Rambam- Yesodei HaTorah- Chapter 9 Halacha 1: No Prophet Can Alter The Torah and G-D's Knowledge of the Future

 דבר ברור ומפורש בתורה שהיא מצוה עומדת לעולם ולעולמי עולמים אין לה לא שינוי ולא גרעון ולא תוספת שנאמר את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם אותו תשמרון לעשות לא תוסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו. ונאמר והנגלות לנו ולבנינו עד עולם לעשות את כל דברי התורה הזאת. הא למדת שכל דברי תורה מצווין אנו לעשותן עד עולם. וכן הוא אומר חוקת עולם לדורותיכם. ונאמר לא בשמים היא. הא למדת שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה. לפיכך אם יעמוד איש בין מן האומות בין מישראל ויעשה אות ומופת ויאמר שה' שלחו להוסיף מצוה או לגרוע מצוה או לפרש במצוה מן המצות פירוש שלא שמענו ממשה. או שאמר שאותן המצות שנצטוו בהן ישראל אינן לעולם ולדורי דורות אלא מצות לפי זמן היו. הרי זה נביא שקר שהרי בא להכחיש נבואתו של משה. ומיתתו בחנק על שהזיד לדבר בשם ה' אשר לא צוהו. שהוא ברוך שמו צוה למשה שהמצוה הזאת לנו ולבנינו עד עולם ולא איש אל ויכזב: 

It is a clear [idea] in the Torah that it (the Torah) is a [conglomeration] of commandment[s] that were established to last forever. It is not [meant] to have any changes, deletions, or additions, as it says (Devarim 13:1), "Everything I command you, be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it." It also says (Devarim 29:28), " But the revealed things are for us and our children forever: that we must fulfill all the words of this Torah." This is to teach us that all of the words of the Torah are commands for us to perform, forever. It also says (Vayikra 23:14), "An eternal statute throughout your generations." 
It also says (Devarim 30:12), "It is not in heaven." This teaches us that the prophet does not have permission to [reveal a] new [law that was not revealed previously.] Therefore, if a prophet arises from among the men of Israel or from among the nations and performs signs and wonders and then says that G-D sent him to add a commandment, to delete a commandment, to explain one of the existing commandments in a way that was not heard from Moshe, or he says the commandments that Israel were commanded to follow were not meant for the generations, but only for a specific time, this [person] is a false prophet because he is coming to contradict the prophecy of Moshe! His death penalty is strangulation because he [falsely claimed] to be speaking in the name of G-D, but he was not really commanded [by G-D.] For, [G-D] commanded Moshe that this testament (the Torah) was for us and our children for eternity and [G-D] is not like a man, who lies.    

The Rambam here is introducing us to the idea that once the Torah was given to Moshe, that is the final draft of the Torah. G-D was working on the Torah and was "tweaking it" until he finally gave it to Moshe and the Jews at Mount Sinai. However, once G-D gave the Torah, that was it. There was no more alterations, G-D wanted the Torah that was handed over to be the final draft. Any further alterations were unnecessary. Therefore, if a prophet comes and says, "G-D wanted to tweak the Torah a little more," we call him or her a liar. The reason is because the Torah was given and it is "no longer in heaven!" Man was given the perfect code.

How do we know this code was perfect and no future alterations are necessary? For starters, it was given to us by G-D. If G-D is perfect and omniscient then the code he gave us must apply for all time.  

This brings me to an interesting and very important discussion, does G-D know the future and if he does, how can there be free will?

This has been a personal struggle for me and I believe I have a decent explanation. However, first let me state the dilemma clearly. The problem is this: If G-D knows what a person will do, then how does that person have free will to perform that action? Is the person not forced into performing that action because G-D already knows it will occur?

There are three main sources to discuss if you are interested in the rationalist approach to G-D's foreknowledge. The statements made by Rabbi Akiva, the Rambam and the Ralbag. Let's start with Rabbi Akiva. 

It states in the name of Rabbi Akiva in Pirkei Avos (Ethics of our fathers, 3:15), "All is foreseen, and freedom of choice is granted." This does not help us understand anything. It is a simple statement that allows us to say that we have freedom of choice, but G-D knows everything. It seems like a contradiction, but it isn't and we must take Rabbi Akiva's word for it. This is a very unsatisfying answer. 

The Rambam gives us a little more, but not much. He bases his opinion on his approach to divine attributes (found in The Guide section 1 chapters 51-68). Basically, the Rambam says G-D's foreknowledge does not remove our freedom from our choices (See The Guide section 3 chapter 20). The reason for this is because we don't understand the idea of G-D Knowing something. G-D does not have features that are knowable. We do not have the ability to understand any attributes of G-D, therefore, we can not understand why His knowledge of events does not contradict our free will, but it does not. This answer is more detailed than Rabbi Akiva's, but it is still very unsatisfying.

The Ralbag's answer is intriguing, because he has such a unique approach to G-D's foreknowledge. He explains (In section 3 of The Wars of The Lord) that G-D does not know the future, because the future has not yet occurred, but G-D knows all of the possible outcomes based on different decisions that a person can make.

All three of these answers are difficult to take. Rabbi Akiva does not give any explanations as to why or how his statement is believable. The Rambam gives an explanation that would disallow any type of logic in Judaism, because if we can't really understand anything about G-D how can we truly understand what he said or passed down to us? Finally, the Ralbags approach would take away too much power from G-D. For, if G-D does not know the future, how can His Torah be relevant for all generations and unchangeable, like the Rambam says it is (Granted the Ralbag goes on to explain this difficulty, but the answers are still unsatisfying)?

I think the following approach makes the most sense. All of these previous approaches either lacked a way of explaining something or were the best effort for the thinking of their time. However, if we understand that space and time are finite and G-D exists outside of the finite universe, then we can understand that G-D knows everything that has occurred and everything that will occur. It is similar to watching a movie for the second time, just because I know what is going to happen in the movie, does that make the choices of the person in the movie any less of a choice? Also, it must be that G-D knows all future events in order for the Rambam's approach to be valid, because, as I stated earlier, if G-D did not know the future how could the Torah be unalterable? Obviously, the Torah would need to adjust as reality changed. However, with our approach, using a superficial understanding of space and time, we can somewhat understand how G-D's knowledge of the future works. 

Can A Multiverse Exist In Jewish Thought

This seems like a silly idea, but ever since I read this article in Scientific American a couple of years ago this was something on my mind. Previously, I thought the "Multiverse" was something made up in order for the DC Universe to have a solution to having so many conflicting stories with the same personalities (corrected with the comic book "Crisis on Infinite Earths"). However, it seems like this idea has taken hold in more mainstream sources.

Personally, I thought this idea was made up by people that were trying to figure out a way to exclude G-D from being a necessary part of the world. I thought that an infinite amount of universes existing just meant that scientists could claim that there was no creator, since there are an endless amount of "realities" where every possible permutation existed then the world could exist "by accident" without an intelligent being creating life. Imagine, every possible universe existing somewhere. One universe still has not experienced the "Big Bang." Another universe never had the proper conditions to form life on Earth. Yet, another universe ended up forming life on Mars instead of Earth and so on and so forth. The possibilities are endless.

On a more theological level I think there is an even greater problem. If one believes a Multiverse exists and that G-D exists as a single entity (meaning, there is only one G-D and an infinite amount of universes. Not one G-D per universe) how does G-D know what I am doing in each universe separately? Let me give an example for clarity. In a Multiverse setting, as explained in Scientific American, a new universe would exist every time I come to a point where I have to make a decision. Something as simple as should I go left or should I go right. That creates two separate universes, one in which I went left and another in which I went right. So, does G-D relate to me as a sinner or a righteous person? I ended up pursuing both, so does He punish me or does He reward me?

This problem is compounded when we think about other factors as well. Does each and every me, which ends up being in the millions if not billions, if not trillions because of all the choices I will make in my life, have a different Neshama (soul)? Do we each have a separate personality? 

It should come as no surprise to those who know me that I found the answer of whether a Multiverse can exist in Jewish though while reading the Ralbag's "Milchamos Hashem" (Wars of The Lord). In book 4 the Ralbag discusses divine providence. and how it works. He believes there are three options: 1) The theory of Aristotle that asserts divine providence does not reach individual members of the human species, but only the species in general. 2) The theory of most of the followers of the Torah that maintain divine providence reaches each and every individual human as an individual. 3) The theory of the outstanding scholars of our Torah who assert that divine providence reaches only some individuals on an individual level, but not all men (Referring to Rambam in The Guide 3:17,51 and Abraham Ibn Ezra in Exodus 23:25, 33:21). This is the basis for how we can understand if Jewish theology allows for a Multiverse.

According to the second approach it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a Multiverse. If G-D is "guiding" every aspect of your life, that means no matter which universe you are in, G-D is guiding you on the path He believes is best. The best way to describe this approach is that G-D knows what you are going to do before you do it. G-D knows whether you are going to go left or right. This appears to mean you have no free choice except how much you will fear G-D. I believe this is the Maharal's view throughout his writings, that you really have no free choice. (Obviously, this view existed well before the Maharal because the Ralbag, who lived 400 years before the Maharal, quotes this view.) G-D has already set up your path. You will make so much money your entire life, you will have so many children, you will have such and such a profession and so on. However, you do have the choice as to how much fear of heaven you will have. Will you be an earnest Jew or will you be a faker? This is what, I believe, the Maharal takes away from the Gemara in Brachos 33b "All is in the hands of heaven except fear of heaven." Anyway, back to the topic at hand, this approach leaves no room for a Multiverse since there can only be one path that G-D guides each and every single person down with his individual providence.

This, seemingly, allows us to claim that the third approach, by those outstanding scholars, allows for a Multiverse. However, this is a false claim. Divine providence excludes the second approach of most of the Jewish people from believing in a Multiverse, but that is not the only criteria. According to the Rambam (The Guide 3:20,16-21 are all relevent) G-D's providence only rests on the few that have reached a very high level, but that does not mean He doesn't know what everyone has, is and will be doing. G-D has foreknowledge of everything. This would also seem to exclude the possibility of a Multiverse, because if G-D knows what choice you will make, that means you will not choose anything else, hence no Multiverse.

It seems to me that the Ralbag has the only approach in Jewish theology that allows for a Multiverse (he also believes Abraham ibn Ezra agrees with him). In book four of The Wars of the Lord he discusses that the third approach of divine providence is the correct approach. However, he also states in book three a unique approach to divine knowledge that fits perfectly with the idea of a Multiverse. Ralbag is of the opinion that G-D does not know particular events as particulars, but only in a general sense. I know that sounds complicated and might not have much meaning, so I will explain. I don't want to go into why medieval thinkers needed to find a way that G-D's knowledge of the future never changed, but they believed G-D could acquire no new knowledge since He contains all knowledge that eixsts. Hence, Rambam concluded that G-D knows everything that has, is and will happen. The Ralbag came up with a much more original approach to prevent G-D from ever having to attain new knowledge. Ralbag explains that G-D knows every person's nature and what that nature, if uncontested by man's rationale, would lead him or her to do. Therefore, G-D knows I am going to eat the cheeseburger in the sense that He knows my nature inclines me to eat the cheeseburger. However, in actuality I may have not eaten the cheeseburger. G-D allows nature to run its course without interference, unless the person is extremely righteous and only in certain cases. That is all I want to say about that, it is a complicated subject and requires a separate post to discuss it.

This approach of the Ralbag allows for a Multiverse, because it does not require that G-D know the actual future. G-D knows a person's nature and what he or she may do, but He allows free choice. A person's rationale may override their nature and thereby a Multiverse can be formed from an orthodox Jewish perspective. How? Because, this approach leaves open the possibility that option a or b may happen and G-D does not prevent either from happening. This is only possible in the Ralbag's approach because according to the approach of most of the followers of the Torah, G-D would guide a person on one path and according to the Rambam G-D knows which path you chose.

Therefore, if a Multiverse does exist it seems like only the Ralbag's approach is correct. This would mean all the questions running through your brain about this approach need to be answered. Hopefully, I will get a chance to explain how G-D can give rewards and punishment, how He relates to prophets and so on. I'll let you in on one secret though, prophecy for the Ralbag is basically the same as for the Rambam.

For anyone who tries to call the Ralbag an Apikores or the like, I just want to state that the Ralbag makes sure to explain every one of his views that can be misconstrued as to why it agrees with other great scholars. He almost always shows why the Rambam would agree that his approach is acceptable. With regards to this approach of divine knowledge, the Ralbag quotes the Rambam in The Guide (3:20), "Some thinkers have been inclined to say that G-D's knowledge refers to the species and uniformly encompasses all members of the species. This is the view of any believer in a revealed religion who is guided by the necessity of reason." The Ralbag says that this clearly shows that the Rambam thought this approach was congruent with the view of the Torah. He also quotes the Ibn Ezra (Breishis 18:21) as agreeing with his approach, "The truth is that He knows every particular generally, not as a particular."

I hope you found this post enjoyable and intriguing. 

How Does G-D Work In This World?

Ever since I can remember I had a simple question, "How does G-D interact with the world?" However, if you think about it, this is probably the most complicated question one can ask about G-D. People always say that "G-D helps" and "G-D caused it to happen," but HOW did He help and HOW did He cause it to happen? There is a scientist/theologian quoted in "Discover" magazine in an article titled "Physics of the divine" in the March 2011 issue that has put forth a new theory about how, MAYBE, G-D interacts with the world. I find his theory very interesting, to say the least. I will try to hit the main points.


(The scientist/theologian is an Anglican priest named John Polkinghorne)


"I started with the statement that I believe G-D acts in the world, but He is not a show-off conjurer who violates the same laws of nature that He made." he says. "My questions was, Is there a way of describing G-D's actions that is consistent with science?"


.....Reviewing the evidence... Russell concluded that the best place to seek scientific support for G-D is in quantum mechanics, the physical laws describing the subatomic realm..... For people seeking a place for G-D in the physical world, the most important of those [peculiar] properties [in the quantum theory] is the uncertainty principle which states that you can never predict the outcome of a quantum experiment with certainty; you can only calculate the probability of getting a particular result.


As a result of the uncertainty principle, quantum events are starkly different from those in the familiar, large-scale world. [For example,] when you toss a coin, you could, in theory, make a foolproof prediction (heads or tales) if you knew every piece of information about the flip-- the speed and height of the toss, the movement of all the air currents in the room and so on. At the quantum scale, in contrast, equivalent events are intrinsically indeterministic: the universe simply does not contain enough information for you to predict a result. This fundamental indeterminism has been repeatedly confirmed in the lab. For instance, physicists have shown that two identical radioactive atoms will decay at different times. There is no way to explain why they behave differently or to predict the precise time of decay.
(There are more complications that are explained, but this is the theory of Polkinghorne of how G-D could intervene in the world. He also goes on to add chaos theory for different reasons.)


This theory is interesting, but there is also another convincing idea put forth by quantum physicist Antoine Suarez of the Center for Quantum Philosophy in Zurich in the same article. 


.... G-D seekers are better off pursuing another quantum effect, entanglement. In entanglement, two particles become twinned in such a way that the measurement of one always determines the properties  of the other, no matter how far apart they may be. Imagine setting up a pair of entangled "coins" (such as photons with a specific orientation), then giving one to Alice in Oxford and another to Bob in Zurich. When you ask Alice and Bob to flip their coins, they will both get heads or both get tails, even though the results of the tosses should be random and independent..... Suarez claims entanglement tests conducted with real photons in the lab suggest that quantum effects must be caused by "influences that originate from outside of space-time."

[After conducting an experiment that took time out of the equation Suarez discovered that he was wrong when he thought that] "by messing up the time-ordering in this way, it would be impossible for the photons to coordinate their paths." He was proven wrong. On every run, the photons still met the same fate. Whatever causes the twin photons to behave the same way, it must work independently of time.

These two ideas in no way prove G-D. However, it is very difficult to understand how G-D could interact with the world. Before I read about this theory I was always troubled by how G-D intervenes in the world. Everything seemed like it could be explained away through nature or choices of human beings. Rainbows are not the hand of G-D, but a beautiful occurrence that is seen in nature. Tides are natural occurrences. True, we can claim that nature was created by G-D, but at that point we never observe nature changing in a miraculous way, rather we see nature's laws holding tight, unchanging. How does G-D get involved?

I don't understand how people believe G-D just intervenes. In what way does he intervene? G-D influencing quantum events makes a lot of sense to me, especially according to the Rambam and Ralbag. Rambam tells us that G-D relates to the world through His angels (see here). How? Well, the Rambam tells us that when G-D wants to cause something to happen on earth He influences the Chayos (top level angels) and that starts a chain reaction that eventually leads to an action in the physical realm. Sounds like how quantum mechanics works. A teeny tiny event that, through Chaos theory, can affect the physical realm.

This idea allows us to understand the Ralbag and Rambam, I think, in a much clearer way. They say that G-D allows nature to take its course, unless the person is very righteous. So, G-D does not intervene in the world except for the very righteous. If that is true, how does He intervene for the righteous? This theory could, theoretically, allow us to understand how G-D intervenes, but allows the world to work through nature without a constant need for His intervention.

For a related idea see this post http://markset565.blogspot.com/2009/12/hashgacha-pratis-vs-hashgacha-klalis.html

Keeping Ourselves Away From Bad Influences

In this week's Parsha, Vayigash, Yosef brings his family to the Land of Goshen. The odd occurence here is that he, seemingly, plots with his family to keep them in Goshen. As we will see, Yosef tells his brothers to tell Pharoh they are Shepards. If that is the truth and they are shepards, why does Yosef need to tell them to relate that information to Pharoh when he asks for it? The whole conversation reads like this (Breishis 46:31-34):

לא  וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל-אֶחָיו וְאֶל-בֵּית אָבִיו, אֶעֱלֶה וְאַגִּידָה לְפַרְעֹה; וְאֹמְרָה אֵלָיו, אַחַי וּבֵית-אָבִי אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ-כְּנַעַן בָּאוּ אֵלָי.	31 And Joseph said unto his brethren, and unto his father's house: 'I will go up, and tell Pharaoh, and will say unto him: My brethren, and my father's house, who were in the land of Canaan, are come unto me;
לב  וְהָאֲנָשִׁים רֹעֵי צֹאן, כִּי-אַנְשֵׁי מִקְנֶה הָיוּ; וְצֹאנָם וּבְקָרָם וְכָל-אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם, הֵבִיאוּ.	32 and the men are shepherds, for they have been keepers of cattle; and they have brought their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have.
לג  וְהָיָה, כִּי-יִקְרָא לָכֶם פַּרְעֹה; וְאָמַר, מַה-מַּעֲשֵׂיכֶם.	33 And it shall come to pass, when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say: What is your occupation?
לד  וַאֲמַרְתֶּם, אַנְשֵׁי מִקְנֶה הָיוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ מִנְּעוּרֵינוּ וְעַד-עַתָּה--גַּם-אֲנַחְנוּ, גַּם-אֲבֹתֵינוּ:  בַּעֲבוּר, תֵּשְׁבוּ בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן, כִּי-תוֹעֲבַת מִצְרַיִם, כָּל-רֹעֵה צֹאן.	34 that ye shall say: Thy servants have been keepers of cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and our fathers; that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.'

The verses here seem to indicate that Yosef is telling the brothers that he is going to lie about something. If the entire family was really keepers of cattle then why does Yosef need to tell them to tell Pharoh this? It seems like Yosef is doing this specifically so they can live in Goshen which is away from the Egyptians. Obviously, this is far away from the Egyptians because they consider people who keep cattle to be disgusting (probably because the Egyptians worshiped cattle).

The Ralbag even tells us that there are three reasons why Yosef wanted his family living in Goshen. First, because it is a land that is good for grazing and it is very nice. Second, it is the choicest of all the land of Egypt. Finally, Yosef did not want his family to be spread out in the land of Egypt. The Ralbag goes on to say that if the Jewish people were spread out in the land of Egypt they would be ridiculed for their way of life. However, if they stayed together in Goshen, where they would be the majority, then they would not be bothered.

With this idea in mind, I think it is quite clear what Yosef was doing. There were, most probably, people in Yaakov's family that were not shepards. That is why Yosef wanted them all to claim they were shepards, so Pharoh would not protest and, therefore, he would allow all of Yaakov's family to live in Goshen. This would allow all the Jewish people to live in one place and avoid the bad influences of the Egyptians. The Jewish people would avoid assimilation because they would be far removed from the rest of Egypt.

Obviously, the Jews were not the only people in Goshen, because it was already a small city (as the Ralbag points out). However, it was important for Yosef to minimize the influence of the Egyptians on the Jewish people. I think this is an important lesson for us to learn nowadays as well. It is important to live in a Jewish community where outside influences only have minimal impact. If a Jew goes off to a place with a very minimal Jewish community then they will be influenced much more by inappropriate ideologies than if they were surrounded by Torah Jews.

This is not to say that a Jew should cut themselves off either. However, if we look at the case of Yosef we can learn when it is appropriate to protect yourself from outside influences. The Egyptian culture was full of idol worship and licentiousness. The Jews needed to keep their distance in order to protect themselves from these inappropriate ideas. The Jews did still do business with the Egyptians and other things, but their cultures were separate. This is why the Midrash tells us that the Jews did not change their dress, language or names, among other things, because their cultures were separate.

Jews need to be able to retain their culture and their religion. The best way to do this is to do what Yosef did. Make sure that the Jewish community is strong and tightly knit. That does not mean that we can't converse with other cultures, perform business with them, or even be friends. What it does mean is that we need to make it that those who are closest to us are from our culture and religion. I think that is the message we can learn from Yosef, we need to create tightly knit Jewish communities if we are going to protect our religion and our culture. Also, the only way to truly fight detrimental influences is to keep them at arms length. That does not mean ignoring them completely, like some Jewish communities do, (for that is detrimental as well) but we must realize the differences in our values and our ways of life.

Parenting

In this week's parsha there is a very intriguing statement that seemingly makes little sense. In Breishis (25:28):

כח. וַיֶּאֱהַב יִצְחָק אֶת עֵשָׂו כִּי צַיִד בְּפִיו וְרִבְקָה אֹהֶבֶת אֶת יַעֲקֹב:
28. And Isaac loved Esau because [his] game was in his mouth, but Rebecca loved Jacob.

How could it be that Isaac loved Esau and Rivka loved Yaakov? Doesn't this go against everything that we think parents should be? Aren't parents supposed to love all their children? The Torah never brings down a superfluous idea, so what is it that we can learn from this one? (See here for a related subject)

Anyway, the first idea we should look at is Rashi. He says on this verse:

בפיו: כתרגומו בפיו של יצחק. ומדרשו בפיו של עשו שהיה צד אותו ומרמהו בדבריו:
 In his mouth: As the Targum renders: into Isaac’s mouth. The Midrashic interpretation is: with Esau’s mouth, for he would entrap him and deceive him with his words. — [From Tanchuma, Toledoth 8]


This understanding goes along quite well with the Seforno's explanation here:


  וַיֶּאֱהַב יִצְחָק אֶת עֵשָׂו. גַּם אֶת עֵשָׂו, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּדַע בְּלִי סָפֵק שֶׁלּא הָיָה שָׁלֵם כְּיַעֲקב.




And Isaac loved Esau: He ALSO loved Esau, even though he knew, without a doubt, that he was not complete like Yaakov.
 
וְרִבְקָה אהֶבֶת אֶת יַעֲקב. לְבַדּו, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִכִּירָה בְּרִשְׁעו שֶׁל עֵשָׂו
.And Rivka loved Yaakov: ONLY, because she recognized the wickedness of Esau.

Apparently, Rashi and Seforno think that the best understanding of this verse is that Rivka did not love her son Esau because he was wicked. Also, the only reason Isaac loved his son Esau, according to these commentaries, is because Esau successfully tricked his father into thinking he was righteous.

This idea seems so strange to me for several reasons. First, it completely discards the reading of the verse. Onkles, as well as the verse itself, clearly say that Isaac loved Esau because of the food Esau brought his father. The Midrash comes to tell us how Esau tricked Isaac with deceit, but I do not see that relating to the words of the verse very well. That is why I am more partial to a different explanation that I saw in the Ralbag.


The Ralbag brings down the Seforno and Rashi understanding and agrees with them. However, he gives an alternate understanding of the verse, one more similar to Onkles and the actual verse (brought down in Breishis Rabbah chapter 63). The Ralbag says, "Perhaps the understanding [of this verse] is that Yitzchak (Isaac) loved him (Esau) because Esau would bring him meat (trappings) to eat, for a man is compelled to love those who he accepts purposeful things from.... Rivka loved Yaakov because she saw that he was a very good person." 

The Ralbag, quoting the Midrash Rabba (apparently) is telling us something very fascinating about mothers vs fathers. It seems to be that, according to the second understanding in the Ralbag, Yitzchak (Isaac) knew Esau was wicked, but loved him anyway. Why? Because Esau went out of his way to bring his father delicious meat. Yitzchak appreciated this and was emotionally attached to Esau because of this. Rivka, on the other hand, did not care that Esau brought meat, she saw that Yaakov was more righteous and his righteousness compelled her to favor him. The role of a father, in this scenario, is of a parent that wants to make his son self sufficient and when that happens the father is pleased. Yaakov was in no way self sufficient, that is why his mother compelled him to steal the blessings later in the Parsha. This caused Yitzchak to favor Esau. However, Rivka only cared about the personality and spirituality of her children. Yaakov grew up to be a man of great character and he had a high level of spirituality. Obviously, Yitchak and Rivka loved both their children, but each one had an extra affinity to one of them based on their own personalities. 
  
What can we take away from this idea? I think the idea is like this. Parents need to be able to relate to all their children. Yitzchak favored Esau and that is why he was going to give him the bracha. Rivka favored Yaakov and that is why she helped him, or compelled him, to steal the bracha. This appears to have been a break down in communication. Imagine if Rivka would have spent extra time with Esau and taught him to be more righteous and less involved with killing. Imagine if Yitzchak had sat with Yaakov and taught him more about the ways of the world. Yaakov would have been able to overcome Lavan's treachery and Esau might have actually been part of the Jewish nation. Unfortunately, that is not how it was meant to be. Yaakov was tricked and Esau fell into his wicked ways. But, the lesson is clear, we must make sure that we notice the weaknesses in children and help them better themselves in those weak areas. 

G-D Works Through Nature

This week's Parsha, Eikev, reveals to us something that the Rambam has spoken of for a long time, G-D uses nature to perform miracles. Many people declare that when G-D performs a miracle it is completely unnatural and "magical." The verse says (Devarim 7:20)

כ. וְגַם אֶת הַצִּרְעָה יְשַׁלַּח יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בָּם עַד אֲבֹד הַנִּשְׁאָרִים וְהַנִּסְתָּרִים מִפָּנֶיךָ:

20. And also the tzir'ah, the Lord, your God, will incite against them, until the survivors and those who hide from you perish.

Rashi, on this verse tells us what the tzir'ah is based on a Gemora in Sotah: 

The tzir’ah: Heb. הַצִּרְעָה, a species of flying insect which injected poison into them [the Canaanites], making them impotent and blinding their eyes wherever they hid. — [Sotah 36a] 

This is fascinating. Why is it that Moshe needs to tell the Jewish people that G-D is going to incite an insect that will cause a natural disease in their enemies? If G-D works through miracles, why not just say G-D will cause them to go blind and impotent. What is Moshe trying to teach us by telling us that the insect will cause this disease?

It seems to be that there is a very important lesson to be learned. Moshe is teaching us that G-D works through nature. When the Jews are suddenly victorious because a disease has run rampant in the Canaanite land, they should not think this was coincidence, but rather G-D Himself who destroyed their enemies. True, this victory came about in a natural way, but G-D's hand should be clear to each and every Jew. G-D's abilities should not be confined to only the open miracles that it is clear that only G-D could perform, but even the natural happenstances are caused by an intervention by G-D. That is the lesson of the tzir'ah, that G-D intervenes through natural means and that we, the Jewish people, should realize that this is how G-D intervenes in our lives. 

This is similar to the story of Hezekiah when he was being surrounded by the King of Assyria, Sanncheriv. In Melachim II (19:35) it says:

35. And it came to pass on that night that an angel of the Lord went out and slew one hundred eighty-five thousand of the camp of Assyria. And they arose in the morning, and behold they were all dead corpses.  


However, Josephus tells us, quoting the Chaldean historian Berosus as follows:

Now when Sennacherib was returning from his Egyptian war to Jerusalem, he found his army under Rabshakeh his general in danger [by a plague], for God had sent a pestilential distemper upon his army; and on the very night of the siege, a hundred fourscore and five thousand, with their captains and generals, were destroyed (Antiquities 10.1.5).


This seems to be a very similar idea. It is not through unnatural miracles that G-D saves the Jewish people, but a manipulation of nature. A Jewish person should realize that, even though nature might do something in his or her favor, perhaps it is G-D's hand. This is what Moshe is teaching us, that we must always be aware that G-D has the power to manipulate nature and His actions are not limited to unnatural events.

However, as the Rambam and Ralbag teach us (In The Guide 3:17-18 and The Wars of the Lord in book 4 chapter 4) G-D only intervenes in nature (gives Hashgacha pratis, individual attention) for the most righteous of individuals. So, G-D allows the natural order to run the world for most individuals, but in the case of righteous people, that is when G-D intervenes in nature. Otherwise, according to the Rambam and Ralbag, there is Hasgacha klalis (general attention) that runs our lives. However, we never know if we are deserving of divine intervention and, therefore, should realize that G-D can be intervening in our lives at any moment.

Hashgacha Pratis (Individual Divine Intervention)

The Ralbag is under the opinion that the world is mainly governed by Hashgacha Klalis (National divine intervention). He holds that there is no Hashgacha pratis (individual intervention) except for those who are very holy and righteous. I always wondered where this argument of Hashgacha Pratis Vs. Klalis originated. After learning some of Tractate Moed Katan and Shabbos I believe I have found the origins of this opinion.

There is a statement in Moed Katan (28a) made by Rava. It says (Translations are Soncino):

"Rava said, 'The length of a person's life, the number of his children and the extent of his sustenance is not dependent upon his merit, rather it is dependent upon his mazal (fortune). [This must be the case] because both Rabbah and Rav Chisda were righteous Rabbis as is evident from the fact that if either would pray for rain then the rain would fall. However, Rav Chisda lived nintey-two years whereas Rabbah lived only forty. Rav Chisda's household celebrated sixty weddings whereas Rabbah's household suffered sixty tragedies. Furthermore, Rav Chisda's household fed bread of fine flour to their dogs and it was not needed whereas Rabbah's family ate bread of barely flour and there was never enough.'"

This passage from the Talmud seems to tell us that nothing is within our own power, rather everything is determined through natural means, only when great individuals pray does G-D intervene. This means that everything is already determined from our "fortune." In light of this, even the Ralbag's idea of extremely holy and righteous people being under a divine watch would contradict Rava because according to his opinion there is no divine intervention unless the extremely righteous person prays for intervention. However, Rava continues with the following qualifying statements:

"Rava said, 'For these three things I entreated heaven, two were given to me and one was not. I asked for the wisdom of Rav Huna and the wealth of Rav Chisda and they were both given to me.'"

The Maharsha tells us that this shows us that even though Rava is of the opinion that everything is from one's "fortune" a righteous and holy person can still entreat G-D and be answered. On the surface, this seems like what was already made known previously in the Gemara when it says Rav Chisda and Rabbah were able to pray for rain. However, that revealed that G-D would grant requests for specific interventions. A righteous person asks for rain then he will receive rain. However, Rava asked for more than just a singular action, Rava asked for wisdom and wealth. Wisdom and wealth are not things that just pop into existence in one instance and stay, they are things that can come and go. It is only through G-D's constant intervention that a person who receives money will be able to retain that money. The same principle goes for wisdom.  In essence, there is hashgacha pratis for holy and righteous people.

This idea is also seen in another part of the Gemara (Shabbos 156b) where it points out cases where righteous individuals are able to overcome their "fate" because of their righteousness, not even entreating G-D. The two stories are:

"From Samuel too [we learn that] Israel is immune from planetary influence. For Samuel and Ablat were sitting, while certain people were going to a lake. Said Ablat to Samuel: 'That man is going but will not return, [for] a snake will bite him and he will die.' 'If he is an Israelite,' replied Samuel. 'he will go and return.' While they were sitting he went and returned. [Thereupon] Ablat arose and threw off his [the man's] knapsack, [and] found a snake therein cut up and lying in two pieces — Said Samuel to him, 'What did you do?' 'Every day we pooled our bread and ate it; but to-day one of us had no bread, and he was ashamed. Said I to them, "I will go and collect [the bread]". When I came to him, I pretended to take [bread] from him, so that he should not be ashamed.' 'You have done a good deed,' said he to him. Then Samuel went out and lectured: But charity delivereth from death; and [this does not mean] from an unnatural death, but from death itself.

From R. Akiba too [we learn that] Israel is free from planetary influence. For R. Akiba had a daughter. Now, astrologers told him, On the day she enters the bridal chamber a snake will bite her and she will die. He was very worried about this. On that day [of her marriage] she took a brooch [and] stuck it into the wall and by chance it penetrated [sank] into the eye of a serpent. The following morning, when she took it out, the snake came trailing after it. 'What did you do?' her father asked her. 'A poor man came to our door in the evening.' she replied, 'and everybody was busy at the banquet, and there was none to attend to him. So I took the portion which was given to me and gave it to him. 'You have done a good deed,' said he to her. Thereupon R. Akiba went out and lectured: 'But charity delivereth from death': and not [merely] from an unnatural death, but from death itself.

These stories point out the ability for one to overcome their "fortune" if they are righteous. In Shmuel's case the man was saved through his act of charity and in Rabbi Akiva's daughter's case there is a similar idea.
In the end of the day it seems like the Gemara is telling us how G-D runs the world. It tells us that the world runs through nature (planetary influence here). This is why bad things happen to good people, like by Rabbah being poor and dying early. It would appear to be that he did not ask for divine intervention and that is why he lived in poverty and the like However, Israel has the ability to change these natural occurrences, through doing mitzvos and connecting to G-D.

For a related post as to how G-D might interact with the world see here: http://markset565.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-does-g-d-work-in-this-world.html

Creation According to Ralbag

I will start this topic off with a quote from the Ralbag in his famous book "The Wars of the Lord." He says, "It is necessary that we explain the terms that the Torah uses in its discussion of creation before we explain the account of creation itself, for the understanding of the terms necessarily precedes the understanding of the full sentences."

I think this is often how people think that science contradicts the Bible. I mean, is it possible since G-D can do anything that science is entirely wrong? Yeah, I think it is possible, but why would G-D do that? Why wouldn't He just follow the laws of nature to create everything? What was the point of creating nature if He wasn't going to follow it as much as possible? This is the Ralbag's idea, that whenever possible we try to describe the events in the Bible as natural occurrences.

1)The Ralbag says that the term "earth" (eretz in hebrew) is equivocal. Meaning that it does not have just one simple meaning of the planet Earth. (I believe this is how the Rambam understands it as well)

2) The phrases of Tohu Ubohu (Unformed and void) means something much deeper than astonishingly empty. The Ralbag says that Tohu means the final form. He brings a description why, but for our purposes that is unimportant. What is important is what does "final form" mean. The way it seems to be described is similar to the form of a chair that a craftsman is making, before he even starts making it. Meaning, it is the thought before any act of creation. Just like a man who wants to make something first has to figure out what it is going to look like, that is what Tohu means, the form that a thought provides for an actual physical creation.

Bohu is the first physical matter of any creation. The Ralbag uses this description because the Universe was full of eternally existent matter. It was full of chaos and disorder before creation began and this is why the Ralbag explains Tohu and Bohu this way, because G-D eternally exists, providing the Tohu (The thought of how creation should be) and Bohu eternally exists (The physical matter). This is the Ralbag's idea and if you want to understand it further just ask me to explain more deeply. He holds of the idea that creation was the creation of something from something.

3)Also, the terms of "light" and "dark" are equivocal. The Ralbag brings several quotes throughout the Bible to prove this point.

4) The Term Ruach is also equivocal. He brings many pasukim to prove this point.

5) The term Rakia refers to anything that is beaten or flattened out, but sill retains its form. In our instance it looks like Rakia refers to the heavenly body.

6) The Ralbag also says that anything that does not remain in one state is referred to as water.

7) The Ralbag says, "The generation of the Universe by G-D occurred in no time. This is why our Rabbis maintain that the heavens and the earth were created simultaneously... It is therefore evident that the description of the creation as being completed in six days is not to be construed as implying that the first day precedes the second, for example, by one [whole] day [ie twenty four hour period]. Rather, they said, this is in order to show the priority amongst various created things...Now, the elements are prior to that which is generated from them according to material priority, and the compounds of the elements are also related to each other by this kind of priority. For example, the plant is prior to the animal.

8) An amazing idea here in the Ralbag is that G-D actually created the luminaries (the sun and moon) on the first day, but their relationship to the Earth was not solidified until the fourth day. Also, according to the Ralbag, "whatever can be generated naturally according to the natur given to it by G-D is such that its creation is not attributed directly to G-D in the marvelous account of creation; for He produces such things through nature. Hence, the generation of plants and animal through putrefaction and from species other than their own[ie hybrids] is not attributable to G-D."

The truth is that the Ralbag does an amazing job describing how creation came about and how everything he says is what the text says. However, I can not quote him word for word here, otherwise that would be a copyright violation. I suggest getting the english version of the Ralbags Wars of the Lord translated by Seymor Feldman. It is an eye opening book and will answer many doubts you have about Judaism vis-a-vis science. He helps explain the text and just the fundamental belief in Judaims. Also, his commentary on the Torah is quite enlightening.

Any questions that people ask through evolution, I think, can be answered by the Ralbag's interpretation, at least indirectly. So if anyone tells you that science contradicts the Bible, just go ahead and look it up in the Ralbag and most questions will be answered.

Ralbag On How to Observe Judaism

I am going to take two quotes from the Ralbag and just point out how amazingly beautiful his words are. He says (In his introduction to the WARS of the Lord),

"It is evident, as Maimonides (may his name be blessed) has said, that we must believe what reason has determined to be true. If the literal sense of the Torah differs from reason, it is necessary to interpret those passages in accordance with with the demands of reason (Guide 2:25)...... It is, therefore, evident that if reason causes us to affirm doctrines that are incompatible with the literal sense of Scripture, we are not prohibited by the Torah to pronounce the truth of these matters, for reason is not incompatible with the true understanding of the Torah. The Torah is not a law that forces us to believe false ideas; rather it leads us to the truth to the extent that is possible, as we have explained in the beginning of out commentary on the Torah (Ralbag commentary on the Torah 2a)."

Here the Ralbag, quoting the Rambam, tells us that the Torah must abide by reason. It therefore is incumbent upon us to understand the Torah in light of reason. If something is nonsensical through its literal meaning then that must not be the true meaning of the text and it must then be interpreted in a way that conforms to reason.

However, at the end of the Ralbag's first book in the Wars of the Lord he qualifies his statements. He says,

"Adherence to reason is not permitted if it contradicts religious faith; indeed, if there is such a contradiction, it is necessary to attribute this lack of agreement to our own inadequacy.... We, too, behave accordingly if we see that religion requires a different view from the one our reason has affirmed."

So there are two situations that the Ralbag is telling us: 1) Reason should be used to understand the Torah in the correct way, even if that means the literal understanding of the verse is not the correct understanding and 2) When our reason contradicts the Torah and no alternative explanation is sufficient then we must disregard our reason and accept the Torah.

I think the proper understanding of the Ralbag is as followed. There are certain aspects of life that are unexplainable through reason, those being G-D's existence and his ability to create miracles that are clearly non-natural occurrences. However, unless a prophet tells us that something is not natural, or G-D Himself tells us something is non-natural, then we should believe our reason. The Ralbag, Rambam and several others have the opinion that G-D does everything as close to natural as possible. This is why they would explain all types of occurrences through nature, except the miracles that are clearly outside of nature. However, even the events that are seemingly outside of the natural possibilities are still kept as close to nature as possible.

So the Ralbag, Rambam and countless others are under the impression that one should view the world through reason. Reasonable ideas should be at the forefront of a persons view of this world. One should not think that some great Rabbi walked on water or flew around the world, this is illogical and hence unnecessary to believe. Black magic is also something that seems to defy logic and belief in it is not a core of Judaism, therefore, it should not be believed in.

Divine Providence

The Ralbag's philosophy can often lead people to suspect his commitment to Judaism. This is wrong and shows an immense lack of understanding of his beliefs. It is true that the Ralbag studied Averroes' philosophy and through that he came to appreciate the views of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. However, the Ralbag was often critical of these philosopher's ideas and disagreed with them. On the other hand, the Ralbag was also very critical of the philosophies of earlier Jewish thinkers. He was a free thinker who took all the knowledge that was available to him and used it in order to understand the world. It is unfortunate that his philisophical works have been ignored for so long because there is much to learn from them.

The most controversial aspect of the Ralbag's philosophy was probably his view of G-D. In classical Orthodox Judaism it is believed that G-D is personal and is involved in every single Jewish life. G-D has direct control over your life and gives a Jew reward and punishment based on their good and evil deeds. This is not the view of the Ralbag. However, the Ralbag did not make his view up. In the beginning of the Ralbag's book The Wars of The Lord he points out that there are three possible views of divine providence: 1)The theory of Aristotle asserts that divine providence does not reach individual members of the human race, but only in a general way affects people to make the human race perpetuate. This is similar to how G-D relates to other species; 2) The second theory is that which was mentioned above, the theory of most followers of the Torah that divine providence reaches each and every single individual. They believe that G-D bestows upon them reward and punishment according to what they deserve; 3) The theory of the outstanding Torah scholars (Rambam in the Guide section III:17 and 51, Abraham ibn Daud in Ha-'Emunah ha-Ramah pages 97-98, Abraham Ibn Ezra commentary on Exodus 23:25 and 33:21) who assert that divine providence reaches only some individuals, but not all men. Later, the Ralbag goes on to show why the first two theories are wrong and that the final idea is how G-D governs the world.

The Ralbag brings up several disproofs of the first and second views. I will not go in to them right now, but the overall concept should be presented. The disproof of Aristotle's view is simple, since there is such a thing as prophecy there has to be some level of individual providence. The disproof of the second view deals with the source of evil in the world. The Ralbag proves that it is impossible that evil emanates directly from G-D. Therefore, it is not G-D that causes evil to happen to everyone directly and thereby He does not show divine providence over every single person according to the second theory. However, since G-D does show some level of providence over some people, it must be that the third theory is the correct view.

After asserting that the third theory is the correct way to view G-D, the Ralbag reveals how G-D interacts with the world. G-D exercises divine providence over those unique individuals that have reached intellectual perfection (this is also the view of the Rambam). This providence manifests itself as a communication between G-D and this man by G-D informing the man of the good or evil that is to come upon him. For those that have reached the highest level of intellectual perfection this message is seen as prophecy. However, on lower levels, the Ralbag says, man is endowed with instincts that guide him to pursuits of things that are beneficial to him and avoid situations that are detrimental to him. An example of divine providence that the Ralbag gives is where a man is supposed to go on a caravan, but he gets a thorn in his foot and is forced to stay at home. Later, the man experiences great success because of his remaining at home. Another example is where a man is supposed to take a ship, but gets sick and is unable to travel. Later, he learns that the ship sunk and everyone was killed. These are what the Ralbag defines as Yisurim shel Ahava (Visitations of divine love).

What is the Place of Religion and Science

In Seymour Feldman's introduction to the Ralbag's magnum opus The Wars of the Lord he discusses the difference between religion and science. He also deals with the thoughts of the Ralbag and his synthesis of science and religion. He says,

"Religion is concerned with matters other than science. It is the latter's province and duty to discover truths about the universe. It is religion's business to teach us how to live in this universe. Only the most arrogant of the scientists pretend to do the latter; only the misguided and zealous of the religionists attempt to do the former. This was the truce that Spinoza tried to effect in the seventeenth century. There are still many who reject this kind of religious irenicism. Some do so in the fervid, indeed fanatical belief that their religion contains all the truth, that philosophy and science are wholly irrelevant in the important areas and questions of life;others perhaps a dwindling minority, still believe that philosophy does have an important, indeed crucial role to play in religion, that religion cannot be divorced from reason. For these Gersonides is a guide."

It is important for us to realize the place of religion. The Torah is not written as a book of science, rather it is supposed to be a guide for life. This can be seen through the stories that are told throughout genesis, that teach us valuable lessons, and the 613 mitzvos that help to guide us in the proper actions. Anyone that tries to learn scientific truths based solely on the Torah will be led to great errors.

Science on the other hand is the pursuit of the truth of the physical universe. However, science can not tell us anything about how a person is supposed to act. These scientists would be basing their theories of how a person is supposed to behave on nothing. There is nothing that can be found in the physical universe that can correctly guide a person in the proper actions. Morals can not be found through science, anyone who tries this will err.

Ralbag's theories do not try to impose religion on science or science on religion. His ideas harmonize these two concepts and put them into their proper places. He shows us how science can teach us the truth about the physical world and also how religion can teach us to behave and what to value. These ideas do not conflict in any way, rather they bring harmony to the world. Science can help us realize the beauty in the world which will help us appreciate religion in a deeper and broader way.

Korach-Who was (were) the Instigator(s) of the Rebellion, Korach or Dasan and Aviram?

On ParshaBlog, Rabbi Josh Waxman brings up a Ralbag that seems to point out that the real instigators of the rebellion were Dasan and Aviram and not Korach. Korach was just a pawn of the Dasan and Aviram rebellion. Rabbi Josh and Garnel take issue with this and disagree with the Ralbag. That is justifiable, however, I remember learning a very interesting Midrash Tanchuma that would seem to back up the Ralbag's idea.

In Parshas Shemos (3:11-15) Moshe sees an Egyptian task master beating a Jew. He then stops the Egyptian from hurting this Jew by killing the Egyptian. The next day Moshe sees two Jews fighting and he tries to stop this fight as well. However, when he tries to stop them one of the Jews yells at him, "Will you kill me like you killed the Egyptian?" This frightens Moshe because he now thinks that the matter of the Egyptian is known and he is forced to flee the country. Hence, these Jews created a relationship with Moshe of animosity.

Who were these two Jews that were fighting that caused Moshe to flee for his life? The Midrash Tanchuma (Shemos:10) tells us that it was Dasan and Aviram.

In Parshas Beshalach we find the Jews in a dire situation. They are standing in front of the Yam Suf with the Egyptians chasing after them. This elicits the response from some Jews that they should have stayed in Egypt. These Jews revealed their lack of faith in Moshe and G-D.

Again, the Midrash Tanchuma (Shemos:10) reveals who these wicked Jews were. They were Dasan and Aviram.

In Parshas Beshalach G-D creates an amazing miracle, he causes the maan to fall out of heaven. However, Moshe gives the people some guidelines about this miracle of the maan. He tells the Jews that they should not leave the maan overnight and that no maan will fall on Shabbos. However, in verse 16:20 it says that some of the people did not listen to Moshe and left their maan overnight. Also, in verse 16:27 it says that some people from the nation went out on Shabbos to collect the maan, but did not find any. Whoever these Jews were they clearly did not listen to, or respect Moshe.

The Midrash Tanchuma (10) again tells us the identity of these rebellious Jews. They were, surprise, Dasan and Aviram.

In Parshas Shelach (Bamidbar 14:4) after the report of the spies that basically said they could not conquer the land all of the Jewish People wept. However, there were some people that insisted that they appoint their own leader and return to Egypt. This showed that these jews were in outright rebellion against Moshe.

The Midrash Tanchuma tells us that the culprits of this open rebellion were Dasan and Aviram. However, they failed in this regard because no one followed them.

The final point that the Midrash makes is that Dasan and Aviram were involved in the rebellion of Korach. What is the Midrash telling us with this final point? It seems to me that the real instigators were Dasan and Aviram and that they used Korach as their figure head that they could manipulate and control. The most compelling evidence that the Midrash believes this comes from the Midrash Tanchuma on Korach (3 or 10). It says there that Korach was instigated by his wife to rebel. If this is the case then the rebellion did not come inherent from Korach himself. However, by Dasan and Aviram, they wanted to rebel by themselves and they just needed a great person to back up their cause. This is most probably why Korach's name comes first, because he was the greatest of all the rebellious ones.

In light of this the Ralbag's idea that Korach was not the main instigator is backed up with Midrashim. As Rabbi Josh points out on ParshaBlog, in Pinchas there is mention of the Rebellion (Bamidbar 26:9-11). The verses point out that Dasan and Aviram were the ones who contended with Moshe and Aharon from the congregation of Korach. The pasuk then points out that Dasan and Aviram were swallowed by the Earth along with Korach. The Ralbag says that since Dasan and Aviram were mentioned first by being swallowed before Korach it is showing that they were more responsible for the rebellion than Korach. However, Rabbi Josh Waxman says that this idea seems flawed since the only reason they were mentioned first was because the pasukim are talking about the lineage of Reuven and Dasan and Aviram are in the tribe of Reuven. However, I would disagree with this idea because in verse 11 it mentions that Korach's children did not die. If these verses were truly only mentioning Dasan and Aviram because it was talking about the lineage of Reuven then why would the pasuk say that the sons of Korach did not die? This should have been mentioned in parshas Korach where it mentions that the entire congregation and their children died. I think that this would show that this section is sidetracked and not dealing with just the lineage of Reuven, but rather it is dealing with the outcome of the rebellion.

In truth, that is just how I feel. Rabbi Josh might be right, but based on the Midrash Tanchuma I would not write off the understanding of the Ralbag so easily. In fact, the Ralbag might have only come to this conclusion based on the Midrash Tanchuma's conclusion.

Rambam- Knowing that G-D Exists- Yisodei Hatorah perek 4 halacha 7

The Rambam discusses how everything in the world is made of a combination of things. He says,

לעולם אין אתה רואה גולם בלא צורה או צורה בלא גולם. אלא לב האדם הוא שמחלק גוף הנמצא בדעתו ויודע שהוא מחובר מגולם וצורה. ויודע שיש שם גופים שגולמם מחובר מארבעת היסודות. וגופים שגולמם פשוט ואינו מחובר רק מגולם אחד. והצורות שאין להם גולם אינן נראין לעין אלא בעין הלב הן ידועין. כמו שידענו אדון הכל בלא ראיית עין: 


"A person will never see physical matter without a shape, or a shape without physical matter. A person will always know, in his or her heart, that everything that is visible is composed of physical material and posses a form. There are those bodies that are made of the four elements and there are bodies that are composed of only one of the four elements. Forms that do not posses physical material can not be seen with the eye, only through the eye of the heart can a person know that this type of being exists, like how we know that G-D exists without seeing with the eye."

Here the Rambam deals with a very fundamental idea, how can we know that G-D exists. First, he deals with all physical beings. All physical beings are visible. This visibility has some requirements. A visible object must be made of physical material and it has to have a form. This comes to exclude the material prima that Plato and the Ralbag talk about. They say that before creation there was this prime matter that existed without form or shape. It was physical material, but it had no shape. Therefore, we can understand from this Rambam, that this material was not visible to the eye, just like a being with a form but no physical material is invisible to the eye.

As a side point it is interesting to note that scientists believe that in outerspace there is something called dark matter. This matter is used to answer up several questions that they have about our universe. However, this dark matter is practically invisible to our eyes. Maybe it is the same type of material as the prime matter?

Anyway, the Rambam is telling us that since anything without physical matter is invisible this means there is only one way for us to "see" G-D. G-D is a completely non-physical being, therefore the only way we can "know" He exists is to believe in our hearts that he does exist. It is impossible to "see" Him in any other way.

Does the Rambam Really Believe In Creation Ex- Nihilo

After reading the Ralbag in his Sefer Milchamos Hashem (Wars of the lord) I saw that he understood that the Rambam believed in creation ex nihilo (Wars of the Lord page 328-329 volume 3 of Seymour Feldman's translation). This was fine with me, however, the more I looked into this idea, the more controversy I discovered in this seemingly innocent explanation.

The first sign of trouble that I saw was a note that was attached to this explanation by Seymour Feldman, the translator of The Wars of the Lord. In this note he said that "Ever since the Middle Ages there has been an 'esoteric' reading of The Guide according to which Maimonides' real doctrine is not creation ex nihilo-- the 'exoteric teaching'-- but some form of the eternity theory. This was the interpretation of his medieval commentators Joseph ibn Kaspi and Moses Narboni; indeed, it was the interpretation of his translator Samuel ibn Tibbon. In recent years this reading of The Guide has been advocated by Leo Strauss and Shlomo Pines, the most recent translator of The Guide into english (Note 7 on page 194 of volume 3 in Wars of the Lord)."

This note caused me to go back to The Guide (II:25) and see what the Rambam says himself. I was very shocked because, originally, I had understood the Rambam like the Ralbag, creation ex nihilo is how the world was created. However, once I reread this section of The Guide I was confused.

Here are excerpts from The guide that are relevant:

"For two reasons, however, we have not done so, and have not accepted the Eternity of the Universe. First, the Incorporeality of God has been demonstrated by proof: those passages in the Bible, which in their literal sense contain statements that can be refuted by proof, must and can be interpreted otherwise. But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; a mere argument in favour of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text, and explaining it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be supported by an equally good argument."

This section seemingly shows that the Rambam rejects the idea of the eternality of the world.

"Secondly..... If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively. The Allegorists amongst the Mohammedans have done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions."

This part of the Rambam explains why Aristotle's idea must be wrong. The fact that Aristotle's idea contradicts miracles shows that he can not fit into a simple reading of the text. Therefore, only theories that allow for miracles can be read into the literal text.

However, this next part of the Rambam seemingly destroys the reasons for choosing creation ex nihilo as opposed to Plato's version of the eternality of the universe.

"If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (II:23), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion: this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory. But there is no necessity for this expedient, so long as the theory has not been proved. As there is no proof sufficient to convince us, this theory need not be taken into consideration, nor the other one: we take the text of the Bible literally, and say that it teaches us a truth which we cannot prove: and the miracles are evidence for the correctness of our view." (Guide for the Perplexed section 2 chapter 25)

The Rambam says that THE MIRACLES ARE EVIDENCE FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF OUR VIEW! This seems a little strange since according to the Rambam's own admittance, the view of Plato allows for miracles as well. According to the Rambam, there is no reason to take creation ex nihilo (creation of something from nothing) over the idea of creation ex aliquo (creation of something from something). What I think is going on here is that the Rambam thinks a creation that allows for miracles is what happened, in whichever way that can occur. If it is the Platonic idea or creation ex nihilo, either one is possible. I base this idea on the next part of The Guide.

"Accepting the Creation, we find that miracles are possible, that Revelation is possible, and that every difficulty in this question is removed. We might be asked, Why has God inspired a certain person and not another ? Why has He revealed the Law to one
particular nation, and at one particular time? why has He commanded this, and forbidden that ? why has He shown through
a prophet certain particular miracles ? what is the object of these laws ? and Why has He not made the commandments and the
prohibitions part of our nature, if it was His object that we should live in accordance with them ? We answer to all these questions: He willed it so; or, His wisdom decided so. just as He created the world according to His will, at a certain time, in a certain form, and as we do not understand why His will or His wisdom decided upon that peculiar form, and upon that peculiar time, so we do not know why His will or wisdom determined any of the things mentioned in the preceding questions. But if we assume that the Universe has the present form as the result of fixed laws, there is occasion for the above questions: and these could only be answered in an objectionable way, implying denial and rejection of the Biblical texts, the correctness of which no intelligent person doubts. Owing to the absence of all proof, we reject the theory of the Eternity of the Universe: and it is for this very reason that the noblest minds spent and will spend their days in research. For if the Creation had been demonstrated by proof, even if only according to the Platonic hypothesis, all arguments of the philosophers against us would be of no avail." (Guide for the Perplexed section 2 chapter 25)

The Rambam clearly rejects the Aristotilian view of creation, but he leaves the door wide open for the acceptance of Plato's view. This leads me to believe that, in the end, the Rambam is in doubt whether creation ex nihilo is true, or whether creation ex aliquo is true. Therefore, the Rambam says either one is acceptable.

The Ralbag is dissatisfied with how the Rambam leaves this inquiry since, as I have pointed out, he does not really come to a definitive conclusion. Therefore, the Ralbag takes it upon himself in his sefer The Wars of The Lord to show, through proof, why creation ex nihilo is not logical and why creation ex aliquo is how G-D created the world. (Seen in wars of the Lord on page 328-330)

For those who do not know what Plato holds I will explain. The Ralbag actually holds something very similar to Plato. It is the idea that there was a shapeless matter that existed eternally. However, this matter was just shapeless formless and thoughtless matter whereas G-D is all powerful. G-D took this matter and created the world and the rest of the universe. In this way the world is eternal, there was matter eternally. This still allows for miracles because it shows that G-D controls the nature of the physical world. However, Aristotle's version of the eternality of the world would be that the spheres and shapes of matter and planets always existed and G-D would not be able to alter the nature of the universe. This is why his view does not allow for miracles because it does not allow for G-D to change the nature of the world.

Maharal-Different Ways To Have Faith In G-D-Second Introduction to Gevuros Hashem

In the second introduction to the Maharal's book Strength of the Lord he discusses philosophers. He does not have anything nice to say about anyone who follows this path of Judaism. The proper path, in his eyes, is a simple belief in G-D and His miracles that emanate from the teachings of Moshe and the sages. He says,

"The wonders, signs and miracles that G-D performs in His world and through which He makes known His strength in the world, their ways and intricacies should be made known in order to clarify the acts of G-D. There are those among the Jewish people that are believers that do not disseminate with their minds and wisdom to know hidden things that they don't require. This is because they go in the simple path of the Torah of G-D. They believe in all of the words of the Torah and the prophets, namely the signs and miracles that are stated in the Torah and the prophets. They do not try to make deeper understandings of the text. These people know that G-D does mighty and wonderful things in His world either to destroy or create. It is similar to material in the hands of a shaper that when he wants he can elongate the material or shorten the material because G-D created the world from nothing and He can return it to nothing. This is what the believers think.

However, men of examining hearts from the philosophers that disseminate through logic and their knowledge about G-D that want to use their wisdom to figure out hidden ideas and revealed ideas. There are many of them and each one has their own ideas that do not agree with the other philosophers. They disagree so much that every man and his soul is filled with so many ideas that contradict one another.

Indeed, all of their ideas are like the wind and have no substance. In truth, what can a physical man really know? Even though G-D has given man wisdom and knowledge, man's knowledge and wisdom is still connected to physicality. In fact, man's knowledge is engrossed and encompassed by physicality. Therefore, how can man truly understand spiritual ideas?

Furthermore, just like man is not connected to spirituality, based on the fact that he is connected to physicality, so too man is not able to understand spiritual intricacies and actions if it were not for the fact that G-D told Moshe His ways. Also, the only way we, today, know anything about G-D is because Moshe told the prophets, the prophets told the sages and the sages made known to us G-D's ways through the Midrashim and their other hidden words.

Therefore, when these philosophers engage in dissemination through their own knowledge and thoughts they end up with strange and foreign ideas. It would not be proper to mention their names or their words if it weren't for the Mishna in Pirkei Avos that says, 'Be diligent in learning and know what to answer a heretic.'"

The Maharal sounds like he is extremely anti any type of philosopher. However, further on in his discourse he seems to calm down and even assign credit to some of the philosophers ideas. Nevertheless, he disagrees wholeheartedly with the philosophers as will be shown in upcoming posts.

The Maharal's words show us something very important that I referred to in a previous post about the different ways to believe in Orthodox Judaism. However, who says that the Maharal's approach is better than that of the philosophers' like the Ralbag and Rambam? In upcoming posts the Maharal will bring his case against the philosophers and why he believes their ideas to be flawed.

However, everyone should realize that the Maharal's approach to Judaism is just as valid as the Rambam or Ralbag's version of Judaism. It disheartens me to see people on both sides of the fence refer to each other as fools or, worse, heretics. Once everyone realizes that there is no Sanhedrin and therefore no uniformed way to practice orthodox Judaism, I think we will all be better off. In all truth, since we believe in G-D anything is really possible, no?

Read the continuation here.

Ralbag Explains the Rationlistic View of Rambam and How It Effects Modernity

I am so excited because I have finally received the three volume set of The Wars of The Lord, that is the Ralbag's Magnum Opus. In it he talks about everything, it is similar to The Guide for the Perplexed only it is longer. Right now I am on the chapter where the Ralbag discusses the creation of the world. I found a very straight forward statement from the Ralbag that proves that the Rambam valued science over tradition just as much as the Ralbag himself. He says,

"In general, we must accept whatever view is philosophically provable, as Maimonides himself says, even the doctrine of Aristotle if it were proved; and we must interpret whatever the Torah seems to contradict this view in a way that agrees with the truth."

Seymor Feldman, the translator and commentor for this version of The Wars of The Lord, comments in the notes that this is seen in the Rambam in The Guide for the Perplexed in section two chapter 25. This is, obviously, in addition to the Ralbag's own words that the Rambam writes this.

How fascinating it is to see how the Rambam truly held. That scientific facts cause us to understand the Torah differently. What can this teach us about the Rambam's view of the Torah? The most blatantly obvious idea is that the Torah is not a document that its simple understanding remains constant. Clearly, the Rambam holds, that the Torah must continuously be reviewed and reinterpreted in light of new ideas and new evidence.

This brings me to more recent topics. One topic deals with how the modern Jew should view science and how he or she should view morality in war. For some reason there are people that say it is blasphemy to rely on science and its conclusions. This clearly goes against both the Rambam and the Ralbag, but it also misses the point of the Torah. The Torah is supposed to be a guidebook that teaches us how to live and engage our surroundings, ignoring the outside world is at best ridiculous and at worst damaging. Can we really say that the Torah is ignorant of how Jews are supposed to interact with a modern society?

Also, modern morality is different than ancient morality in certain aspects. In the modern world a country needed to crush its enemies otherwise it would be destroyed by the other surrounding nations. If the Babylonians did not utterly destroy all their opponents then they would have rebellions on their hands. So too, when Jews went to war they had to use these tactics. Anyone that denies that is just foolish. If the Jews did not act this way the surrounding nations would view them as weak and continuously attack since they would know Jews do not punish their enemies. However, nowadays this is not how (most) of the world treats their enemies. In fact, a country that does act this way is more likely to be attacked by other nations. Should the modern Jew ignore this fact? No, they should adjust themselves accordingly and thereby use the morals instructed within the Torah towards modern day life. This is why we call the Torah a living document, because it is always relevant and teaches us how to act.

Different Ways To Believe In Orthodox Judaism

There are many different ways for a Jew to believe in Judaism. However, remaining in the Orthodox version leaves us with two overall paths. I will refer to these two paths as the Rambam/Ralbag (World must be congruent with science always) and the Maharal path (World's science could change whenever since G-D is all powerful He can change anything). Both of these paths have their benefits and deficiencies. The Rambam/Ralbag path makes Judaism very comprehensible and allows the world to be attainable for a thinking person. However, it requires a less literal interpretation of the Bible. The Maharal's path is less comprehensible and removes all certainty from the nature of life. However, it allows for a literal meaning of the Bible.

These two paths are both widely used nowadays. However, scientists will laugh at the Maharal's approach. How can it be that we humans can not understand nature and predict its course? Well, the Maharal's path leads us to the following answer. You scientists are very haughty assuming that you know how the world works. You think that Gravity has always existed in its current state and that the properties of all chemicals have always been the same. How can you possibly know this? Do you have a time machine that tells you that for the past 4 billion years, according to you, the nature of the world was constant? Isn't that an assumption? The certainty that you give off is flawed because it is based on assumptions. I however believe that G-D controls nature in every way. He can change its course in an instant. In fact, there are points in the Bible that even say this. For example, after the flood in Noach's time the Bible says (Genesis 8:22), "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." This implies that G-D made nature cease, or at the very least change, during the time of the flood. There are more examples, but this is not an exhaustive list. Thus we see that the Maharal's path can explain why science today does not effect the modern Jew's faith that follows this path. Science does not truly contradict the Maharal's path since G-D controls all of nature, so any "proof" against the Bible that scientists can bring is inconsequential since it is all based on false assumptions.

In the Rambam/Ralbag path we assume that science is right with its assumptions. We buy into the idea that nature has always been constant. This allows for us to become convinced by the scientists and make us choose one of two options. The first option is to completely discard the Bible and our belief in G-D. This is why the Rambam/Ralbag path is so dangerous for orthodox Jews, because it leaves itself open for people to see a conflict and lose hope. The second option is what the Rambam and Ralbag actually do, reconcile the text with science. This is usually not very hard to do. However, it does require that there be a non-literal understanding of the text. This is exactly what the Rambam, in The Guide for the Perplexed, does and it is also what the Ralbag, in his commentary on the Bible, does. An example of some non-literal interpretation of the Bible comes from the idea of the Gemorah that the Torah (Bible) uses the language of man. For instance, the Ralbag explains that the Rain that the Bible refers to during the flood of Noach was not literally rain. The Ralbag explains that there was just so much water that it seemed like it was the opening of the gates of heaven. This is similar to when a man says it was raining cats and dogs. Man doesn't literally mean it was raining cats and dogs, rather it was just a heavy downpour. With these ideas in mind, it is clear to see that this approach of the Rambam/Ralbag can reconcile science with the Bible and Judaism.

****Update
Check out my post where the Maharal openly talks about these ideas here. I will be writing more posts on this subject after this post on the Maharal.

Rambam- How G-D's Knowledge and Existence Can Relate to Man- Yisodei Hatorah Perek 2 Halacha 10

How does G-D think? How does G-D exist? These are some of the questions that are dealt with in the Rambam. He says,


הקב"ה מכיר אמתו ויודע אותה כמו שהיא. ואינו יודע בדעה שהיא חוץ ממנו כמו שאנו יודעין. שאין אנו ודעתנו אחד אבל הבורא יתברך הוא ודעתו וחייו אחד מכל צד ומכל פינה ובכל דרך ייחוד. שאלמלי היה חי בחיים ויודע בדעה חוץ ממנו היו שם אלוהות הרבה הוא וחייו ודעתו, ואין הדבר כן אלא אחד מכל צד ומכל פינה ובכל דרך ייחוד. נמצאת אתה אומר הוא היודע והוא הידוע והוא הדעה עצמה הכל אחד. ודבר זה אין כח בפה לאומרו ולא באוזן לשמעו ולא בלב האדם להכירו על בוריו. ולפיכך אומר חֵי פרעה וחֵי נפשך ואין אומר חֵי ה' אלא חַי ה'. שאין הבורא וחייו שנים כמו חיי הגופים החיים או כחיי המלאכים. לפיכך אינו מכיר הברואים ויודעם מחמת הברואים כמו שאנו יודעין אותם אלא מחמת עצמו ידעם. לפיכך מפני שהוא יודע עצמו יודע הכל שהכל נסמך לו בהוייתו:


"G-D recognizes His truth and He knows it in the way it truly exists. He does not know His truth through an outside knowledge like we know, because we and our minds are separate, rather the Creator, He, His knowledge and His life are all one from every angle. If G-D would live a life [like us], or know things through having a knowledge [like us] then there would be many gods being Him, His life and His knowledge. This is not so, rather G-D is singular from every side, angle and in every aspect. 


It is said about G-D that He knows, is known and knows Himself all at once. However, this idea can not be related through the force (words) of the mouth, it can not be heard (related) to the ears, nor is it within a man's heart to recognize [the truth] of his Creator. Therefore, we say 'by the life of Pharoh' and 'by the life of your soul,' but by G-D we do not say 'by the life of G-D,' rather we say 'As G-D lives.' [This is because] the Creator and His life are not separate things like the life of a physical body or the life of an angel. Therefore, [G-D] does not recognize and know the creations because of how they are like we understand them, rather He [recognizes and knows them] because He knows Himself. Therefore, because He knows Himself He knows everything, because everything relies on His existence."

It is interesting to point out that the Ralbag, in his book The Wars of the Lord, argues on the Rambam's understanding here. The Ralbag, Aristotle and the Rambam all disagree on how G-D relates to the world. This all stems from the problem they all face, how does a G-D that is perfect and singular relate to a world that is imperfect and many? Hopefully, I will be able to discuss the Ralbag and Aristotle in a later post, but right now I want to focus on the Rambam.

The Rambam's underlying theme here is that G-D can not understand man (or the rest of the physical world for that matter) in the same manner that man understands man. He points out that if G-D did understand man in the same manner that man understands man, then it would have to be that G-D is not a singular being that is unchanging, but rather pluralistic and changes like man. As stated in the third section of the Rambam's The Guide for The Perplexed (Section 3 Chapter 16), "knowledge of individual beings, that are subject to change, necessitates some change in him who possesses it, because this knowledge itself changes constantly."  Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Rambam to explain how it is that G-D can have knowledge and a relation to man while still maintaining His singularity and unchanging stature.

Ingeniously, as the Rambam always is, he comes up with a solution. He explains that G-D's knowledge and existence is completely different than our knowledge and existence. G-D is a being that has a knowledge, a life and an existence that is all one and unchanging. Once this idea is apparent then we can explain how this singular being can relate to a multitude. G-D's knowledge of Himself, His own existence and His life allows Him to relate and know of all other existences. How? Because His existence causes all other existences. All other existences are contingent upon His existence and His relation to them. Therefore, G-D's knowledge and understanding of all things is not as we perceive it, rather it is channeled through G-D and therefore does not directly relate to the pluralistic existences that change. This is how the Rambam solves His problem of 'How can a singular being relate to the pluralistic world that continuously changes,' He understands Himself, the unchanging being, and through that knowledge understands the pluralistic and changing existences.