Transcript

הכי פיסק בהקדמתו לספר המצוות של רבנו הזקן והרמבם זל מצד אחד קבע הברכה לדורות כי דעת השם היא מצווה ראשונה במניין תריג יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון וכלו בידיעת השם מצוות עשה שנאמר וכלו.

Again we said that skipping the footnotes or leaving them till the end but just here just just comment what the mareh makom is in footnote thirteen. The edition I'm using has a misprint in it. It says א מצווה שלו של הרמב"ם instead of Mem-Vav, it should say Mem-Ayin obviously for mitzvat aseh. Aleph הוציא ידידי הגאון המנוח. So Benzion Halper in the Ibn Tibbon translation of Sefer Hamitzvot that we have, so mitzvah Aleph in Sefer Hamitzvot is le'ha'amin. It's not leida, it's le'ha'amin. The mitzvah rishonah is the הציווי שציוונו להאמין באלוהות והוא שנאמין שיש שם וכלו. So Benzion Halper he quotes from a from a expert in Oriental languages who was a contemporary of of his who says that the Arabic word that Ibn Tibbon translated le'ha'amin can also be translated as yediya. And he he I think basically endorses that suggestion. That's what the Rav is saying, is that what he's saying here isn't taluy on the Rambam in the Yad versus the Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot that that in Sefer Hamitzvot the Rambam also speaks of yediya.

מצד שני החזיק בתורת התארים השליליים המכחישים כל אפשרות דעת השם וכלו.

So to'arim shlili'im again it literally translates as as negative attributes. And often for for reasons, at least one of the reasons that the Rav is about to discuss here in in this paragraph, the Torah intentionally דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם speaks in a way that's not intended to be philosophically precise about Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That that's what the Rishonim borrow the phrase from Chazal of דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם. We'll we'll tackle a bit more about that bli neder, the need for that, the reason for that. But when one speaks about Hakadosh Baruch Hu in a again philosophically precise way, so one cannot attribute positive attributes to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, one can only describe Hakadosh Baruch Hu in negative terms, right, which which we do partially all the time without realizing that, right? When you said that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is infinite, so that means he's not finite, right? That's not saying something positive, it's it's a negative attribute. It's saying what he isn't, right? He's... So that means that he's not physical, right? Not saying what he is, it's saying what he isn't. And when when you say in in the Yesod HaRevi'i of the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim that the nothing precedes Hakadosh Baruch Hu. So again, it's all those are all te'arim shliliyim, right? They're all negative, they're all negative attributes. The reason for that is that Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't have—a person has all kinds of different qualities, all kinds of different attributes, all kinds of different abilities. You can say that a person is athletic, you can say that a person is musical, you can say that a person is intelligent, you can say this, you can say that. And those and those descriptions are all true and what they suggest is that the person isn't monolithic. He's this and he's this and he's this and he's this and he's multifaceted and has many different qualities and many different attributes, and all that is true. But the reason all that is true or what that reflects about the person is that a person isn't one in an absolute sense, right? We're not—I mean, we're one in a relative sense, but we're certainly not one in an absolute sense. You know, physically we're made up of how many cells? Billions of cells? Trillions? Trillions? Look it up, how many cells. Anyone want to guess before Ezra looks up how many billion? How many billion? Trillions, okay, trillions, okay, I'm sorry to have understated. How many? 30 to 37 trillion cells. Trillion, okay, wow. So a person is not echad in an absolute sense. He's not echad physically. Again, he's echad in a relative sense in that, you know, the 35 trillion cells are not, you know, uncoordinated and moving around in different places and in different directions. They're all within his one body, but he's not one in an absolute sense. In the same way that that's true physically of a person, so too it's true on the level of a person's qualities and attributes. שמע ישראל ה' אלקינו ה' אחד. So Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't have—doesn't have attributes, because that would impute, that would attribute to Hakadosh Baruch Hu multiplicity, which isn't true. So the only way, you know, if one is going to speak in a really precise way about Hakadosh Baruch Hu is through te'arim shliliyim. That does deepen our understanding of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, saying and knowing and recognizing, understanding that he is not finite, that he is not physical, etc. But ultimately, ultimately, right, one isn't defining who or what Hakadosh Baruch Hu is and again, and one is not rachmana litzlan attributing any kind of ribui, any kind of multiplicity to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. You know, when the Rambam wrote Mishneh Torah, so he wrote Mishneh Torah that people would understand it. Everyone would understand it to the best of their ability. I don't think he was under any illusions that every allusion in Mishneh Torah would be picked up on. But if you take a look in Perek Aleph of Yesodei HaTorah, so there's a pele here. Halacha Zayin. Perek Aleph, Halacha Zayin. If you have it, please take a look.

אלוק זה אחד ואינו לא שנים ולא יתר על שנים אלא אחד שאין כייחודו אחד מן האחדים הנמצאים בעולם לא אחד כמין שהוא כולל אחדים הרבה ולא אחד כגוף שהוא נחלק למחלקות ולקצוות אלא ייחוד שאין ייחוד אחר כמותו בעולם.

So this is a pele. Let's say... You go into the store and I ask you can you please buy me one quart of milk. Do you need anything from the store? Yes, can you please buy me one quart of milk. And I emphasize the word one. And then I go on and I say not two, not more than two. So you're going to think I'm a little obsessed with getting one quart of milk and not more than one quart of milk. The Rambam says אלוקה זה אחד הוא, so obviously אינו לא שניים ולא יתר על שניים. Obviously if he's one he's not two and he's certainly not more than two. So what does the Rambam want? It's clear that the nimshal diverges from the mashal is that in the mashal so we said one quart of milk. So the one is meaningful because the one is one what? One quart of milk. But by Hakadosh Baruch Hu so again we can't define Hakadosh Baruch Hu. So when you're saying one you're also really just saying that there's no multiplicity. It's also again it's also really a toar shlili. And that's what this Rambam is saying. אלוקה זה אחד הוא, that's what it means. You can't define what Hakadosh Baruch Hu is again. We have an understanding of Hakadosh Baruch Hu through his actions and through knowing what he's not. The Rav is about to characterize that, but that's what he's saying. אלוקה זה אחד הוא, what I mean by echad is I'm not telling you one what, okay, one God, but that's also not something which we give a which we describe in terms of God, the source of all existence and all that is very meaningful and that defines our belief but it doesn't define Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That's what I'm saying. Okay, that's a superficial thumbnail sketch of this profound idea. Mitzad sheini, on the other hand, the Rambam adopts, he very much operates with

תורת התארים השליליים המכחישים כל אפשרות דעת השם. מצד גיסא קבע הרמב"ם הכרת הבורא בתור אמת מידה של ישותו עיקר תעודתו ומטרתו של אדם.

So on the one hand, the Rambam says recognizing Hakadosh Baruch Hu like that's the measuring stick of a person's existence. That makes a person human, yedi'as Hashem, as the Rambam has in the Hakdama lePerek Mishnayos. That's the value of the person, that's his that's should be his destiny, his goal. Ume'idach gisa, on the other hand,

הרמב"ם פסק הלכה כפי שאמר שאין הכרה זו בתחום האפשרות הקוגניטיבית כלל וכלל.

But again in terms of again that defining Hakadosh Baruch Hu in positive terms, it's not possible.

הישנם שני הפכים גדולים מאלו? ואף על פי כן הרמב"ם עצמו התלבט באנטינומיה זו.

The Rambam himself struggled with this, he dealt with this, והקדיש לה שני פרקים בספרו מורה נבוכים. Vetochen teshuvato hu and the content of his answer is שהכרה שלילית שמה הכרה. It also is a recognition which I think we all feel and all intuit. Beram anu yode'im, however, we all know (I'm not exactly sure who he's associated with when he says we, but upon the Rav knew and based on that we now will be in a position to know) Beram anu yode'im

כי כל עצמה של ההכרה השלילית אפשרית רק על רקע ההכרה החיובית.

So remember in the last paragraph that we saw last week where the Rav explained that this idea that the ish hadaat is focused on what's unknowable, it's not a philosophy of agnosticism which says that you can't know anything, but on the contrary, it's recognizing that after you that there's so much you can know, but then you reach a point at which there's mystery, at which there's mystery. And that's what he's saying that that's what you see in the Rambam also. כי כל עצמה של ההכרה השלילית. Again, this negative as it were recognition... רק על רקע הכרה חיובית, only on the background of positive understanding.

הרי אנו שוללים מאת תארי היוצר את זה שחייבנו ליצור.

We negate and saying that you can't attribute to HaKadosh Baruch Hu in positive terms that which we identified compellingly as being present in His creation. So what does that mean as follows? So again, so we mentioned before that the Torah itself intentionally speaks in philosophically imprecise terms. Right? The Torah does describe HaKadosh Baruch Hu with adjectives, with attributes. That's what we're all getting up early in the morning to do. השם השם אל רחום וחנון, right? That's what the Yud-Gimmel Middos, you know, are doing exactly that. So what does it mean when we say HaKadosh Baruch Hu is רחום חנון ארך אפים? Again, it doesn't mean that HaKadosh Baruch Hu again is multifaceted, again He has all these different qualities of being merciful, compassionate, patient, etc. HaKadosh Baruch Hu again, He's one in the most absolute sense. So what does it mean that He's רחום חנון ארך אפים? And why, given that it's not philosophically, theologically precise, why does the Torah speak of HaKadosh Baruch Hu that way? So the Rambam explains as follows. This is what the Rav is referring to. When we refer to HaKadosh Baruch Hu as Chanun, so what we mean is that we see in HaKadosh Baruch Hu's briah, we see patterns in HaKadosh Baruch Hu's briah of chanina, which if there would be a human being who was the source of that, we would conclude that that human being was chanun. So we see that HaKadosh Baruch Hu implanted within every mother, not just amongst in mankind, but throughout the animal kingdom, a natural concern and dedication for its offspring. So when any baby is born, again, you know, it can be a baby in the animal kingdom, not amongst mankind, so the baby is totally helpless. The baby can't fend for itself, it doesn't know how to get food for itself, doesn't know how to do anything for itself. So HaKadosh Baruch Hu designed a system that that helpless creature is provided for, that the mother has, you know, such a maternal instinct, right? The most dangerous thing is to approach, you know, the cubs of a mother bear when the mother bear is around. That's when the mother will attack because the instinct is so, so strong. So that's a system. HaKadosh Baruch Hu designed a system of chanina. Again, chanina the Rambam explains is when lashon matnas chinam is when it's not in response to anything, certainly not in return or exchange for anything, it's just pure, it's just pure benevolence. So that's HaKadosh Baruch Hu. So we see that, we see that in His briah. So based on seeing that in His actions, His briah, His actions, so then we describe HaKadosh Baruch Hu as Chanun. But again, we don't mean to say that He has attributes. So if that's the case, again, so why do we, why does the Torah say it that way, bilshon chanun? So the Rambam says v'al hakol in truth, again, whenever you find a pasuk that's describing HaKadosh Baruch Hu in positive terms, such as the Yud-Gimmel Middos, Rachum v'Chanun, so על הכל נאמר דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם. it really means that the Torah speaks down to us, right? It speaks, it speaks, it speaks in a language that will help us initially. Omnam hakavana bekulam, so what does it mean with all these to'arim? Again, which in truth, it's not a correct description of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. So what does the Torah have in mind when the Torah does give us these descriptions? So the Rambam says אמנם הכוונה בכולם לתאריו בשלמות. That in the Hakdama l'Perek Chelek

היסוד הראשון להאמין מציאות הבורא יתברך והוא שיש שם נמצא שלם בכל דרכי המציאות.

HaKadosh Baruch Hu is a perfect being. Now to present that in a way that we can relate to, so the Torah says again, so we correctly on the human level, you know, if you were going to describe someone who's an outstanding person, you know, as close to perfect as a person can be, you would expect to be able to say about that person that he's rachum, that he's chanun, that he's erech apayim, that he's rav chesed. You would also expect to say that he's emes. So the Torah speaks of HaKadosh Baruch Hu in this way. Again, דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם, the same way the Torah talks about yad Hashem, and the same way the Torah says vachara af Hashem. The Torah speaks down to us on our level, agam that it's not an accurate objective description of HaKadosh Baruch Hu because of what we take away from that. What we're supposed to take away from that is HaKadosh Baruch Hu's perfection because when you sort of add all this up, a being who's rachum, chanun, erech apayim, so he's a perfect being. And that's what's intended through the to'arim. הרי אנו שוללים מאת תוארי היוצר, right? We negate, we say again if once we shift and say let's now speak in objectively correct, in philosophically precise terms, so

הרי אנו שוללים מאת תוארי היוצר הזה שחייבנו ליצור ולפיכך כדי לבוא לידי שלילה עלינו ליצור את החיוב.

There's a big difference between saying HaKadosh Baruch Hu is unknowable and between saying that without that every sense we have of goodness and perfection, rachum, chanun, etc., is all HaKadosh Baruch Hu, HaKadosh Baruch Hu's perfection, again, without it being anything other than absolutely echad, encompasses all that. Right? So there's a very big difference between the shelila which comes after the chiyuv than a shelila which isn't based on the chiyuv. Do you hear that, rabbosai? Was that clear or not sufficiently clear? Not sufficiently clear. So let's try, let's try again. If someone comes and tells us Hashem is unknowable and that's it. That's our entire introduction to and understanding of Hashem, so then I'd have to say what exactly is it that I believe and who exactly and whom exactly am I serving? Am I worshipping? If someone comes and tells us that HaKadosh Baruch Hu... Hakadosh Baruch Hu in his inscrutable essence, all of that is again every positive, everything positive and everything which is an element of perfection, so Hakadosh Baruch Hu is above all that. Now and then you say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is unknowable, that's a very different statement than the first one. Was that a little better? He gets half good at this stuff. And that's what the Rav is saying, that Peulat Hashlila he reconstructs it mitoch chosh hachiyuv. Again this isn't agnosticism, it's on the contrary, it's a very informed understanding and knowledge of Hakadosh Baruch Hu being inscrutable. And that's why the Rambam says the fact that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is unknowable, but because the shlila is the crown of the chiyuv, because what we don't know emerges from what we do know, that's why there are different levels in Yedias Hashem. And that's why, well, if you can't know Hashem, so what's between משה רבינו עליו השלום and us, right? So Rambam says no, but it's exactly this idea, right, that since כדי לבוא לידי שלילה עלינו ליצור החיוב, since Peulat Hashlila, the act of negating, he reconstructs it mitoch chosh hachiyuv, so that's what generates the difference in terms of Yedias Hashem. Again to give a very elementary and therefore superficial example of it, if one person says that God is unknowable, fine, that's what he knows, and another person learned Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah and understands the Rambam's demonstrations for how we know that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not physical, and part of his understanding of Hakadosh Baruch Hu being unknowable is Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not physical, you can't equate those two people in terms of their Yedias Hashem, right? Either way Hakadosh Baruch Hu is unknowable, but certainly number two is on a higher and very different level of his Yedias Hashem than number one. You hear what I'm saying by this? Yes. Is the Rav saying that he's saying in a way that יסודי התורה ב ב is very davka as in a person comes, looks at the Ribbono Shel Olam and feels that closeness with him, and then he thinks again, and when he thinks again he kind of retracts, he kind of in that order? Yes, he's kind of saying it's s'dar davka, not just two elements, but it's s'dar. Yes. And that's what he's saying, that this isn't agnosticism, on the contrary, this is very much knowledge affirming, but it's recognizing that on the contrary, and the more knowledge there is, so then the more substantive is the lack of knowledge that comes at the end, and therefore Moshe Rabbeinu's lack of knowledge at the end is eino domeh to our lack of knowledge at the end. And what is the hakara chiyuvis again, which is the basis for the peula hashilit? And what is the hakara chiyuvis if not

הכרת ההוויה תוארי הפעולות שעליהן התפלל משה רבינו ונענה וכולנו מצווים לעסוק בהם שמתוכם אנו באים לידי אהבה ויראה כמבואר בהלכות יסודי התורה.

Reishit davar, as here's your point, reishit davar

אנו מכירים את עולמו של הקדוש ברוך הוא הישות הנשגבה והגדולה.

This great exalted existence and after that ואחר כך אנו שוללים את תוארי הפעולה מאמת הבורא. We see the world, we see the chochma, we see the rachmanus, we see the chanina, but and then we know that yes, all that is present in Hakadosh Barukh Hu's handiwork, which means that we're dealing with a perfect being, but you can't describe him, again, objectively as rachum, chanun, chacham because again Hakadosh Barukh Hu is above that in his absolute achdus. Pitron zeh, this solution of the Rambam, how on the one hand there's a mitzvah of yedias Hashem, but on the other hand objectively it's the theory of negative attributes which is true, this solution

פתרון זה עולה כאחד עם הגישה האונטולוגית של איש אלוקים.

The Rambam is not defining or identifying the Rambam as ish hadaas in the same way he's not reducing ish hahalakha to ish hadaas. What he's saying is that in terms of what the Rambam says about yedias Hashem, that's very much on the same wavelength and that very much, in that respect it very much converges with the ontological approach, the approach to being of the ish elokim. הכרה לשם תפיסת החידה הנצחית. Knowing and the ultimate goal of knowing is to discover what we don't know. גילוי לשם ההעלם. Uncovering, revealing for the purpose of concealment. והבנה לשם ערטול העימהון בכל הוד מסתוריותו ומוראו. The negative theology, האידיאל הגדול של איש הדעת, the culmination של התהליך הנואיטי שלו שלעולם לא יתגשם במלואו, vesof da'ato הכרת החידה האינסופית הכרה השלילית על ידי ההכרה החיובית. That's hopefully what we understood a little bit.

לשם גישור אינסופי של אידיאה זו נצטווה איש הדעת להתעמק בחשבונו של עולם לעסוק בחכמת הטבע ובחכמת אלוקים והכרה זו כולה חיובית ולא שלילה.

Omnam, again, ayin lamed, השליליות מציצה מחרכי הדעת right, שהשירים מציץ דודי מן החרכים. Hakadosh Barukh Hu is peeking in through the windows in of the heavens. Omnam, again, here the phrase is being used for the shilitiut. אמנם השליליות מציצה מחרכי הדעת בתור תכלית ומטרה אחרונה. Again, the ultimate goal is to recognize in as deep and profound a fashion what we don't understand. אבל תהליך ההכרה עצמו מראשו ועד סופו מיתרקם. It's embroidered

בשיבולת גווניו על מצע חיובי. אין השליליות אלא התגשמות התהליך הקוגניטיבי והרבלאציה של מעשה ההכרה החיובית במלואה.

Hapitgam hayashan noshan, the ancient... the ancient saying of the theology hashlilyt, of of this again philosophy of negative theology, takhlit hayedia, the goal of knowledge, hi shelo neda is is that is to recognize that we don't know. Mityaches, it relates כפי שמוכח מתוכה של המימרא, which is self-evident from the saying itself. Again, it's not agnosticism. It's not saying we don't know anything, אבל לא על תהליך ההכרה, not talking about the process.

דעת השם מביאה לידי אהבה ויראה שנצטוינו עליה בהלכות יסודי התורה,

it's hakarat to’arei hapoula, it's recognizing again descriptions of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's actions. והכרה זו היא כולה חיובית. We'll just begin maybe the first paragraph of Ot Dalet. מגישה אופיינית זו של איש הדת על המציאות. From this characteristic approach of the ish hadat to existence, to reality, mevatzbetzet maskana yeshara, a direct conclusion emerges. איש הדת אינו מודה במוניזם אנטי. He doesn't recognize, meaning that's not his understanding, he doesn't believe that reality is monistic, is just of one dimension. אין הישות בעדו אחידה וחד-גונית. It's not monolithic ela pluralistit, it's pluralistic, rabat shechavot hi. It has many layers. Deragot ushlavim, levels, stages. הפלורליזם האונטי הוא יסוד השקפתו של איש הדת. That ontic pluralism, meaning that there's not just sort of one level or layer of existence, is the foundation of his hashkafa. כשהוא ניגש אל העולם על מנת להכירו ולהעריכו. When the ish hadat again approaches this world to know it, to evaluate it,

הרי הוא מחפש במציאות זו ממשית וגופנית, עקבות של עולמות עליונים שכולם טובים ארוכים ונצחיים.

He's looking for traces of higher worlds, of eternal worlds. הוא מבקש את העטרת שביישות, et haribui shebayeshut. Where again if since the ish hadat recognizes the mystery that hovers above this world, so that's why his yearning is for higher worlds and and that's what the Rav means that his understanding of existence is not is not is not is not a monistic understanding but pluralistic, that he the mysteries of of this world point to something above and beyond this world. And that's what he's saying.

את השפע שבהוויה, את הריבוי שביקום בתחומים אונטיים עליונים זכים וטהורים. גישה טרנסצנדנטית זו למציאות,

this transcendental approach, מהווה סרטוט עיקרי בדיוקנו של איש האלוקים. Right, so saret lanefesh or saret bebsarchem, saret is a scratch, so sirtut means when you sort of etch something, when you're depicting something, a profile, and and you're etching it. אינו שמח בעולם הזה, אינו שבע רצון ממנו. So what the Rav is describing is more a mystical type. That's what we were saying before, what when he quotes the Mishneh Torah, he's not defining the Rambam as ish hadat. He's saying that the Rambam's philosophy in terms of yedi’at Hashem is one that that the ish hadat would would embrace, but he's not identifying them.

אינו שמח בעולם הזה, אינו שבע רצון ממנו. הוא מבקש הוויה למעלה מהממשיות והמוחשיות.

He he searching for the existence which is above the tangible. Olam hazeh, this world, hu bavoa de-bavoa is the shadow shel olam acher. Okay, then we'll review this a little bit and continue, I guess, Tsom Gedaliah, we'll do this, be'ezrat Hashem.