Sunday, March 12, 2017
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Chava is a Person
Consider Genesis 3:17, when God issues punishments for the incident of the Tree of Knowledge, Good and Bad:
בראשית ג:יז
"וּלְאָדָם אָמַר, כִּי-שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ..."
3:17 “And to Adam (the Man or Mankind) [God] said: Because you listened to the voice of your wife…”
Why is the first thing God mentions listening to Adam’s wife? Why is listening to his wife singled out, seemingly as a thing bad unto itself?
To answer this, we must go back to an earlier verse:
בראשית ב:כג
וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת.
2:23: Said Adam “This time it is bone from my bone, and flesh from my flesh; therefore [her name is ] to be called Woman [‘man’ (ish) + suffix denoting ‘to’/’towards’/’of’ (ah)], for from man was taken this”.
This gives us an answer: Initially, Adam does not see his wife as person. Rather, he sees her as from or of his flesh and bones, rather than as an equal aside from himself, like his flesh and bones (and tellingly excluding the just-stated distinguishing characteristic of humanity entirely a mind, a soul, like his own) – he sees her as an extension of himself, with no separate personhood. Adam does not even think of her as a being – he even calls her ‘it’, not ‘her’ ( זאתbut not היא). This is the ultimate cause of the incident with the Tree.
Since Adam sees his wife as like his own hand or foot – having neither a mind nor a will, he does not even think to truly converse with her. He gives her a command as if he was thinking to himself “Hand – do not touch that!”. When she offers him the fruit of the Tree, he questions her as much as one would question the actions of one’s own leg – not at all. Thus, tragedy occurs.
This is why God says “the voice of your wife” – you listened to her voice but not to her. God leads off with this as it was the ultimate cause of everything else.
Finally, after this, we see that Adam learns from his error and mends his ways:
בראשית ג:כ
וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ, חַוָּה: כִּי הִוא הָיְתָה, אֵם כָּל-חָי
Called Adam the name of his wife ‘Chava’, for she was the mother of all living.
In the end, Adam recognizes her as person (uses pronoun ‘her’ rather than ‘it’), with her own:
· Mind: Adam does not speak about her as if she is not there, instead we have the standard formula used throughout Tanach when someone is given a name of “Called [namer] [pronoun] name [name], because [reasons]).
· Soul: Additional word “was” added, when the sentence could have been written without it, which would imply present-tense “is”, with the verse as a whole parsing as “Called Adam the name of his wife ‘Chava, For she is the mother of all living’”, with the present-tense being inside a quote of Adam’s words. Therefore, the additional switch to past tense comes to teach us that in addition to her being ‘mother of all living’ – the only thing Adam had seen her as originally – Chava, and all of us also has the ability to grow into so much more.
Symbolism of the Aron
What is the symbolism of the Aron HaKodesh?
What is the form of the Aron? It is a wooden box encased in pure gold on the inside and the outside, two keruvim statues (generally understood to be some kind of humaniform depiction of an 'angel') facing each other poised atop the cover. Inside it we placed the cubes of stone inscribed with the Ten Utterances, and beside it or on top of it was kept a Torah scroll written by Moshe, a jar of the manna from the desert journey, and the staff of Aharon.
What does the wood represent? The wood represents endless growth and change, just as a tree grows all its life. To stop growing is to die. To change is to live. So too, our relationship with God, our beliefs and our very beings, must always be growing and changing - to be changeless is to die.
What does the pure gold represent? Gold, a noble metal, represents changelessness and perfection, absolute axiomatic truth.
What does the gold coating the wood represent? That neither unconstrained change nor eternal stasis are acceptable. The change is guided by the coat of gold, and the gold, a soft and weak metal, bends and shapes itself to the ever-changing wood inside it.
What do the keruvim represent? They represent the way past the keruvim that "guard the way to the Tree of Life" with "swords of fire" (Genesis 3:24). The Aron and its accompaniments are the devices by which we, humanity, reenter the Garden and gain eternal life, the keruvim sheathing their swords and forming an archway to bring us in.
Thus, only by changing, bounded by only the axioms of the Torah, can we live. Only by living within the axioms of the Torah are we preserved from decay and death, eternal oblivion.
Exactly when we abide by this - rejecting both the ossification of tradition and the rejection of our axioms, when we hold the covenants with God within us, His Words by our sides - then there is no limit on our potential, then can we claim the Tree of Life.
What is the form of the Aron? It is a wooden box encased in pure gold on the inside and the outside, two keruvim statues (generally understood to be some kind of humaniform depiction of an 'angel') facing each other poised atop the cover. Inside it we placed the cubes of stone inscribed with the Ten Utterances, and beside it or on top of it was kept a Torah scroll written by Moshe, a jar of the manna from the desert journey, and the staff of Aharon.
What does the wood represent? The wood represents endless growth and change, just as a tree grows all its life. To stop growing is to die. To change is to live. So too, our relationship with God, our beliefs and our very beings, must always be growing and changing - to be changeless is to die.
What does the pure gold represent? Gold, a noble metal, represents changelessness and perfection, absolute axiomatic truth.
What does the gold coating the wood represent? That neither unconstrained change nor eternal stasis are acceptable. The change is guided by the coat of gold, and the gold, a soft and weak metal, bends and shapes itself to the ever-changing wood inside it.
What do the keruvim represent? They represent the way past the keruvim that "guard the way to the Tree of Life" with "swords of fire" (Genesis 3:24). The Aron and its accompaniments are the devices by which we, humanity, reenter the Garden and gain eternal life, the keruvim sheathing their swords and forming an archway to bring us in.
Thus, only by changing, bounded by only the axioms of the Torah, can we live. Only by living within the axioms of the Torah are we preserved from decay and death, eternal oblivion.
Exactly when we abide by this - rejecting both the ossification of tradition and the rejection of our axioms, when we hold the covenants with God within us, His Words by our sides - then there is no limit on our potential, then can we claim the Tree of Life.
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
The Doubled Exile from Gan Eden (Addendum to The Tree, The Naming, and Eyzer k'negdo)
Genesis 3:22-24
22: Said Hashem-Elokim: Behold! Mankind has [become] like One Amongst Us*, knowing good and bad; now lest he send his out hand, and take also from the Tree of [knowledge of eternal] Life, and consume, living forever.
23: Thus, Hashem-Elokim sent them out, from the Garden of Eden; to work the soil from which he was taken from there.
24: He drove out Mankind; and he established, from Eastward to Gan Eden, the Keruvim, and the flaming overturning sword, to guard the way to the Tree of [knowledge of eternal] Life.
Why is the exile of Mankind from Gan Eden stated twice?
A close examination of the wording reveals an answer: The sending out in 3:23 is the sending out of an agent to accomplish a task - to work the soil.
However, we do not see Mankind then going out of the Garden of his own will and doing so!
I conjecture that in the 'original plan', Mankind was to be sent out to work the soil after having eaten of every tree, ending with the Tree of Knowledge, Good and Bad*.
Having jumped the gun, God gives them the option of beginning their mission, to prove themselves capable of not now subverting the mission.
By refusing the great charge, Mankind denies itself the only route to societal growth left available to it.
Thus, God has no choice but to banish Mankind from the Garden, lest he stagnate and 'consume living forever' - in other words, be only a devourer of the world, and not a builder thereof.
We had proven ourselves not able to be trusted with that power.
A primary consequence of the beginning of the success of the ongoing mission of Am Yisrael to be a light unto the nations is that Mankind regains the ability to safely reenter Gan Eden, and eat of its knowledge. This is why the Aron HaBrit is topped by two unarmed Keruvim, their wings arching towards each other - it is symbolic of those guards now granting Mankind entry, through an open gate!
* See The Tree, The Naming, and Eyzer k'negdo (http://toratmatematica.blogspot.com/2016/03/thefollowing-what-was-original-timeline.html)
22: Said Hashem-Elokim: Behold! Mankind has [become] like One Amongst Us*, knowing good and bad; now lest he send his out hand, and take also from the Tree of [knowledge of eternal] Life, and consume, living forever.
23: Thus, Hashem-Elokim sent them out, from the Garden of Eden; to work the soil from which he was taken from there.
24: He drove out Mankind; and he established, from Eastward to Gan Eden, the Keruvim, and the flaming overturning sword, to guard the way to the Tree of [knowledge of eternal] Life.
Why is the exile of Mankind from Gan Eden stated twice?
A close examination of the wording reveals an answer: The sending out in 3:23 is the sending out of an agent to accomplish a task - to work the soil.
However, we do not see Mankind then going out of the Garden of his own will and doing so!
I conjecture that in the 'original plan', Mankind was to be sent out to work the soil after having eaten of every tree, ending with the Tree of Knowledge, Good and Bad*.
Having jumped the gun, God gives them the option of beginning their mission, to prove themselves capable of not now subverting the mission.
By refusing the great charge, Mankind denies itself the only route to societal growth left available to it.
Thus, God has no choice but to banish Mankind from the Garden, lest he stagnate and 'consume living forever' - in other words, be only a devourer of the world, and not a builder thereof.
We had proven ourselves not able to be trusted with that power.
A primary consequence of the beginning of the success of the ongoing mission of Am Yisrael to be a light unto the nations is that Mankind regains the ability to safely reenter Gan Eden, and eat of its knowledge. This is why the Aron HaBrit is topped by two unarmed Keruvim, their wings arching towards each other - it is symbolic of those guards now granting Mankind entry, through an open gate!
* See The Tree, The Naming, and Eyzer k'negdo (http://toratmatematica.blogspot.com/2016/03/thefollowing-what-was-original-timeline.html)
Sunday, October 23, 2016
A meaning of Shmini Atzeret - 22/7
What is symbolized by the juxtaposition of Shmini Atzeret and Succot?
For seven days, we dwell in nature. By night, we gaze upwards at the stars, the grandeur of the Universe that we can see with our own unaided eyes. By day, we see the plants and creatures, the beauty of Nature.
Through these, we gain an awe and closeness to God.
However, relationship predicated merely on blind, unknowing awe is as flimsy and weak as the booth we are dwelling in.
Therefor, on the Eighth Day, the 22nd Day of the 7th Month, the Pi Day of God - symbolizing the exact and perfect truth of Mathematics, the Language with which God wrote the Universe - and the vehicle by which we can see the Face of God.
Thus, we take the flimsy awe of Succot and place within it the structure built of Math, creating a firm and sturdy relationship, not of slave and master, not just of child and parent - but student and teacher.
Thus, we take the flimsy awe of Succot and place within it the structure built of Math, creating a firm and sturdy relationship, not of slave and master, not just of child and parent - but student and teacher.
May all of humanity merit to dwell in the House of the Lord, learning Mathematics and Torah together all of our days.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
A Thought on Newton's Source for his Differentiation Notation
Consider
Sir Isaac Newton's notation for derivatives[1]:
It occurred to me that Newton might
have chosen this notation for the following reason:
Newton
was an avid student of biblical studies and mysticism. He was fluent in Hebrew
and Aramaic, and seems to have had at least passable knowledge of Arabic, based
on that there are manuscripts with portions of the Rambam’s works, translated into
Latin, by his own hand[2].
He
produced a large body of works, containing his thoughts on a large number of
matters, citing many familiar sources, such as Rashi and the ibn Ezra. From the
selections discussed in footnote 2, he seems to have been familiar with Moreh
Nevuchim, and professed a philosophy for himself very much along those lines.
Newton
was therefore almost certainly familiar with the dot notation of the Tanach –
that some letters are at some points written with dots over them, indicating
that there is a secondary meaning, that word being also parsable with that
letter deleted. I suspect that Newton might have found it pleasing to use that
ancient notation for his own work.
I
think that Newton might have found it particularly pleasing to do so, as in
Moreh Nevuchim, the Rambam seems to be… uncomfortable with the mystical
concepts that are associated with the planetary spheres in Aristotelian
cosmology[3]. The painful
need for the Rambam’s intellectual acrobatics around that is eliminated by
Newton’s gravity and the consequences thereof[4].
Sunday, May 8, 2016
The Covenant of Wonders
A question that has drawn my
attention for some time:
שמות לד:י
וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי כֹּרֵת בְּרִית, נֶגֶד כָּל-עַמְּךָ אֶעֱשֶׂה נִפְלָאֹת, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-נִבְרְאוּ בְכָל-הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל-הַגּוֹיִם; וְרָאָה כָל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-אַתָּה בְקִרְבּוֹ אֶת-מַעֲשֵׂה יְהוָה, כִּי-נוֹרָא הוּא, אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי, עֹשֶׂה עִמָּךְ
Sh’mot (Exodus) 34:10
[Translation, initial understanding]:
He
[God] said: “Behold, I, enact a covenant: in the presence of your entire nation:
I will make wonders that were never created[1] in
all the lands, nor in any of the peoples – It will see, the entire nation - that you [Moshe] are amongst, the makings of
God - for He is Incredible – that I do for you.
What
bothered me was this: Covenants, both in the world at large as well as those
between God and Israel, always have some obligations on each party, or at least
a symbolic gesture to ratify the agreement. It is exceedingly odd for there to
be a covenant unilateral in both ratification and clause.
I
came across some statements of the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim[2]
wherein he comments on the two requests Moshe makes of God earlier on in their
discussion[3]:
"Make know to me Your Ways" אֶת-דְּרָכֶךָ הוֹדִעֵנִי נָא
"Show me Your Glory" הַרְאֵנִי נָא אֶת-כְּבֹדֶךָ
The Rambam states that the former statement is a request to understand Nature, the physical universe (i.e. laws of physics),
and the latter is a request to ascend to understand God’s perception and
reasoning for the Universe in its entirety, which the Rambam understands to be
equivalent to being God (or at least not being a possibility without
being Him in the first place).
In
response to the latter request, God tells Moshe that he cannot do so – which
makes perfect sense to we who understand the vastness of the cosmos – to see in
the greatest detail the state of the entire universe, Moshe would need a brain
with at least the number of particles in the universe – he literally cannot do
this thing and exist in the universe as he is! Given this, an argument could be
advanced that the issue with the request of Moshe is not that there is a theological
issue, but a practical physical impossibility.
To
the former – the Rambam states that God granted his request. But, according
to the Rambam: Where does God give over this knowledge? Why does Moshe not
teach it? Why did the Industrial Revolution, the age of Science, not start from
that moment?
This can be answered by understanding the
Pasuk in a different way:
He
[God] said: “Behold, I, enact a covenant: in the presence of your entire nation:
I will do wonders that were never created in all the lands, nor in any of the
peoples – all the people[s] will see- that you [The Nation of Israel, singular denoting unity] are amongst, the doings
of God - for He is Incredible – that I do with you [The Nation of Israel].
עִמָּךְ is
not ‘for you’, it is ‘with you’! That single word changes the
entire covenant! This covenant
is a promise that God will do these things with us – that we, the Nation of
Israel, will have the privilege of being amongst the forefront of humanity as we
build the glorious future by the light of our minds, by the skill of our hands –
and we will feel the touch of the hand of God on our works. This is a covenant we have merited to see fulfilled for the first time - that we continue to fulfill - in the last centuries!
Thus,
this is a promise from God to his beloved Nation of Israel, that whenever they accept
upon themselves the Great Mission to delve into the workings of universe, to perceive
its beauty, to give names to its components – God will be with them, delighting
in the discoveries of His Children[4] – and
that by these discoveries, humanity will attain the capacity to create new
wonders[5], in
full realization of our Tzelem Elokim.
[1] It is
very interesting to note that the root ברא,
here translated as ‘create’ always denotes a truly new or unique creation (ex
nihilo). A promise of such in the future is a very big deal, especially in
light of the first-order understandings of ‘nothing new under the sun’.
[2]Moreh
Nevuchim, 1:54, as explained in Maimonides and the Book that Changed Judaism,
by Micah Goodman.
[3] Fragments
of Sh’mot: 33:13 and 33:18, respectively.
[4] See
“The Tree, The Naming, and Eyzer k’negdo”
[5] Including
a way around the Big Whimper, I hope.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
The Tree, The Naming, and Eyzer k'negdo
Consider the
following: What was the original timeline God intended for Mankind? In other
words, had Adam and Chava not acted incorrectly with regard to the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil-“ עֵץ הַדַּעַת
טוֹב וָרָע”, what was supposed to happen next? Note
that this question holds whether one understands this section to be partly or
wholly allegorical. For example, Adam can be read as either a historical person,
or as the archetype of Mankind (which is at least somewhat supported by Adam
being called “the Adam” throughout).
First, let us
consider the possible meaning of the ancient-Hebrew phrase. It could be better
translated (including an attempt to reorder constructs into their equivalent
English forms) as Knowledge-Tree that is Good and Bad. It is important
to note that “רָע” can mean negative
utility as opposed to literal evil. Similarly, “טוֹב” can mean the non-moral-spectrum good. Additionally, the
conjunctive “ו” is often used for or as well as and
in the Torah. One could also read this, using brackets to indicate
application of adjectives, as the Tree of [Knowledge that is (Good or Bad)].
Note that “דַּעַת” means specifically experiential
knowledge.
Question: What is this? What experiential knowledge
is gained by eating the fruit of this tree?
Second, let us
consider the first command given from God to Adam:
1.
2:16-17
a.
טז וַיְצַו
יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר:
מִכֹּל עֵץ-הַגָּן, אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל.
יז וּמֵעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע--לֹא תֹאכַל, מִמֶּנּוּ: כִּי, בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ--מוֹת תָּמוּת.
b.
16: God [duplex name, mercy &
judgment together] commanded, upon-Adam saying: “From all the
trees-of-the-garden, you MUST eat. 17: “And from the Tree of Knowledge that is
Good and/or Bad: do not eat, from it; as on that day of your eating from it;
you WILL die.
A brief digression to ensure we are all on the same page: The notes
according to which the Torah is chanted when it is read in public serve a
practical purpose: punctuation. Various notes are either disjunctive or conjunctive
to varying strengths (for example, consider the difference between a comma,
apostrophe, and parentheses Very often, much information can be unpacked by paying close
attention to oddly placed punctuation that might not be apparent from standard
translations.
The Ri haKadosh, in the Shem Shel Shmuel, claims that based on this
punctuation of these verses, which I have attempted to preserve in my above
translation, the prohibition of eating from the Tree of Knowledge only applied
on exactly that day.
Additionally, the word ‘וַיְצַו’
is understood to be used to indicate a command of God that is applicable for
all generations[1].
Question: Why would it only apply to that day? Why is there an
implication that this commandment is directed at all of humanity, for all time?
Thirdly, immediately following the above:
יח וַיֹּאמֶר
יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר,
כְּנֶגְדּוֹ. יט וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים
מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיָּבֵא
אֶל-הָאָדָם, לִרְאוֹת מַה-יִּקְרָא-לוֹ; וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא-לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ
חַיָּה, הוּא שְׁמוֹ. כ וַיִּקְרָא
הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת, לְכָל-הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּלְכֹל, חַיַּת
הַשָּׂדֶה; וּלְאָדָם, לֹא-מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ. .
18: Said God[name of mercy-name of judgment]: It is not good for
the Adam to be by/for himself; I will make for him a compatriot-in-task, as his
counterpart. 19: Formed God[name of mercy-name of judgment] from the earth/soil:
all the wild animals of the field and all the birds of the skies; and He
brought them to-the-Adam, to see what he would call them; and
all-that-was-called-to [by] the Adam; living beings – that was its name. [line
break] 20: Named the-Man names, to-all-the-animals and the birds of the skies,
and-to-all, the wild animals of the field; but [lit. and] the Man did
not find a compatriot-in-task, as his counterpart.
Question: What is
the purpose of the naming of the animals? Why does it interrupt the narrative
of Chava’s creation?
Perhaps, the
original – and ongoing – mission of Mankind is encapsulated by this naming –exploring
the Universe, seeing its beauty and wonder, and naming its structures and all
the creatures that dwell within them. Why? God created us in his image –
“בְּצַלְמוֹ”. The Rambam states in his Guide for the Perplexed that צלם means the essence of
the being, the essential properties that make the being what it is. According
to the Rambam, God created us to ourselves be creators – our mission is to join
Him in creating Creation. Consider: God names exactly five things – Day, Night,
Heavens, Land, and Sea. Everything else was left for the Adam, and his
descendants, to name – and God tells us: “everything the Adam named – that was
its name” God approved[2].
But, the Adam,
aware of the immensity of the task, despairs – how can he, but one man, in one
small lifetime, name all things, see all sights, explore an entire Universe?
This is why he now searches for a partner, a mate – he realizes that this is
not a task he can accomplish alone.
Finally, I
conjecture that the other trees of the Garden of Eden, which Adam was commanded
in the strongest terms to eat of, are trees of various other knowledges – the
Tree of Knowledge [that is] Good & Bad is representative of the knowledge that
Mankind, and each individual, needs maturity to wield without causing great
harm[3]. The
other trees of the Garden represent those things that Mankind can learn without
danger – and those that must be internalized prior to ingesting the knowledge
that could destroy Mankind– or his world.
The entire Garden of Eden is thus not be merely written and passed
to us a tale of an error of our distant ancestors, but as an eternal warning to
their descendants - us - a warning we today
understand all too well. Today, never before has our mission been so firmly
within grasp – and never before have we been so able to destroy it. We can
build the future God desires for His children, so long as we do not drive
ourselves out once again.
May we act with these in mind always, and build eternally amongst
the stars.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
On conceptualizing the degree of the Presence of God
With regard to the shechina - the "Divine Presence of God, I have noticed that some grapple with the concept of how God can be more or less present in a given place or time.
A scalar field is a function that assigns a value to every point in space. One way to picture an approximation of this is to imagine a three dimensional grid overlaying the scene in your mind's eye, and place a small LED at each juncture of the lines of the grid. The larger values of the function can be indicated by a brighter light.
To extend this visualization to the shechina, one can identify the degree of the presence of God with the intensity of the light in the above visualization.
However, I have not discerned a satisfactory interpretation of this model with regard to the underlying theological question - of what God being more or less present means - or if it a thing entirely internal, not having an existence in our Universe at all.
A scalar field is a function that assigns a value to every point in space. One way to picture an approximation of this is to imagine a three dimensional grid overlaying the scene in your mind's eye, and place a small LED at each juncture of the lines of the grid. The larger values of the function can be indicated by a brighter light.
To extend this visualization to the shechina, one can identify the degree of the presence of God with the intensity of the light in the above visualization.
However, I have not discerned a satisfactory interpretation of this model with regard to the underlying theological question - of what God being more or less present means - or if it a thing entirely internal, not having an existence in our Universe at all.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Axioms of Torah
Within Judaism, there are matters of belief and practice. For each smallest question, there tend to be many, many answers. However, there are some statements that can be whittled down to the point that there exists only one formulation that is consistent with Judaism - if that statement is rejected, then the whole system fails (such as the 'exactly one God exists' - any negation of that statement is not consistent with Judaism). However, there are other statements on which there exist multiple 'kosher' positions (almost any detail of almost any thing... although some would disagree).
Similarly, as Rav Kook notes in his discussion of Science & Torah, in particular in I:134 of אגרות הראיה (the 2nd of a series of three on this subject) - The Rambam sets out a relatable dichotomy - that Tanach includes language (i.e. metaphors such as 'the hand of God') and laws that are not 'intrinsic' to the nature of God, or the Godly state to which we strive. Rather, these things are included because they are necessary to achieve God's goals - we, mankind, need these things both to uplift ourselves to the level to enact those goals, as well as to be vehicles to deliver these concepts into our minds as they are.
We can imagine alternate scenarios, histories that might have been, where God would have communicated some things differently, and some things different. For example, if our species had come to be with four arms instead of two, or a secondary heart located elsewhere in our bodies, the verses describing the mitzvah of Tefi would have had some differences, to accommodate that different physiology. Had Avraham said "Sarah is my wife" rather than "Sarah is my sister", events might have played our very similarly, other than the details of the words, and perhaps a Divine intervention to save Avraham rather than protect Sarah.
One way to conceptualize this (the difference between 'Truths that must be so' and 'Truths that could be otherwise') is to relate it to undecidable statements in mathematics. For simplicity, I will assume that any particular gestalt of one's position on every matter is reducible to a self-consistent set of axioms.
Then, consider the axioms of Euclid's Elements:
1. A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.
2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.
3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.
4. All right angles are congruent.
5. Given a line, and a point not on that line, exactly one parallel line exists that intersects that point.
For the first four axioms, if you try to build a framework where one is not true - it does not work, the logic falls apart.
For example, you could change axiom 1 to give two unique lines for every pair of points - this is kind of like saying that 2+2=4, but also that 2+2 = 'other 4', and furthermore, 4 does not equal 'other 4' - neither arithmetic nor algebra can function, as you lose one of the most fundamental properties of all - that a thing is equal to itself!
The fifth axiom (It is often referred to as a 'postulate', for reasons which might interest those who enjoy knowing the history of these things) has alternate formulations that are different - each one contradicts the others, yet each generates its own world.
The Parallel Postulate of Euclid can be true - and you end up with 'regular' straight-line-grid, Euclidean geometry. It is true, and Spartanly elegant.
But - you can also reject it.
You can construct a Geometry (a world-measuring from the original Greek, after all) in which no such point exists - and you have the system of geometry of the surface of a sphere - such as the one on which we live*.
You can declare that there exists no limit to the number of lines which can be drawn through that point - and you have hyperbolic geometry (which is rather harder to simply describe).
Each choice yield a different, and true totality - and the existence of each version does not make the others untrue - they are merely describing different things that share much of their underlying nature (they do share 4 axioms out of five, after all).
Similarly, Judaism has statements which are ironclad, absolute. It also has statements which have many possible iterations - each one true, and each not inimical to the others. And - to only ever have but one of those many is too great a tragedy to bear.
*An oblate spheroid, if you wish to be very מדקדק.
Similarly, as Rav Kook notes in his discussion of Science & Torah, in particular in I:134 of אגרות הראיה (the 2nd of a series of three on this subject) - The Rambam sets out a relatable dichotomy - that Tanach includes language (i.e. metaphors such as 'the hand of God') and laws that are not 'intrinsic' to the nature of God, or the Godly state to which we strive. Rather, these things are included because they are necessary to achieve God's goals - we, mankind, need these things both to uplift ourselves to the level to enact those goals, as well as to be vehicles to deliver these concepts into our minds as they are.
We can imagine alternate scenarios, histories that might have been, where God would have communicated some things differently, and some things different. For example, if our species had come to be with four arms instead of two, or a secondary heart located elsewhere in our bodies, the verses describing the mitzvah of Tefi would have had some differences, to accommodate that different physiology. Had Avraham said "Sarah is my wife" rather than "Sarah is my sister", events might have played our very similarly, other than the details of the words, and perhaps a Divine intervention to save Avraham rather than protect Sarah.
One way to conceptualize this (the difference between 'Truths that must be so' and 'Truths that could be otherwise') is to relate it to undecidable statements in mathematics. For simplicity, I will assume that any particular gestalt of one's position on every matter is reducible to a self-consistent set of axioms.
Then, consider the axioms of Euclid's Elements:
1. A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.
2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.
3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.
4. All right angles are congruent.
5. Given a line, and a point not on that line, exactly one parallel line exists that intersects that point.
For the first four axioms, if you try to build a framework where one is not true - it does not work, the logic falls apart.
For example, you could change axiom 1 to give two unique lines for every pair of points - this is kind of like saying that 2+2=4, but also that 2+2 = 'other 4', and furthermore, 4 does not equal 'other 4' - neither arithmetic nor algebra can function, as you lose one of the most fundamental properties of all - that a thing is equal to itself!
The fifth axiom (It is often referred to as a 'postulate', for reasons which might interest those who enjoy knowing the history of these things) has alternate formulations that are different - each one contradicts the others, yet each generates its own world.
The Parallel Postulate of Euclid can be true - and you end up with 'regular' straight-line-grid, Euclidean geometry. It is true, and Spartanly elegant.
But - you can also reject it.
You can construct a Geometry (a world-measuring from the original Greek, after all) in which no such point exists - and you have the system of geometry of the surface of a sphere - such as the one on which we live*.
You can declare that there exists no limit to the number of lines which can be drawn through that point - and you have hyperbolic geometry (which is rather harder to simply describe).
Each choice yield a different, and true totality - and the existence of each version does not make the others untrue - they are merely describing different things that share much of their underlying nature (they do share 4 axioms out of five, after all).
Similarly, Judaism has statements which are ironclad, absolute. It also has statements which have many possible iterations - each one true, and each not inimical to the others. And - to only ever have but one of those many is too great a tragedy to bear.
*An oblate spheroid, if you wish to be very מדקדק.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
A very short thought
The Name of God, ש-ד-י, in Gematria (letter-value system) has value 10,4,300, ie 314.
That is all.
If anyone has some nice insight into that, please comment or email me.
That is all.
If anyone has some nice insight into that, please comment or email me.
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
A brief description of the destruction of Sedom et all.
There are a number of points of
archeological evidence that point to the nature of the destruction God wrought upon
Sodom, [G]omorrah (the ‘g’ happened because the ancient ayin was a
glottal stop, like the ‘Ng’ we see in a number of African names today) and the
other cities of the fertile plain by the Jordan river. Together, they point to
an airburst of a comet or other
previously orbital chunk of material, much like the one filmed over Russia a
few years ago, or the Tunguska event.
In Perek יט
|
כג הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יָצָא
עַל הָאָרֶץ וְלוֹט בָּא
צֹעֲרָה.
|
23 The sun went out over the land, and Lot came to
Tzoar.
|
|
24 Then God caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
brimstone (i.e. sulfur and sulfurous compounds) and fire from Go out of the
sky.
|
Consider the Greek legend of
Phaeton, wherein the son of their sun god stole the sun-chariot, and came too
near the Earth, burning it, and Zeus was forced to explode him with a bolt of
lightning.
This implies a Michael-Bayesque
sequence:
The sun is burning just over the
eastern horizon; the quiet peace of early morning hangs over Sodom, Gomorrah,
and their sister-cities. Westward, in the foothills of what will one day, far
in the future, be known as the Judean hills, six tiny human figures crest the
first large hill, perhaps even a quite small mountain, worthy of the name.
Then –
suddenly – the sun grows suddenly huge, a fiery bull charging. A nameless comet
burns towards some of the most ancient cities of Man, outspeeding its own sound
more than twenty-fold. As it dives ever deeper into the ocean of air, it
shatters into several chunks. Some fly further on, detonating over the glimmering
Mediterranean, over remote & uncivilized Greece, now but a province of a
mighty empire, its great days a double thousand years yet to come.
One
chunk, glowing eye-searing-bright, roars towards the Jordan. Lot’s wife turns
back, stands atop the mountain, one hand shielding her eyes from the glare,
wondering at the sun come so low.
Below
her, behind the shielding bulk of the hill, the men throw Lot and his daughters
to the ground. It is already too late for her.
The
shard hits air so dense at its poly-Mach speed, it shatters as a fluffy snowball
on a car window. But this snowball still carries the energy of multiple
Hiroshimas within it. All that energy now disperses in every direction, a wall
of heat and sound.
Sodom and
her siblings are flattened in an instant, its people disintegrated, the
buildings pulverized, the crops incinerated.
Lot’s wife, too, disappears to the blast wave.
Lot’s wife, too, disappears to the blast wave.
The
blast reverberates off of the surrounding mountains; the nearby cities, Tzoar
among them, in the mountains start at the blast, and gaze at the mushroom
cloud, rising high into the atmosphere.
Avraham
too, sees the rising cloud from deep within the Judean hills – at Eylonei
Mamre, where he had argued their defense the previous evening.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
A thought for Shmini Atzeret
"God is a mathematician" - Plato
It is well-known that people around the globe celebrate mathematics in general, and pi (=3.14159...) in particular, on the dates which correspond to its common approximations.
These dates are March 14, 3.14 by the month-day notation, and July 22, 22/7 by the day-then-month notation.
But the Jewish calendar has its own day for this!
The first day of Succot is the 15 of Tishrei (בְּמִדְבַּר כט:יב וּבַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי). Hoshana Rabba, six days later, is the 21rst.
And Shmini Atzeret, the great day of closeness between Hashem and His nation - is the 22nd day of the 7 month.
We are His people, and He is our PhD advisor.
It is well-known that people around the globe celebrate mathematics in general, and pi (=3.14159...) in particular, on the dates which correspond to its common approximations.
These dates are March 14, 3.14 by the month-day notation, and July 22, 22/7 by the day-then-month notation.
But the Jewish calendar has its own day for this!
The first day of Succot is the 15 of Tishrei (בְּמִדְבַּר כט:יב וּבַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי). Hoshana Rabba, six days later, is the 21rst.
And Shmini Atzeret, the great day of closeness between Hashem and His nation - is the 22nd day of the 7 month.
We are His people, and He is our PhD advisor.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Sarcasm on Parshat Korach
:Parshat Korach begins as follows
וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, בֶּן-יִצְהָר בֶּן-קְהָת בֶּן-לֵוִי; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם
בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב, וְאוֹן בֶּן-פֶּלֶת--בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן.
And so took Korach son of Yitzhar
son of Kehat son of Levi; and Datan and Aviram sons of Eliav, and Oen son of
Pelet, sons Re'uven.
What did they take? In all the rest
of Tanach, The word 'Vayikach' always has a clear object, the person taking,
and a clear subject, the thing being taken. Here, the Torah only tells us who
took!
I conjecture that they, in fact,
took themselves. The language the Torah uses thus indicates that they
took themselves – and from where? They took themselves out of the congregation
of Bnei Yisrael.
Rav Hirsch on this parsha notes
that 'taking', by its very nature, is also to make separate. I note that the
words of separating in ancient Hebrew grow from the root word Kuf Daled Shin -
Kadesh.
When Korach says to Moshe &
Aharon:
'hashem - רַב-לָכֶם--כִּי כָל-הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים,
וּבְתוֹכָם יְהוָה; וּמַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ, עַל-קְהַל'
Korach is employing sarcasm - he is
insinuating that his Kahal – the Kahal that just constituted itself
against Moshe and Aharon - is, by merit of having declared themselves separated
to be leaders, more able and more worthy of leadership of Bnei Yisrael than
Moshe – after all, Moshe was chosen by God, but Moshe was a reluctant
leader - he only led because he had to. Korach is saying: Hey! Moshe - Good
News - you can step down now, we got this under control! You don’t have to
carry this burden anymore. It sounds pretty good, without the retrospect…
The adage that "Those who most
seek power are those least fit to wield it" is indicated to be correct in
God's eyes by His response to Korach’s Kahal’s Kedusha-claim. Or maybe, He
simply dislikes sarcastic politicians!
Symbolism of the Rainbow
While walking to shul this past on a recent erev Shabbat, the one upon which the 9th of Av fell this year, I saw a faint rainbow in the clouds. This led to some mind-wandering on my walk, which ended with me pondering the following question:
Why is the rainbow the symbol of the covenant between God and Noach in the 9th Perek of Bereishet:
יב: וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים, זֹאת אוֹת-הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר-אֲנִי נֹתֵן בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, אֲשֶׁר אִתְּדֶ--לְדֹרֹת, עוֹלָם
12: And God said: 'This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations
...
טז: וְהָיְתָה הַקֶּשֶׁת, בֶּעָנָן; וּרְאִיתִיהָ, לִזְכֹּר בְּרִית עוֹלָם, בֵּין אֱלֹקים, וּבֵין כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה בְּכָל-בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר עַל-הָאָרֶץ
16: And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth:
Why is the rainbow chosen as the symbol of this covenant? Why not a torrential downpour? A terrible storm? A dove? A large boat? Why specifically a rainbow?
I propose the following:
The generation of the flood committed many sins - of violence and thievery and so on. Their sins were rooted in Sinat Chinam (Bereishit Rabbah 38:6) - in 'free' hatred (I will discuss that concept further in a future post).
What is one, if not the, root cause of Sinat Chinam? When one sees other people as completely separate from oneself - when any difference from oneself in another makes one's fellow an 'other' - a non-person.
A rainbow, to the human eye, looks like it is made of several distinct and separate bands of color. In reality, the color changes continuously*, without borders, along the width of the rainbow.
This is the symbol for Man - that we should look upon the rainbow, and perceive the symbol, to remember that as different as we may be from one-another there is no wall between us, there is no division that brings forth such a differentiation as between 'person' and 'other' - and when this is abrogated, Mankind once more walks the path of destruction.
May we all endeavor to bring forth, and merit to see, the day when all of humanity will hold this principle in their minds, and teach it to their children, inductively, for all time.
*For the mathematically inclined:
I note that in reality this is not quite true according to a mathematically rigorous usage of continuity, at least in the typical sense with which it is applied in analysis, due the the fundamental graininess of the universe on the smallest scale. I do not think that this negates the nice symbolism, and one can read not 'continuously' but rather 'without borders or sudden changes' if so desired.
Why is the rainbow the symbol of the covenant between God and Noach in the 9th Perek of Bereishet:
יב: וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים, זֹאת אוֹת-הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר-אֲנִי נֹתֵן בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, אֲשֶׁר אִתְּדֶ--לְדֹרֹת, עוֹלָם
12: And God said: 'This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations
...
טז: וְהָיְתָה הַקֶּשֶׁת, בֶּעָנָן; וּרְאִיתִיהָ, לִזְכֹּר בְּרִית עוֹלָם, בֵּין אֱלֹקים, וּבֵין כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה בְּכָל-בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר עַל-הָאָרֶץ
16: And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth:
Why is the rainbow chosen as the symbol of this covenant? Why not a torrential downpour? A terrible storm? A dove? A large boat? Why specifically a rainbow?
I propose the following:
The generation of the flood committed many sins - of violence and thievery and so on. Their sins were rooted in Sinat Chinam (Bereishit Rabbah 38:6) - in 'free' hatred (I will discuss that concept further in a future post).
What is one, if not the, root cause of Sinat Chinam? When one sees other people as completely separate from oneself - when any difference from oneself in another makes one's fellow an 'other' - a non-person.
A rainbow, to the human eye, looks like it is made of several distinct and separate bands of color. In reality, the color changes continuously*, without borders, along the width of the rainbow.
This is the symbol for Man - that we should look upon the rainbow, and perceive the symbol, to remember that as different as we may be from one-another there is no wall between us, there is no division that brings forth such a differentiation as between 'person' and 'other' - and when this is abrogated, Mankind once more walks the path of destruction.
May we all endeavor to bring forth, and merit to see, the day when all of humanity will hold this principle in their minds, and teach it to their children, inductively, for all time.
*For the mathematically inclined:
I note that in reality this is not quite true according to a mathematically rigorous usage of continuity, at least in the typical sense with which it is applied in analysis, due the the fundamental graininess of the universe on the smallest scale. I do not think that this negates the nice symbolism, and one can read not 'continuously' but rather 'without borders or sudden changes' if so desired.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Interstellar Geulah
אִם-יִהְיֶה נִדַּחֲךָ בִּקְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם--מִשָּׁם יְקַבֶּצְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וּמִשָּׁם יִקָּחֶךָ
Devarim 30:4 (end of Parshat Netzavim)
My translation is as follows:
[Even] If you will be scattered amongst the ends of the heavens - From there Hashem your God will gather you in, and from there he will take you [back to the Land].
Elsewhere in Tanach, where similar phrases are recorded as spoken by the Neviim, they say:
'מֵאַרְבַּע כַּנְפוֹת הָאָרֶץ' - from the four corners [i.e. furthest places] of the Earth.
Why are Moshe Rabbeinu's words different? What are his words, of the clearest prophecy, telling us?
I propose the following:
These words are a promise the degree of which we can only now, with the words of those such as Isaac Asimov in our minds, truly understand and feel:
Here we are promised that even if the exile, Heaven forbid, is so terribly long that we, Bnei Yisrael, are scattered among colonies across the solar system, even so unimaginably prolonged that we are Exiled to other worlds orbiting other suns* - even from there, He will gather us and bring return us to Him in our ancestral home - the Land of Israel.
To us in this day and age - is the final part of the Geulah [redemption] as it is commonly thought of, so incomprehensible? Does it now require a direct and obvious act of God to ascend to the Land? We have merited to live in the time when we have come to understand the Universe that God has built for all life, and can at last truly exercise the Tzelem Elohim [image of God] in which we were created. In little more than half a day we can journey from any of those 4 corners to the Land. It is become mundane.
However, far from detracting from the glory of God, we rather gain even deeper insight into Him and His Universe from our endeavors.
May we, Am Yisrael rebuild the Beyt Hamikdash, the third and eternal, speedily, with our own hands, by the mechanism of the daily miracles we, all of humanity, have enacted by the chochma, binah, and da'at that we wield as ones who exist in the Image of God.
*This conjecture, if one also accepts as true that God's Nissim are always enacted through the mechanism of existing physical laws, this could plausibly imply that this universe was built with at least one workable FTL method...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)