While it is true that HaShem has permitted the eating of meat both for Jews and non-Jews, this is a permitted practice but not a required one, except in the case of the qorbanot (sacrifices). The mandatory consumption of sacrificial meat generally is restricted to the Kohanim, with Israelites and Levites consuming only the meat of voluntary offerings. One case where meat consumption is required of all Jews is the mitzvah of Qorban Pesach. The only other Torah requirement regarding meat consumption is to fulfill the mitzvah of rejoicing on Yom Tov (a Biblical holiday)through eating meat and drinking wine (Pesachim 109b). Without the Beit Hamikdash, qorbanot consumption obviously is not possible, and the Torah obligation of rejoicing on Yom Tov is fulfilled entirely by drinking wine (Beit Yosef, Orach Chaim 529). Devarim 12:15 and 12:20-21 discuss the permission to eat meat beyond the qorbanot, and make it dependent on the soul’s “strong desire” to eat meat. To get a sense of the nature of that desire, one should note that the word used - ta'avah - actually is used elsewhere in the Torah for strong craving, lust. Without such a strong desire to eat meat, this permission is not applicable. Thus, under Halacha (Jewish Law) no Jew currently MUST eat meat.
Nonetheless, some have argued that eating meat is a mitzvah. This position is rooted in the Kabbalistic idea of “raising the sparks”. In brief, as discussed by the Arizal (Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, zts”l), during the creation of the universe, there were holy vessels that were intended to contain flow of “light” from G-d, which were shattered, and “sparks" of holiness (netzotzot) fell to “lower” levels, ultimately becoming entrapped in material things. Human beings, especially Jews, are tasked with “raising” these “sparks”. When it comes to consumption, that role has been described thus (http://www.chabad.org/parshah/
article_cdo/aid/2941/jewish/Meat.htm):
“When a person drinks a glass of water, eats an apple, or slaughters an ox and consumes its meat, these are converted into the stuff of the human body and the energy that drives it. When this person performs a G-dly deed -- a deed that transcends his natural self and brings him closer to G-d -- he elevates the elements he has incorporated into himself, reuniting the sparks of G-dliness they embody with their source.”
Elevating the “holy sparks” in food and drink is primarily done through the brachot (blessings) offered over the food or drink and the mitzvot done with the energy derived from them.
However, the “sparks” are not the only issue involved in eating/drinking. The Arizal also discusses the passage of human souls into animals, plants, and inanimate objects – gilgul ha-neshamot (Sha’ar HaGilgulim, Hakdamah 22). The soul of a sinner may be present in the animal, plant or other object, awaiting a tikkun – “repair”, “rectification” – which will release it to move onto its next destination – be it another body or not. The sinner’s soul that may be in inanimate objects or plants can be rectified simply by the mitzvot performed by anyone who consumes them (cf. Tzidkas HaTzaddik by R. Tazdok HaKohen of Lublin, Perek 240). It should be noted that for most fruits, grains, and vegetables, as well as all inanimate objects (water, etc.), the item consumed does not require taking its life. Unlike some root vegetables that must be uprooted, causing the death of the plant, most consumed vegetation is either harvested after the plant has died (like grain or legumes) or represents the produce of a plant that is removed without killing the plant (like an eggplant, apple, tree nut, etc.), and one may suppose that the sinner's soul that may be there either will remain in the living plant from which the produce has been removed or will have departed upon the natural death of the plant prior to harvest, having fulfilled its term in the full natural cycle of the plant's life. Indeed, R. Yosef Chaim (Otzrot Chaim I, Tikkun Ha-M'gulgolim B'Domem, Tzomei'ach, Chai, Medeber) raises a concern about the presence of a sinner's soul when consuming only those vegtables that have grown entirely in the ground - i.e., need to be uprooted (killed) for consumption.
For the sinner’s soul in animals, matters are more complicated. For products discharged from animals, like milk and non-fertile eggs, which don’t involve taking the animal's life, little is said in Kabbalistic sources, and one may presume that the situation is similar to that with plant produce, namely that the sinner's soul that may be present is retained in the living animal from which the product has come. With respect to animal flesh, the tikkun depends upon the slaughtering of the animal. The moment when the animal’s life is taken is a moment when the human soul there may or may not be rectified. When it comes to land animals and birds, it all depends on the actions and concentration (kavannah) of the slaughterer (shochet). As R. Nosson Sternhartz (Likkutei Halachos, Shechitah 4:3) states:
The shochet must be extremely pious and G-d-fearing. He must recite the blessing prior to the act of slaughter with deep concentration, and exercise the greatest care concerning every detail of the laws involved [my note – the laws include a perfectly sharp knife with no nicks, showing the knife to a Torah Sage, and a seamless cut across the arteries and windpipe, etc. to mimimize pain to the animal as much as possible]. Thus, he will redeem the soul within the animal and elevate it to the human level. (translated by R. Dovid Sears – The Vision of Eden, Orot 2003)
Ideally, the shechitah will have been done as cleanly and painlessly as possible and the kavannah of the shochet will have been sufficient so that any such reincarnated soul will have been sent on its way from the animal flesh long before any person consumes it. Otherwise, there is a concern that the consumer will be subjected to negative influences from the reincarnated soul of a sinner that may still be present in the meat. See what is written in the Ramak’s (Rabbi Moshe Cordovero's) Shiur Komah, Daf 84c regarding the transmigration of a sinner’s soul into an animal:
Thus a conscientious person should avoid eating meat, as it is possible that the soul of a wicked person may cleave to him - sometimes hastening his death. The editor adds: “In the light of this, one should never eat meat unless the divine mysteries have been revealed to him, and he knows that it does not contain the reincarnated soul of a transgressor” (translated by R. Dovid Sears in The Vision of Eden, Orot 2003, from R. Chaim Chizkiyahu Medini’s Sdei Chemed, Inyan Achilat Basar).
So, even in the pre-industrial conditions of the sixteenth century, when most knew the slaughterer or did the slaughtering oneself and the shechitah was not under the kind of time pressures that factory farming have rendered to it, there was so much concern that the shechitah may not have been done properly, that it was advised to avoid eating meat unless “divine mysteries have been revealed” and its is known that the animal “does not contain the reincarnated soul of a transgressor”. The requirement for a “revelation” means one cannot simply assume that the shochet has done his job properly. How much more so in our day, when industrial conditions exist in most shechitah contexts, should one be concerned that such conditions may have lessened the shochet’s kavanah and/or cleanness and painlessness of the shechitah. It is such concern that led R. Shlomo Goren zts”l (once Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel) to give up meat after visiting a kosher slaughtering plant and that led R. Mordechai Eliyahu shlita (former Rishon LeTzion and Zakein HaMekubalim) to only eat meat when he has been able to personally inspect the knife and watch the shechitah.
What about fish, which are not subjected to the laws of shechitah – can they be consumed without such a concern about the soul of a human sinner remaining in the flesh one consumes? Generally, fish appear to be less of an issue. Many sources suggest that human souls that are incarnated in fish typically are not those that have committed particularly grave sins, and that the tikkun for such souls is easier than for those in land animals and birds (cf. Sefer Kedushas HaAchilah 164; Shiv’chei Baal Shem Tov [A. Rubenstein, ed.] 74; Kochvei Ohr, Anshei Moharan by R. Abraham ben Nachman Chazan, 38ff). However, there are cases in which there are human souls in fish that are those that have committed grave sins, even to the extent that such a soul has no tikkun. See, for example, the case of the soul in a fish that even the Tzaddik of Kallo could not rectify (Degel Machaneh Yehudah Sect. 4). In such a case, consuming the flesh of the fish, would no doubt subject one to the same problem discussed by the Ramak above. So, the concern persists.
What about Shabbat (the Sabbath) and Yom Tov? Some have argued that the potential for a sinner’s soul to still be in the flesh consumed is not a concern on Shabbat and Yom Tov. For example, R. Ariel Bar Tzadok has stated (http://www.koshertorah.com/PDF/noah.pdf): “On Shabat, even an Am HaAretz raises up the fallen souls when he eats meat, regardless of his specific intentions. The reason for this is that the holiness of the Shabat and the Yamim Tovim arouse the souls to ascend.” This idea appears to be problematic. First, it is clear that some souls cannot be rectified in their present state, even in kosher animals – like the fish that the Tzaddik of Kallo could not correct (Degel Mahaneh Yehudah Sect. 4). No mention is made of using Shabbat or Yom Tov as an opportunity to correct this soul, it simply could not be corrected at that point in its transmigrations. Second, if souls are always corrected simply by consumption of meat on Shabbat, how could the Beit Yosef’s Maggid prevent him from buying meat for Shabbat in order to teach him that meat was not necessary for Shabbat (Maggid Mesharim 35C)? This would have been both denying a particular opportunity to correct souls and also presenting a teaching, if heeded, which could prevent such future opportunities. Not to mention what we have already quoted from the Ramak’s Shiur Komah 84c. There we see that one must be “never” eat meat unless one knows from a special “revelation” that there is no sinner’s soul in it – “never” makes no exception from Shabbat or Yom Tov.
According to Kabbalistic considerations, it has been argued that there is a holy path possible in meat consumption, but, as we have seen above, it is one fraught with danger, especially in our day, no matter whether one eats meat and fish or fish alone, and no matter whether one does it on any weekday or only on Shabbat or Yom Tov. Without such danger, there also is a holy path in a strictly vegetarian diet. This is made clear in a variety of places. I present some of these below.
The holiness of the vegetarian path is also manifest in the lives of those Gedolim and Mekubalim who have refrained from meat at all times, even Yom Tov and Shabbat. In addition to the Sage R. Raphael Pinchas Yehoshua DeSegura mentioned by R. Medini below and that Chaver of the Arizal to whom R. Cohen refers below, we have R. Seckel Loeb, zts”l (the Baal Shem of Michelstadt), who from an early age never ate anything derived from animals, including milk and eggs; R. David Cohen zts”l, the Nazir of Jerusalem, who refrained from meat and fish at all times from early adulthood; and, R. Yitchak Kaduri, zts”l, who only ate a bite of fish twice a year (on Erev Yom Kippur and on Purim) and not any meat at all for much of his life.
From R. Chaim Chizkiyahu Medini, Sdei Chemed, Inyan Achilat Basar (translated by R. Dovid Sears – The Vision of Eden, Orot 2003):
On the subject of eating meat nowadays, our master [R. Chaim Benveniste] in his Knesses HaGedolah (Yoreh De'ah 28) citing the Rashal, states that we may rely upon the Ri and the Ran, and eat meat for the sake of bodily nourishment, and not afflict ourselves at all. However, the Chida [R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai] in his Chaim Sha'al, 43:6, states: "It all depends upon the nature of the individual. If one can afflict oneself in order to atone for one's sins-for 'there is no person free from sin'-that is well and good." As for ourselves, what can we say to this, in such an orphaned generation when the number of our sins is beyond calculation and our plight is almost unbearable, may God forgive us.
This view is shared by [R. Raphael Pinchas Yehoshua DeSegura] in Os Hi L'Olam, 63c. Here we find support and justification from a well known sage, may the Merciful One protect and sustain him, who for many years abstained completely from eating meat. Heaven forefend that anyone disparage him; happy will be his lot. He abstained even from wine, except when performing a religious precept (e.g., Kiddush, Havdalah, or the Four Cups of the Passover Seder meal). It has been said that all of a person's labor is for the sake of food; therefore, gluttony often leads to transgression. We have already cited the words of the Ari [R. Yitzchak Luria], "Happy is the person who is able to abstain from meat and wine all week long." Also note [R. Yehudah Tiktin] in Ba'er Heitiv on Orach Chaim 134:1, sec. 3: "There is an accepted practice not to eat meat or drink wine on Monday and Thursday, since the Heavenly Court is then sitting in judgment... Happy is the person who is able to refrain from meat and wine the entire week." Also see Yakhel Shlomo on Orach Chaim 529:2.
It is true that [the Talmud states] that on the Sabbath one dines on meat and wine. However, that is a person's right, not his obligation. Our sages taught, "One should eat on the Sabbath just as on a weekday [in order to avoid taking charity]" (Shabbos 118a). [Therefore, the consumption of meat cannot be construed as obligatory.] This is also the ruling of [Rabbi Moshe Isserles] in Darkei Moshe on Yoreh De'ah 341. In Reishis Chochmah [the classic introduction to the Kabbalah by R. Eliyahu de Vidas] (129b) there is a lengthy discussion that concludes that one should not consume the flesh of any living creature. And [R. Eliyahu HaKohen of Izmir] in Shevet Mussar, 192a, states that meat is only permitted to a perfectly righteous person. However, all this only pertains to the devout, and a common person is not actually forbidden to eat meat. Nevertheless, we have learned that it is correct to refrain from doing so if one is able to endure privation. Such an individual is considered mighty and holy. Also note Kerem Shlomo on Yoreh De'ah (chap. 1), which explains at length that there is no actual religious duty to consume meat and wine even on the Sabbath or Festivals.
I have recently seen the Kabbalistic work Shiur Komah by Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, and one of my students, who shall always remain dear to me, has shown me page 84c regarding the transmigration of the soul into the vital spirit of an animal. [There it states,] "Thus a conscientious person should avoid eating meat, as it is possible that the soul of a wicked person may cleave to him - sometimes hastening his death." The editor adds: "In the light of this, one should never eat meat unless the divine mysteries have been revealed to him, and he knows that it does not contain the reincarnated soul of a transgressor. Similarly the Ari in Sha'ar HaMitzvos, in the Torah portion Eikev, cautions us not to eat much meat for this reason. He adds that certainly one must never consume the heart of any animal, beast, or bird, as therein dwells the life force".
From a 2002 email to me from R. She’ar Yashuv Cohen shlita (Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Haifa):
The following story [is] in the name of the saintly Rabbi Chaim Vital:
And it happened in the courtyard of our Holy Master (the saintly Rabennu Yitzchak Ashkenazy – known as Ha’ari Ha’kadosh) that one of the chaverim (fellows) well known for his piety and erudition took upon himself not to eat or enjoy anything that was alive. And the members of our court “the chaverim” started rebuking him and say: “This way of life is not permitted in our place. It is not the way of Israel”. And the holy master (meaning the Ari) heard about it and immediately called them in and scolded them and said: “Do not dare to speak against him, a holy man of G-d shall be said about him and that is his way in the Holiness”.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Tzimztum
In Sefer Eitz Chayim, the Ari’zal speaks of a “contraction” or “tzimtzum” of the Infinite into “Himself” that allows for a “space” for the finite to exist (translation adapted from Rachel Elior, http://www.shma.com/2010/01/tzimtzum-a-kabbalistic-approach-to-creation/):
Know, that before the emanations were emitted and the creatures were created, a supernal light was extended, filling the entire universe. There was no unoccupied place, that is, empty air or space; rather, all was filled by that extended light…. But then, the Infinite contracted Himself into a central point which is truly in the center of the light, and that light was contracted and withdrew to sides around the central point. Then an empty place remained with air and empty space. The Infinite then extended one straight line from the light, and in the empty space It emanated, created, formed, and made all of the worlds in their entireties (Eitz Chayim, Sha’ar 1, Perek 1).
There is an historic dispute about whether the “tzimtzum” is literal or symbolic, and also about whether it describes an event in the “Essence” of G-d or in His “light”.
Those Mekubalim who interpreted the “tzimtzum” literally included the Shabbatean heretics like Nathan of Gaza and Nehemiah Chayon, but also “mainstream” figures like R. Immanuel Chai Ricchi and possibly the Vilna Gaon. Some of them posited an unbridgeable expanse between the Creator and His creatures. They believed that G-d actually withdrew from what was to become the world at the beginning of creation and therefore is only transcendent from, not fully immanent in, it. According to this view, the sole Divine presence in this world is to be found in the Torah.
Aside from the problem of the obviously spatial nature of the “tzimtzum” when taken literally – which suggests it is a metaphor since G-d is not a body, as affirmed by the Rambam and others – there is the problem with this view in that it limits the Infinite by excluding Him from some manner of the finite.
Those Mekubalim who interpreted the “tzimtzum” in a non-literal way included R. Abraham Herrera, R. Yosef Ergas, and, of course, Chassidic rebbes from the Besht onward. It is worth noting that the Vilna Gaon’s talmid R. Chayim of Volozhin also took a non-literal view.
The difference between the Chassidic view and that of R. Chayim of Volozhin is summarized by the Lubavitcher Rebbe zts”l, with the latter holding that the “tzimtzum” affected the “Essence” of G-d as well as His “light”, but the former limiting the “tzimtzum” to the “light” (Ohr Ein Sof) alone (cf. http://www.sichos
inenglish.org/books/letters-rebbe-1/04.htm).
Note that the passage in Eitz Chayim speaks of both a “contraction” of the Infinite “Himself” and of the “light”. The idea that the “tzimtzum” only affects the “light” of the Infinite is somewhat problematic philosophically for it is built on the analogy of rays of light and their solar source, which involves a spatial distance that has to suggest an ontological otherness to prevent the source from being affected, and thus tends to make the “light” a hypostasis, a distinguishable reality alongside of the Infinite. Otherwise, to the extent that His “light” is affected – since there is no spatial separation – He too would be affected. Thus, in addition, it raises the question of this distinguishable – hence finite – “light’s” origin from its Source when finitude itself is supposed to not exist until the “contraction” of the “light”, and introduces a measure of regressus ad infinitum.
While the Lubavitcher Rebbe zts”l maintains that Chabad Chassidut does not accept any “tzimtzum” in G-d “Himself”, it is worth noting that R. Aharon HaLevi – a prime talmid of R. Schneur Zalman, the founder of Chabad – does actually posit a first “tzimtzum” (also called a “beqi’a”) in Infinite “Himself” that actually leads to the emergence of the Ohr (the “light”) of Infinite and then a second “tzimtzum” in the “light” that is detailed in the Eitz Chayim (cf. Avodat HaLevi as cited in G. Scholem, Kabbalah, p. 135). Perhaps, this was R. Aharon’s way of addressing the problematic nature of a “tzimtzum” only in the “light”, as discussed above.
One good way to understand the “tzimtzum” is as the absolutely free act of the Absolutely Infinite – if the act is truly tree, then it is existentially contingent, and that represents its own boundary, its own finitude, which is the very emergence of finitude itself from the Absolutely Infinite that remains free from any self to be changed or altered in any way when He freely acts in any way, and means that the act is not G-d. This way of understanding the “tzimtzum” has the advantage of being non-literal, and also of making G-d “Himself” – not just His “light” - the ground of that activity but without subjecting G-d to any change or modification; hence, avoiding the issue of regressus ad infinitum.
Know, that before the emanations were emitted and the creatures were created, a supernal light was extended, filling the entire universe. There was no unoccupied place, that is, empty air or space; rather, all was filled by that extended light…. But then, the Infinite contracted Himself into a central point which is truly in the center of the light, and that light was contracted and withdrew to sides around the central point. Then an empty place remained with air and empty space. The Infinite then extended one straight line from the light, and in the empty space It emanated, created, formed, and made all of the worlds in their entireties (Eitz Chayim, Sha’ar 1, Perek 1).
There is an historic dispute about whether the “tzimtzum” is literal or symbolic, and also about whether it describes an event in the “Essence” of G-d or in His “light”.
Those Mekubalim who interpreted the “tzimtzum” literally included the Shabbatean heretics like Nathan of Gaza and Nehemiah Chayon, but also “mainstream” figures like R. Immanuel Chai Ricchi and possibly the Vilna Gaon. Some of them posited an unbridgeable expanse between the Creator and His creatures. They believed that G-d actually withdrew from what was to become the world at the beginning of creation and therefore is only transcendent from, not fully immanent in, it. According to this view, the sole Divine presence in this world is to be found in the Torah.
Aside from the problem of the obviously spatial nature of the “tzimtzum” when taken literally – which suggests it is a metaphor since G-d is not a body, as affirmed by the Rambam and others – there is the problem with this view in that it limits the Infinite by excluding Him from some manner of the finite.
Those Mekubalim who interpreted the “tzimtzum” in a non-literal way included R. Abraham Herrera, R. Yosef Ergas, and, of course, Chassidic rebbes from the Besht onward. It is worth noting that the Vilna Gaon’s talmid R. Chayim of Volozhin also took a non-literal view.
The difference between the Chassidic view and that of R. Chayim of Volozhin is summarized by the Lubavitcher Rebbe zts”l, with the latter holding that the “tzimtzum” affected the “Essence” of G-d as well as His “light”, but the former limiting the “tzimtzum” to the “light” (Ohr Ein Sof) alone (cf. http://www.sichos
inenglish.org/books/letters-rebbe-1/04.htm).
Note that the passage in Eitz Chayim speaks of both a “contraction” of the Infinite “Himself” and of the “light”. The idea that the “tzimtzum” only affects the “light” of the Infinite is somewhat problematic philosophically for it is built on the analogy of rays of light and their solar source, which involves a spatial distance that has to suggest an ontological otherness to prevent the source from being affected, and thus tends to make the “light” a hypostasis, a distinguishable reality alongside of the Infinite. Otherwise, to the extent that His “light” is affected – since there is no spatial separation – He too would be affected. Thus, in addition, it raises the question of this distinguishable – hence finite – “light’s” origin from its Source when finitude itself is supposed to not exist until the “contraction” of the “light”, and introduces a measure of regressus ad infinitum.
While the Lubavitcher Rebbe zts”l maintains that Chabad Chassidut does not accept any “tzimtzum” in G-d “Himself”, it is worth noting that R. Aharon HaLevi – a prime talmid of R. Schneur Zalman, the founder of Chabad – does actually posit a first “tzimtzum” (also called a “beqi’a”) in Infinite “Himself” that actually leads to the emergence of the Ohr (the “light”) of Infinite and then a second “tzimtzum” in the “light” that is detailed in the Eitz Chayim (cf. Avodat HaLevi as cited in G. Scholem, Kabbalah, p. 135). Perhaps, this was R. Aharon’s way of addressing the problematic nature of a “tzimtzum” only in the “light”, as discussed above.
One good way to understand the “tzimtzum” is as the absolutely free act of the Absolutely Infinite – if the act is truly tree, then it is existentially contingent, and that represents its own boundary, its own finitude, which is the very emergence of finitude itself from the Absolutely Infinite that remains free from any self to be changed or altered in any way when He freely acts in any way, and means that the act is not G-d. This way of understanding the “tzimtzum” has the advantage of being non-literal, and also of making G-d “Himself” – not just His “light” - the ground of that activity but without subjecting G-d to any change or modification; hence, avoiding the issue of regressus ad infinitum.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Sage Words on G-d as All that Exists
In my previous post, I discussed the implications of G-d's Absolute Infinity, and referred to some of the sources in our mesorah that discuss the implication that G-d is all that exists. In this post, I present some sage words from these sources. Except for the last quote, the translations are my own and I take responsibility for any errors.
From R. Chaim of Volozhin's Nefesh HaChayim (Sha’ar Gimmel, Perek Vav) regarding the initial pasuk of the Shema:
The One L-rd, blessed be He, is One in all the worlds and the entire creation, an absolutely simple Oneness, and all things are reduced to nothing, and there is naught else beside Him, may He be blessed, at all.
From R. Schneur Zalman, Perek 6 of Sha’ar HaYichud veHaEmunah:
This, then, is the meaning of “and take unto your heart that Havayah is Elokim”. That is, these two Names actually are one, for even the Name Elokim, which contracts and hides the light, is an aspect of Chesed, like the Name Havayah. For the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, are one with Him in an absolute unity, and “He and His Name are One”, for His attributes are His Name. And if so, as a result, you will know that “in the heavens above and on the earth below, there is nothing else”. This means that even the material earth, which appears to the eye of each to be truly existent, is naught and actual nothingness with respect to the Holy One, blessed be He.
From Rabbi Aharon HaLevi's Sha’arei HaYichud veEmunah, Sha’ar I, Perek 24, Daf 49a:
But with respect to the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it were, there is nothing that preceded Him that that He could expand into them because there is naught beside Him, and nothing but Him, and nothing outside of Him, may He be blessed, that one could say about Him that from the perspective of His Will such a thing [is so].
Nor is this idea confined to the Chabad school of Chassiduth. Note the following from the Breslov perspective, as discussed and translated by R. Dovid Sears:
Rabbi Nachman’s foremost disciple and scribe, Reb Noson, also affirms this concept: “When the verse states ‘ein od milvado,’ it means to say that nothing exists but G-d. Above and below, in heaven and on earth, everything is absolutely naught and without substance – although this is impossible to explain, but can only be grasped according to the intuition of each person” (Likkutei Halakhos, Matnas Sh’chiv me-Ra’ 2:2).
(http://www.nachalnovea.com/breslovcenter/articles/
Comparing_Chabad_and_Breslev.pdf)
From R. Chaim of Volozhin's Nefesh HaChayim (Sha’ar Gimmel, Perek Vav) regarding the initial pasuk of the Shema:
The One L-rd, blessed be He, is One in all the worlds and the entire creation, an absolutely simple Oneness, and all things are reduced to nothing, and there is naught else beside Him, may He be blessed, at all.
From R. Schneur Zalman, Perek 6 of Sha’ar HaYichud veHaEmunah:
This, then, is the meaning of “and take unto your heart that Havayah is Elokim”. That is, these two Names actually are one, for even the Name Elokim, which contracts and hides the light, is an aspect of Chesed, like the Name Havayah. For the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, are one with Him in an absolute unity, and “He and His Name are One”, for His attributes are His Name. And if so, as a result, you will know that “in the heavens above and on the earth below, there is nothing else”. This means that even the material earth, which appears to the eye of each to be truly existent, is naught and actual nothingness with respect to the Holy One, blessed be He.
From Rabbi Aharon HaLevi's Sha’arei HaYichud veEmunah, Sha’ar I, Perek 24, Daf 49a:
But with respect to the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it were, there is nothing that preceded Him that that He could expand into them because there is naught beside Him, and nothing but Him, and nothing outside of Him, may He be blessed, that one could say about Him that from the perspective of His Will such a thing [is so].
Nor is this idea confined to the Chabad school of Chassiduth. Note the following from the Breslov perspective, as discussed and translated by R. Dovid Sears:
Rabbi Nachman’s foremost disciple and scribe, Reb Noson, also affirms this concept: “When the verse states ‘ein od milvado,’ it means to say that nothing exists but G-d. Above and below, in heaven and on earth, everything is absolutely naught and without substance – although this is impossible to explain, but can only be grasped according to the intuition of each person” (Likkutei Halakhos, Matnas Sh’chiv me-Ra’ 2:2).
(http://www.nachalnovea.com/breslovcenter/articles/
Comparing_Chabad_and_Breslev.pdf)
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Implications of Hashem's Absolute Infinity
Implication One – Hashem is All That Exists
Since Absolute Infinity is the freedom from any and all definition, the Absolutely Infinite is not locked into a nature or “self” that prevents Him from being anything at all. In fact, the Absolutely Infinite freely IS the finite, IS all that exists. Yet, being completely Undefined – having no nature to be changed or affected in any way - He remains unchangedly Undefined/Infinite even while being the defined/finite. Thus, G-d can freely be fully immanent, not just IN all but AS all, with no change to Him whatsoever, for He has no “nature/self” to be changed. The Absolutely Infinite remains Natureless in the naturehood of the finite, No Thing even as all things.
As it says in the Torah:
“You have been shown to know that Hashem is the G-d, there is naught else beside Him” (Devarim [Deut.] 4:35) – ain od milvado
“Know this day and take to your heart that Hashem is the G-d, in the heavens above and on earth below there is nothing else” (Devarim 4:39) – bashamayim mima’al ve’al ha-aretz mitachat ain od
The message of these verses – that G-d is all that exists – is elaborated in R. Chaim of Volozhin’s Nefesh HaChayim (Sha’ar Gimmel, especially Perekim Vav and Zayin), one of the most important theological works of the school of the Vilna Gaon; in the part II of R. Shneur Zalman’s Tanya, which is entitled Sha’ar HaYichud veHaEmunah, and is one of the foundational works of Chassidic philosophy and theology; and, in great detail in R. Aharon HaLevi Horowitz’s She’arei HaYichud veEmunah, which is an exposition of Chabad theology by one of the foremost students of R. Shneur Zalman. Thus, we see that the both the Chassidic and Litvak (Mitnagid) streams of Judaism are united in this truth.
Similarly, the Sephardic stream also embraces this truth, as seen in R. Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Perush on B’reishit 1:26 – “HaShem is One, and He creates all, and He is all”; R. Moshe DeLeon’s Sefer HaRimmon (182) – “thus, the Divine Essence is below as well as above, in heaven and on earth, there is nothing else”; and, R. Moshe Cordovero’s Sefer Elimah (Daf 24b) – “And the fact is that before anything existed, HaShem, the Infinite, was alone, and He was all that existed, and also after He brought forth those that exist, there is nothing but Him”.
Implication Two – All That Exists is Not Hashem
With no confinement to a defined nature or self, the Absolutely Infinite most certainly can freely be all defined/finite things, and yet because He remains entirely Undefined/Infinite, since He is free from any defined nature to be lost or altered in any way, this also means that no defined/finite thing itself is or ever can be G-d. As the Ramak so elegantly sums it up – “G-d is all that exists but all that exists is not G-d” (Sefer Elimah 24d).
G-d is One with ALL His acts, but that does NOT mean they are one with Him. This simply doesn’t follow logically. Acts freely done and roles freely assumed even by finite humans do not represent our essence – when we cease to do them or assume them, we don’t cease to exist. How much more so with the Absolutely Infinite, free from any nature or self to be even changed or modified by His free acts or freely assumed roles at all, let alone have such acts or roles constitute or represent Him “as He is”.
Further, just because the Absolutely Infinite is all, doesn’t logically mean that any of the all or even all of it is the Absolutely Infinite, and here is why: (1) anything differentiable in any sense must have some boundary (ontological, epistemic, physical, etc.) that permits its differentiability, and boundary – any boundary – means it is and remains thus finite, and is thus, NOT the Infinite; (2) Absolute Infinity means an absolute freedom from constraint that renders the existence of any act done or role assumed by the Infinite purely ex nihilo (being brought into existence [even timelessly] from not existing at all), hence not the Absolutely Infinite because constrained by its very existential contingency; and, (3) since the Absolutely Infinite is free from any nature or self to be changed by any act He freely performs or role He freely assumes, He remains free from finitude even in assuming it, which means that none of the “all”, no finite, is Him. He can be the all as that which is NOT Him, as only the Absolutely Infinite can be.
Nothing distinguishable can be G-d in any sense unless one has a finite for “G-d”. For if truly free to G-d, then it is existentially contingent ex nihilo, even if eternal, and this would mean that you have something finite at the level of its very existence for “G-d”. And, of course, if intrinsic to G-d, then you have an essentially finite for “G-d” due to the essential constraint that “intrinsic” invariably denotes. The contingent is bounded – finite – by its dependency; the intrinsic is bounded – finite – by the constraint of its necessity.
While boundary is not an impediment for G-d, it most certainly IS an impediment for that which is bounded by the boundary, and in the case of ANY finite it is an existential boundary (one which allows them to be differentiably what/who they are, allows them in themselves to be at all) that prevents them from being G-d. G-d’s Oneness with them even in the midst of their lack thereof with Him is a great and wondrous testimony to His Absolute Infinity.
All of this means that the multiplicity of the finite All is not an illusion or dream, but really does exist, even as G-d remains One/Absolutely Infinite while being that All. As R. Aharon HaLevi Horowitz indicates (She’arei HaYichud veEmunah Sha’ar Bet Perek Kaf-Chet, p. 40a):
And behold, although we have explained that all of the descriptions (of G-d) and the aspect of unification of the world of Atziluth are all from our side, from the perspective of the creatures that are in the aspect of the hiding of the light, do not err in understanding that all the aspects of the light and the concealment and the sephiroth are only relative to our perspective but that relative to the Blessed One these aspects do not obtain at all. Because, the comprehension of our earlier words, which we have explained to you , on the contrary, (shows that) there is not even the aspect of the smallest of the small that has not been created with special concentration by Him, the Blessed One, and exactly by the drawing of His Essence, Blessed by He, into them. But our meaning is that from the perspective of His exalted blessed Might, which is His unknowable Being, although He is drawn into the worlds in their aspect of finitude, they are not considered as a being in itself, and He is in them without any distinction at all.
R. Aharon is clearly asserting that finite things are real in themselves, but that G-d remains absolutely free of any finitude even while being fully in them and that from G-d’s “point of view” their finitude is His freedom from finitude. The question is how can this be? How can G-d’s “view” of them as His freedom from definition not erase their definition? R. Aharon considers this a “pele”, a “marvel” or “wonder” not comprehensible by the human mind. We may add that it may be a wonder but it does make logical sense when one considers that His freedom from definition is not itself a definition at all, thereby not conveying any exclusion of their own definition.
Implication Three – In Our Finitude We Cannot Know Hashem
In our finitude, there is no knowing G-d “as He is” any more than there is any finitude that can present G-d “as He is”. “Man cannot see me and live” (Shemot 33:20) and “Yet, none can know You” (Tikkunei Zohar - Petichat Eliyahu).
What is “made known” are free acts by G-d and roles freely assumed in these free acts, not G-d “Himself”, not G-d “as He is”. They can point us to G-d, they can open us to G-d, but in their distinguishability, in their finitude, they are NOT G-d in ANY sense, which obviously includes any sense of being “G-d as He is known/knowable”.
The Tanach does NOT define G-d at all; all it does is present defined roles freely taken on in the context of entirely free defined activities by G-d. “Revelation” is an activity, and so long as any activity is truly free, it is existentially constrained by its utter contingency, just as is also the role of “actor” freely assumed in any such activity, which is completely contingent on that free activity. “Creator” only exists in the context of the act of creation, regardless of whether that act is temporal or eternal. Logically, there is simply no role of “Creator” outside the activity of creating for how, meaningfully, can one be said to be “creator” if there is no creation. So, it is the act – not the role – that really is at issue here.
Implication Four – How We Can “Know” Hashem
While in our finitude, He provides a way to know His free acts, to relate to the roles He freely assumes in those acts. But there also is a way to “know” Him, not merely His free acts and freely assumed roles. The way He provides for this is through letting go of any finitude by opening our finite minds via the intrinsically definition negating function of a term like Y-H-V-H. While Absolute Infinity cannot be described or analyzed at all, we can be open to Absolute Infinity through the logic of the Name Y-H-V-H that - to avoid self-contradiction - always pushes us beyond any definition, even its own, even this as a definition.
Let me explain. Since the Name Y-H-V-H is conveying a freedom from even the most basic of all definition – that of self – it is not a term that itself is defined in any intrinsic way. Thus, it is a term that is intrinsically definition-transcending, definition-negating. All words are just sounds or letters, having no meaning without referents. Ordinary terms are meaningless unless they are defined by reference to the defined. By contrast, an intrinsically definition-transcending term is meaningless the moment it is defined or conceptualized, meaningless unless it remains truly undefined and referentially open. Such referential openness obviously requires it (as far as the sounds or visual letters that mark [denote], but don’t conceptually or ontologically define, it) to entirely “get out of the way”. Unless it always pushes us beyond any conceptualization or definition, even its own defining sounds, letters or referential stance, it becomes completely meaningless self-contradictory gibberish. Its self-negation is intrinsic and complete. Thus, such a term always pushes us beyond itself, always eludes definition – thereby opening the mind rather than closing it around any defined, hence finite, concept.
This is where logic/reason plays a crucial role at its own final limits. The logic of the meaninglessness of Name Y-H-V-H when taken as a definition of any sort is an important tool in opening the mind to G-d. Reason, used in this way, can bring us to faith – the “leap” that is this openness to the G-d. Malachi 3:16 references meditation on the Name Y-H-V-H, and it is the way just described that represents such meditation.
This mode of “knowing” is not knowledge in the sense of a form of consciousness, but rather as an opening of finitude to the Absolutely Infinite that has been characterized in the Torah as “deveikuth” – cleaving to G-d (Devarim 11:22).
Since Absolute Infinity is the freedom from any and all definition, the Absolutely Infinite is not locked into a nature or “self” that prevents Him from being anything at all. In fact, the Absolutely Infinite freely IS the finite, IS all that exists. Yet, being completely Undefined – having no nature to be changed or affected in any way - He remains unchangedly Undefined/Infinite even while being the defined/finite. Thus, G-d can freely be fully immanent, not just IN all but AS all, with no change to Him whatsoever, for He has no “nature/self” to be changed. The Absolutely Infinite remains Natureless in the naturehood of the finite, No Thing even as all things.
As it says in the Torah:
“You have been shown to know that Hashem is the G-d, there is naught else beside Him” (Devarim [Deut.] 4:35) – ain od milvado
“Know this day and take to your heart that Hashem is the G-d, in the heavens above and on earth below there is nothing else” (Devarim 4:39) – bashamayim mima’al ve’al ha-aretz mitachat ain od
The message of these verses – that G-d is all that exists – is elaborated in R. Chaim of Volozhin’s Nefesh HaChayim (Sha’ar Gimmel, especially Perekim Vav and Zayin), one of the most important theological works of the school of the Vilna Gaon; in the part II of R. Shneur Zalman’s Tanya, which is entitled Sha’ar HaYichud veHaEmunah, and is one of the foundational works of Chassidic philosophy and theology; and, in great detail in R. Aharon HaLevi Horowitz’s She’arei HaYichud veEmunah, which is an exposition of Chabad theology by one of the foremost students of R. Shneur Zalman. Thus, we see that the both the Chassidic and Litvak (Mitnagid) streams of Judaism are united in this truth.
Similarly, the Sephardic stream also embraces this truth, as seen in R. Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Perush on B’reishit 1:26 – “HaShem is One, and He creates all, and He is all”; R. Moshe DeLeon’s Sefer HaRimmon (182) – “thus, the Divine Essence is below as well as above, in heaven and on earth, there is nothing else”; and, R. Moshe Cordovero’s Sefer Elimah (Daf 24b) – “And the fact is that before anything existed, HaShem, the Infinite, was alone, and He was all that existed, and also after He brought forth those that exist, there is nothing but Him”.
Implication Two – All That Exists is Not Hashem
With no confinement to a defined nature or self, the Absolutely Infinite most certainly can freely be all defined/finite things, and yet because He remains entirely Undefined/Infinite, since He is free from any defined nature to be lost or altered in any way, this also means that no defined/finite thing itself is or ever can be G-d. As the Ramak so elegantly sums it up – “G-d is all that exists but all that exists is not G-d” (Sefer Elimah 24d).
G-d is One with ALL His acts, but that does NOT mean they are one with Him. This simply doesn’t follow logically. Acts freely done and roles freely assumed even by finite humans do not represent our essence – when we cease to do them or assume them, we don’t cease to exist. How much more so with the Absolutely Infinite, free from any nature or self to be even changed or modified by His free acts or freely assumed roles at all, let alone have such acts or roles constitute or represent Him “as He is”.
Further, just because the Absolutely Infinite is all, doesn’t logically mean that any of the all or even all of it is the Absolutely Infinite, and here is why: (1) anything differentiable in any sense must have some boundary (ontological, epistemic, physical, etc.) that permits its differentiability, and boundary – any boundary – means it is and remains thus finite, and is thus, NOT the Infinite; (2) Absolute Infinity means an absolute freedom from constraint that renders the existence of any act done or role assumed by the Infinite purely ex nihilo (being brought into existence [even timelessly] from not existing at all), hence not the Absolutely Infinite because constrained by its very existential contingency; and, (3) since the Absolutely Infinite is free from any nature or self to be changed by any act He freely performs or role He freely assumes, He remains free from finitude even in assuming it, which means that none of the “all”, no finite, is Him. He can be the all as that which is NOT Him, as only the Absolutely Infinite can be.
Nothing distinguishable can be G-d in any sense unless one has a finite for “G-d”. For if truly free to G-d, then it is existentially contingent ex nihilo, even if eternal, and this would mean that you have something finite at the level of its very existence for “G-d”. And, of course, if intrinsic to G-d, then you have an essentially finite for “G-d” due to the essential constraint that “intrinsic” invariably denotes. The contingent is bounded – finite – by its dependency; the intrinsic is bounded – finite – by the constraint of its necessity.
While boundary is not an impediment for G-d, it most certainly IS an impediment for that which is bounded by the boundary, and in the case of ANY finite it is an existential boundary (one which allows them to be differentiably what/who they are, allows them in themselves to be at all) that prevents them from being G-d. G-d’s Oneness with them even in the midst of their lack thereof with Him is a great and wondrous testimony to His Absolute Infinity.
All of this means that the multiplicity of the finite All is not an illusion or dream, but really does exist, even as G-d remains One/Absolutely Infinite while being that All. As R. Aharon HaLevi Horowitz indicates (She’arei HaYichud veEmunah Sha’ar Bet Perek Kaf-Chet, p. 40a):
And behold, although we have explained that all of the descriptions (of G-d) and the aspect of unification of the world of Atziluth are all from our side, from the perspective of the creatures that are in the aspect of the hiding of the light, do not err in understanding that all the aspects of the light and the concealment and the sephiroth are only relative to our perspective but that relative to the Blessed One these aspects do not obtain at all. Because, the comprehension of our earlier words, which we have explained to you , on the contrary, (shows that) there is not even the aspect of the smallest of the small that has not been created with special concentration by Him, the Blessed One, and exactly by the drawing of His Essence, Blessed by He, into them. But our meaning is that from the perspective of His exalted blessed Might, which is His unknowable Being, although He is drawn into the worlds in their aspect of finitude, they are not considered as a being in itself, and He is in them without any distinction at all.
R. Aharon is clearly asserting that finite things are real in themselves, but that G-d remains absolutely free of any finitude even while being fully in them and that from G-d’s “point of view” their finitude is His freedom from finitude. The question is how can this be? How can G-d’s “view” of them as His freedom from definition not erase their definition? R. Aharon considers this a “pele”, a “marvel” or “wonder” not comprehensible by the human mind. We may add that it may be a wonder but it does make logical sense when one considers that His freedom from definition is not itself a definition at all, thereby not conveying any exclusion of their own definition.
Implication Three – In Our Finitude We Cannot Know Hashem
In our finitude, there is no knowing G-d “as He is” any more than there is any finitude that can present G-d “as He is”. “Man cannot see me and live” (Shemot 33:20) and “Yet, none can know You” (Tikkunei Zohar - Petichat Eliyahu).
What is “made known” are free acts by G-d and roles freely assumed in these free acts, not G-d “Himself”, not G-d “as He is”. They can point us to G-d, they can open us to G-d, but in their distinguishability, in their finitude, they are NOT G-d in ANY sense, which obviously includes any sense of being “G-d as He is known/knowable”.
The Tanach does NOT define G-d at all; all it does is present defined roles freely taken on in the context of entirely free defined activities by G-d. “Revelation” is an activity, and so long as any activity is truly free, it is existentially constrained by its utter contingency, just as is also the role of “actor” freely assumed in any such activity, which is completely contingent on that free activity. “Creator” only exists in the context of the act of creation, regardless of whether that act is temporal or eternal. Logically, there is simply no role of “Creator” outside the activity of creating for how, meaningfully, can one be said to be “creator” if there is no creation. So, it is the act – not the role – that really is at issue here.
Implication Four – How We Can “Know” Hashem
While in our finitude, He provides a way to know His free acts, to relate to the roles He freely assumes in those acts. But there also is a way to “know” Him, not merely His free acts and freely assumed roles. The way He provides for this is through letting go of any finitude by opening our finite minds via the intrinsically definition negating function of a term like Y-H-V-H. While Absolute Infinity cannot be described or analyzed at all, we can be open to Absolute Infinity through the logic of the Name Y-H-V-H that - to avoid self-contradiction - always pushes us beyond any definition, even its own, even this as a definition.
Let me explain. Since the Name Y-H-V-H is conveying a freedom from even the most basic of all definition – that of self – it is not a term that itself is defined in any intrinsic way. Thus, it is a term that is intrinsically definition-transcending, definition-negating. All words are just sounds or letters, having no meaning without referents. Ordinary terms are meaningless unless they are defined by reference to the defined. By contrast, an intrinsically definition-transcending term is meaningless the moment it is defined or conceptualized, meaningless unless it remains truly undefined and referentially open. Such referential openness obviously requires it (as far as the sounds or visual letters that mark [denote], but don’t conceptually or ontologically define, it) to entirely “get out of the way”. Unless it always pushes us beyond any conceptualization or definition, even its own defining sounds, letters or referential stance, it becomes completely meaningless self-contradictory gibberish. Its self-negation is intrinsic and complete. Thus, such a term always pushes us beyond itself, always eludes definition – thereby opening the mind rather than closing it around any defined, hence finite, concept.
This is where logic/reason plays a crucial role at its own final limits. The logic of the meaninglessness of Name Y-H-V-H when taken as a definition of any sort is an important tool in opening the mind to G-d. Reason, used in this way, can bring us to faith – the “leap” that is this openness to the G-d. Malachi 3:16 references meditation on the Name Y-H-V-H, and it is the way just described that represents such meditation.
This mode of “knowing” is not knowledge in the sense of a form of consciousness, but rather as an opening of finitude to the Absolutely Infinite that has been characterized in the Torah as “deveikuth” – cleaving to G-d (Devarim 11:22).
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Hashem’s Oneness is Absolute Infinity
Shema Yisrael, Y-H-V-H Elo-heinu, Y-H-V-H Echad
This affirmation of G-d as One is the centerpoint of Jewish existence so much so that it is said shortly after waking and just before going to sleep, and it is hoped to be the very last set of words we utter before death.
But what does it mean to affirm that Hashem is One?
Typically, explanations focus entirely on trying to understand what is meant by "One". Here, let's try something a little different. Let's focus on the Name Y-H-V-H, and see if it can help elucidate what is meant by "Echad".
We get an amazing insight into the meaning of the Name from the Ari’zal in R. Chaim Vital’s Sefer HaLikutim Parshat Terumah
(cf. http://www.koshertorah.com/terumah.html for this translation):
Text from Sefer HaLikutim: This is the secret of Yihyeh (will be): Yod Key above, Yod Key below
Commentary of R. Ariel Bar Tzadok: This reveals a great secret. When Mashiah comes the verse “on that day shall G-d be (yihyeh) one and His Name one” (Zech. 14:9) shall be fulfilled. The word for “shall be” is Yihyeh, spelled Yod, Key Yod, Key. The
Ari’zal explains that during this present era we know G-d’s Name as Y-H-V-H (with the Vav). However, when Mashiah comes, the fallen final Hey will ascend above and rise next to the first Hey. Correspondingly, the Vav is to ascend and become a Yod. Thus when Mashiah comes, G-d’s Name will be called Yihyeh (Yod Key Yod Key) and no longer Y-H-V-H (Yod Key Vav Key).
Given that Hashem tell us in Shemot (Ex.) 3:15 that His Name
Y-H-V-H will be His Name “forever”, the fact that the form of His Name will one day be Y-H-Y-H and not Y-H-V-H indicates that it must really be the meaning of His Name that will be forever, and that Y-H-V-H and Y-H-Y-H actually mean the same thing.
Thus, Y-H-V-H means “He will be”.
The mesorah on this matter from the Ari’zal and R. Bar Tzadok compliments the Written Torah splendidly. In the very context of Hashem’s initial revelation of the Name to Moshe in Shemot 3:14-15, first G-d tells Moshe “Eh-yeh asher Eh-yeh” (“I will be what/who I will be”), then tells him to inform Yisrael that
“Eh-yeh” (“I will be”) has sent him, and then to say that Y-H-V-H has sent him. Thus, it is a logical extension of what went before in the pesukim to see Y-H-V-H as meaning “He will be”.
“He will be” cannot mean that G-d doesn’t exist at all yet – that is illogical, especially in the revelatory context, for without Divine existence, how can there be Divine revelation. Instead, logic forces us to understand “He will be” as meaning that the “He” (i.e., the defined self) does not yet exist. However, in order to ensure that one does not mistakenly assume that G-d is locked into this negative, no negative is used, but instead the positive expression of the verbal imperfect. Moreover, the verbal imperfect does not only convey the future sense of “not yet” (“He will be”) but also conveys the contingent sense of “can” or “may” (“He can be” or “He may be”). Thus, Y-H-V-H presents us with a freedom, not a negation – a freedom from defined self, even from the non-self construed as a defined self, and a freedom to take on defined self.
And this too follows from what went before in Shemot 3:14 and 3:15. The initial statement, “Eh-yeh asher Eh-yeh”, expresses a general freedom from determination – “I will be what/who I will be”. In the next statement, where G-d expresses the name
“Eh-yeh”, there is a revelation of the specific freedom from consciousness of defined self – the defined “I” does not yet exist. Finally, when G-d expresses the Name “Y-H-V-H”, there is a revelation of the specific freedom from even from the defined self that underlies any consciousness of defined self.
What is remarkable to consider is that the defined self is the most basic of all definition, the primal limit that permits any distinction beginning with the basic level of self and other. Without the defined self, there is no other. So, the Name Y-H-V-H is conveying a freedom from even the most basic definition, in the absence of which no plurality is possible. Thus, we have Oneness without any plurality, whether by content or by participation. As it says in Sefer Yetzirah 1:8 – “in the presence of One, what can you count” – and in Tikkunei Zohar, Petichat Eliyahu – “You are One but not in a countable sense”. So, Hashem’s “Oneness” is the utter freedom from plurality that is Absolute Infinity, the freedom from any definition.
G-d willing, I will delve further into the implications of this conclusion in upcoming posts.
This affirmation of G-d as One is the centerpoint of Jewish existence so much so that it is said shortly after waking and just before going to sleep, and it is hoped to be the very last set of words we utter before death.
But what does it mean to affirm that Hashem is One?
Typically, explanations focus entirely on trying to understand what is meant by "One". Here, let's try something a little different. Let's focus on the Name Y-H-V-H, and see if it can help elucidate what is meant by "Echad".
We get an amazing insight into the meaning of the Name from the Ari’zal in R. Chaim Vital’s Sefer HaLikutim Parshat Terumah
(cf. http://www.koshertorah.com/terumah.html for this translation):
Text from Sefer HaLikutim: This is the secret of Yihyeh (will be): Yod Key above, Yod Key below
Commentary of R. Ariel Bar Tzadok: This reveals a great secret. When Mashiah comes the verse “on that day shall G-d be (yihyeh) one and His Name one” (Zech. 14:9) shall be fulfilled. The word for “shall be” is Yihyeh, spelled Yod, Key Yod, Key. The
Ari’zal explains that during this present era we know G-d’s Name as Y-H-V-H (with the Vav). However, when Mashiah comes, the fallen final Hey will ascend above and rise next to the first Hey. Correspondingly, the Vav is to ascend and become a Yod. Thus when Mashiah comes, G-d’s Name will be called Yihyeh (Yod Key Yod Key) and no longer Y-H-V-H (Yod Key Vav Key).
Given that Hashem tell us in Shemot (Ex.) 3:15 that His Name
Y-H-V-H will be His Name “forever”, the fact that the form of His Name will one day be Y-H-Y-H and not Y-H-V-H indicates that it must really be the meaning of His Name that will be forever, and that Y-H-V-H and Y-H-Y-H actually mean the same thing.
Thus, Y-H-V-H means “He will be”.
The mesorah on this matter from the Ari’zal and R. Bar Tzadok compliments the Written Torah splendidly. In the very context of Hashem’s initial revelation of the Name to Moshe in Shemot 3:14-15, first G-d tells Moshe “Eh-yeh asher Eh-yeh” (“I will be what/who I will be”), then tells him to inform Yisrael that
“Eh-yeh” (“I will be”) has sent him, and then to say that Y-H-V-H has sent him. Thus, it is a logical extension of what went before in the pesukim to see Y-H-V-H as meaning “He will be”.
“He will be” cannot mean that G-d doesn’t exist at all yet – that is illogical, especially in the revelatory context, for without Divine existence, how can there be Divine revelation. Instead, logic forces us to understand “He will be” as meaning that the “He” (i.e., the defined self) does not yet exist. However, in order to ensure that one does not mistakenly assume that G-d is locked into this negative, no negative is used, but instead the positive expression of the verbal imperfect. Moreover, the verbal imperfect does not only convey the future sense of “not yet” (“He will be”) but also conveys the contingent sense of “can” or “may” (“He can be” or “He may be”). Thus, Y-H-V-H presents us with a freedom, not a negation – a freedom from defined self, even from the non-self construed as a defined self, and a freedom to take on defined self.
And this too follows from what went before in Shemot 3:14 and 3:15. The initial statement, “Eh-yeh asher Eh-yeh”, expresses a general freedom from determination – “I will be what/who I will be”. In the next statement, where G-d expresses the name
“Eh-yeh”, there is a revelation of the specific freedom from consciousness of defined self – the defined “I” does not yet exist. Finally, when G-d expresses the Name “Y-H-V-H”, there is a revelation of the specific freedom from even from the defined self that underlies any consciousness of defined self.
What is remarkable to consider is that the defined self is the most basic of all definition, the primal limit that permits any distinction beginning with the basic level of self and other. Without the defined self, there is no other. So, the Name Y-H-V-H is conveying a freedom from even the most basic definition, in the absence of which no plurality is possible. Thus, we have Oneness without any plurality, whether by content or by participation. As it says in Sefer Yetzirah 1:8 – “in the presence of One, what can you count” – and in Tikkunei Zohar, Petichat Eliyahu – “You are One but not in a countable sense”. So, Hashem’s “Oneness” is the utter freedom from plurality that is Absolute Infinity, the freedom from any definition.
G-d willing, I will delve further into the implications of this conclusion in upcoming posts.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Welcome to My New Blog
I begin with a short free verse set:
Not bound to any selfhood to prevent being all,
And not bound to any selfhood to be changed by being all,
Not modified by any sort of relation,
As never other, even while we are other,
So, free from difference even in our difference,
And for Whom our difference is this freedom from difference,
Nonetheless, there is no exclusion of our difference,
As this freedom from difference is not itself a difference.
Yea, since G-d is not a thing at all,
Also, G-d is each, even as each, in itself, is not G-d.
Not bound to any selfhood to prevent being all,
And not bound to any selfhood to be changed by being all,
Not modified by any sort of relation,
As never other, even while we are other,
So, free from difference even in our difference,
And for Whom our difference is this freedom from difference,
Nonetheless, there is no exclusion of our difference,
As this freedom from difference is not itself a difference.
Yea, since G-d is not a thing at all,
Also, G-d is each, even as each, in itself, is not G-d.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)