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)
Sunday, May 30, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)