For Torath Mosheh Jews Only: Who is Hashem?

[Ehav4Ever]

If the different definitions match, then they do define it the same.

The paper you posted even states that they don't all naturally match. Thus, you would have to create a common definition and make everyone accept it.

Why not define ahavah for us? That would be really helpful.

Here are a few examples.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Why not define ahavah for us? That would be really helpful.

Here is some additional definitions.

 

[dybmh]

From the exact same source:

Nusach Askenaz: The Blessing immediately prior to the Shema: ( emphasis mine )

Siddur Ashkenaz, Weekday, Shacharit, Blessings of the Shema, Second Blessing before Shema 1



[With] unbounded love You have loved us Adonoy, our God; [With] great and abundant pity have You pitied us. Our Father, our King! for the sake of our forefathers who trusted in You, and whom You taught statutes of life, so too, be gracious to us and teach us. Our Father, merciful Father, Who acts with compassion have compassion on us and put into our hearts to comprehend, and to be intellectually creative, to listen, to learn, and to teach, to preserve, to practice, and to fulfill all the words of instruction in Your Torah with love. And enlighten our eyes in Your Torah, and cause our hearts to hold fast to Your commandments, and unify our hearts to love and fear Your Name; and may we never be put to shame, for in Your holy, great, and awesome Name— have we trusted; may we exult and rejoice in Your deliverance. And bring us to peace from the four corners of the earth and lead us upright to our land. Because, You are the Almighty, Who performs acts of deliverance, and You have chosen us from among all peoples and tongues, and You have brought us close to Your great Name, forever in truth; that we may give thanks to You, and proclaim Your Oneness, with love. Blessed are You, Adonoy, Who chooses His people Yisrael with love.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

From the exact same source:

Nusach Askenaz: The Blessing immediately prior to the Shema: ( emphasis mine )

Siddur Ashkenaz, Weekday, Shacharit, Blessings of the Shema, Second Blessing before Shema 1



[With] unbounded love You have loved us Adonoy, our God; [With] great and abundant pity have You pitied us. Our Father, our King! for the sake of our forefathers who trusted in You, and whom You taught statutes of life, so too, be gracious to us and teach us. Our Father, merciful Father, Who acts with compassion have compassion on us and put into our hearts to comprehend, and to be intellectually creative, to listen, to learn, and to teach, to preserve, to practice, and to fulfill all the words of instruction in Your Torah with love. And enlighten our eyes in Your Torah, and cause our hearts to hold fast to Your commandments, and unify our hearts to love and fear Your Name; and may we never be put to shame, for in Your holy, great, and awesome Name— have we trusted; may we exult and rejoice in Your deliverance. And bring us to peace from the four corners of the earth and lead us upright to our land. Because, You are the Almighty, Who performs acts of deliverance, and You have chosen us from among all peoples and tongues, and You have brought us close to Your great Name, forever in truth; that we may give thanks to You, and proclaim Your Oneness, with love. Blessed are You, Adonoy, Who chooses His people Yisrael with love.

Yes, and we already covered what that is considered to mean. Remember the following from the same nusah.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The issue isn't that Rambam is the only one, it's that all of the sources you have brought are influenced by a Greek god concept, and that's not Torath Mosheh. Rambam begins with a greek god concept then reinterprets the Torah based on this. That is no different than someone starting with a Jesus god concept and reinterpreting the Torah based on that.

The quote from Malbim clarifies what is meant by the verse in Isaiah. But it really has no connection at all to the elevation of intelligence as the highest virtue, nor to the description of HaShem as an "intelligence" lacking emotions, or being uneffected by human actions, or that the words of Torah don't mean what they say. If you would like to compare the two, please bring a conclusion that Rambam makes about HaShem, and a conclusion that Malbim makes about HaShem, and let's compare them side-by-side.

Regarding Bchay Ben Yosef, just like Rambam, just the Saadia Gaon, he is borrowing from greek philosophy for his god concept. He could be 100% correct, Rambam could be 100% correct. But calling it "Torath Mosheh" is misleading at best.

BAHYA BEN JOSEPH IBN PAḲUDA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

View attachment 72311

View attachment 72313

Lastly, the video... I cannot follow conversational Hebrew. But from what I gather, it's a class about Rambam. I don't hear any other Jewish thinkers being discussed. If there is a point in the video where others are being discussed who *are not* influenced by greek philosophers, please indicate where that is in the video.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Important notes about the Rambam and how he works are received around the Jewish world.

 

[rosends]

OK great! What do you think that this generally simple image is communicating?

An idea of salvation

I agree. But the same sages who tell us that Torah is written in human terms, are also telling us that actual cleaving is possible?

Sure, but “cleave” doesn’t have to mean anything physical or literal. I can “stick to my guns” without touching anything, so the idea of “cleaving to God” doesn’t have to confer any physicality.

Sadly, no, it goes much further than just not having a message for the masses. According to the Rambam Hashem did not "mention" anything to them. There were no words, they were just thoughts.

But the Rambam says explicitly “אבל היה הדיבור להם במה שהיה מיוחד להם” the dibbur, "speaking" to them was about something specific to them. What the Rambam says didn’t happen was that they were not commanded as prophets and sent to spread a message or perform a mission – that began with Moses.
“"אמר לי ה': עשו כך" או "שלחני אליכם" – זה לא היה כלל.וכאשר נראה יתברך אל משה רבנו עליו השלום, וציווהו שיקרא לבני אדם ויגיע אליהם זאת השליחות, אמר: תחילת מה שישאלוני (=הלוא ישאלוני ראשית כל) – שאאמת להם שיש אלוה אחד, ואחר כך אומר, שהוא שלחני”

If you keep reading a bit more into section 65, you'll see that.

No, I see in 65 that the idea of “speech” on a human level isn’t what God does for anyone לא שהוא ית׳ דיבר באותיות וקול ולא שהוא ית׳ בעל נפש, שיוחקו הענינים בנפשו ויהיו בעצמו ענין נוסף על עצמו, אבל התלות הענינים ההם בו ויחוסם אליו כיחס הפעולות כולם
Therefore the covenant, command to circumcise etc are all things communicated INTO the forefather’s mind but not through an actual voice of a human.
The distinction the text made earlier, that before Moses, no one received a mission assignment from God is unrelated to the later point that anyone who “spoke” with God wasn’t speaking with a human being who was using the language of human interaction.
He says explicitly that our two ways of understanding the interaction (speaking or via thoughts) are actually one and the same so when the text uses a “speak” word, it invokes both concepts והוא אחד אם נודע בקול נברא או נודע בדרך מדרכי הנבואה. It seems you are putting thoughts into the Rambam’s mouth and drawing erroneous conclusions.
He cites all sorts of examples where the words for “speech” reflect something more than literal letters and words to show how the language of the text isn’t limited to some literal and human reference point.

Sure, there's questions that can be asked. But do you really think that the Torah at this point in the narrative is saying anything other than God did something good for the Jewish people?

I’m saying that it begs our understanding of what God considers “good” and, often, a re-evaluation of what we see as good. There are messages that go beyond the general idea of a verse or phrase and the specific words open up those layers of understanding.

The part in parentheses isn't Rashi's comment, correct? It's not in the Sifrei, it's not in either of the Talmud passages? Not in the Hebrew, not in the Aramaic?

Actually, Rashi’s commentary is just quoting the Talmud directly – check B’rachot 54a. The Peninei Halacha makes it clear, by the way, that the phrase “he takes our soul” refers to our being willing to die ‘שצריך אדם להיות מוכן למסור את נפשו על אמונתו בה
Also, check the Yerushalmi, Sotah chapt 5 to see the understanding that dying al kiddush hashem comes directly from this verse. And check the Rambam M”T Foundations 5:7 וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בִּמְקוֹם סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת אֵין עוֹבְרִין עַל אַחַת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ עֲבֵרוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו ה) "וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל מְאֹדֶךָ" אֲפִלּוּ הוּא נוֹטֵל אֶת נַפְשְׁךָ.

So, this connection between martyrdom and this verse is commentary of commentary which someone has applied to Rashi's comment? Where does it originally come from?

Pretty clearly, it comes from the gemara and it is also in that Sifrei spot

Sifrei Devarim 32:5

"and with all your soul": even if He takes your soul. And thus is it written (Psalms 44:23) "For because of You we are killed the entire day. We are reckoned...

www.sefaria.org

and is mentioned in other medrash as well:
ובכל נפשך. ואפילו בא ליטול את נפשך אל תעבוד ע"ז
Even if God comes to take your soul, you can’t worship A”Z. If you want to understand this as simple dying, feel free, but for a long time, Jewish authority has connected this verse to the choice to die rather than betray the love of God.

Not at all. And maybe you missed it in my reply, but I said that I thought martyrdom was a special case, that it was complicated, but this verse isn't instructing our love to trigger death. Now, maybe I accidentally denied it? That wasn't my intention. Is Deut 6:5 the Torah basis for this?

Deut is, indeed, the basis for this. See Pesachim 25a Pesachim 25a:12

Regarding "להיות מוכן למסור את נפשו על אמונתו בה", that seems to confirm what I'm saying. It's an act of emunah. That is outside of emotion, outside of intellect. It's a totally different paradigm.

It is an act of Emunah driven as an expression of “ahava” is shown by the use of that verse.

The thing is, we know how healthy parent-child love is described in Torah, right? We know how Abraham felt about Ishmael. We know about how Jacob felt about Joseph, and vice versa. I'm sure I can come up with other examples, but, couldn't this be a special case of something universal? If what's communicated in Torah, matches what I experience and others experience even though we speak a totally different language, are in a totally different culture, and live in a totally different time, doesn't that mean something?

We also know about unhealthy parent child relationships that people thought or still think are healthy through the Torah. We even understand that there are aspects of the parent-child relationship between God and the Jews which are hard to understand based on our current human idea of parent-child relationships.

It's studying languages and culture by looking at words for love which are supposed to by untranslatable.

But that’s already an error, as it supposes that even within a single language the idea of love is fully understandable and standardized.

it can still be broken out into 14 different types of love. Just 14. One of those types is familial-love. Doesn't this indicate, at the very least, that across cultures the parent-child love is a universal concept.

But what is “parent-child love”? Is it being willing to take a bullet for a child? Or teaching a child a job or buying a child whatever he wants or being hard on a kid because in the long run he needs “tough love”? Spare the rod? Or put Skippy Peanut Butter in his lunch? Abandon him because he’ll do better without me? What IS that “universal concept”?

OK, ok, I like the challenge...

Saying that someone is a neighbor (reiah) might imply an emotion, but it doesn’t mean that emotion. In fact, husband and wife are “re’im ahuvim” neighbors who love, and “v’ahavta l’reiecha kamocha” you are to love (like? Respect?) your neighbor as yourself. So רֵעֶה doesn’t mean “like.”
In the same way, saying something is pleasant doesn’t say anything about levels of affection. And saying something is wanted, or is willed has nothing to do with liking anything.

------------
Side note -- if one believes that that Deut 6:5 is not tied directly to the idea of being willing to die as the expression of ahava, that person should explain that to R. Steinzaltz who, on Sanhedrin 74a explains:
והוא מסביר: אם יש לך אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו — לכך נאמר "בכל נפשך", ואם יש לך אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו — לכך נאמר "בכל מאדך", משמע שעל אהבת ה' ועבודתו חייבים למסור את הנפש.

 

[David Davidovich]

David Davidovich said:For Torath Mosheh Jews Only: Who is Hashem?
But isn't the Torah the result of Adam and Eve and their descendants developing the yetzer hara? And if so, what were Hashem's original motives?

Humanity didn't develop Yetzer Hara. It was already a part of the system. A way of looking at it is that - yetzer hara is your ability to work against your own interest. How that works can be described in a number of ways but these are linquistic tools.

One way of looking at what Hashem created can be summed up as options. I.e. the best for humanity can happen at the time humanity wants it to happen. It is already in place for it to happen at an appointed time in future history or whenever we desire it to happen. Those are the two basic options that are an umbrella for all the choices we make as groups and individuals.

I see that we have an update to the forum, although, I'm still trying to figure out if I like it or not. But getting back to your quote above, I've been meaning to ask you how is that Torath Mosheh Jews believe that paradise is dependent upon humanity wanting it to happen? Because doesn't the principle at Ecclesiastes 1:15 apply to this situation?

Young's Literal Translation
A crooked thing one is not able to make straight, and a lacking thing is not able to be numbered.

Or in other words, isn't humankind too corrupt, damaged, and crooked to ever come to the point of 'desiring' a paradise for all of humankind?

And I'm referring to that verse in view of the verse at Daniel 2:44:

New International Version
“In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.
Daniel 2:44 - Daniel Interprets the Dream

Or in other words, doesn't the Hebrew text convey the idea that Hashem has to be the one who steps in and 'forcibly' brings an end to our current corrupt system of humankind and then replaces it with his heavenly kingdom reigning over earth?

The options that were present in the past were a part of Hashem's motives, the options available in the present are also a part of Hashem motives, and the options of the future are a part of Hashem motives. The ability for us to make choices is a part of the motive, if you want to call it that. What is made clear is that at some point a generation of Israelis will make a choice that changes everything into the possibility for humanity to reach the optimal circumstance for perform mitzvoth and gaining the full benefit Hashem will provide in this world.

I see. So, then if it's a generation of Israelis who make that choice, then how are they going to get the rest of corrupt, lying, cheating, and greedy humankind to go along with them? (Well, that took me forever to compose with the new software.)

 

[David Davidovich]

I think that is a good question. And perhaps I've been misunderstanding what @Ehav4Ever has been saying about Hashem, but his description sounds more as if Hashem's behavior toward humankind is perfunctory. And kind of like I had said previously about being more like a ginormous Artificial Intelligence, but not artificial.

Also, consider the following. There are some Jews who challenge the idea of Hashem as "loving" Israel/Jews in the following way.

If Hashem does love, like a human, why did he allow the holocaust to happen?​

​

The thinking here is that all "rational" humans who love their children would never a) hurt (in the extreme form) them on purpose or b) allow them to be hurt on purpose, irregardless of their actions. Thus, this is a claim that is made on one end of the spectrum. It posits a more finate reality where life and death are very much extremes opposed to each. It also posites that if a "god" is like a human then said "god" must function the way that the most rational humans do.​

Further, the reality is that any answer given in the range of human human emotions leads right into a philosophical debate about what rational humans do and don't do and how a "god" would have to act in the way that rational humans would. I.e. the human experience is imposed on said "god."

There is a particular type of Torath Mosheh response to this from the angle I come from, but it is also a difficult one and is just as philosophical.

Well, all those a very good points, however, they leave some of us wondering then if Hashem is uncaring, cold-hearted (in a figurative way since Hashem doesn't have emotions), and perhaps just very experimental with seeing the results of created beings that have free will.

 

[David Davidovich]

Not a plan, as you may understand one. More like an option that humans can chose if humanity wants it.

No different than how a human can chose to use nuclear power to create energy to power a city or to create a bomb to destroy a city. Humans at times chose one, the other, or both even when it is 100% illogical to create such a bomb.

But the $64,000 question that I've asked before in another incarnation already at Religious Forums is: Why in the world would perfect humans (albeit with free will) even choose the option to go against their own interest and disobey the Source of Reality? Because other than accepting that viewpoint on face value, upon further scrutiny, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Also, the two points that you made in your two paragraphs is like comparing apples to oranges because in your first paragraph, originally, the first pair of humans had a perfect start, however, in your second paragraph, we are talking about imperfect sinful humans whom you can expect would act selfishly and foolishly.

 

[David Davidovich]

You can hate it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a rational answer. If something has nothing controlling it and placing bounderies on what it can and can't do then it boils down to a choice. You may look for answer and find one that fits for you. You may look and never feel satisfied with what you find. At the end of the day only a concept of a god posits that said god must make things the way its followers think they want things.

If some created something and had/has complete freedom in what it will do then it is, "becaue it chose so." Besides, who is to say that if you were given an answer that you have the mental storage capacity to understand the answer? If your own personal storage capacity and A.I. advancement is less than 0.000000000000000000000001% of what is needed to understand the answer it would stand to reason that you may not be able to even understand the answer if it were given to you.

Okay... you got me. I'm speechless. lol But I do have to say that video was very entertaining.

 

[David Davidovich]

The fact that someone can define in English "love" as things that appear to contradict another person's definition means that love does not mean the same thing to any group of people. There are some people who think their view is the majority view on something and it can easily not be. Also, because humans can change the definitions of their languages and utterances on a whim the definitions can also change. And yes because langauges evolve sometimes in way that contradict previous generational logic everything has to be considered in the etymological history of a word.

Thus, a person who hurts themselves and others and claims to do so out of love is a valid point when claiming that love means love in every language.

For example:

Even though I wasn't able to make out everything that everyone said, from what I could make out is that what everyone was saying was in the same vein: that love was something caring, positive, and binding. Therefore, I didn't quite see all the variation that the video or yourself is referring to.

 

[David Davidovich]

Ehav4Ever said:
The answer to this is listed above, but I will state it like this. Because Hashem gave the Torah to the our ancestors at Mount Sinai by bringing them out of Egypt and gave us the abiliy to be in the land of Israel and because Hashem has, even in exile, kept the Jewish people in existance we say that because of all that we, as humans, perceive that as love. We also recognize that Hashem is beyond our perception, YET even with that being the case we can feel these emotions and using the langauge of humans apply that to Hashem ourselves.

I don't know what an "untruth" is. If something took place in history and is the reality then a person working with that is working through the factual truths.

Further to my point of people being a better example of A.I. or the computer and Hashem being the source of the hardward and software of humanity see the below.

AI and the Science of Consciousness: Exploring the Physical and Metaphysical Frontiers

I actually had to go back to recall what was said, but in looking back at your quote that I repsonded to that I added above, I'll have to rescind what I said about about TMJ and OJ operating on a level of untruth because I understand better what you were saying about how the Jewish people perceived Hashem's actions towards them as love.

Also, as far as the AI thing is concerned... okay, brother, I am with you on that one. Therefore, from this point on, just view my comparison of Hashem to AI as an error on my part.

 

[David Davidovich]

Just to correct you a bit here. Torah based Jews don't "beleive" in Hashem in the way you are mentioning. Torah based Jews know of Hashem's existance and available reality based on how the Torah was transmitted to our ancestors at Mount Sinai. (Mass revelation) Once that was done it is no longer a matter of us needing something to beleive.

It is like saying that I don't beleive in the 1985 Baseball World Series where the Kansas City Royals won. I know it is a fact becuase I around to witness it for myself. In 1,000 years my descendants and the descandants of everyone who experienced it know about it that is because all of us who experienced passed on that inforamtion of what we witnessed.

Hashem doesn't use, as you stated, fear, rage, and emotion concepts in order for the Jews to understand him and to believe in him. The stories in the Torah about human realities are there to gives Jews the ability to analyze past realities and our current realities to progress in a particular path. For most of humanity stories convey powerful messages the resonate throughout generations. Telling a story often envokes natural emotions and consideration in ways that lists often do not. This is why story telling is a popular and common human trait found in most human cultures.

I see.

 

[David Davidovich]

Here's smething actually scientific, not some marketing person doing a campaign. It actually addresses the linguistic differences cross cultures, cross languages of "love". Please try not to cherry pick out parts that support your idea. Among all the "untranslatable" words for love across cultures, parent-child love is universal.

Your attachment image or whatever it was turned out to be an "Oops!" Or at least it was for me.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Your attachment image or whatever it was turned out to be an "Oops!" Or at least it was for me.

Yeah, when they changed the site to the current format all pictures got deleted. I guess it is one of those things where you have to get in quick and see a post.

 

[David Davidovich]

Still the same answer. The A.I. doesn't get to define what created it. Especially if the A.I. is millions of magnitudes below what created it. Even the use of "intellegence" can be a problem since human intellegence is based on human standards. In the sense of A.I. that humans create the A.I. is not that far off from humanity. It is physically on our level thus are those who fear what A.I. can do if it went wrong.

Oh, no! AI again.

Actually it did. How can I describe to you what Hashem actually does when we are both bound by time? Basically, everything that you can see in the reality was established by Hashem. Thus, if you study natural sciences llike Chemistry, Geology, Physics, Mathematics, or Astronomy and Biological Sciences, like Biology, Botany, Zoology, Genetics, or Microbiology you are studying what "Hashem is actually doing."

Actually, I had to go all the way back to my post #65 on February 24th to see exactly what we were talking about, and what I meant by 'what is Hashem actually doing' was referring to what was his motivation. However, you have answered that already.

 

[David Davidovich]

Of course. That is the point of what we call Talmud Torah. How do you think Hebrew was preserved from thousands of years ago until the modern era.

Of course. Quite a bit of the Talmud is full of debates about every topic. There have even been what can considered debates between Jews of different generations. Debate is how we learn and how we challenge ideas for the sake of the Truth. This is something that is widely known about Torah based Jewish culture.

This is a long video and it is only in Hebrew, but you can skim through it. It is of a rabbi here in Israel that does presentations on the Torah and he allows people to ask questions, challenge him, debate him, etc. on any topic.

That's interesting. Thanks. Also, I know I probably shouldn't say this, but in some forms of worship (although, I'm not sure if Jews' interaction with Hashem is called worship), it is the worst kind of sin to ask questions or challenge what the leadership teaches them. But instead, it's total, unquestionable obedience to the doctrines, views, and teachings of their leadership... Very authoritarian.

 

[David Davidovich]

Yeah, when they changed the site to the current format all pictures got deleted. I guess it is one of those things where you have to get in quick and see a post.

So, even new images that originally show up end up getting deleted?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I see that we have an update to the forum, although, I'm still trying to figure out if I like it or not. But getting back to your quote above, I've been meaning to ask you how is that Torath Mosheh Jews believe that paradise is dependent upon humanity wanting it to happen? Because doesn't the principle at Ecclesiastes 1:15 apply to this situation?


Or in other words, isn't humankind too corrupt, damaged, and crooked to ever come to the point of 'desiring' a paradise for all of humankind?



Or in other words, doesn't the Hebrew text convey the idea that Hashem has to be the one who steps in and 'forcibly' brings an end to our current corrupt system of humankind and then replaces it with his heavenly kingdom reigning over earth?

I see. So, then if it's a generation of Israelis who make that choice, then how are they going to get the rest of corrupt, lying, cheating, and greedy humankind to go along with them? (Well, that took me forever to compose with the new software.)

Yeah, there are some advantages and disadvantages to the new format but who I am to say. It isn't my forum.

"Paradise" is not a good word to use. The reason is because it doesn't frame the concept of what Hashem gave mitzvoth for. A better "statement" would be "humanity at its optimal best." This includes the ability to make well thought out decisions, acting in the best of one's personal and communal interest, not destroying one's environment, and properly dealing with mistakes and failures.

In terms of Qoheleth (Eccle.) 1:15 you first have to understand what the book is about - meaning you have to read it from start to finish. The author, king Shelomo ben-Dawith, explains throughout the text what he is addressing. There is some context that I have seen lost in the translation. Especially when he addresses the Torah aspects of what he is talking about.

Essentially, think of it like this. If a Jew has not prepared hot food before Shabbat (Sabbath) to eat on Shabbat - once Shabbat has started he/she can't make hot food on Shabbat. The chance to do for that Shabbat has been lost. If a Jewish man has relations with a woman that is forbidden to from the Torah and he produces a child from it he can't go back and change what produced the child. If a Torah scholar decides to walk away from the Torah for 30 years he can't obviously go back and get those 30 years. What each person can do is improve their situation for the future. Yet, they can't change the past that has already happened.

In terms of getting the rest of humanity to come along. First, that is not the job of Israelis/Jews. I did a video discussing this. In short, if humanity sees an active and successful example of something that cannot be stopped, hindered, or destroyed most people would jump on board themselves. YET, remember there is no requirement at any time for the world to become Jewish. Most sources state that during the return of the Torah based nation and the Davidic King there won't be any conversions to the Torah.