBH runs the world and during that cogitation, he became aware of the imminent destruction of Sdom. Rambam brings an interesting proof to his position.

ג וַיֹּאמַר: אֲדֹנָי, אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ--אַל-נָא תַעֲבֹר, מֵעַל עַבְדֶּךָ.

3 and said: 'My lord, if now I have found favor in your sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.

This verse is the subject of a Halachik discussion in Massechet Shevuot 35b that revolves around who we understand is: אֲדֹנָי - “my lord”. One way of understanding is that as Avraham was contemplating some aspect of HKBH, he moved away to thinking about more mundane matters, such as his childlessness. He therefore, in his vision, begged God forgiveness for being distracted and promised to return soon to the subject at hand. According to this interpretation, אֲדֹנָי is the name of God and therefore has certain Halachik requisites when written in a Sefer Torah. The other way of interpreting it is that Avraham was talking to the “angels” in his vision begging them not to bypass him. According to this understanding, the word אֲדֹנָיis translated “my lord” and has no special requirements when written. This interpretation however is problematic. The word אֲדֹנָיis singular as is the rest of the sentence while there were three “angels”. Rav Hiya addresses it and explains that Avraham spoke to the greatest among them. The way Rambam quotes Rav Hiya, where is the proof that the men were angels and therefore Avraham was having a prophetic vision? Furthermore, what caused Rambam’s excitement and why did he see in this apparently innocuous statement one of the “great mysteries of the Law”?

Rav Hiya’s comment is preserved in Midrash Raba Breishit 48:3 (Theodor- Albeck Edition page 486) –

ויאמר אדני אם נא מצאתי חן תני ר' חייא:
לגדול שבהן אמר: זה מיכאל.

The Midrash adds two crucial words זה מיכאל – namely the angel Michael - which Rambam omitted. These kinds of omissions are quite common in Rambam who expects us to check his sources and fill in the blanks. Although there could be a deeper reason, I believe this to be a didactic method where Rambam sees his role as a teacher who prods his students to think. What is however the meaning of “greatest” among them? How did Avraham know who was the “greatest? The Gemara in Yoma 37a says that the middle person is the leader by convention. But I believe there is much more to this.

In MN2:6 Rambam explains that angels are a general description of the various forces and concepts that regulate our existence. Among other things –

“Rather do all these texts state plainly that all this – including the various parts of that which exists and even the creation of the limbs of animals as they are – has been brought about by the intermediation of the angels. …that God has placed in the sperm a formative power which produces and shapes the limbs, and that this power is called "angel," or that all forms derive from the act of the Active Intellect, and that the latter is the angel, the Prince of the World, frequently mentioned by our Sages…”

In other words, the laws and forces of nature that are responsible for the existence of the physical world are at times, referred to as “angel”. This particular “angel” responsible for physical existence and its continuity, is referred to by the rabbis as The “Prince of the World”. Interestingly Rav Kafih refers us in his notes to Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer chapter 27 where the “Prince of the World” is identified with the angel Michael.

Putting all these pieces together, we get the following picture. Avraham was sitting in contemplation thinking about God and trying to apprehend Him through His creations – our world. As he was considering the forces of nature that cause things to exist and observing natural phenomena, he came to realize that an impending cataclysmic disaster was about to happen nearby, in Sdom. He arrived at that conclusion in a flash of revelation which came in the form of a vision where the forces took on the form of the three “angels”. Interpreting the vision, Avraham understood that the middle one represented the “greatest” of the three, namely “Michael the Prince of the World” who represents the natural laws and forces responsible for nature. The vision had a little side theme where Avraham’s conviction that he was about to have a son with Sarah, was reinforced. As Abravanel explains Rambam, the rest of the story including the part of Lot’s escape and his wife turning into a heap of salt, are all part of the vision. Avraham realized the magnitude of the upcoming event and struggled with how to understand God’s justice in light of such general disasters that sweep up the evil and the righteous. The vision that Lot unlike the rest of the town, though reluctantly, will finally realize that escape was the only solution, is I understand an answer to that question. If one is sufficiently attuned to one’s surroundings and can overcome their greed, laziness and paralysis that cloud man’s objectivity, many times he can predict and foresee these natural disasters. If ten people in town are righteous, in other words, able to foresee and accept the impending disaster, they might convince the whole town to escape. Unfortunately, in his vision, Avraham saw that only Lot would have the necessary prescience. The vision comes to an end and the disaster unfolds.

כז וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם, בַּבֹּקֶר: אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם--אֲשֶׁר-עָמַד שָׁם, אֶת-פְּנֵי יְהוָה.

27 And Avraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD.

כח וַיַּשְׁקֵף, עַל-פְּנֵי סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה, וְעַל-כָּל-פְּנֵי, אֶרֶץ הַכִּכָּר; וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה עָלָה קִיטֹר הָאָרֶץ, כְּקִיטֹר, הַכִּבְשָׁן.

28 And he looked out toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the Plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the land went up as the smoke of a furnace.

Reading the story in this manner there is no question that all this was a vision. Furthermore, it teaches deep and important lessons about the meaning of Divine Providence, man’s role in it, God’s justice, righteousness and man’s freedom to act responsibly or irresponsibly. The text becomes a treatise on philosophical issues of great importance and relevance to our religious thought and practice.

Why Was Moshe Punished?

One of the most fascinating things about reading Rambam is that no matter how many times I revisit an idea of his, invariably, I get a new insight or realize that I missed something seminal the last time I looked at it. On Chag, I was learning the Eight Chapters, Rambam’s introduction to Massechet Avot, with young Chaverim and we read Rambam’s explanation of Moshe’s sin that prevented him from entering the land of Israel. It is at the end of chapter 4 and here is the Hebrew (R. Shmuel Tibon translation) with my translation interspersed with comments.

After a lengthy discussion of the Golden Mean, Rambam addresses the problem of Moshe’s sin –

ואתה יודע, שאדון הראשונים והאחרונים, משה רבנו, כבר אמר עליו השם יתברך:
יען לא האמנתם בי להקדישני לעיני בני ישראל (במדבר כ', י"ב); על אשר מריתם את פי למי מריבה (שם, כ"ד); על אשר לא קדשתם אותי (דברים ל"ב, נ"א).
כל זה! וחטאו, עליו השלום, הוא שנטה לצד אחד הקצוות במעלה אחת שבמעלות המידות, והיא הסבלנות! כאשר נטה לצד הרגזנות, באומרו: שמעו נא המורים (במדבר כ', י'). דקדק
עמו הקדוש ברוך הוא: שיהיה אדם כמוהו מתרגז לעיני עדת ישראל, במקום שאין
הרגזנות ראויה?! וכגון זה באדם שכמותו חילול השם הוא, שכן תנועותיו כולן ודיברותיו,
הכל למדים מהם וחומדים בהם האושר בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא. ואיך ייראו בו
הרגזנות, והיא ממעשי הרעים כמו שבארנו, ואינה נובעת אלא מתכונה רעה שבנפש.

You already know that the Master of earlier and later generations, Moshe Rabbeinu, HKBH said to him-

Inasmuch as you did not make them believe in Me [see R. Sa’adyah Gaon and below] to sanctify me before the eyes of the children of Israel [you shall not bring this assembly to the land that I have given to them]. (Bamidbar 20:12)

[Let Aharon be gathered to his kin, for he shall not come into the land that I have given to the children of Israel,] for you both have rebelled against My word at the Waters of Merivah. (Bamidbar 20:24)

…For you have not sanctified Me… (Devarim 32:51)

All this! [Such punishment for so little!] His [Moshe’s] sin was that he went to one of the extremes in behavior, namely he had a deficiency in the virtue of tolerance. [Rambam explained earlier in the chapter, that a perfect human being should be balanced, not too tolerant or too intolerant.] As he crossed over into anger [intolerance] saying [to the people] “listen you rebels!” God was upset with him. A person of his caliber, to whom all eyes are directed to learn from him the ways that lead to happiness in this world and the world to come, should become angry in a situation that does not warrant it? That is a Chilul Hashem [desecration of God’s name]! How can he let them see unwarranted anger, a bad act that stems from a deficiency in his character?

Rambam addresses the first verse that criticizes Moshe for being a bad role model. He showed that he had not perfected one of his character traits. Moshe, who was seen as the paradigm of a perfect human being, who had reached the level of prophecy no other human had until then nor will another reach in the future, could not be seen as having a moral deficiency. Rambam in MN 2:40 explains that what makes the Torah divine as opposed to other laws that are promulgated by humans, is that it teaches not only about personal and societal behavior but also truths that helps a man understand his own existence and the world he lives in. That is an internal condition, a value judgment of the content of the torah. There is however, an additional external condition that relates to the person who teaches it and gives it to us.

“The question which now remains to be settled is this: Is the person who proclaimed these laws the same perfect man that received them by prophetic inspiration, or a plagiarist, who has stolen these ideas from a true prophet? In order to be enabled to answer this question, we must examine the merits of the person, obtain an accurate account of his actions, and consider his character.”

Seeing a deficiency in Moshe’s character casts a doubt on the divinity of the Torah and thus desecrates God’s name. That is the meaning of Bamidbar 20:12 and why I chose to translate according to R. Sa’adyah, “Inasmuch as you did not make them believe in Me”, which I believe is Rambam’s translation of this verse.

Rambam now addresses the other statement in Bamidbar 20:24 where Moshe and Aharon are accused of rebelling against God.

אבל אמרו בעניין הזה: "מריתם את פי" אינו אלא כמו שאבאר. וזה, שלא היה
מדבר עם עמי הארץ, ולא עם מי שאין להם מעלה, אבל עם קהל שהקטנה שבנשיהם
הייתה כיחזקאל בן בוזי, כמו שזכרו החכמים. וכל מה שיאמר או יעשה, יבחנוהו.
וכאשר ראוהו שהתרגז, אמרו
ודאי אין הוא, עליו השלום, מאלה שיש להם פחיתות מידה! ולולא ידע שהאלוהים
התאנף בנו על דרישת המים, ושאנחנו הכעסנוהו, יתברך, לא היה מתרגז
ואנו לא מצאנו לשם יתברך שהתרגז או שכעס בדברו אליו בעניין הזה; אלא אמר: קח את המטה והקהל את העדה, וגומר (במדבר כ', ח').

The explanation of the verse, “you have rebelled against My word” is as follows. Moshe was not talking to ignorant people or to a lowly caste. He was talking to a people that the least among their women was like [the prophet] Yechezkel ben Buzi according to the rabbis! [Rambam is referring to the Rabbis who note that a lowly woman slave apprehended at Kryat Yam Suf as much as Yechezkel in all his prophecies. In other words, the people were quite sophisticated theologians by now, having experienced Yam Suf and Sinai]. They therefore looked with a critical eye on everything Moshe did. When they saw him get angry, they assumed that he, a perfect human being, was transmitting to them God’s position. Had he not known that God was wrathful at us for asking for water, that we angered Him, he would not have gotten angry with us. We, however, do not find anywhere that God was angry [for our asking for water]. God only said, “Take the staff and gather the assembly…”

Moshe and Aharon “rebelled against God’s word” by teaching the people an erroneous understanding of Bitachon – reliance on God. Bitachon does not mean that when faced with a problem, one relies on God and does nothing. When there is no water one should do all that is humanly possible to resolve the crisis. Approaching Moshe and asking him to act was the correct thing to do. In fact, God told Moshe to act by taking the staff and finding the proper rock that would be a source of water for them.

Putting the story in context, the people who saw Moshe as the perfect human being he was had two choices when confronted by his actions. If they saw his anger as a moral deficiency, it jeopardized their acceptance of the torah as divine. On the other hand, if they idolized him and saw him as infallible, they learned a wrong concept of what it means to trust and rely on God. The punishment was therefore commensurate and necessary to rectify these two possible misconceptions. That is how I understand the verse – (Devarim 3:26)

וַיִּתְעַבֵּר יְהוָה בִּי לְמַעַנְכֶם, וְלֹא
שָׁמַע אֵלָי.

26 But the LORD was wrathful with me for your sakes, and hearkened not unto me.

When Moshe asked that he be allowed to enter the land, it was refused for the sake of the people. An important lesson had to be taught about the divinity of the Torah and the meaning of trusting God.

Rambam ends this explanation very appropriately.

והנה יצאנו מעניין השער, אבל היתרנו ספק מספקי התורה, שנאמרו בו דברים
רבים ונשאל פעמים רבות: "איזה חטא חטא?" וערוך מה שאמרנו אנחנו מול מה
שנאמר בה. והאמת תעשה דרכה

We digressed from the subject discussed but we gained an answer to one of the questions that arise in the Torah and to which many words were addressed. It was asked many times, “what was their sin?” Compare what we said to what was already said about this and the truth will show the way.

Shabbat Shalom.

The US Holocaust Museum -

I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington this Sunday. As I was watching the terrible newsreels showing the Allied armies entering the death camps, I kept on flashing the verse in Yirmyahu 9:21 –

דַּבֵּר, כֹּה נְאֻם-יְהוָה, וְנָפְלָה נִבְלַת

הָאָדָם, כְּדֹמֶן עַל-פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה; וּכְעָמִיר מֵאַחֲרֵי הַקֹּצֵר

וְאֵין מְאַסֵּף

21 Speak: Thus says the LORD--And the carcasses of men fall as dung upon the open field, and as sheaves behind the reaper, with none to pick them up.'

Don't miss the last exhibit, the approximately 90 minute video of the few survivors relating their testimony.

An emotionally harrowing six hours!

Ethan Dor - Shav on Iyov in Azure.

I just read this fabulous article on Iyov. My subscription was worth it if only for this. Highly recommended and worth the time. Don't miss the notes. Fabulous.


http://azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=423

False but Utilitarian Beliefs? Is There Such a Possibility?

Rambam in MN 3:28 makes a statement that scholars both medieval and contemporary read in a way that leads to a surprising conclusion – there are beliefs in Judaism that are utilitarian! In other words, the Torah asks one to accept a belief, even if it is not true, for a practical purpose. The prime example is the belief that God punishes transgressors and rewards those that follow the rules. They hold that Rambam believed this to be a necessary but untrue belief. God does not change his mind as He is by definition Omniscient nor does He feel anger or love. I always had problems with this, as it is clear from the way I read Rambam in his many discussions about providence, that he clearly accepts reward and punishment as fact. He may not see it as a simplistic reaction of God to transgressors but he certainly believes that there is cause and effect to actions and therefore consequences.

As I was rereading the chapter that has the statement in question this morning, I realized that Rambam addresses this clearly and dispels any doubt about his true position. I do not know Arabic but it is also significant that each translator, by changing one or two words, changed the sense of Rambam’s comment on the issue. It is however clear according to all translations what his position is. In this post, I will discuss this and I suggest that MN chapters 3:27 and 28 should be read carefully along with this post.

In MN 3:27 Rambam explains that the purpose, for all Mitzvot of the torah are either to promote the proper organization of society and the personal self-improvement of individuals or to inculcate correct opinions about God and our existence in general. Societal organization and personal improvement are tools necessary for the development of correct opinions which is the ultimate goal. Addressing opinions, he states in MN 3:28 –

“It is necessary to bear in mind that Scripture only teaches the end of those true principles which lead to the true perfection of man, and made a call to believe in them in a summary way. Thus, Scripture teaches the Existence, the Unity, the Omniscience, the Omnipotence, the Will, and the Eternity of God. All these are ultimate ends that cannot be understood fully and accurately except after the acquisition of many kinds of knowledge[1].”

The Torah does not teach us how to arrive at the correct theological conclusions. It just states the principles and orders us to accept them until we develop enough knowledge to know them rationally. Understanding them rationally is a goal that the other Mitzvot are meant to help us attain, as we said earlier. Then Rambam makes a statement that taken at face value is earth shattering.

“Scripture also makes a call to adopt certain beliefs, the belief in which is indispensable in regulating our social relations: 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].”

Is he telling us that the Torah may require us to accept doctrines that are known to be false for the sake of controlling the masses? Efodi (אפדי acronym for Ani Profiat Duran died circa 1414), R. Moshe Narboni (died 1362) and other commentators of the Moreh accept that as a given that it is Rambam’s position defending it saying the masses cannot understand a more sophisticated approach. Narboni in fact has an elegant explanation of a difficult Midrash based on this understanding of Rambam which deserves a post of its own.

I have great difficulty accepting this as Rambam’s position for various reasons. It does not agree with Rambam’s reverence for truth, which he repeats in all his writings. He refers to the Torah many times with awe as the ultimate truth and now he admits there are manipulative beliefs that are based on lies? It just does not make sense. Furthermore, is it so difficult to explain that when the Torah says that God is angry it is only a metaphor for consequences that result from our actions? Why is this more difficult then when we are forced to explain metaphorically God sitting, standing, seeing, talking etc…? In fact, Rambam himself addresses this particular problem in MN 1:54-

“Whenever any one of His actions is perceived by us, we ascribe to God that emotion which is the source of the act when performed by ourselves, and call Him by an epithet which is formed from the verb expressing that emotion… His actions towards humanity also include great calamities, which overtake individuals and bring death to them, or affect whole families and even entire regions, spread death, destroy generation after generation, and spare nothing whatsoever. Hence, there occur inundations, earthquakes, destructive storms, expeditions of one nation against the other for the sake of destroying it with the sword and blotting out its memory, and many other evils of the same kind. Whenever such evils are caused by us to any person, they originate in great anger, violent jealousy, or a desire for revenge. God is therefore called, because of these acts, "jealous," "revengeful," "wrathful," and "keeping anger". That is to say, He performs acts similar to those which, when performed by us, originate in certain psychical dispositions, in jealousy, desire for retaliation, revenge, or anger: they are in accordance with the guilt of those who are to be punished, and not the result of any emotion: for He is above all defect!”

Interestingly Rambam himself seems to have been aware that people might read his statement as suggesting there are untrue beliefs. At the end of chapter 28 he sums up the point he is trying to make as follows –

“Understand[2] what we said of the beliefs. In some cases, a commandment communicates a correct belief, which is the one and only thing aimed at, as for instance the belief in the Unity, Eternity, and Incorporeality of God. In other cases, that [same type of]* belief is [also]* 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. (Exodus. xxii. 23). Or the belief that God responds instantaneously to 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" (Exodus. xxii. 26).” *(Bracketed words are my additions according to how I read this, as I will explain.)

The way I read this is that Rambam is telling us not to assume that there are untrue beliefs but rather that sometimes a true belief has to be presented in a form that has a practical impact. It is very difficult even for an intellectual to keep in mind that we live in a world of cause and effect and consequences especially when it is related to routine day-to-day actions. In our interactions with our fellow man, where the innate need to look out for ourselves takes on precedence, even more when dealing with a downtrodden and seemingly powerless other, the idea that our insensitivity may result in retaliation and harm to us is inconceivable. However that is exactly the case, the downtrodden of today may be the powerful of tomorrow. As history has shown societies that allow the oppression of the “other” are doomed. History has also shown that people do not want to see that truth. Presenting this truth as a metaphor where God is angry and retaliates protecting personally the oppressed is therefore necessary. One can let the uneducated believe that consequences are the result of God acting which in the sense of Him being the First Cause is correct. The belief that all our actions have consequences which can be traced back to God’s will at creation is the truth. Letting someone believe that God is directly involved, cutting out the intermediate steps, is acceptable in this situation. In fact, it is recommended.

Let me try to put this chapter in the proper context within Rambam’s thinking on this matter. In MN, 1:33 through 36 Rambam discusses how one must approach philosophical and metaphysical speculations and the difficulties of this type of study. He also discusses what one should teach beginners and the uneducated. The existence, unity and incorporeality of God must be taught to all and they are to be told that they must believe it. So too must they be taught that God is not subject to emotions and feelings.

“That God is incorporeal, that He cannot be compared with His creatures, that He is not subject to affections are things which must be explained to every one according to his capacity. They must be taught by way of tradition to children and women, to the stupid and ignorant, as they are taught that God is one, that He is eternal, and that He alone is to be worshipped… Those who are not sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the true interpretation of these passages in the Bible, or to understand that the same term admits of two different interpretations, may simply be told that the scriptural passage is clearly understood by the wise. They should be told that God is incorporeal; that He is never subject to affections for affection implies a change, while God is entirely free from all change. He cannot be compared to anything besides Himself, that no definition includes Him together with any other being, that the words of the Prophets are true, and that difficulties met with may be explained on this principle. In dealing with such a man, one should stop at this measure of knowledge. It is not proper to leave him in the belief that God is corporeal, or that He has any of the properties of material objects, just as there is no need to leave them in the belief that God does not exist, that there are more Gods than one, or that any other being may be worshipped.”

Rambam is adamant that the idea that God has affections, feelings and emotions, must be excised from the imagination of all even the ignorant. It is in this context that he is telling us here, in MN 3:28 that the belief in God’s direct involvement in the protection of the oppressed is a belief that does not have to be debunked and the ignorant may continue believing it. Even more so, the Torah intentionally presents it this way, attributing the consequences for such action directly to God, as a belief that may be taken literally.

Interestingly, R. Moshe Narboni noticed Rambam’s emphasis and repetition of this statement at the end of the chapter and I believe misread it as a reinforcement of the earlier position rather than an elucidation. He read it as defensive while I read it as a clarification.

Moshe Emet veTorato Emet.

---

[1] I started with Friedlander but modified according to Pines. Here is an instance where translation changes the sense of the whole thrust of the idea. Generally, Friedlander’s translation does this often and should be read very cautiously comparing him with the others including R. Kafih and Michael Schwartz.

[2] Pines translates “sum up” however both R. Kafieh and Schwartz translate Haven – which means understand. Here we see how a slight difference in translation changes the sense of the whole presentation.

What is the Purpose of Existence? A Question That Has No Answer

Rambam in MN 3:13 discusses the question of God’s purpose in creating the Universe.

“Intelligent persons are much perplexed when they inquire into the purpose of the Creation. I will now show how absurd this question is, according to each one of the different theories [above-mentioned].”

The question Rambam considers absurd, is not trying to understand the reason for the existence of the different elements that compose the universe. As I explained in my previous post, when viewed from down up, we can definitely develop a theory of why each element is necessary for the existence of the whole. Even from the up down perspective, where theoretically, predictions of how things will evolve may be possible, we can discern a logic as to why things would evolve the way they do. Although each element may be seen as independent, it is also a component of the total environment and plays a role in its long-term survival. In fact, were we to accept that the world is not created, that matter is eternal a parte ante, even if we were to understand that a non-contingent intelligent entity is the First Cause, we would perforce argue that survival of the whole is the ultimate goal for the totality of existence. Each component of an environment, coming into being and even at times disappearing, can be understood in this context, and we can therefore explain its existence and purpose. There is no absurdity in such a question but rather is the basis for all scientific inquiry.

The question Rambam considers as absurd is the one that comes to mind, if we accept that the universe was created in time, willed into existence by HKBH, asking to what end and purpose did God create. God, in whom Chochma is essence, cannot have created aimlessly. So why did he create? What was the purpose? Although at first blush the question seems logical, Rambam explains that there is no possibility for us humans to ever find an answer to that question. A question that cannot be answered is an absurdity (is not a valid question). [I am not sure that the word “absurd” used by Friedlander makes sense in this context. Pines translates the last sentence above “Now I will explain that in all schools this question is abolished”. However, I would have to rewrite too much so I will stay with the word cautioning the reader to keep this in mind.]

Here is how Rambam presents the problem -

“But of those who accept our theory that the whole Universe has been created from nothing, some hold that the inquiry after the purpose of the Creation is necessary, and assume that the Universe was only created for the sake of man's existence, that he might serve God. Everything that is done they believe is done for man's sake; even the spheres move only for his benefit, in order that his wants might be supplied. The literal meaning of some passages in the books of the prophets greatly support this idea. "He formed it (the earth) to be inhabited" (Isa. xlv. 18); "If my covenant of day and night were not," etc. (Jer. xxxiii. 25); "And spreads them out as a tent to dwell in" (Isa. xl. 22). If the sphere existed for the sake of man, how much more must this be the case with all other living beings and the plants. On examining this opinion as intelligent persons ought to examine all different opinions, we shall discover the errors it includes.” (MN 3:13).

The fallacy of this trend of thought, Rambam explains as follows –

“Those who hold this view, that the existence of man is the object of the whole creation, may be asked whether God could have created man without those previous creations, or whether man could only have come into existence after the creation of all other things. If they answer in the affirmative, that man could have been created even if, e.g., the heavens did not exist, they will be asked what is the object of all these things, since they do not exist for their own sake but for the sake of something that could exist without them. Even if the Universe existed for man's sake and man existed for the purpose of serving God, as has been mentioned, the question remains, what is the end of serving God? He does not become more perfect if all His creatures serve Him and comprehend Him as far as possible; nor would He lose anything if nothing existed beside Him. It might perhaps be replied that the service of God is not intended for God's perfection; it is intended for our own perfection,--it is good for us, it makes us perfect. But then the question might be repeated, what is the object of our being perfect?”.

Having been brought up in traditionally frum Yeshivot, I was quite shocked when I first read these words. It shattered all my preconceptions.

The words that follow are one of Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz favorites, though I am not sure his understanding of them is what Rambam had in mind.

“We must in continuing the inquiries as to the purpose of the creation at last arrive at the answer, it was the Will of God, or His Wisdom decreed it; and this is the correct answer. The wise men in Israel have therefore introduced in our prayers (for Ne‘ilah of the Day of Atonement) the following passage:--"Thou hast distinguished man from the beginning, and chosen him to stand before Thee; who can say unto Thee, What dost Thou? And if he be righteous, what does he give Thee?"”.

Man was created because God so wanted it and we have no idea what the reason is. Leibowitz focuses on one more detail in the text - and chosen him to stand before Thee- reading it as saying that once created, man is now obligated to stand before God in service without any reason or understanding why. Man, having the ability, the brains, to ask the question, realizing that there is no answer, realizes how insignificant he is and all that he can do to find his place in this universe making sense of his existence, is by serving his Creator. Leibowitz stops here. To him this is the ultimate reason for why we do Mitzvot and work on self improvement; God's service.I think that he does not reflect accurately Rambam’s position. I accept the idea of service, Avodat Hashem. I however believe that once man has realized how insignificant he is, he finds his own reason for existence in the need to emulate God and partake in His creation. He wants to exploit to the maximum the gift that he has been bestowed with which allowed him to compose the question in the first place. His Avodat Hashem expresses itself in a creative and positive manner. (See the last chapter of MN for Rambam’s presentation of this idea).

Rambam then continues -

“I consider therefore the following opinion as most correct according to the teaching of the Bible, and best in accordance with the results of philosophy; namely, that the Universe does not exist for man's sake, but that each being exists for its own sake, and not because of some other thing. Thus we believe in the Creation, and yet need not inquire what purpose is served by each species of the existing things, because we assume that God created all parts of the Universe by His will; some for their own sake, and some for the sake of other beings, that include their own purpose in themselves”.

In other words, we can figure out the purpose for the different elements that compose our environment but we cannot hope to understand the purpose pf the whole. The most important aspect of this insight is that man is not the goal of Creation. Man is just a small cog who has a tendency to be self important and narcissistic. The implications of this way of thinking are far reaching in Rambam’s thought and understanding of reality, Divine Providence and Jewish Theology. (See my article in volume 5 of Hakirah).

How different this is from the following selected excerpts from Ramchal in Derech Hashem Chapter 2.

הנה התכלית בבריאה היה להטיב מטובו יתברך לזולתו

God’s goal in creation was to bestow from His goodness to others.

ובהיותו הוא לבדו יתברך הטוב האמיתי, לא יסתפק חפצו הטוב אלא בהיותו מהנה לזולתו בטוב ההוא עצמו שהוא בו יתברך מצד עצמו, שהוא הטוב השלם והאמיתי

Being that God Himself is true goodness, He could not fulfill His goodness without awarding others the same goodness that He Himself experiences, which is the true and perfect goodness.

ונמצא היות כוונתו יתברך שמו בבריאה שברא, לברוא מי שיהיה נהנה בטובו יתברך באותו הדרך שאפשר שייהנה בו.

God’s purpose was to create someone that could enjoy God’s goodness in the best way that is possible.

In other words – a good person cannot actuate his potential for goodness without having another on whom to bestow the good. The same applies to God – the Perfect Goodness. He had to create man to actuate this potential for good. According to Ramchal, man is the goal of Creation. Man gives God the opportunity to actuate His potential for goodness.

The contrast between these two thinkers is jarring. The Ramchal approach is nowadays considered mainstream – it is much more soothing and satisfying. Though when we read further we find Ramchal challenging man to achieve greatness, the idea that man is the center and end of the whole of existence is too exalting. Rambam’s approach, which is basically a challenge to do truth because it is truth and nothing else, is too daunting and scary.

Doubts!

I touched on this in my last post. Man in his natural state is no different from animals. Man is just another category in that genus (I am never good with these terminologies so I hope I am expressing myself correctly). Man has an additional feature that helps him in his fight for survival in his environment; his mind. It makes up for the other deficiencies that he comes with. Man is limited in the foods he can use, is less powerful than other large animals and is slower. His mind and the abilities it has compensates for those deficiencies. A man that uses his brains just for survival is therefore no more than any other animal. He is an evolved monkey!

It is the ability to abstract, to develop ethics and morals, to act against the natural survival instinct when it is the right thing to do which differentiates man. Acting with a view to the long term, sometimes for beyond his personal lifespan is a product of this ability to think and act that makes him into what he is. How does man develop this thinking? What is the process that brings him to this understanding?

Man starts by contemplating his surroundings and environment. He tries to understand the systems that operate in this marvelous world, follows the causes of the observed phenomena to their source, tries to decipher God’s thoughts in creating and setting all this in place. It is in this process that he develops the vision for the future; he becomes a prophet and acts in accordance with the views of a seer.

How does this perfected individual know that he is doing the right thing? How does he know that the conclusions of his meditative state are the truth and reality? How much delusion and wishful thinking, how much narcissism and self interest is mixed in with the good intentions? Even more, maybe he misinterpreted? Maybe he misunderstood God’s will? Maybe he went against the way things were supposed to be? Did he act destructively when he thought he did the right thing?

The answer to all these doubts is the outcome. It is only the successful outcome that will tell if he was right. All man can do is act in good faith and hope that he is doing the right thing. That is the purpose of Torah and Mitzvot.

יב לֵב טָהוֹר, בְּרָא-לִי אֱלֹהִים; וְרוּחַ נָכוֹן, חַדֵּשׁ בְּקִרְבִּי.

12 Create me a clean heart, O God; and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

יג אַל-תַּשְׁלִיכֵנִי מִלְּפָנֶיךָ; וְרוּחַ קָדְשְׁךָ, אַל-תִּקַּח מִמֶּנִּי.

13 Cast me not away from Thy presence; and take not Thy holy spirit from me.

Man has to look deeply within himself and make sure that he is pure, that he is truly seeking out God and looking at His ways, His holy spirit. But ultimately, a good outcome is the real proof that he has acted correctly.

The Avot, the patriarchs, and Moshe Rabbeinu set out to create a nation of servants of God. As Rambam puts it in MN3:51 “it was the chief aim of their whole life, to create a people that should know and worship God”. But they were full of doubt. Every single one of them at some point was filled with doubts and God had to assuage their fears. Avraham in the Brit Bein Habetarim, Yitzchak when confronted with the Yaakov- Eisav dilemma and Yaakov during his confrontation with Eisav, they all questioned their actions. The survival of their descendants as a nation of servants of God is the only vindication and proof that they were right. Whenever Klal Yisrael is faced with annihilation, it brings forth the Patriarchs and asks God how He can allow this to happen. Were they all wrong?

Moshe when confronted with the disaster of the Egel, the Golden Calf, and the Jewish people were at risk of being destroyed, whether spiritually or physically, could not accept that possibility.

כו וָאֶתְפַּלֵּל אֶל-יְהוָה, וָאֹמַר, אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה אַל-תַּשְׁחֵת עַמְּךָ וְנַחֲלָתְךָ, אֲשֶׁר פָּדִיתָ בְּגָדְלֶךָ--אֲשֶׁר-הוֹצֵאתָ מִמִּצְרַיִם, בְּיָד חֲזָקָה.

26 And I prayed unto the LORD, and said: 'O Lord GOD, destroy not Thy people and Thine inheritance that Thou hast redeemed through Thy greatness that Thou hast brought forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand.

כז זְכֹר, לַעֲבָדֶיךָ--לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק, וּלְיַעֲקֹב: אַל-תֵּפֶן, אֶל-קְשִׁי הָעָם הַזֶּה, וְאֶל-רִשְׁעוֹ, וְאֶל-חַטָּאתוֹ.

27 Remember Thy servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; look not unto the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin;

כח פֶּן-יֹאמְרוּ, הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתָנוּ מִשָּׁם, מִבְּלִי יְכֹלֶת יְהוָה, לַהֲבִיאָם אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר לָהֶם; וּמִשִּׂנְאָתוֹ אוֹתָם, הוֹצִיאָם לַהֲמִתָם בַּמִּדְבָּר.

28 lest the land whence You brought us out say: Because the LORD was not able to bring them into the land which He promised unto them, and because He hated them, He hath brought them out to slay them in the wilderness.

Invoking the past is a way of saying that all these dedicated and visionary people cannot and should not be proven wrong.

I could not resist one last post before taking off, especially since it fits so neatly into this week’s Parsha.

וְדָבָר בְּעִתּוֹ מַה-טּוֹב.

A timely word, how good is it!

That and a little insomnia!

Consequential actions - Reward and Punishment.

Hilchot Teshuvah in Rambam is a fascinating subject to learn. It is one of the places where we see the great Halachist and philosopher confront and blend smoothly the two components of Judaism: Thought and Practice. I have started learning it with two remarkable young men (teenagers) Shabbat afternoon and it is a great experience where I am forced to present it in a rational and cogent way. So I plan to post whenever I come up with a new insight.

ט [ד] אף על פי שהתשובה מכפרת על הכול, ועצמו של יום הכיפורים מכפר--יש עבירות שהן מתכפרין בשעתן, ויש עבירות שאין מתכפרין אלא לאחר זמן. כיצד: עבר אדם על מצות עשה שאין בה כרת, ועשה תשובה--אינו זז משם עד שמוחלין לו מיד, ובאלו נאמר "שובו בנים שובבים, ארפא משובותיכם" (ירמיהו ג,כב).
י עבר על מצות לא תעשה שאין בה כרת ולא מיתת בית דין, ועשה תשובה--תשובה תולה ויום הכיפורים מכפר, ובאלו נאמר "כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם" (ויקרא טז,ל).
יא עבר על כרתות ומיתות בית דין, ועשה תשובה--תשובה ויום הכיפורים תולין, וייסורין הבאין עליו גומרין לו הכפרה, ולעולם אין מתכפר לו כפרה גמורה, עד שיבואו עליו ייסורין; ובאלו נאמר "ופקדתי בשבט, פשעם; ובנגעים עוונם" (תהילים פט,לג).
יב במה דברים אמורים, בשלא חילל את השם בעת שעבר. אבל המחלל את השם--אף על פי שעשה תשובה והגיע יום הכיפורים והוא עומד בתשובתו ובאו עליו ייסורין, אינו מתכפר לו כפרה גמורה עד שימות, אלא תשובה ויום הכיפורים וייסורין שלושתן תולין ומיתה מכפרת, שנאמר "ונגלה באוזניי, ה' צבאות: אם יכופר העוון הזה לכם, עד תמותון" (ישעיהו כב,יד).

(Hilchot Teshuvah 1:9-12)

I will translate/paraphrase (italicized) and intersperse with my comment and how I understood it (regular lettering in brackets).

Before I approach the text, I would like to preface it with a short discussion of the meaning of the word Kapparah in this context. Traditionally it is translated as forgiveness but it has a deeper meaning. We believe that our actions are consequential and every thing we do triggers a chain of events. Sometimes those events are beneficial at others counter productive and destructive. The magnitude of the consequences is what sets the relative value of our actions. In other words, certain actions that will bring a great change for the good or evil will be considered a great Mitzvah or a great Aveirah respectively. Punishment assigned to a transgression in the Torah is seen as a deterrent. The type of punishment the Torah metes out for a transgression represents the value it assigns to it based on the consequences it triggers; the greater the potential consequence, the greater the deterrent needed thus the greater the punishment. Forgiveness in a classical sense is hard to understand. Repentance may prevent one to repeat an Aveirah. What does it do to the consequences that were already triggered? How does repentance and forgiveness stop that? I believe that the word Kapparah refers to that. Its translation is to wipe away, in other words to wipe away the consequences of one’s action. The Torah is aware that no amount of repentance can stop something that is put in motion. However in certain situations as the perpetrator removes himself things tend to peter out by themselves. In other cases, they cannot be stopped but not repeating is a great step forward. At others, the removal of the perpetrator is the only thing that removes responsibility. He is no longer here to take responsibility. There cannot be full Kapparah – wiping away – of the act until things have run their course. (In some cases, the consequences may appear in later generations but that is another discussion).

Now we are ready to deal with the text[1].

9. Although repentance forgives for all [sins] as does Yom Kippur, some sins are forgiven [wiped away] immediately, others after a time. How is that? If a person transgresses on a positive commandment that does not have the punishment of Caret and he repents, he is forgiven immediately as it says: Return backsliding children, I will heal your backsliding.

[Generally, not performing positive commandments is not punishable as deterrence is not applicable. Inaction may be detrimental but the consequences are neither something measurable nor inevitable. Thus, repentance is seen as the end and no consequences are expected further. They are forgiven immediately. (Note the word Mochalin instead of Mechaperim – there is no need for wiping away – just forgiving).

Some positive commandments if not kept interfere with the person’s development. It prevents him from growing in awareness of God. The consequence is Caret; the part of the person that gets in touch with divinity, what we call soul dies without reaching its potential. These also affect others such as family, friends and so on. Immediate forgiveness cannot happen. Immediate forgiveness is not an option until; all the consequences have run their course as we will see further.]

10. If a person transgresses a negative commandment that is not punishable by either Caret or the death penalty by a Beit Din, repentance suspends [I understand that to mean that in cases where the perpetrators’ active participation affects the outcome, his stopping now, reduces the effects] and Yom Kippur forgives. [Wipes out – in other words the consequences have a short duration]. As it says, “for on this day shall atonement be made for you.”

[I have to admit that I still need to work on how to understand how YK, a set date, can stop consequences. In the same vein, I have to address the problem of the Azazel goat forgiving even without repentance on certain transgressions as discussed in an earlier Halacha. I plan to talk about this in a separate post; in the meantime see MN 3:46.]

11. If a person transgresses [sins] that have Caret or death penalty and repents – repentance and Yom Kippur suspends and the sufferings that he endures complete the forgiveness [wiping off]. That person is not forgiven until he suffers. [As I understand it, once an act has triggered a consequence it cannot be stopped. Repetition can be avoided but one cannot pull back an effect that is already in the making. That person must therefore first suffer the consequences of his act. Based on the severity of the punishment, this type of sin must have triggered effects that cannot be stopped.] On these, it is said “then will I visit their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with strokes”. [The proof text is telling. David’s children sin, their actions have destructive consequences, but ultimately David’s dynasty will prevail.]

12. All this applies when there was no Chilul Hashem. [Profanation of God’s name occurs when there are spectators to the transgressions and they are therefore presumably influenced.] However, one who profanes God’s name, even after repenting, Yom Kippur has arrived while he is in a state of repentance and he is suffering the consequences of his actions, his sin is not wiped away completely until he dies. [The influence on others can never be wiped away with his personal repentance. After death, there is no further responsibility.] For Chilul Hashem the three, repentance, Yom Kippur and suffering suspends [as explained before no further new consequences as he repented but those already in motion cannot be stopped] and death brings total forgiveness as it says: “And the LORD of hosts revealed Himself in mine ears: Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you till ye die”.

This reading of Rambam fits with his general understanding of reward and punishment and they would be too many to quote here. Just a short quote from his introduction to Perek Chelek which I will not translate (now, maybe in another post):

פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת סנהדרין פרק י משנה א

וכל מי ששקע בתענוגות הגופניות והזניח את האמת והעדיף את השוא נכרת מאותו השגב, וישאר חומר מוכרת בלבד, וכבר ביאר הנביא שהעולם הבא אינו נישג בחושים הגופניים והוא אמרו עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתיך יעשה למחכה לו, ואמרו בפירוש דבר זה כל הנביאים כולם לא נתנבאו אלא לימות המשיח אבל העולם הבא עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתיך. אלב ההבטחות והפכן האמורים בתורה ענינן כמו שאבאר לך, וכך הוא, שהוא אומר לך אם תקיים את המצות הללו אעזרך על קיומן והשלמות בהן, ואסלק מעליך כל המעצורים לפי שאי אפשר לאדם לעבוד [את ה'] לא חולה ולא רעב ולא צמא ולא במצב של מלחמה, ולכן הבטיח בהסרת כל אלה ושיהיו בריאים ושלוים כדי שתשלם להם הידיעה ויזכו לחיי העולם הבא. נמצא שאין תכלית התורה שתדשן האדמה ויאריכו ימים ויבריאו הגופות, אלא ייעזרו על קיומה בכל הדברים הללו. וכן אם עברו יהיה עונשם שיבואו עליהם כל אותם המעצורים עד שלא יוכלו לעשות טוב וכמו שאמר תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה' וכו'. וכאשר תתבונן התבוננות נפלאה זו תמצא שהוא כאלו אמר אם עשית מקצת אלו המצות באהבה וחריצות אעזרך על כולם בהסירי מעליך כל העוצרים והמעכבים, ואם הזנחת מהם מקצתם מתוך זלזול אביא עליך מעכבים שיעכבוך מכולם עד שלא תשיג שלמות ולא קיום, וזהו ענין אמרם עליהם השלום שכר מצוה מצוה ושכר עברה עברה.






[1] This Halacha is almost verbatim the Gemara Yoma 86a.

What is the purpose of our existence?

The accepted wisdom in the community is that Man is the purpose of creation. God created the universe so that man, in particular the Jewish man, who acknowledges God and serves Him can thrive and populate it. It is an important philosophical and theological question and I would like to take a stab at it to clarify it for myself. I hope to dedicate several posts to this subject “where the spirit takes me”.

Here I would like to focus on a striking paradox. If you were to ask which theory of existence lends itself more to man being the purpose of it all, the Creationists or those who believe in the eternity of the Universe? Most people would (I would) intuitively say of course the Creationists! Well think again.

When we say “purpose” it needs to be defined. In a universe of cause and effect it becomes clear that there is a connection between different species. Our whole environment is interdependent and is the basis of our conservationist instinct. One can say the purpose of vegetation is to feed the animal kingdom; the purpose of water is to sustain both the vegetal and the animal and so on. There clearly is an internal purpose for each component of our existence which is to perpetuate itself and the whole. The scientific enterprise is to understand, describe and take control of this observed phenomenon. From this perspective, the “purpose” of everything is the preservation of itself and consequently of the whole. Everything that exists is to perpetuate the continued existence of the whole. In an eternal universe the question of “purpose” has no other meaning. It is just there to remain there. Man looking at himself and his role can easily succumb to the narcissistic view of himself being the center and “purpose” of all this. After all he is the one with the brains and the ambition to take control and mold everything to serve him.

It is when we accept that God created existence (I prefer “existence” to “universe” as it is more accurate) that we are faced with trying to explain why He created it. Just as we do not do things without a purpose we assume that a perfect Entity would perforce have to have a goal in mind. We conflate the “purpose” I described in the previous paragraph and conclude that as man is the highest sentient being, the being that discovered God the Creator, he must also be the goal God had in mind when He began all this. Rambam in one of what is to me one of the most difficult chapters in the Moreh presents the problem as follows: (MN 3:13)

“But of those who accept our theory that the whole Universe has been created from nothing, some hold that the inquiry after the purpose of the Creation is necessary, and assume that the Universe was only created for the sake of man's existence, that he might serve God. Everything that is done they believe is done for man's sake; even the spheres move only for his benefit, in order that his wants might be supplied… On examining this opinion as intelligent persons ought to examine all different opinions, we shall discover the errors it includes. Those who hold this view, namely, that the existence of man is the object of the whole creation, may be asked whether God could have created man without those previous creations, or whether man could only have come into existence after the creation of all other things. If they answer in the affirmative, that man could have been created even if, e.g., the heavens did not exist, they will be asked “what is the object of all these things, since they do not exist for their own sake but for the sake of something that could exist without them?” Even if the Universe existed for man's sake and man existed for the purpose of serving God, as has been mentioned, the question remains, “What is the end of serving God?” He does not become more perfect if all His creatures serve Him and comprehend Him as far as possible; nor would He lose anything if nothing existed beside Him. It might perhaps be replied that the service of God is not intended for God's perfection; it is intended for our own perfection,--it is good for us, it makes us perfect. But then the question might be repeated, “What is the object of our being perfect?” We must in continuing the inquiries as to the purpose of the creation at last arrive at the answer; it was the Will of God, or His Wisdom decreed it. This is the correct answer.”

If man could be narcissistic according to the believers in the eternity of material existence he has lost all such illusions according to Rambam’s creationist view!

“This must be our belief when we have a correct knowledge of our own self, and comprehend the true nature of everything; we must be content, and not trouble our mind with seeking a certain final cause for things that have none, or have no other final cause but their own existence, which depends on the Will of God, or, if you prefer, on the Divine Wisdom.”

The implications of this approach are enormous. We are used to thinking that we are the most important thing in existence. When great tragedies befall humankind we tend to ask how it is possible that there is a God when such injustices occur? That question loses some of its edge if man is only another part of a greater whole. It also changes our perspective of what is good and bad. That is why Rambam has this discussion as an introduction to his explanation of providence – what is referred to as Pirkei Hashgacha. He is preempting the popular understanding that the universe is anthropocentric and that all was created to serve man. (There are Chazal who seem to say that – another interesting discussion addressed by Rambam. To follow).

How this thinking is in tune with the Mitzvah of Vehalachta Biderachav – emulating God’s ways – is the subject of another post.

Does Evil Exist?

Did God create everything that exists? Does evil exist? Did God create evil?

A University professor at a well-known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"

A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"

"God created everything?" The professor asked.

"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, & according to the principle that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet & did not respond to the professor's hypothetical definition.The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the religious faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand & said, "May I ask you a question, professor?"

"Of course," replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"

The other students snickered at the young man's question. The young man replied,

"In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat.Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmitsenergy, & heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.Absolute zero (-460F) is the total absence of heat; & all matter becomes inert & incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist.We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors & study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness & illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime & violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.It is just like darkness & cold, a word
that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart.It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."The professor sat down.

The young man's name--Albert Einstein. A true story.

I received this in an email. It sounds like an apocryphal Einstein story. I believe it is a good explanation of evil. It also explains well Rambam in MN3:10:

“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 (bore) darkness: I make peace, and create (bore) evil" (Isa. xlv. 7), for darkness and evil are non-existing things. 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 is applied to non-existing things 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.”

The Historical and Personal aspects of Providence -

Rambam in MN 3:22 and 23 discusses Sefer Iyov. I found this discussion as one of the most difficult to understand especially chapter 23. Here is what I have so far clarified – I think. Any help will be much appreciated.

Sefer Iyov consists of a discussion between Iyov and four of his friends about theodicy. Rambam starts the discussion by pointing out that all five friends started with certain common understandings.

• God knows what is happening to Iyov.
  
• God caused his suffering
  
• God is not unjust nor can He be accused of wrongdoing.

Iyov describes his suffering in spite of him being a righteous man. His friends try to console him, bring him hope, admonish him to be patient, control his speech and submit to god’s will. Iyov on the other hand bemoans his fate saying that he cannot restrain himself when faced with his great misfortune. His friends try to find reasons arguing that God is just and each one finds a different argument how to justify that. Each one proposes another theory which Rambam matches with each theory on providence that he listed in MN 3:17.

• Iyov proposed Aristotles position that God is uninvolved in the running of the world. He is the First Cause but has no volition and therefore is irrelevant in its running.
• Elifaz argued that we cannot judge what is right or wrong. Just because man behaves a certain way, thinking he is doing the right thing, does not insure that it is so. One has to always be introspective and verify that our actions are truly good. Rambam says that this is a position that is very close to the Torah’s view.
• Bildad argued that one suffers in this world so that he is rewarded in the world to come.
• Tzofer argued that God acts according to His volition. We cannot fathom His reasons and all we can do is submit.
• Elihu’s position which Rambam says is the one Iyov accepted at the end and conforms to his own, I will discuss at length a little further on.
  

When we look at our actions and their consequences there are different perspectives that we have to keep in mind. In our day-to day life we expect that each action will have a consequence. In our interaction with others we can often predict the outcome. If we put ourselves in the other person’s shoes we can act in such a way that we will elicit a response that we expect. In our personal life, generally if we for example eat healthy, exercise and take good care of our body, we will be generally in good health and avoid sicknesses. If we work hard on something we generally do well and succeed. In other words there is a reward and punishment system in place. We can ascribe it to God as the Creator and all knowing or explain it away as a natural sequence of cause and effect.

It is when we do all the right things, we act according to the best of our abilities and still things go wrong that we are perplexed. How do we explain that? How can that be something God did or wanted? That is when we find ourselves tending towards taking God out of the equation and accept Aristotle’s argument; God has nothing to do with any of this, it is all pure chance and random. We do our best and cause and effect works generally but not always. When it does not it is pure chance and randomness. Iyov deals with this question and his first reaction is to accept Aristotle’s position. The arguments presented by his friends other than Elihu do not solve his dilemma. He finds fault with each of them.

The way I understand Rambam, he proposes two separate but complementary views which I would call the historical and the personal. The historical is the one I discussed in earlier posts where a person acts in ways that he believes have a lasting impact even as far as future generations. The model for such behavior is Moshe and the Patriarchs who set themselves a goal of creating a nation of servants of God. The personal reverses and struggle are much more acceptable if in the end the stated goal is achieved. The problem is of course the uncertainty that pervades the person that is acting. Prophecy in the sense of intense contemplation of God’s universe and man’s place in it help in reducing that doubt. This is how I understand Rambam’s words in MN 3:23

“His (Elihu’s) description of the method of prophecy in preceding verses is likewise new. He says: "Surely God speaks in one way, yea in two ways, yet man perceives it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls upon man, in slumbering upon the bed" (ibid. 14, 15). He afterwards supports and illustrates his theory by a description of many natural phenomena, such as thunder, lightning, rain, and winds; with these are mixed up accounts of various incidents of life, e.g., an account of pestilence contained in the following passage: "In a moment they die, and at midnight; the people become tumultuous and pass away" (xxxiv. 20). Great wars are described in the following verse: "He breaks in pieces mighty men without number, and sets others in their stead" (ibid. 24).There are many more passages of this kind. In a similar manner the Revelation that reached Job (chap. xxxviii, chap. xli.), and explained to him the error of his whole belief, constantly describes natural objects, and nothing else; it describes the elements, meteorological phenomena, and peculiarities of various kinds of living beings. The sky, the heavens, Orion and Pleiades are only mentioned in reference to their influence upon our atmosphere, so that Job's attention is in this prophecy only called to things below the lunar sphere. Elihu likewise derives instruction from the nature of various kinds of animals. Thus he says: "He teaches us through the beasts of the earth, and makes us wise through the fowls of heaven" (xxxv. 11).”

This intense contemplation of God’s universe coupled with man’s strong intellectual capacity of which prophecy is the paradigm, helps mitigate some of the difficulties facing people. However ultimately,

“The description of all these things serves to impress on our minds that we are unable to comprehend how these transient creatures come into existence, or to imagine how their natural properties commenced to exist, and that these are not like the things which we are able to produce. Much less can we compare the manner in which God rules and manages His creatures with the manner in which we rule and manage certain beings. We must content ourselves with this, and believe that nothing is hidden from God ...”

There is a clear limit to how far this thinking can take us. We have a very micro view of what the effects of our actions will be. We can only see the results during our lifetime and even that is not really clear. What appears as a setback may in the end be an achievement or vice versa. We are left with faith that in doing what we understand to be the right thing will bring fruits eventually and that we are acting in a way that is compatible with God’s ways.

This is where the personal side of providence comes into play. In this process of contemplating the universe man gets an insight about God, the First Cause. He struggles to understand as much as he can about Him knowing that he will never really get to know Him, for He is unknowable. It is this search for the ultimate knowledge that is the core of a human being. It is this ability for abstract thought developed and used to its utmost capacity that makes us humans qua humans. A person who arrives at this level of understanding changes his perspective of what is important. His physical existence no longer is the most important thing. It is his intellectual world that takes on primacy.

“When we know this we shall find everything that may befall us easy to bear; mishap will create no doubts in our hearts concerning God, whether He knows our affairs or not, whether He provides for us or abandons us. On the contrary, our fate will increase our love of God; as is said in the end of this prophecy: "Therefore I abhor myself and repent concerning the dust and ashes" (xlii. 6); and as our Sages say: "The pious do everything out of love, and rejoice in their own afflictions." (B. T. Shabb. 88b.)”

On a personal note: Although intellectually I can hear this argument for Providence and the justification for what I perceive as injustices and how to deal with them, I cannot emotionally absorb it. I guess that philosophizing is not enough and one must experience it to really understand it. It is not enough to talk theology, one must live it.

In MN 3:51 Rambam discusses this further. I will address that in a future post.

Rambam deals with a misfortune - the death of a young daughter.

Further to my last post “who is Satan?” http://yediah.blogspot.com/2007/02/who-is-satan.html my friend Rabbi Buchman reminded me about the following excerpt of a letter Rambam wrote to his pupil R. Yosef ben Yehudah. It is published in R. Shailat’s edition of the Iggerot page 262. I am not a very good translator so here goes more or less a paraphrase.

“I already advised you about the death of the young daughter[1] God should accept her death as a Kapparah. My son, do not mourn or be depressed on neither a male nor a female. God knows, and the truth is as I will say, that a person that understands things does well when he focuses on humankind rather than the individual[2]. I am not saying that this attitude is perfect but it is the most acceptable and is the cause of the least anxiety. There is no choice for a person wishing to understand our well designed existence that was labeled by its Creator “Tov Me’od” – very good – but to concentrate and see the good in the happenings of the whole of humankind rather than trying to see it in the occurrences in the life of each individual. I hope that when you will receive the chapters of the Moreh Hanevuchim dealing with this issue, you will understand this better with God’s help”.

Apparently Rambam wrote this letter while he was still composing the MN, which he published in sections. It confirms our understanding of his attitude towards the misfortunes in our day-to-day life.

It is interesting to contrast this letter with an earlier one (page 228) regarding the death of his brother and his reaction to it. There too, though he admits to depression, illness and still being disconsolate eight years after his death, he consoles himself with the study of Torah and general knowledge. To be translated at a later date.


[1] Although there are different opinions R. Sheilat believes it is Rambam’s daughter.
[2] I translated it as I understand this sentence in the context though it is a little forced. See r. Sheilat’s note that the letter is only available in a poor translation and not in its original Arabic.

Who is Satan?

I have worked very hard on this post and I publish it with much trepidation. It is very easy to be philosophical about human suffering especially when it is about someone else's pain. It is also easy to pontificate when it is impersonal. However I believe it is a subject that needs to be addressed. The whole book of Iyov was written with that issue in mind. I believe the Rabbis who put Iyov's existence into doubt were telling us that it can only be discussed in an impersonal way. It is however a suggested personal contemplation for the sufferer in the hope that it will mitigate his pain. Please take it in that vein and not as a sermon Chas Vechalila.


Satan, Mal’ach Hamavet - angel of death and Yetzer Hara are synonyms. Rambam is very enraptured with this insight.

“…listen to the following useful instruction given by our Sages, who in truth deserve the title of "wise men"; it makes clear that which appears doubtful, and reveals that which has been hidden, and discloses most of the mysteries of the Law. They said in the Talmud as follows: R. Simeon, son of Lakish, says: "The adversary (Satan), evil inclination (Yetzer Hara), and the angel of death, are one and the same being." Here we find all that has been mentioned by us in such a clear manner that no intelligent person will be in doubt about it. It has thus been shown to you that one and the same thing is designated by these three different terms, and that actions ascribed to these three are in reality the actions of one and the same agent.”(MN3:22)

What is the great insight and what makes it so praiseworthy?

There is a concept that is common to all medieval thinkers that is very difficult to translate into our contemporary way of thinking. It is the idea of Matter and Form. Already in antiquity the idea of Form meant different things to different philosophers. While Plato saw it as a mental construct of “the permanent reality that makes a thing what it is, in contrast to the particulars that are finite and subject to change. Each form is the pattern of a particular category of thing in the world; thus, there are forms of human, stone, shape, color, beauty, and justice. Whereas the physical world, perceived with the senses, is in constant flux and knowledge derived from it restricted and variable, the realm of forms, apprehensible only by the mind, is eternal and changeless.” Aristotle saw it as “the arrangement or organization through which such elements (matter) have become the thing in question”. (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia)

I believe Plato’s understanding is easier to translate into our language though Aristotle’s approach can also be interpreted similarly. I can visualize the “idea” of a tree, for example, as always being out there even when the tree itself no longer exists. All the science that goes into a tree growing is there before and after the tree. It is eternal and changeless. It exists even without a human being around who apprehends it with his mind. In fact it was there before a human understood it just like Relativity existed before Einstein described it. Every physical entity from the simplest to the most complex has its “idea”, its underlying science. In other words everything we know and we will ever know and experience in the physical world we live in, is potentially out there in the form of a scientific concept. This is what Rambam refers to as Form.

Form as described starts of as a potential and is actualized in matter. Matter is the actualization of Form, which is the idea behind it. Of course it is difficult to visualize a concept without a mind that conceptualizes it. This issue is a discussion that falls in the philosophical realm of the mind–body connection and problem. Let us, for this discussion sake, simplify and say it is God’s mind that conceptualizes the science underlying existence. I will return to it in my discussions of Hashgacha and Yediah.

In terms of eternity therefore, while Form is eternal and unchanging, matter is temporal and always changing. Matter comes into existence, not having been extant before nor is it after it no longer exists. Destruction and death is a necessary quality of matter.

When discussing the story of Adam and Chava, Rambam differentiates between truth and falseness and good and bad. “Through the intellect man distinguishes between truth and falsehood. This faculty Adam possessed perfectly and completely. Fine and bad belong to the things generally accepted as known, not to those cognized by the intellect.” (MN 1:2) Good and bad are terms that are subjective categorizations that we use in describing our relationship with physical existence. Existence is good while destruction is bad. It is a relative and subjective assessment. On the other hand our intellectual quest in understanding our physical existence is an objective analysis which can be either true or false. The human intellect is thus the potential that is actualized in physical reality in the same manner Form is actualized in matter.

In the story of Iyov, which is the subject of the chapter of MN I quoted; Satan is contrasted with Bnei Ha’elohim. Rambam understands the story as a description of reality. The Bnei Ha’elohim represent the Form of existence, the concept, while Satan is matter. The word Lehityatzev, to stand firmly, is always used with the Bnei Ha’elohim while only the second time with Satan. Form is eternal while Satan, matter, is temporal.

Iyov had suffered great losses and was despondent. His suffering was related to his physical existence and not to his intellect. Rambam notes that Iyov is described as a just man –“It is remarkable in this account that wisdom is not ascribed to Job. The text does not say he was an intelligent, wise, or clever man; but virtues and uprightness, especially in actions, are ascribed to him.” Virtue and uprightness deal with Good and Bad, relative and subjective matters that focus on our day-to-day physical well-being. It does not address Truth and Falseness which are the realm of wisdom. Human suffering is always related to the physical part of existence, to life and death, good and bad. It is only when Satan, the symbol of matter and the physical reigns that bad things happen. Understanding this does not mitigate the pain but puts it in a proper perspective. The perceived injustice and unfair suffering, is related to the temporal, our physical existence, while our intellectual self remains intact eternally and can only be affected by truth and falseness.

I believe that there is an even deeper message here. As I discussed in my earlier posts on Hashgacha, it is only when man takes the long-term view that Providence comes into play. The examples we use are the Avot who had a long-term goal of building a nation of seekers. If the long-term goal is reached, the tribulations and pain suffered along the way are retrospectively much easier to understand and deal with. The individual while he is acting, doing and living can only do his best, use his intellect in trying to understand the meaning of life and what is his role in the history of humankind and existence and act accordingly. That way of thinking in itself helps in mitigating the inevitable pain and suffering of our physical existence.

“This lesson is the principal object of the whole Book of Job; it establishes the foundation for the belief and the drawing attention to the inference to be drawn from natural matters, so that we should not fall into the error of imagining His knowledge to be similar to ours, or His intention, providence, and rule similar to ours. When we know this we shall find everything that may befall us easy to bear; mishap will create no doubts in our hearts concerning God, whether He knows our affairs or not, whether He provides for us or abandons us.”(MN3:23)

When we contemplate another person’s misfortune it is crass to minimize it by being philosophical. It is wrong and shows a lack of empathy and caring. However for the person that goes through the trauma, the sufferer, this is a way of dealing with the misfortune. By energizing himself, being introspective and acting on it, there is the possibility of growth and better long-term outcome.

יב וַיהוָה, בֵּרַךְ אֶת אַחֲרִית אִיּוֹב--מֵרֵאשִׁתוֹ; וַיְהִי לוֹ אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר אֶלֶף צֹאן, וְשֵׁשֶׁת אֲלָפִים גְּמַלִּים, וְאֶלֶף צֶמֶד בָּקָר, וְאֶלֶף אֲתוֹנוֹת.
12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning; and he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she-asses.
יג וַיְהִי לוֹ שִׁבְעָנָה בָנִים, וְשָׁלוֹשׁ בָּנוֹת.
13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.
יד וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הָאַחַת יְמִימָה, וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית קְצִיעָה; וְשֵׁם הַשְּׁלִישִׁית, קֶרֶן הַפּוּךְ.
14 And he called the name of the first, Jemimah; and the name of the second, Keziah; and the name of the third, Keren-happuch.
טו וְלֹא נִמְצָא נָשִׁים יָפוֹת, כִּבְנוֹת אִיּוֹב--בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם נַחֲלָה, בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵיהֶם.
15 And in all the land were no women found as fair as the daughters of Job were; and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.
טז וַיְחִי אִיּוֹב אַחֲרֵי זֹאת, מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה; וירא (וַיִּרְאֶה), אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנֵי בָנָיו--אַרְבָּעָה, דֹּרוֹת.
16 And after this Job lived a hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations.
יז וַיָּמָת אִיּוֹב, זָקֵן וּשְׂבַע יָמִים. {ש}
17 So Job died, being old and full of days. {P}

Francis Collins: Science and religion - a viewpoint of a scientist.

My brother pointed me to this fascinating interview with Francis Collins a renowned scientist involved in deciphering the human genome.
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0702/voices.html

Some excerpts:

Re Freedom of choice:

"You're talking about genetic determinism, which implies that we are helpless marionettes being controlled by strings made of double helices. That is so far away from what we know scientifically! Heredity does have an influence not only over medical risks but also over certain behaviors and personality traits. But look at identical twins, who have exactly the same DNA but often don't behave alike or think alike. They show the importance of learning and experience—and free will. I think we all, whether we are religious or not, recognize that free will is a reality. There are some fringe elements that say, "No, it's all an illusion, we're just pawns in some computer model." But I don't think that carries you very far. "

Re the Holocaust and God:

"If God had to intervene miraculously every time one of us chose to do something evil, it would be a very strange, chaotic, unpredictable world. Free will leads to people doing terrible things to each other. Innocent people die as a result. You can't blame anyone except the evildoers for that. So that's not God's fault. The harder question is when suffering seems to have come about through no human ill action. A child with cancer, a natural disaster, a tornado or tsunami. Why would God not prevent those things from happening?"

Read more. There is some Ramban in there but mostly Rambam.