Vaeschanan: Declaring Hashem’s Oneness in Love

This week's Torah content is sponsored by a generous donor who wishes to remain anonymous, and told me, "No thanks needed!" so I'm not going to thank them.

Click here for a one-page printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Vaeschanan: Declaring Hashem's Oneness in Love

“Hear, O Israel, Hashem is our God, Hashem is One” (Devarim 6:4). This pasuk is the source of the mitzvah of Yichud Hashem (God’s Oneness). We are commanded to “unify” Hashem in our minds: to know that He is Absolutely One in every sense of the term, and to continually strip away all notions of contingency, multiplicity, physicality, and temporality from our conception of Him (Hilchos Yesodei ha’Torah 1:7-12).

“You shall love Hashem, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your resources” (Devarim 6:5). We are also commanded in the mitzvah of ahavas Hashem (love of God): to contemplate the infinite wisdom in His wondrous creations, which will result in a state of bliss (Sefer ha’Mitzvos: Aseh #3) and fill us with an overpowering desire to seek even more knowledge of Him (Hilchos Yesodei ha’Torah 2:2).

Yichud Hashem is logically prior to Ahavas Hashem. After all, how could a person have “a tremendous desire to know the great Name” (ibid.) without knowledge of who Hashem is (and who He is not)? Indeed, the Rambam explains that ahavas Hashem “is based entirely on knowledge, and the love will be in proportion to the knowledge: if little then little, if a lot then a lot” (Hilchos Teshuvah 10:6).

However, in his commentary on Ahavah Rabbah / Ahavas Olam – the berachah which we say in Shacharis before the Shema – the Abudirham indicates that ahavas Hashem is, in another sense, prior to Yichud Hashem:

You will find that this berachah includes many themes: that Hashem loves us more than all the other nations, that He gave us the Torah, that He instilled within us belief in His Oneness, and that He is the Lord of all – but the berachah concludes with [the theme of] love, not with [the theme of] Oneness, because the declaration of His Oneness is ineffective (lo yo’eel) unless it is from love and from a whole heart.

What does this mean? Presumably, the Abudirham would agree that there is inherent value in knowing Yichud Hashem, both because it is a fundamental truth and because such knowledge is a mitzvah. The Torah’s value system of avodah me’ahavah (serving Hashem out of love) and Torah lishmah (learning Torah for its own sake) is predicated on the idea that knowledge is intrinsically valuable, as the Rambam writes: “the only purpose of truth is to know that it is true” (Intro to Perek Chelek). What, then, is the Abudirham referring to when he speaks of the “efficacy” of our declaration of Yichud Hashem? “Effective” in what sense? And what makes a “loveless” proclamation of His Oneness “ineffective”?

According to the Abudirham, it is our declaration of Yichud Hashem that has a purpose beyond merely reviewing the idea. Ahavas Hashem is the motion of the yearning soul in its quest for knowledge of reality. Yichud Hashem is the (ultimately) unattainable destination of that quest. When we affirm our belief in Yichud Hashem from a place of ahavah, we strengthen our conviction that behind this multifaceted reality is a Unity. In other words, a “wholehearted” Shema will have the beneficial effect of reinforcing the synergistic relationship between Yichud Hashem and ahavas Hashem. But if God’s Oneness is nothing but an abstract theoretical construct which resides in our intellect, disconnected from our passionate truth-seeking, then our declaration of Yichud Hashem is reduced to a dry, ritualistic, “ineffective” catechism.

Now we can understand what we mean at the end of this berachah when we ask Hashem to help us “yachedecha be’ahavah” (lit. “to unify You in love”). We are asking that our conviction in His Oneness not only inform but also enflame our quest for knowledge, and that our seeking of truth be oriented towards the ultimate Truth. The conclusion of the berachah teaches us that Hashem’s love towards us is based on our love towards Him.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you. 

If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone. 

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here. 

Rambam: On the Impropriety of Praising Hashem

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Tragic Poet, by Anthony Palumbo

Rambam: On the Impropriety of Praising Hashem 

I initially set out to write a dvar Torah on this topic, drawing upon this chapter in the Moreh. I started by excerpting just a little bit, then more, more, and more. Eventually I came to accept the fact that I didn’t want to cut out any of what the Rambam wrote because it was all so important. How, then, could I write a normal-length blog post on this topic? I decided that I’d post the entire chapter from the Rambam, without any commentary, and then I’d write a dvar Torah in which I only cited some of the text. Here, then, is my translation of the entire chapter. The paragraph breaks are my own. 

Rambam: Guide for the Perplexed 1:59 

The following question might perhaps be asked: Since there is no possibility of obtaining a knowledge of [Hashem’s] Essence, and since it has also been proven that the only thing that man can apprehend of Him is the fact that He Exists, and that all positive attributes are inadmissible, as has been shown, what is the difference among those who apprehend [Him]? Must not the knowledge obtained by Moshe Rabbeinu and by Shlomo be the same as that obtained by any one of the lowest class of philosophers, since there can be no addition to this knowledge? On the other hand, it is generally accepted among Torah adherents and also among philosophers that there can be great differences [between the various levels of knowledge of God]. 

Know that it really is the case that those who have obtained knowledge [of God] differ greatly from each other. For in the same way as by each additional attribute an object becomes more unique [in one’s mind], and is brought nearer to the true apprehension of the apprehender, so by each additional negative attribute you advance toward the knowledge [of God], and you are nearer to it than he who does not negate, in reference to God, those qualities which you are convinced by proof must be negated. 

Thus, there may be a man who, after having earnestly devoted many years to the pursuit of one science and to the true understanding of its principles till he is fully convinced of its truths, has obtained as the sole result of this study the conviction that a certain quality must be negated in reference to God, and the capacity of demonstrating that it is impossible to apply it to Him. 

Superficial thinkers will have no proof for this and will doubtfully ask, “Is that thing existing in Hashem, or not?” And those who are deprived of sight will positively ascribe it to Him, although it has been clearly shown that He does not possess it. While I show that He is incorporeal, another doubts and is not certain whether He is corporeal or incorporeal. Others even positively declare that He is corporeal, and will approach Hashem [in prayer] with that belief. 

Now see how great the difference is between these three men: the first is undoubtedly nearest to Hashem; the second is more remote, and the third is even more remote. If there be a fourth person who holds himself convinced by proof that emotions are impossible in Him, while the first who rejects corporeality is not convinced of that impossibility, that fourth person is undoubtedly nearer the knowledge of Hashem than the first, and so on. So that a person who, convinced by proof, negates a number of things in reference to Him, which according to our belief may possibly be in Him or emanate from Him – and all the more so if we believe that the matter is a necessary attribute – then that person is undoubtedly more perfected than we are. 

It will now be clear to you that every time you establish by proof the negation of a thing in reference to Him (may He be exalted), you become more perfected, while with every additional positive assertion you err and recede from the true knowledge of Him. It is necessary in this manner to approach the apprehension of Hashem through analysis and investigation until one knows the inadmissibility of everything that is inadmissible regarding Him – not by such methods as would prove the necessity of ascribing to Him anything extraneous to His Essence, or asserting that He has a certain perfection on account of the fact that we find it to be a perfection in relation to ourselves. The perfections are all specific qualities, and not every quality exists in every being that is capable of having that quality. 

You must bear in mind that by affirming anything of Him, you are removed from Him in two respects: first, whatever you affirm is only a perfection in relation to ourselves; second, He does not possess anything superadded to His Essence, which is synonymous with His perfections, as we have explained. 

Since it is a well-known fact that even the knowledge [of Hashem] which is accessible to man cannot be attained except by negations, and that negations do not convey a true idea of the being to which they refer, all people, both of past and present generations, declared that Hashem cannot be the object of intellectual comprehension, that none but He, Himself, comprehends what He is, and that our knowledge consists in knowing that we are unable truly to comprehend Him. 

All philosophers say: we are dazzled by His beauty, and He is hidden from us because of the intensity with which He becomes manifest, just as the sun is hidden to eyes that are too weak to apprehend it. Much more has been said on this topic, but it is useless to repeat it here. The idea is best expressed in the book of Psalms: “Silence is praise to You” (Tehilim 65:2), the meaning of which is: “in relation to You, silence is praise.” It is a very expressive remark on this subject: for whatever we utter with the intention of extolling and of praising [Him] contains something erroneous in relation to Him, and we perceive it to have some deficiency. Therefore, silence is better, as is contentedness with [the limits of our] intellectual apprehensions, as the perfected ones commanded, saying: “say in your heart upon your bed and be silent” (ibid. 4:4). 

You already know the famous statement [of the Sages] – would that all passages in the Talmud were like that! – and although it is known to you, I will quote it verbatim, as I wish to point out to you the ideas contained in it: 

A certain person [reciting prayers] in the presence of Rabbi Chaninah said: “God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome, the powerful, the strong, and the feared, the bold.” The rabbi said to him, “Have you finished all the praises of your Master? Now the three first [praises of ‘great, mighty, and awesome’] we should not have said [in relation to Hashem] were it not for the fact that Moshe mentioned them in the Torah, and were it not for the fact that the Men of the Great Assembly established them in prayer – and yet, you say all this?! To what may this be compared? To a human king, possessing millions of gold coins, who was praised for owning silver. Would this not be degradation to him?” 

Thus far the opinion of the pious one. Consider, first, how repulsive and abhorrent the accumulation of all these positive attributes was to him; next, how he showed that, if we had only to follow our reason, we should never have composed these prayers, and we should not have uttered any part of them. It has, however, become necessary to address men in words that should leave some idea in their minds, and, in accordance with the saying of our Sages, “The Torah speaks in the language of men,” the Creator has been described to us in terms of our own perfections. It must then be our purpose to set a limit for these expressions and not call Him by them except in our reading of the Torah alone. However, since the Men of the Great Assembly, who were prophets, came and enacted the annunciation of them in prayer, it is our purpose to mention them alone. 

The principal lesson to be derived from this passage is that there are two reasons for our employing such phrases in our prayers: first, they occur in the Torah; secondly, the Prophets introduced them into the prayer. Were it not for the first reason, we should never have uttered them; and were it not for the second reason, we should not have copied them from their places to recite them in our prayers. [It was for this reason that R’ Chanina exclaimed,] “Yet, you go on and on with attributes?!” 

You also learn from this that not all of the attributes we find applied to Hashem in the books of the Prophets are permitted for us to pray with and recite. For he [Rabbi Chaninah] does not say, “Were it not that Moses, our Teacher, said them, we should not have been able to use them,” but he adds another condition, “and had not the Men of the Great Assembly come forward and established their use in prayer,” because only for that reason are we allowed to use them in our prayers. 

We cannot approve of what is done by those foolish persons who are extravagant in praise, fluent and prolix in the prayers they compose, and in the hymns they arrange in order to approach Hashem through them, according to their imagination. They describe Hashem in attributes which would be imperfections if applied to a human being. For those persons do not understand these great and important principles, which are above the intellectual capacity of the masses. Treating the Creator as a familiar object, they describe Him and speak of Him in any expressions they think are possible; they go on at length to praise Him in that manner, and imagine that they can thereby influence Him and produce an effect on Him. If they find some phrase suited to their purposes in the words of the Prophets they are still more inclined to consider that they are free to make use of such texts – which should at least be explained – to employ them in their literal sense, to derive new expressions from them, to form from them numerous variations, and to found whole compositions on them. 

This license is frequently met with in the compositions of the liturgical poets (paytanim) and hymnists, and by all who imagine themselves to be able to compose a poem. Such authors write things which partly are actual heresy, partly contain such folly and fantasy that they naturally cause those who hear them to laugh, but also to cry at the thought that such things can be uttered in reference to Hashem, may He be glorified and exalted. Were it not that I pitied the degeneracy of the authors, I would have brought you some [examples] so that you could take note of the offense in them, but the fault of their compositions is obvious to all those who understand. 

You must consider it and conclude: If evil speech (lashon ha’ra) and slander (hotzaas shem ra) is a severe sin, how much worse is the sin of those who speak with unrestrained tongues in reference to Hashem, and describe Him by attributes which He is far above! I won’t say that this is an act of [willful] rebellion, but it is an unintentional act of blasphemy and verbal abuse on the part of the masses who hear them, and on the part of the fool who utters them. But one who recognizes the degeneracy of these matters and [nevertheless] utters them – he is, according to my opinion, included in those of whom it was said: “the Children of Israel ascribed things that were not right onto Hashem, their God” (II Melachim 17:9), and of whom it was said: “and to utter error against Hashem” (Yeshayahu 32:6). But if you are one of those who are concerned about the honor of his Maker, do not listen in any way to them, and certainly do not utter them, and certainly do not compose them. You surely know the magnitude of the sin of one who casts aspersions against God. 

There is no necessity at all for you to use positive attributes of Hashem with the view of magnifying Him, according to your imagination, nor should you go beyond what the Men of the Great Assembly established in the prayers and blessings, for these are sufficient for [every] need – absolutely sufficient – as Rebbi Chanina said. But other attributes, such as occur in the books of the Prophets, may be read when one encounters them, but one must bear in mind what we have explained, namely, that they are either attributes of [Hashem’s] actions or they convey the negation of their opposites. This, too, should not be publicized to the masses, for this type of analysis is only appropriate for individuals who maintain that the exalting of Hashem does not consist in uttering that which ought not to be uttered, but in the proper intellectual recognition. 

We will now return to complete the exposition and nuance of the words of Rebbi Chanina. He did not say, “To what may this be compared? To a human king who had millions of gold coins but they praised him for hundreds of coins” for this analogy would indicate that Hashem’s perfections are [merely] greater than those perfections which we ascribe to Him but are of the same kind. This is not the case, as we have demonstrated. Rather, the nuance of this analogy consists in his statement: “[a human king who had millions of] gold coins, but as praised for silver.” This teaches us that these [attributes] are perfections vis a vis ourselves, but bear no relation whatsoever vis a vis Hashem. Rather, all of them are imperfections in relation to Him, as [Rebbi Chanina] explained, saying: “Would this not be degradation to him?” 

I have already conveyed to you that everything you imagine to be a perfection in these attributes is, in actuality, an imperfection in relation to Hashem if applied in the same sense as they apply to ourselves. Shlomo (peace be upon him) has already given us sufficient guidance on this subject, saying: “For God is in heaven, and you are upon earth; therefore let your words be few” (Koheles 5:2).

God's Preferred Pronoun

Disclaimer: I know it's bad form to apologize for what I write, but I feel I have to in this case. When I set out to write this post, it was going to be a simple question with a simple answer. However, once I started writing, I kind of got carried away with spelling out all of the premises and ramifications. The post ballooned into more fundamentals than I anticipated, and would have continued to do so had I not exercised restraint and brought the post to a close when I did. Suffice it to say, this is not my cleanest writing. I hope that the ideas are still enlightening and useful.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

God's Preferred Pronoun

The Pronoun Question 

Consider the following questions:

"Why don't we refer to God as 'she'?" 

"If God isn't male or female, why don't we use the pronoun 'It' instead of 'Him'?"  

"Shouldn't we avoid all gendered terms in relation to Hashem, since Hashem has no gender?"

These are all different formulations of the same question - a question that I am asked from time to time, usually by my 9th or 10th grade female students. [1] These students know that God has no gender.  They're not asking childish questions like, "What if God really IS female?" or "What if God has BOTH genders?" Their question is terminology - not metaphysics. They are bothered by the masculine terminology we use to describe our non-physical, non-anthropomorphic, unknowable Creator. 

My intention in this post is share the philosophical answer that I give my students when asked questions about why we use masculine terminology in reference to Hashem. But first I must dispel another answer.

The Linguistic Answer 

I say that I plan on giving a "philosophical answer" to distinguish this from the linguistic answer, which I have heard some people give to such questions. I will now summarize the linguistic answer and explain why I believe it to be inadequate.

The basis of the linguistic answer is the fact that, like it or not, Hebrew is a language with grammatical gender. Every noun in Hebrew is either masculine or feminine. For example: "sefer" (book) is masculine; "kenesset" (synagogue) is feminine; "shulchan" (table) is masculine; "simchah" (joy) is feminine. Many nouns can take on both forms. For example: "par" means bull (masculine), whereas "parah" means heifer (feminine); "ish" means man, whereas "ishah" means woman; "melech" means king, whereas "malkah" means queen.

This is the reality of the Hebrew language. As far as I know, these differences in grammatical gender for single-gender nouns do not stem from philosophical, psychological, biological, social, or sexual considerations. They are what they are, and nothing short of a reinvention of the entire Hebrew language will change that.

Similarly, all verbs and adjectives must conform to the gender of the noun they modify. For example: "sefer gadol" means "big book," whereas "kenesset gedolah" means "big synagogue." Again, "gender identity" has nothing to do with any of this. These are just the rules of the language.

How does Hebrew deal with situations which call for gender-neutral language? By using the gender-neutral mode in Hebrew, which is masculine. When referring to groups of objects or persons which include members of both genders, the masculine form is used as the gender-neutral default. For example, "ben" means "son" and "banim" means "sons"; "bas" means "daughter" and "banos" means "daughters." If you wanted to refer to a group which included sons and daughters, Hebrew doesn't offer a gender-neutral form of the pluralized noun (i.e. an equivalent to the English word "children" or "progeny"). Instead, you would say "banim," using the masculine pluralization as the gender-neutral form.

The same is true when the gender is unknown or otherwise inapplicable. If I were task someone, "Do you have a child?" I would say, "Yesh lecha yeled?" using the masculine form of the word "child" ("yeled" as opposed to "yaldah") even though my question was asked without any specific gender in mind.

There isn't even a word for "it" in Hebrew. If you're going to say "it," you'll have to either say "he" or "she." Similarly, there's no way to say "they" or "them." The only options are "they (masculine)" or "they (feminine)."

On this basis, the linguistic answer to the question, "Why do we use masculine terminology in reference to Hashem?" is: "We use masculine terminology because this is the only gender-neutral way we can refer to Hashem in the Hebrew language."

According to this answer, when we speak about Hashem, we should have in mind that we are speaking in a non-gendered way, despite the fact that we are using masculine verbs, adjectives, and pronouns. Just as we refer to a group of boys and girls with the masculine "banim" with full awareness that we intended this in a gender-neutral way, so too, when we make statements about Hashem such as "ve'hu Rachum" ("He is Merciful") and "Melech ha'olam" ("King of the universe"), we should really have in mind, "the genderless God is merciful" and "Monarch of the universe."

The Inadequacy of the Linguistic Answer

I believe that the linguistic answer is inadequate for several reasons. First and foremost, it's disingenuous. True, we don't think "masculine" when describing a group of five boys and five girls as "banim," but we do relate to the pronoun "He" and terms such as "melech," "shofet," "gibor," etc. as masculine in reference to Hashem. This is by design, as I will attempt to explain when I give the philosophical answer.

Secondly, there are dozens - if not hundreds - of anthropomorphic descriptions of Hashem in Tanach and in the words of Chazal which portray Him specifically as masculine - not as a non-gendered being. For example: "Hashem is a man of war" (Shemos 15:3), "Is He not your father?" (Devarim 32:6), "But like a woman who has been unfaithful to her male companion, you have been unfaithful to Me, O house of Israel - the word of Hashem" (Yirmiyahu 3:20). The entire Shir ha'Shirim is an allegorical love song, depicting Hashem as the man and the "beloved" seeking Him as the woman. To claim that all of these examples of vivid imagery and description are intended to be understood as "gender neutral" is, to my mind, dishonest and absurd. Chazal clearly followed this pattern with their numerous masculine allegorical depictions of Hashem.

Lastly, even if we were to explain the Hebrew use of masculine terminology in relation to Hashem, we still remain with the question of how we should speak of Him in English, and in other languages which do offer a gender-neutral alternative. To my knowledge there are no baalei Mesorah who have advocated for the use of gender-neutral terminology when speaking about Hashem in languages which allow for this. In other words, I do not know of any reputable Torah scholar who would suggest that we should refer to Hashem with the pronoun "It" in English. Everyone agrees that we should refer to Hashem as "He" - not "It," and not "She." I do not think that this is arbitrary.

By exploring the weaknesses of the linguistic answer, we have strengthened our original question. Not only must we answer why the Torah uses masculine terminology to describe Hashem, but we must also explain why He is depicted specifically using masculine imagery, and why we don't use non-gendered terminology when speaking about Hashem in languages that allow for it, such as English.

Predicating Attributes of God

Since gender is an attribute, the philosophical answer to our question requires an understanding of how we ascribe any attribute to God. Because this topic is exceedingly broad and deep, I will focus our discussion on a short excerpt from the Chovos ha'Levavos, by Rabbeinu Bachya Ibn Paquda. [2] He begins by making an important distinction between different types of Divine attributes:

The meanings of the Divine attributes are very many, just as the creatures – and the kindnesses upon them – are many. They can be divided into two classes: [attributes] of essence and [attributes] of action.  

The reason we call [the first class] “[attributes] of essence” is that they are abiding attributes of God, May He be exalted; [they were His] before [the existence of] all created things, and [they are His] afterwards. They are befitting of the Essence of His glory. These attributes are three: that He Exists, that He is One, and that He is Eternal and unpreceded.

The reason we describe Him with these attributes is to convey some conception of Him and of the true nature of His existence; to call attention to His glory; and to help men understand that they have a Creator Whom they are obligated to serve.

We find it necessary to describe Him as existing, since all evidence points to His existence: the signs of His handiwork in the universe testify to this, as it says: “Lift up your eyes on high and see! Who created these? He Who brings out their host by number, He calls them all by name; by His great might and strong power, not one is missing” (Yeshayahu 40:26). We must therefore attribute to Him existence, as it is clear to our minds that no action or work will issue from that which does not exist. Since His works and creations are evident, His Existence is evident to our minds.

We describe Him as Eternal, for all arguments led to the conclusion that this world had a beginning before which there was no other beginning, a first cause before which there was no other cause; it became clear that there cannot be an infinite series of causes [extending back]. It follows necessarily that the Creator, May He be exalted, is the Beginning before which there is no beginning. That is what is meant by [His] eternity, as it is said: “From eternity to eternity, You are God” (Tehilim 90:2); “Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be after Me” (Yeshayahu 43:10). 

Why we describe Him as One has already been explained in exhaustive fashion through solid arguments. It was proven by incontrovertible evidence that the notion of absolute Oneness is bound to the Essence of His Glory. The meaning of this oneness is the inapplicability of plurality to the Essence of His glory and the exclusion of change, metamorphosis, accident, creation and destruction, combination and separation, resemblance, association, transformation, and all other types of multiplicity from the true Essence of His glory.

It is vital that you understand that the meaning of these attributes [which we ascribe to God] is not to predicate of the Creator’s Essence change and diversity; rather, the meaning is to deem their opposites [i.e., the opposites of the three attributes of essence] inapplicable to Him, May He be exalted. What we have in mind by their attribution is that the Creator of the world, may He be exalted, is neither plural, nor nonexistent, nor created.

To summarize: when we ascribe these three "attributes of essence" to God - namely, Existence, Oneness, and Eternality - we are not attributing positive qualities to Him, since He has no qualities, and we cannot have any knowledge of His Essence. Rather, we are negating the opposite attributes (i.e. non-existence, plurality, and createdness).

All of this is in contrast to what Rabbeinu Bachya defines "attributes of action" as "those that are ascribed to the Creator as a result of His actions." Examples include: merciful, kind, righteous, jealous, awesome, gracious, slow to anger, mighty, etc. These attributes are intended to convey positive knowledge - not of God's Essence, but of His actions, His creations, and everything else that is involved in His governance of His world. In other words, when we say, "Hashem is merciful," we mean, "Hashem acts in a manner which, if a human acted that way, we would describe as 'merciful.'" When we say, "Hashem is jealous," we mean, "Hashem acts in a manner which, if a human acted this way, we would describe as 'jealous.'" And so on.

Rabbeinu Bachya emphasizes his point about negative "attributes of essence" one more time at the end of this section:

What you must understand in regard to the Creator is that nothing is like Him. When you ascribe attributes to the Creator, you should understand only that their opposites are inapplicable to Him. As Aristotle said, the negative attributes of God are truer than the positive ones; for all positive attributes ascribed to the Essence of His Glory cannot escape the characteristics of substantial or accidental properties, and the Creator of substance and accident is not subject to their properties. The negative attributes ascribed to God, however, are undoubtedly true and befitting of Him; for He is above all quality and description, resemblance or comparison. What you must therefore understand from the three attributes of which we have spoken is the inapplicability of their opposites to the Creator, may He be exalted. 

In other words, when we say "Hashem Exists," we really mean "Hashem doesn't NOT exist, but the nature of His Existence is unknowable to us." When we say "Hashem is One," we really mean "Hashem does not partake of plurality or multiplicity, but the nature of His Oneness is unknowable to us." When we say, "Hashem is Eternal," we really mean, "Hashem is not created, but the nature of His Eternality is unknowable to us."

One might ask: "If the nature of Hashem's Existence is unknowable to us, then what difference does it make if we describe Him as 'existent' or 'non-existent'? Strictly speaking, both are inaccurate, since the term 'exist' in relation to Hashem is completely different from what we mean when we say that anything else 'exists'!" The same goes for the statement that Hashem is "One" or "Eternal": since we cannot have any positive knowledge of what we mean by these terms, then why use them at all? What makes them superior to their opposites, or to using neither term?

The answer, to put it bluntly, is that we use these specific "attributes of essence" as the lesser of two evils, in that they are more conducive to developing a more accurate way of thinking about Hashem than their opposites. One can say that of any pair of "attributes of essence," we choose the lesser of two evils. We choose the term which conveys the least inaccurate conception of Him - or, if you prefer, the term which conveys a conception of Him which lends itself more to an accurate grasp of the truth than the alternative.

For example, although we cannot have any positive knowledge of the nature of Hashem's Existence, we nevertheless say that He "exists" because the term "existence" lends itself to a more accurate understanding of Hashem than "non-existence." If we did not ascribe "existence" to Hashem, then people would think of Him as non-existent, which would be extremely detrimental. The same is true of Oneness: although we do not have any positive knowledge of what we mean when we say Hashem "is One," that statement is more developmentally beneficial to our understanding than speaking of Him in terms of plurality or multiplicity. Similarly, saying that He "is Eternal" is more developmentally beneficial than if we didn't use this term, since the only alternative is to think of Him as "finite" or "created" or "existing in time" - all of which would do more harm than good to our understanding of Hashem.

The Rambam [3] applies this to other attributes as well. For example, he writes that Hashem "has neither death nor life like the life of a physical creature, neither foolishness nor wisdom like the wisdom of a wise man." Note how he negates one set of qualities in an absolute manner (i.e. death and foolishness), but he negates the other set of qualities in a qualified manner ("nor life like the life of a physical creature ... nor wisdom like the wisdom of a wise man"). This follows the same pattern as the attributes of essence mentioned by Rabbeinu Bachya (i.e. He has no plurality nor does He have Oneness like the oneness of any unities in the world, etc.).

The Philosophical Answer to the Pronoun Question

Now that we recognize Rabbeinu Bachya's distinction between attributes of essence and attributes of action, the question is: What about gender? When we describe Hashem as "He," or use masculine verbs or adjectives when speaking about Him, do we treat this gender-predication like an attribute of essence or an attribute of action?

I am of the opinion that we should treat gender as we would an attribute of essence - not to imply that it is on par with Existence, Oneness, and Eternality, but in the sense that we should view the attribution of gender to Hashem not as an affirmation of positive quality, but as a negation of its opposite. And what quality, exactly, are we negating when we describe Hashem in masculine terms and with masculine imagery? Objecthood. Allow me to explain.

In English we distinguish between an object and a person by our use of the pronoun "it" vs. the pronouns "he" or "she." In Hebrew, even though we don't have the option to express this distinction in language, we still mentally classify everything as either an object or a person. The human mind is simply wired that way. My dad is a person. The chair he's sitting on is an object. I am a person. My shoes are objects. The landlord is a person, and the apartment I'm renting is an object. The ship is an object when I am speaking literally, but is a person when I speak figuratively about "taking my ship out on her maiden voyage."

The Torah goes out of its way to anthropomorphize Hashem in order to ensure that we do not relate to Him as an object. If we avoided all anthropomorphic terminology, we would default into thinking of Hashem as an object - as a force, as a characteristic of the universe, or an abstraction like "existence" or "reality" or "truth" - all of which would be far more detrimental to our conception of Him than relating to Him as a person. [4]

Once we are referring to Hashem in anthropomorphic terminology, we have no choice but to characterize Him as either masculine or feminine (as explained above in the section about the linguistic answer). So why do we characterize God as masculine if He actually has no gender? Because of the two options, it is the most developmentally beneficial way of arriving at a less inaccurate conception of Him.

Masculinity is associated with qualities that are more accurate in relation to Hashem than their alternatives. For example, it is more accurate to think of Hashem as strong rather than weak, and masculinity is more associated with physical strength than femininity; it is more accurate to think of Hashem as active than passive, and masculinity is associated with the active role than the passive role; it is developmentally beneficial to think of Hashem as provider, protector, ruler, judge, etc. - roles which are more associated with masculinity than femininity.

This is not to suggest that these roles are intrinsically more masculine than feminine. It is certainly possible for women to be stronger, more active, and have greater leadership roles than men. It just happens to be that in most societies for most of human history, these qualities are more associated with men than with women.

By characterizing Hashem as masculine in our language and imagery, all of these associations automatically become attached to Him. Although they cannot be applied to Him in truth, since He is One and His Essence is unknowable, they are nevertheless more accurate than their opposites, which is why we ascribe masculine attributes to Him instead of feminine.

Summary

Allow me to summarize the answer in a single sentence:

Hashem has no gender, but we refer to Him in anthropomorphic terms in order to avoid characterizing Him as an object - and once we ascribe human qualities, we use masculine terminology and imagery because the qualities associated with masculinity are more developmentally beneficial to our conception of Him. 

Of course, one need not be aware of this explanation in order for this characterization to have its effect. Indeed, it is somewhat of a pity that we are forced to explicate the Torah's reasoning in this regard, since this might have the effect of diminishing the intended goal of these descriptions, rather than letting the effects of these terms occur naturally to our minds.

[1] While these questions have no doubt been raised and addressed by past generations of Torah educators, they have taken on a new degree of intensity and urgency in the milieu of 2018 America. Our culture is abuzz with LGBTQ+ issues, and gender identity is one of the "hot topics" which continuously generates both passion and controversy. 

I happen to live in a rather conservative bubble, but judging by what I see on the Internet, it has become an accepted - if not obligatory - practice on college campuses, when making a new acquaintance, to ask, "What is your preferred pronoun?" We now live in a world where someone who looks like a "he" insists on being called "she," where some individuals prefer the pronouns "they," "them," and "their" so as to avoid gender altogether, and where some have even gone so far as to try standardizing new pronouns, such as "ze," "zem," and "zir." 

I am not bringing up these social issues in order to voice an opinion about them. Regardless of what opinions you hold about politics, psychology, or medicine, the reality is that when Modern Orthodox teenagers ask questions about God and pronouns, this is where these questions are coming from, and if you are going to attempt to answer their questions, then it behooves you to know what premises they are operating with. 
[2] Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Paquda, Chovos ha'Levavos 1:10
[3] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah  1:11
[4] If you're wondering why - that answer will have to wait until another time. I was originally going to address it in this post, but I realized that it deserves its own treatment.

The Four Levels of Belief in God

The Four Levels of Belief in God's Oneness

One of the earliest books on Jewish thought is Chovos ha'Levavos (Duties of the Heart), by Rabbeinu Bachya ben Paquda. The first of the ten sections (or "gates") of the book is entitled Shaar ha'Yichud (The Gate of Oneness). In this section the author delves into Judaism's unique concept of monotheism and offers detailed proofs from Scripture and logic to support each of his points.

Towards the beginning of this section (chapter 2) Rabbeinu Bachya presents his categorization of the four levels of belief in God's Oneness. For the sake of easy reference, I will assign titles to each level. These titles are my own, but the rest of the text is a translation of the author's words (or, more accurately, my translation based on several Hebrew translations of the author's original Arabic).

The first level represents the absolute minimum:

Level #1: Speech: The first [level of acknowledging God’s Oneness] is the declaration of God’s Oneness in speech alone. This level is attained by the child or the simple person who has no understanding of the [true] meaning of emunah, nor is its truth established in his mind. 

This barely even qualifies as "belief." The person on this level might use the term "Hashem" and say the Shema, but hasn't given any real thought to the meaning of the words he is saying. Rabbeinu Bachya doesn't even bother to explain why this is the lowest level, or what the problems with are; they are too obvious to be mentioned.

I don't know how many Jews are on this level. I would like to think that the number is small, but I'm afraid it's much larger. And if we expand our count to include all of the non-Jews who profess a belief in God, then the number skyrockets into the billions, since this is the extent of most people's belief. 

The next group definitely represents the majority of Orthodox Jews I have encountered:

Level #2: Tradition: The second level is the acknowledgment of God’s Oneness with the mind and in speech based on what one has received from tradition, because he believes the person from whom he has received it. [However,] one does not grasp [at this level] the true meaning of the subject on the strength of one’s own intellect and understanding. 

Some might view reliance on the Mesorah (authoritative tradition) as the highest level of belief. Rabbeinu Bachya begs to differ. Not only does he view it as a relatively low level, but he also maintains that there is an inherent risk in relying on tradition alone, as he goes on to explain:

He is like a blind man who is led by one who can see. It may happen that one receives [the tradition] from someone who, likewise, knows it only from tradition. That would resemble a string of blind men, each of whom has his hand on the shoulder of the one in front of him, until the file reaches a person endowed with sight, who is at their head and guides them. Should this guide of theirs fail them and neglect to watch over them carefully, or if one of them should stumble or suffer an accident, then all of them would be affected: they would all stray from the path and either fall into a pit or a ditch, or blunder into an obstacle that would prevent them from continuing. 

The same is true of one who acknowledges God’s Oneness by relying on tradition. One cannot be sure that he will not embrace shituf (i.e. belief in a god who is not truly One, but who partakes of multiplicity), for when he hears the statements and arguments of the dualists, his views might change and he might fall into error without his being aware of it. For this reason our masters have stated: “Be diligent in the study of Torah, and know what answer to give a heretic” (Avos 2:14). 

This brings us to the third level:

Level #3: Proof: The third level is the acknowledgment of God’s Oneness with the mind and in speech after one is able to support it [the doctrine] with arguments for the truth of His existence, by way of reasoned analysis. [However,] one does not have knowledge of the meaning of “the absolute One” and “the relative one.” 

This level is very subtle and falls within a precise range. It describes someone who has arrived, through rational investigation and analysis, at a conviction that God exists, but hasn't reached a correct understanding of Who God is. For example, Albert Einstein became convinced of God's Existence through his study of the universe:

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble ... this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment.

Isaac Newton likewise said:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

But although both men arrived at their belief in God through rational inquiry, they did not follow through with their investigation to the point where they grasped the fundamental truth of Yichud Hashem (God's Oneness) or its associated truths (i.e. God's non-physicality, His Eternality, that He is a Necessary Existence, etc.).

Rabbeinu Bachya provides an analogy to describe the limitations of this level:

A person [at this level] resembles a man, endowed with sight, who, on a journey to a distant land, reaches a point in the road where it branches off into many different directions. Although he knows the general direction and location of his city of destination, he does not know which road will take him there; despite great effort on his part, he fails to reach his destination, for he does not know the way. This is like what Scripture says: “A fool wearies himself with his efforts, for he does not know how to get to the city” (Koheles 10:15). 

Level #3 isn't unique to people like Einstein and Newton. I have seen a number of Jewish educators successfully demonstrate that Hashem exists, then stop short of explaining what we mean by "Hashem." Of course, this can definitely be the developmentally appropriate place to stop in a lesson. But one must recognize that this level of belief is incomplete. 

This brings us to the ultimate level:

Level #4: True Conviction: The fourth level is the acknowledgment of God’s Oneness with the mind and in speech after one knows how to support [the doctrine] with arguments and arrive at knowledge of His true Oneness by way of rational analysis and correct, intelligent arguments. This is the highest and most accomplished level of them all, and it is this high station which the prophet urged us to attain when he said: “Understand it today and reflect on it in your mind: Hashem is the God in the heavens above and on the earth below, there is no other” (Devarim 4:39). 

This is the level of true emunah, which is the highest level of knowledge and belief we can attain. By devoting ourselves to the study of the yesodei ha'Torah from Rabbeinu Bachya, the Rambam, the Rashba, and the other masters of the Mesorah, then we may one day reach this level, with God's help. 

Parashas Balak: Divine Regret

Unfortunately, I found myself uninspired to look into the parashah in time to write a dvar Torah for this week. But since I felt I needed to write something, I decided to just share an Ibn Ezra on a pasuk in Parashas Bereishis which sheds light on a pasuk in Parashas Balak. It might be a Tier #2 dvar Torah which is only kinda on the parashah, but who knows? Maybe someone will gain something from it. 

Parashas Balak: Divine Regret

Balak, the king of Moav, hired Bilam the prophet to curse the Jews. Time and time again, the king was let down when the prophet blessed the Israelite nation instead of cursing them, explaining that he can't go against God's will. Balak's persisted in his demands, hoping that Hashem would change His mind and allow Bilam to curse the foreign nation. In response to this hope Bilam says:

"God is not a man that He should be deceitful, nor is He a human being that He should regret" (Bamidbar 23:19). 

Seems straightforward enough: God doesn't regret, and will not change His mind about allowing the Jews to be cursed. However, at the end of Parashas Bereishis, prior to the decree of the Flood, the Torah says the opposite: 

Hashem saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every product of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all of the time. And Hashem regretted having made man upon the earth, and His heart was saddened. And Hashem said, "I will blot out Man whom I created from the face of the ground - from man to animal, to creeping things, and to birds of the sky; for I have regretted having made them (Bereishis 6:5-7).

So which is it: Does Hashem regret or not? Furthermore, what does it mean when it says that "His heart was saddened"?

To a student of the yesodei ha'Torah (fundamentals of Torah), the answer is obvious: no, Hashem does not regret, nor be sad. First of all, Hashem does not - and cannot - change. Secondly, Hashem has no emotions, since Hashem is not physical. Thirdly, Hashem cannot make any mistakes which would warrant regret. 

This changes our question: Since Hashem doesn't regret, what does the pasuk mean when it describes Him has regretting having created man?

The Ibn Ezra [1] answers:

It is obvious that He is not a man such that He regrets. Rather, the Torah speaks in human language, and one who destroys what he has made appears as though he regretted [making it]. The meaning of "His heart was saddened" is the opposite of "may Hashem rejoice in His creations" (Tehilim 104:31), for it is good in His eyes that His creations receive His kindnesses.

On the pasuk from Tehilim cited by the Ibn Ezra, the Radak [2] echoes his comments:

Happiness and sadness with reference to Hashem are [to be understood] allegorically, for He has neither happiness nor sadness, and He doesn't change from one mode to another. Rather, just as a person is happy when his actions succeed and is sad when the opposite happens, the same is allegorically said of God (blessed is He), so that the listeners may understand. 

Both Rishonim agree that "regret," "happiness," "sadness" are to be understood as anthropomorphic characterizations of Hashem's actions - not as literal statements about Hashem, Himself. The same goes for all other statements which seem to imply that Hashem has emotions.

Although this approach is expressed unanimously and ubiquitously throughout the writings of the Rishonim, it is too often neglected in Jewish day school education. I have lost count of the number of students I've taught who are shocked to be informed that Hashem has no emotions. The only way I know to remedy this deficiency in their education is to seize every opportunity to explain anthropomorphic passages such as these, and to show them that this entire approach is firmly rooted in the teachings of the baalei Mesorah. 

[1] Rabbeinu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar 23:19
[2] Rabbeinu David Kimchi, Commentary on Sefer Tehilim 104:31

The Mentality of a Jewish Soldier

In light of recent events, I decided to repost something I wrote as a dvar Torah last summer - with some minor changes and additions. 

The Rambam's Mishneh Torah concludes with the section entitled, "The Laws of Kings and Wars." Chapters 5-8 detail the laws pertaining to the wars waged by Malchei Yisrael (Jewish kings) on behalf of Malchus Yisrael (Jewish monarchy). Although many of these laws do not apply to the battles fought by the Israeli Defense Force in service of the modern State of Israel, they still provide insight into the Torah's view of warfare, and the philosophical and ethical standards to which it holds Jewish soldiers. 

Once the soldiers are in formation and are about to enter into battle, they are addressed by two individuals: the Meshuach Milchamah – a Kohen appointed specifically for this purpose – and another high ranking officer. The Meshuach Milchamah proclaims: 

“Hear, O Israel, you are coming near to the battle against your enemies; let your heart not be faint; do not be afraid, do not panic, and do not be broken before them. For Hashem, your God, is the One Who goes with you, to fight for you with your enemies, to save you!" (Devarim 20:3-4). 

In a milchemes reshus (a war which is not mandated by a Torah commandment), the Meshuach Milchamah enumerates three categories of individuals who are exempt from fighting: 

"Who is the man who has built a new house and has not inaugurated it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the war and another man will inaugurate it. And who is the man who has planted a vineyard and has not redeemed it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the war and another man will redeem it. And who is the man who has betrothed a woman and has not married her? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the war and another man will marry her" (ibid. 20:5-7).

Finally, an officer announces a fourth category of individuals who are urged not to enter into battle: “Who is the man who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go and return to his house, and let him not melt the heart of his fellows like his heart!” (ibid. 20:8).

In providing the Torah she’baal Peh (Oral Torah) explanation of this last category, the Rambam paints a vivid portrait of the mentality of a Jewish soldier as envisioned by the Torah:

“Who is the man who is fearful and fainthearted?” is to be understood simply, as referring to a person whose heart lacks the capacity to withstand the throes of war. 

Once a man enters the throes of war, he should rely on the Hope of Israel and their Savior in times of distress. He should realize that he is fighting for Yichud ha'Shem (the Oneness of God's Name), and he should place his soul in his hand and neither fear nor tremble. He shouldn't think about his wife or his children. Instead, he should erase their memory from his heart, and empty his mind of thoughts except for war. 

Anyone who begins to think and be anxious [about personal matters] in the midst of battle to the point where he frightens himself violates a lo taaseh (Torah prohibition), as it is stated: “let your heart not be faint; do not be afraid, do not panic, and do not be broken before them” (ibid. 20:3). 

Furthermore, he is responsible for the blood of the entire Jewish nation. If he is not valiant, and if he does not wage war with all of his heart and with all of his soul, it is considered as if he shed the blood of everyone, as it is stated: “Let him go and return to his house, and let him not melt the heart of his fellows like his heart” (ibid. 20:8). This is explicit in the prophetic tradition: "Cursed be the one who carious out the mission of Hashem deceitfully. Cursed be the one who withholds his sword from bloodshed" (Yirmiyahu 48:10). 

And anyone who wages war with his entire heart, without fear, with the sole intention of sanctifying God’s Name, can be assured that he will not be hurt, and will not be overtaken by harm. He will build a proper household in Israel and merit for himself and for his children forever. He will also merit eternal life in Olam ha'Ba (the World to Come), as it is stated: "for Hashem shall certainly make for my lord an enduring house, for my lord fights the wars of Hashem; and no blame has been found in you in your days … and my lord’s soul will be bound up in the bond of life, with Hashem, your God" (Shmuel I 25:28-29).

In light of this description, we can identify four qualities that the Jewish soldier must possess: 

(1) Self-knowledge: We live in a culture which regards rash, unthinking, “macho” bravery as the hallmark of a hero. The Torah disagrees. A Jewish soldier must be able to look at himself and honestly assess whether he’ll be able to withstand the terrors of war. If he is able to do so, he must accept his responsibility, but if not, he must step back, no matter how much societal pressure he faces. By coming to terms with his fear and removing himself from battle, he will be sparing the lives of his brethren. It takes true courage to face oneself, and this is the type of courage that the Torah demands from the soldiers of Israel. 

(2) Self-control: The Torah expects a Jewish soldier be in complete control of his mind and his emotions during battle. He must clear all thoughts unrelated to the war from his mind – even thoughts of his wife and children – and he must be in total command of his emotions. He must be embody true gevurah (might), as Chazal teach: “Eizehu gibor? ha’kovesh es yitzro” “Who is mighty? He who conquers his emotions” (Avos 4:1). 

(3) Ahavas Hashem (Love of God): The American soldier fights for freedom and democracy, and the Japanese soldier fights for the honor and glory of his nation, but the Jewish soldier fights for Yichud ha’Shem (the Oneness of God’s Name) and Kiddush ha’Shem (the Sanctification of God’s Name). It is no accident that the Meshuach Milchamah begins his speech with the words, “Hear, O Israel” and that the Rambam rules that a soldier must wage war “with all of his heart and with all of his soul.” When the Jewish soldier fights, he is engaged not only in a physical war, but a philosophical war – a war with the ultimate goal of establishing Malchus Hashem (the Kingdom of God), which will ultimately bring knowledge of God to all mankind. 

(4) Bitachon (Trust in God): Last but not least, the soldier of Israel must trust in Hashem to protect him and to bring him to victory. He must recognize that it is Hashem Who is the cause of his success. Of course, whether or not he is protected depends on his adherence to Torah, and he mustn't rely on a miracle or believe himself to be immune to harm. Nevertheless, Chazal teach (Sotah 42a), based on the Meshuach Milchamah’s use of the phrase “Shema Yisrael,” that even if a soldier only has the merit of the mitzvah of krias Shema, he is worthy of Hashem’s salvation.

This last point is underscored by the Meshuach Milchamah's statement: "For Hashem, your God, is the One Who goes with you, to fight for you with your enemies, to save you!" (Devarim 20:4). This pasuk was also chosen as the conclusion to the contemporary prayer composed for the IDF. The Ramban explains that this statement serves a dual purpose:

It warns [the soldiers] not to be fainthearted and not to be afraid of their enemies, and it [also warns them] not to trust in their own might, thinking in their heart, "We are mighty soldiers who are for war!" but rather, they should turn their hearts to Hashem and trust in His salvation and think about the fact that "not in the strength of the horse does He desire, and not in the legs of man does He favor. Hashem favors those who fear Him, those who hope for His kindness" (Tehilim 147:10)

The Jewish soldier must avoid two extremes: being overtaken by fear of his enemy, and becoming overconfident in his own abilities. Both erroneous viewpoints stem from a common foundation: belief in the supremacy of human power. In truth, we humans are very limited. There are a myriad factors outside of our control, and what little control we have we owe to hashgachas Hashem (God's providence over mankind). The Meshuach Milchamah's statement is designed to remind us that the true power belongs to Him, Alone.

The final chapters of The Laws of Kings and Wars discuss the final chapters of human history: Yemos ha'Moshiach (the Messianic Era), in which all wars will cease, and mankind will enjoy peace and tranquility, due to the abundant overflow of yedias Hashem (knowledge of God). May the present war be speedily brought to an end, and may the Redeemer of Israel save us from the darkness of ignorance and exile, and usher in the era of knowledge and light for all human beings.