For Torath Mosheh Jews Only: Who is Hashem?

[Ehav4Ever]

The Torah did not happen in space far far away from earth. Moshe witnessed it, Avraham witnessed it, the entire nation witnessed it. That is why the analogy fails. The chemical process didn't happen far away, it happened on earth.

Never said it did, but David doesn't know Hebrew or Aramaic. He has had limited exposure to the various views of Hazal. Therefore metaphors are necessary to help him understand ideas. The analogy may fail for you, but that is for David to decide for himself. (BTW, several times he has told me he understands the analogies I have used.) Outside of that I know people for whom the analogy works - IF one really understands what I meant by it. Are you sure really understand what I meant?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Were our ancestor's slaves in egypt? Or is "slaves" a metaphor and "egypt" a metaphor? It's OK if this is your belief, but, that is not Torath Moshe.

I have covered all of that also on this forum NUMEROUS times. I don't why you are going so far off the read with your statements above. I beleive you have seen some of my statements about that. I also think it has alraedy been made clear where the metaphors are and why.

 

[David Davidovich]

Yes. Because they didn't initially have the type of experience with tov and ra that they had after they made their choice. Also, not like we have. Yet, they are examples of what humanity can acheive, where humanity can make missteps, and the reason to correct ourselves when do. There is a whole group of discussions about when Adam corrected his misstep.

Whaaaaaaat???!!! Well, I'm not sure what tov and ra are, but it sounds like you're saying that Adam and Eve were not created perfect or fully equipment, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. Also, what's this about Adam correcting his misstep? What does that even mean? Also, I recall somewhere where I asked a question about Psalm 51:3-5 and whether or not TMJs believed if humankind will continue throughout eternity in their (for lack of a better and more accurate TMJ word) "sinful" state. However, I noticed that you conveniently skipped that question.

3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.
4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight;
so you are right in your verdict
and justified when you judge.
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

 

[David Davidovich]

No. Most Jewish texts all picked up the concept of marking chapters and verses, for the sake of tracking. Yet, it is not something we came up with. It was a Christian invention originally. That is one of the reasons that Christians bibles sometimes have different verse number designations from Jewish ones.

If one recognizes that originally there were no chapter or verse numbers then one knows that some of that is arbitrary. I.e. the chapters more than anything else are arbitrary. The concept of a start and stop of a sentence was already know. Just prior to the Masorites it wasn't marked.

But in saying that, you're almost making it sound as if a person has to include the entire book of writing if they want to refer to a particular point in that writing.

 

[David Davidovich]

Based on the English definition, if one is saying the following.

View attachment 72924

If one understands that for the benefit of a conversation in "English" one has to use words that English speakers understand, yet one knows that they are using said metaphorically when the thing being described has no physiology then the word is used for the sake of the conversation. Yet, if a person wants to ask how that works when said thing has no has no physiology then you have to go into details that be confusing.

But I think I had read where dybmh had said that can't emotions be spiritual? Therefore, why is it that Hashem can't have spiritual emotions that are not rooted in human physiology?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Whaaaaaaat???!!! Well, I'm not sure what tov and ra are, but it sounds like you're saying that Adam and Eve were not created perfect or fully equipment, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. Also, what's this about Adam correcting his misstep? What does that even mean?

Again, termonology is key here. The Hebrew text of the Torah does not use the term "perfect" to discuss Adam and Hawwah. It describes them as human. They were in a completely different situation prior to their choice than after. There is a lot of discussion about why they made the choice and it is all reletive to what is reality for all of humanity. i.e. they made choices not that much different than any human would. They had the abiliy to know that there was such a thing as Tov and Ra. One way of translating it from something the Rambam wrote is like follows.

“Through the intellect man distinguishes between the true and the false. The right and the wrong are terms employed in the science of apparent truths, not in that of necessary truths. Similarly, our language expresses the idea of true and false by the terms (אמת) and (שקר), of the apparent truths of right and the wrong, by (טוב) and (רע). Thus, it is the function of the intellect to discriminate between the true and the false--a distinction which is applicable to all objects of intellectual perception.”

 

[Ehav4Ever]

But I think I had read where dybmh had said that can't emotions be spiritual? Therefore, why is it that Hashem can't have spiritual emotions that are not rooted in human physiology?

Then you have to ask the questions of.
1. What do the words emotions and spiritual mean in standard English. Meaning, not someone's personal opinion but one decided on by the standard definitons of the language?
2. How would such a statement be expressed in Hebrew from several thousand years ago?
3. Where does one find in the Tanakh a description that matches the standard English definitions?
4. Where does one find in the writings of Jewish experts in the Torah, in Hebrew, something similar to the English definitions?

If the English word "emotions" is not rooted in physiology who says so, and who gets to decide how the English word is defined?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

But in saying that, you're almost making it sound as if a person has to include the entire book of writing if they want to refer to a particular point in that writing.

Yes, you do need to read the entire text in order to understand it. That is why Hebrew texts are written. That is why Jews study the texts from start to finish. In order to understand a Hebrew in the middle you do have to read EVERYTHING before, and then everything after.

If it works different in English writing then that is a cultural difference.

Besides, it doesn't take that to read most of the writings of the Nevi'im. Many Jews throughout history have done numerous times throughout their lifetime. For example, we Jews go the entire Torah from start to finish in one year. We start at the beginning and read specific segments, in order, every week on Shabbat (sabbath) until the end of the year we get to the end. Then we roll scroll back to the beginning and start all over again. During the week we study it in detail. That means that a if a Torah based Jew lives to 100 years old they have sytematically gone through the Torah at least 97 to 90 times in their life, at the bare minimum.

 

[David Davidovich]

Again, termonology is key here. The Hebrew text of the Torah does not use the term "perfect" to discuss Adam and Hawwah. It describes them as human. They were in a completely different situation prior to their choice than after. There is a lot of discussion about why they made the choice and it is all reletive to what is reality for all of humanity. i.e. they made choices not that much different than any human would. They had the abiliy to know that there was such a thing as Tov and Ra. One way of translating it from something the Rambam wrote is like follows.

“Through the intellect man distinguishes between the true and the false. The right and the wrong are terms employed in the science of apparent truths, not in that of necessary truths. Similarly, our language expresses the idea of true and false by the terms (אמת) and (שקר), of the apparent truths of right and the wrong, by (טוב) and (רע). Thus, it is the function of the intellect to discriminate between the true and the false--a distinction which is applicable to all objects of intellectual perception.”

So, then Hashem put us in a situation where the progenitors of humankind were not "rational people" who "would want to fullfil what makes logical sense rather than follow paths that lead to nowhere"? That's odd.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Also, what's this about Adam correcting his misstep? What does that even mean? Also, I recall somewhere where I asked a question about Psalm 51:3-5 and whether or not TMJs believed if humankind will continue throughout eternity in their (for lack of a better and more accurate TMJ word) "sinful" state. However, I noticed that you conveniently skipped that question.

It means that making a mistake is not the problem. Not taking immediate corrective action is. In the Tanakh there is a process for making what is called "teshuva" or "shuva." It includes.
1. Realizing the mistake and all the facets of the mistake.
2. Making a personal declaration of not wanting to doing such a thing.
3. Admitting that one made the mistake, with full understanding of the mistake.
4. Making corrective action, and never returning to the mistake.

It is considered that once a person has done that, they have corrected the misstep. In the days when there was a Temple in Jerusalem bringing what is called a Qorban to the Temple was a part of the process.

Again, sin is not a good word. It has a lot of incorrect concepts in the English langauge. BTW I don't conviently skip questions. I answer what I often have time to answer. I do have a job, a family, and Torah based responsibilities you know. Also, I already answered the question in this thread and in others. i.e. whenever I talk about the future Davidic king and the future Israeli nation that keeps Torah I have already addressed your question. i.e. humanity is not in a sinful state. That is a Christian concept. Humanity as a whole can simply make better choices that take on the benefits for all of humanity. There are some humans who are already getting there individually in one level or another.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So, then Hashem put us in a situation where the progenitors of humankind were not "rational people" who "would want to fullfil what makes logical sense rather than follow paths that lead to nowhere"? That's odd.

Depends on what you mean by "rational" in English. For us, in Hebrew, they were rational but Hashem didn't create them to be robots w/o free will. Free will dictates that you can make a decision that goes against your best interest. Free will also dictates that you can be logical and still make illogical decisions.

There are logical people all the time that make decisions that against their better interest. Look at the Atomic bomb. The knowledge of using atomic energy is logical. Making a bomb out of it might not be very logical. Yet, some very smart and logical people did just that.

Again, if Hashem wanted humanity to be robots w/o free will he would have created that, but Hashem didn't.

 

[David Davidovich]

Yes, you do need to read the entire text in order to understand it. That is why Hebrew texts are written. That is why Jews study the texts from start to finish. In order to understand a Hebrew in the middle you do have to read EVERYTHING before, and then everything after.

If it works different in English writing then that is a cultural difference.

Besides, it doesn't take that to read most of the writings of the Nevi'im. Many Jews throughout history have done numerous times throughout their lifetime. For example, we Jews go the entire Torah from start to finish in one year. We start at the beginning and read specific segments, in order, every week on Shabbat (sabbath) until the end of the year we get to the end. Then we roll scroll back to the beginning and start all over again. During the week we study it in detail. That means that a if a Torah based Jew lives to 100 years old they have sytematically gone through the Torah at least 97 to 90 times in their life, at the bare minimum.

So, why is it that you are able to make videos about specific sections or topics in the Torah or Tanakh, and all your videos are not always about the entire Torah or Tanakh?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So, why is it that you are able to make videos about specific sections or topics in the Torah or Tanakh, and all your videos are not always about the entire Torah or Tanakh?

Because the purpose of my videos is to get people who don't know where to find sources to know where those sources are. The point of my videos is to help people not rely on English translations and even people who want them to follow them. There are some people who have never even "seen" the sources that they discuss with people - so instead of just telling them ABC I show them ABC in the most ancient forms that it exists in. There are some people who don't even know what Hebrew texts even say to begin with so I try to show them how to approach it.

Thus, if I talk about a topic and address and issue I am addressing what someone can go out and find it for themselves. Further, it is a part of convincing Jews to not rely on the internet, or people like me, and instead getting into a Jewish community and learning Torah directly from knowledgable Jews. The same way I did when I was young and the same way I do now that I am older, and the same way I will do until I pass away.

Simply put, some people don't know where to start.

 

[David Davidovich]

It means that making a mistake is not the problem. Not taking immediate corrective action is. In the Tanakh there is a process for making what is called "teshuva" or "shuva." It includes.
1. Realizing the mistake and all the facets of the mistake.
2. Making a personal declaration of not wanting to doing such a thing.
3. Admitting that one made the mistake, with full understanding of the mistake.
4. Making corrective action, and never returning to the mistake.

It is considered that once a person has done that, they have corrected the misstep. In the days when there was a Temple in Jerusalem bringing what is called a Qorban to the Temple was a part of the process.

So, is there a reason why Adam and Eve didn't do this? Especially in light of Genesis 4:1 where Eve sounds as if she's still all lovey dovey with Hashem.

4 The man knew[a] Eve his wife. She conceived,[b] and gave birth to Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man with Yahweh’s help.”

Because if she was so estranged from Hashem, she didn't have to say all that.

Also, what about Psalm 51:3-5 and what are the accurate Hebrew words that should be used in those verses and why did Adam and Eve have such a murderous jerk of a son such as Cain?

Again, sin is not a good word. It has a lot of incorrect concepts in the English langauge. BTW I don't conviently skip questions. I answer what I often have time to answer. I do have a job, a family, and Torah based responsibilities you know. Also, I already answered the question in this thread and in others. i.e. whenever I talk about the future Davidic king and the future Israeli nation that keeps Torah I have already addressed your question. i.e. humanity is not in a sinful state. That is a Christian concept. Humanity as a whole can simply make better choices that take on the benefits for all of humanity. There are some humans who are already getting there individually in one level or another.

Oh, wow... I did not know that. I did not know that TMJs (or Jews in general?) believed that. Also, if Humanity as a whole can simply make better choices that take on the benefits for all of humanity, then why haven't they done so already? And why is it that we grow old and die and get sick along the way as well as some people being born with defects, deformities, and diseases?

Plus, could you please elaborate a little bit more in regard to how some humans are already getting there individually in one level or another?

 

[David Davidovich]

David Davidovich said:
So, then Hashem put us in a situation where the progenitors of humankind were not "rational people" who "would want to fullfil what makes logical sense rather than follow paths that lead to nowhere"? That's odd.

Depends on what you mean by "rational" in English. For us, in Hebrew, they were rational but Hashem didn't create them to be robots w/o free will. Free will dictates that you can make a decision that goes against your best interest. Free will also dictates that you can be logical and still make illogical decisions.

There are logical people all the time that make decisions that against their better interest. Look at the Atomic bomb. The knowledge of using atomic energy is logical. Making a bomb out of it might not be very logical. Yet, some very smart and logical people did just that.

Again, if Hashem wanted humanity to be robots w/o free will he would have created that, but Hashem didn't.

Well, I was just using the words that you used and that is why I have them in quotations and attached to a hyperlink. But it seems like this 'free will' business is a 'messy' business and I wonder if bad choices are still going to exist after mashiach comes. (Daniel 7:13-14)

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, I was just using the words that you used and that is why I have them in quotations and attached to a hyperlink.

Yes, but that is why you should always ask what I mean by rational.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

But it seems like this 'free will' business is a 'messy' business and I wonder if bad choices are still going to exist after mashiach comes. (Daniel 7:13-14)

Free-will can be but it doesn't have to be. For example, I know people who want all the benefits of free but none of the pitfalls. For example, there are people who want the ability to do what they want, no matter who it hurts or offends, but they themselves don't want people hurting them or offending them. This begs the question. Who is right in any given situation and who gets to decide whose free will trumps anothers. Everyone wants the right to do what they want, also the ability for the world to work they want it, but who gets to say what is right when people have conflicting interests? All of this is a part of free will. Most people don't want their ability to choose what to do to be taken away from them, thus for some people the pitfalls of free will are worth it rather than being robots.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Oh, wow... I did not know that. I did not know that TMJs (or Jews in general?) believed that. Also, if Humanity as a whole can simply make better choices that take on the benefits for all of humanity, then why haven't they done so already?

The only way to answer that is to ask someone who has bad or destructive behavior. Some people are simply not taught that they can do better or be better. Here are a few extreme situations.

This one is on one side of the spectrum but it shows what I am talking about in terms of how people change a situation by just applying some basic principles that are rational.

 

[rosends]

But isn't "caring" an emotion?

Yes, so trying to associate it, or it's lack to God is a fool's errand. If we try to quantify God in our terms then, sure, God cares.

 

[rosends]

How is saying God is capable of emotions, quantifying God?
How is it "a priori" when this is how God is described in Torah?
How is denying God having emotions and denying God caring NOT a priori ( based on a logical deduction lacking observation )?
What we say in Shacharit is a silly thing to do?

By saying God is defined through human concepts is limiting God. Saying God cares means that God acts in a way that we understand and since we have limited understanding, we are imposing that finite/human limitation on God. It is a silly thing to do because by the time the attempt is started, it has already failed. The Torah uses language of our human limitation so that we can relate but we should not mistake this linguistic mediation for an accurate, complete and transcendent description of God. Accepting that God is infinite, without form and human limitation is the bedrock a priori understanding. Accepting that the language of the Torah is a concession to our not being on that level is an a priori and foundational tenet. Therefore, attempting to claim that the language of the Torah is an accurate presentation of God on God's terms even though it is using language which relates to us on our terms is therefore doomed to failure. The shadow on the wall is not the actual substance, nor even a full depiction of the actual thing.

What we say in Shacharit is, again, written in a human language (even moreso because most was composed by people, as opposed to the Torah which was composed by God).

If you want to think that, when the text says "God loves" it conforms to your human, finite, culturally defined concept of love, go ahead. I see the text as operating very differently, so I read it accepting certain limitations of language and some distance between my understanding and "the" understanding. Moshe spoke to God "face to face" but this doesn't mean that God has a face. Moshe spoke face to face, but was told he couldn't see God's face so clearly there is something more to "face" than our word describes. We are blind men trying to understand colors by using words like "brown." The word might trigger ideas in our heads but our ideas are limited by our brain while actual concepts aren't. We are children trying to describe the subtleties of a sunset while we only know words for 3 colors. We are hearing a parent dumb down language to the 3 year old so that he 3 year old can get some tiny grasp of what the parent means when describing the sunset.