For Torath Mosheh Jews Only: Who is Hashem?

[Ehav4Ever]

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.

I would say that it is a sin to not be able to challenge any form of wrong doing. Yet, there is always a protocal on how that should be done. One also has to be aware that wrong doing has actually been done and what the right approach is to get the offending party back on the right path. It is actually a mitzvah that Torah based Jews are required to correct other Torah based Jews who are transgressing the Torah. It is actually considered a transgression to not correct a fellow Jew who is on the wrong path. YET, it is also forbidden to do so in certain types of ways that cause pain or embaressment to the offending party UNLESS what they are doing is so bad that it a) brings a bad name to the Torah and b) if it puts others at risk or in danger.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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

Everything from before was deleted. I was able to go back to some of my previous emails from right before they did it and add them. Yet, everythig else appears to be gone.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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.

It can be but it doesn't explain why, for examples, in some cultures they do things that contradict what they claim love to be. Also, I once watched a video about someone who went to more natural living people and he explained that often he is working with 2 to 3 translators to get to point of communicating with said group and even then a lot of the concepts they spoke about were lost in the various translations.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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.

In terms of the $64,000 question. Look around. You have to remove the English word "sin" from the equation. There are a number of Hebrew words that are often translated as "sin" even though they all mean different things. Trangression or miss-step may be better. Also, we don't use the term "perfect humans" it is better just say humans.

Why would anyone sensible person do the following?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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.

With the words uncaring or cold-hearted, even figuratively, you run into the same problem with trying to define Hashem the way you would a human being.

For example, is a human being who provides you with the ability to be born, live, and thrive (no matter why they do it) defined as uncaring or cold-hearted? If the person receiving these abilities from said human had no contact with the giver to know what their emotions were when they gave these abilities - is the giver considered uncaring and cold-hearted? I would say that most people would not talk that way. They would be grateful for the "actions" that caused them to have the benefit - even if they don't know why/how/or the emotional state of the giver.

Normally, uncaring and cold-hearted (in English) is directed at people who:
1. Do not provide anything to anyone, including their own family.
2. Do not help people that are in need.
3. Act in a way where they can be physically witnessed as actively working against the interest of a fellow human.

For example, a person who saves 1,000 people and shows no physical emotion about it - no one is going to call that person uncaring or cold-hearted. They most likely would care less why he even did it or how he felt when he did it. Just the fact that he did it, and didn't have to, would make most people say. THANK YOU!!!!

Thus, even metaphorically the words "uncaring and cold-hearted" don't make sense when associated with something that:
1. Created a planet for humans to live on.
2. A planet that naturally has the ability to support humans for many generations.
3. The ability for food sources to exist in various locations.
4. Gives humans the mental faculties to survive said environment.
5. Gives humans the ability to choose to accept what they want to accept and reject what they want.

It would make more sense to simply say that anything/anyone that can do all of the above is beyond me, and I am thankful rather to say - well because the source of all these things is beyond me and therefore uncaring and cold-hearted. I don't, for example, use such terms for those who do nothing against my interests and who do nothing for me uncaring and cold-hearted thus to use the terms for something that has created the ability for me to have interests and gave me the ability to have something.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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.

Also, in terms of an experiment. That term can't be applicable for one simple reason. During an experiment the one doing the experiment is also affected by time. I.e. when you do an experiment the experimenter's existance within time is a part of the experiment and the interpretation of the results.

Hashem created time and is not affected by it or inside of it. Kind of like saying, metaphorically, universal past-present-future is all in front of Hashem. There is no division of the three and metaphorically you can say that Hashem is just as much in the past, as Hashem is in the present, as Hashem is in the future. Thus, one of the reasons that in this line of thinking you can say Hashem doesn't change. When Hashem created the universe, the giving of the Torah, my ancestry, my current situation, and my future were already a part of the equation. Hashem isn't progressing through time, like we do, thus this is not an experiment. Hashem doesn't need to see what the results of free will be. That would have already been known. In an experiment the one doing the experiment doesn't know the result and doesn't exist already at the result. Even if the experimenter knows 100% what the result will be they don't know 100% what it will be until they do it because, they don't exist outside of the time it takes to do the experiment and get the results. The experimenter also does not create time.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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.)

One important point. Your last statement is also a religious one. Torath Mosheh does not claim that the rest of humanity is "corrupt, lying, cheating and greedy," as you stated. A Torath Mosheh Jew can easily be all of those things. Each of us has to work on ourselves and there are tools for that.

 

[dybmh]

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

View attachment 72454
View attachment 72453

View attachment 72455
View attachment 72456

The english comments 1) are not part of the nusach, and 2) do not prohibit God from having emotions, nor from being our father nor from being our king, nor from acting with compassion, nor from loving us and the entire nation.

What does the nusach actually say? Well, Rambam gets a shout-out in the form of Yigdal at the beginning. But they don't say anything about HaShem not loving, not being our king, or not being our father. They formulate this concept in this way.

"אֵין לוֹ דְמוּת הַגּוּף וְאֵינוֹ גוּף"

Notice, they don't stop with HaShem being not similar to a body, they also include the inverse. That means nothing is excluded. That is how the nusach presents Rambam's assertion.

The nusach is designed as a process. The purpose is not to disconnect from HaShem which is what happens when a person focuses on transcendence. But, it's natural and normal for a person to be confronted with Hashem's transcendence during prayer. The nusach addresses this issue in a number of ways. The best example of this comes before the first Shema.

"Lord of all the worlds! Not on account of our righteousness do we offer our supplications before You, but on account of Your abundant mercy. What are we? What is our life? What are our acts of kindness? What is our righteousness? What is our deliverance? What is our strength? What is our might? What can we say before You, Adonoy, our God and God of our fathers? Are not all the mighty men as nothing before You? Famous men as though they had never been? The wise as if they were without knowledge? And men of understanding, as if they were devoid of intelligence? For most of their actions are a waste, and the days of their life are trivial in Your presence. The superiority of man over the beast is nil, for all is futile."

Notice, intelligence is not the highest virtue, it's just like all the other virtues. Also notice, if a person focuses too much on HaShem's transcendence, the result is nihilism, "... all is futile." That's the harm and danger in claiming that HaShem doesn't care, has no emotions, and is completely uneffected by what a person does. Then here is how the nusach answers this dilemma:

"However, we are Your people, children of Your covenant, children of Avraham, Your beloved, to whom You swore on Mount Moriah; the seed of Yitzchak, his only son, who was bound on top of the altar; the community of Yaakov, Your firstborn, [whom]—because of Your love for him and Your joyous delight in him— You named him Yisrael and Yeshurun"

We are your people. Because of HaShem's love for Abraham, because of HaShem's love and delight in Jacob...

"Therefore, we are obligated to thank You, to praise You, and to glorify You; to bless, to sanctify, and to offer praise and thanks to Your Name. We are fortunate! How good is our portion! How pleasant is our destiny! How beautiful is our heritage! We are fortunate that we rise early and stay late - morning and evening - and twice daily say:"

Notice, the justification for an insignificant being supplicating in prayer comes from HaShem's love and delight. Without that, there is no purpose, no reason for doing anything in the nusach. Without this, it is all futile. That's what the nusach ( liturgy ) says.

---------------------------------------------------------

Yes, we have covered this before in this way: bringing Rambam to prove Rambam isn't helpful. Also, it's been covered already that the assertion that globally God doesn't change is taking verses out of context. There are more than a few examples of God changing and being effected by human actions in Torah. Which is why commentators do not apply the verse from Malachi globally. All that's left is a logical claim made by the Greek philosophers, but that claim when applied to emotions doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I brought the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy to show that. Immutable (not changing) does not equal impassible (without emotions). It doesn't even imply impassible, but they acknowledge that many people make this mistake.

 

[dybmh]

View attachment 72472
View attachment 72473

View attachment 72474

Again, I urge the non-Hebrew readers not to be fooled by this post. This is a refutation of Rambam's claim that God cannot experience emotions because God doesn't change. It doesn't support the Rambam, it refutes the Rambam. I posted this exact same quote in post#59.

To summarize, this is from the Baal Shem Tov the founder of Chassidic Judaism. The Baal Shem Tov is commenting and saying the Rishonim, which includes the Rambam, struggled with this notion that God doesn't change. But the Baal Shem Tov disuptes this, he says, God is the "master of change". Then he goes on to say that God's will doesn't change, but God's will can overpower God's knowledge which allows for flaws and improvements. This same logic permits HaShem being effected by human actions, and thus becoming angry or pleased.

 

[dybmh]

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

View attachment 72475
View attachment 72477

View attachment 72479

View attachment 72478

Yes, we definitely learn Rambam. The Guide for the perplexed is not part of that. We go to Chabad mussar for that.

The Rambam's guide is addressing a specific type of person with a specific type of problem. And when it comes to this idea that HaShem is completely transcendent, we reject that.

Here's what Chabad teaches about having a personal relationship with HaShem. Notice, they invoke Psalms 94 which claims this notion of limiting HaShem's capabilities is ignorant and foolish.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3244/jewish/Getting-Personal-With-G-d.htm

"The ancients put it rhetorically (Psalms 94:4): "The One who set the ear doesn't hear? He who formed the eye doesn't see? He teaches Man knowledge and He doesn't know?" So too, we can ask, "The One who breathed love and compassion into the human heart — doesn't He also know such things?

"Yes, in a way far beyond our way — since we are talking of the primal source of these emotions. "As the heavens are high above the earth," the prophet says, "so My ways are beyond your ways." And yes, He Himself is in essence far transcendent even of those emotive powers. But, nevertheless, He chose to be expressed in those forms, and to relate to us little beings in that way. And that is how we relate to Him.

It gets extremely complicated, but, if you read the document, you'll see this:

"As it turns out, the supernal emotive powers are the fundamental fabric of all things. And their most comprehensive expression within the entire cosmos is the fathomless depth of the human heart."

And yes, I understand, if someone is locked into a purely intellectual frame of reference will find this off-putting. But, this is how Chabad describes reality.

 

[dybmh]

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.

I'm not saying physical. But I'm glad you mentioned it this way. I'm saying there is something relatable, there is some sameness. If it was physical, there wouldn't need to be any sameness at all. However, because, God is not physical, there must be something that a person can adhere to or follow in another way or else actual cleaving would be impossible? Yes, there is the law, but Torah is more than law? It's also a collected experience of God interacting with the Jewish people and the material world?

It seems you are putting thoughts into the Rambam’s mouth and drawing erroneous conclusions.

OK. I'm not too proud to admit that this is a fair comment. I read it differently, but maybe I'm being over zealous. Perhaps we can step back from what I think Rambam is saying, and ask the question differently?

Do you think that Torah is describing a god which is without emotion and doesn't care about human affairs?

Deut is, indeed, the basis for this

OK. Thank you so much for all of those references, I see the connection now to the verse.

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

Well, for me personally, I would not trust myself to react as needed in the moment if it ever happened based on love. But, at least at this point I understand where the law is coming from.

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's not supposing, it's asking if it's possible to understand and standardize. And in order to do that, it's taking the most difficult words, cross culture, cross language and analyzing them. If these untranslatable words resolve into something standardized, how much more so for words for love which are translatable. Love in english is an umbrella term? It seems like ahava in biblical Hebrew is an umbrella term? The both seem to include all the same things even the element of self-sacrifice.

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”?

It's nurturing and a deep connection. Not one or the other but both. It's a connection so deep that the parent can vicariously experience what the child experiences.

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.

Well, You've told me repeatedly that there is nothing in Torah that equates to "liking" someone or something. It seems to me with all the words I've brought the Torah could describe liking someone or something if it wanted to. For example, I don't see how something being "pleasant in its eyes" wouldn't work. But, zooming out, the point you were making is that without this equivilent word for "liking" in biblical Hebrew, that shows that love is not love in any language, because, at least in biblical Hebrew, ahava could be "liking"?

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.

It wasn't an issue for me of later commentators reading the verse this way, I was curious whether or not the Talmud made the direct connection. And I was missing the link between Rashi's comment in Hebrew and the english which appeared to have been added on to it.

 

[rosends]

I'm not saying physical. But I'm glad you mentioned it this way. I'm saying there is something relatable, there is some sameness. If it was physical, there wouldn't need to be any sameness at all. However, because, God is not physical, there must be something that a person can adhere to or follow in another way or else actual cleaving would be impossible? Yes, there is the law, but Torah is more than law? It's also a collected experience of God interacting with the Jewish people and the material world?

The text uses human language so we can see things in a relatable fashion. It also applies that human language to God so we can relate. That doesn't change God's nature but allows us to make a connection

Do you think that Torah is describing a god which is without emotion and doesn't care about human affairs?

I think you have 2 separate questions here:
1. Is God without emotions? Yes, in the sense that we, humans, understand emotions, God is not human, so God is not "of" human-conceived emotions.
2. Does God care about human affairs? God doesn't "care" in the human sense because, again, human language constructs don't capture God. But if use the human-limited idea, then God does "care" about all the world and everything in it.

Well, for me personally, I would not trust myself to react as needed in the moment if it ever happened based on love. But, at least at this point I understand where the law is coming from.

And I don't think I would be willing to offer my son as a sacrifice. I'm glad God asked someone better than I am. Judaism teaches, though, that we do things from a balanced position of ahava ("love" whatever that means) and yir'ah (awe, often connected to "fear" but not exactly fear).

Love in english is an umbrella term? It seems like ahava in biblical Hebrew is an umbrella term? The both seem to include all the same things even the element of self-sacrifice.

The supposing is the assumption that when two people, both native speakers, use the word "love" with each other, they both know the exact meaning and parameters that the other is endorsing. I am reminded of the phrase "I like you but I don't [bold]like[/bold] like you". Miscommunication happens between English speakers because the unique fields of experience make words encoded from a personal and, to some degree, unshared vantage point, so the decoding will fall short. We lack the language of the mind that communicates precisely.

And, yes, both are umbrella terms but since, for example, as Hebrew has no word for "like" as opposed to "love" the umbrella has to include things in it that wouldn't be included in the English term "love." Therefore the words cannot be slotted for each other because their meanings, while they overlap, have areas of non-overlapping.

It's nurturing and a deep connection. Not one or the other but both. It's a connection so deep that the parent can vicariously experience what the child experiences.

I don't think that every parent in every day and age would agree that that is what parent-child love is. Some would say it is all about worry, others about strictness and emotional distance, not closeness. My experience as a parent is different from someone else's and what I do to express "love" might fall well outside of someone else's idea of parent-child love. Others might be criminally close to the child and still believe that their actions are sincere parent-child love.

Well, You've told me repeatedly that there is nothing in Torah that equates to "liking" someone or something.

What I said is that there is no word in biblical Hebrew for "like", so the level of emotional investment that we equate with liking has to be inferred or seen as a level of "ahava" (which it wouldn't be in the English equivalent).

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Yes, we definitely learn Rambam. The Guide for the perplexed is not part of that. We go to Chabad mussar for that.

View attachment 72534

The Rambam's guide is addressing a specific type of person with a specific type of problem. And when it comes to this idea that HaShem is completely transcendent, we reject that.

Here's what Chabad teaches about having a personal relationship with HaShem. Notice, they invoke Psalms 94 which claims this notion of limiting HaShem's capabilities is ignorant and foolish.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3244/jewish/Getting-Personal-With-G-d.htm

"The ancients put it rhetorically (Psalms 94:4): "The One who set the ear doesn't hear? He who formed the eye doesn't see? He teaches Man knowledge and He doesn't know?" So too, we can ask, "The One who breathed love and compassion into the human heart — doesn't He also know such things?

"Yes, in a way far beyond our way — since we are talking of the primal source of these emotions. "As the heavens are high above the earth," the prophet says, "so My ways are beyond your ways." And yes, He Himself is in essence far transcendent even of those emotive powers. But, nevertheless, He chose to be expressed in those forms, and to relate to us little beings in that way. And that is how we relate to Him.

It gets extremely complicated, but, if you read the document, you'll see this:

"As it turns out, the supernal emotive powers are the fundamental fabric of all things. And their most comprehensive expression within the entire cosmos is the fathomless depth of the human heart."

And yes, I understand, if someone is locked into a purely intellectual frame of reference will find this off-putting. But, this is how Chabad describes reality.

Yes, and Mishnah Torah contains the some of the same information. If what you were stating were true it would make no sense for Chabad to learn even from the Mishnah Torah.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The english comments 1) are not part of the nusach, and 2) do not prohibit God from having emotions, nor from being our father nor from being our king, nor from acting with compassion, nor from loving us and the entire nation.

I never wrote it was a part of the Nusah. If what you were saying were true nothing that the Rambam wrote or influenced would not be included in the Artscroll siddur at all. Especially not something that is refrencing clear statements that the Rambam wrote that you say aren't Torath Mosheh.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, and Mishnah Torah contains the some of the same information. If what you were stating were true it would make no sense for Chabad to learn even from the Mishnah Torah.

What am I stating that is not true?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

In terms of anyone who does not understand Hebrew and doesn't know the history of what is being discussed. Here are some varying views of some of the topics.

You can decide for yourself.

There is a video in this link that is very good in discussing one of the text being discussed "Guide to the Perplexed." The speaker in the video is Rabbi Immanuel Schochet z"l. I suggest to watch the video from start to finish.

https://www.chabad.org/multimedia/video_cdo/aid/1027635/jewish/Guide-for-the-Perplexed.htm

 

[dybmh]

I never wrote it was a part of the Nusah. If what you were saying were true nothing that the Rambam wrote or influenced would not be included in the Artscroll siddur at all. Especially not something that is refrencing clear statements that the Rambam wrote that you say aren't Torath Mosheh.

It's included but not applied in an extreme one-sided manner.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The following should also be helpful.
Again, the speaker in the video is Rabbi Immanuel Schochet z"l. I suggest to watch the video from start to finish.

https://www.chabad.org/multimedia/video_cdo/aid/1027640/jewish/Maimonidean-Controversy.htm

 

[Ehav4Ever]

It's included but not applied in an extreme one-sided manner.

Why include it at all IF what you have stated is the case? Besides, accepted something in a so called "extreme" manner means that one is not willing to address that there are other views that may be valid, as long as they meet the logic needed for them to be valid.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

What am I stating that is not true?

Not what you stated that is not true. If what you stated in post #5 and #21 were true. Different statements and different claims. I am making the second point.