Rambam on the Satan and Ra (Part 3: Matter as the Cause of Ra) Artwork

Machshavah Lab

My name is Rabbi Matt Schneeweiss. My goal as a Torah educator is not merely to teach my students my OWN hashkafah. Rather, my goal is to equip them with the foundations, the methodological training, and the tools which will enable them to arrive at their OWN understanding of Judaism and cultivate their OWN relationship with Hashem and His Torah. This podcast is devoted to the shiurim I give which are geared specifically towards that end. As such, the range of topics covered here will be diverse. There will be shiurim on Jewish philosophy, Chumash methodology, aggadic midrashim, maybe even some non-Jewish philosophy as well. Merriam-Webster defines "laboratory" as a place providing opportunity for experimentation, observation, or practice in a field of study. I call this podcast "Machshavah Lab" because this is where we will conduct Torah "experiments" by exploring questions, texts, and ideas in an effort to develop our machshavah in a "hands on," exploratory, firsthand manner.

All Episodes

Machshavah Lab

Rambam on the Satan and Ra (Part 3: Matter as the Cause of Ra)

April 17, 2026 • Rabbi Matt Schneeweiss • Season 24 • Episode 31

0:00 | 1:22:56

Have any questions, insights, or feedback? Send me a text!

Length: 1 hour 22 minutes
Synopsis: This morning (4/17/26), in our Friday morning Sefer Iyov series for women, we finally began the "Moreh ha'Nevuchim" portion of our Iyov journey. After a very brief review of matter and form, we read, analyzed, and discussed the Moreh 3:8 about the relationship between matter and ra. We concluded by decoding the basic elements of the satan allegory (which, ironically, was interrupted a few minutes before shiur ended by the satan himself). Next week, I hope to cover 3:9 and the all-important 3:10!
-----
מקורות:
רמב"ם - משנה תורה: ספר המדע, הלכות יסודי התורה ב:ג
יונה ד:א-ב;ו
רמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים ג:ח
בבא בתרא דף טז עמוד א
איוב א:ו-יב
-----

The Torah content for the month of Nisan has been sponsored by Rivkie and Dovi Siderson. In the merit of our learning, may Hashem help us use this time to cleanse ourselves of spiritual "chametz," bringing refuah, shalom, and the final geulah to all of Klal Yisrael!

-----

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. 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 a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. 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.
-----
Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/
YU Torah: yutorah.org/teachers/Rabbi-Matt-Schneeweiss
Patreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss
YouTube Channel: youtube.com/rabbischneeweiss
Instagram: instagram.com/rabbischneeweiss/
"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com
"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.buzzsprout.com
"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com
"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com
"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.com
Old Blog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/
WhatsApp Content Hub (where I post all my content and announce my public classes): https://chat.whatsapp.com/GEB1EPIAarsELfHWuI2k0H
Amazon Wishlist: amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/Y72CSP86S24W?ref_=wl_sharel

SPEAKER_08 0:00

Okay, we are back to EOV after uh close to a month uh off. Um and uh we are at the point that I call the Moranivukim uh section of the curriculum. All right. This is where I mean we started this uh you know last time, but we didn't actually get into the chapters of the Morhanevukim yet. But um, if you'll see here, I have a uh on the screen an uh outline of where we are, where we were, where we are, and where we're going in the Morhinevukim. Okay, so um Rahmam has three parts of the Mornevukim, uh Khalik one, two, and three. In Chilik three, the first seven chapters are about Maseburkava, about the um metaphysics and about the vision of the chariot. Um that's uh not something that I uh am able to do. Um and then chapters eight through 23 is really his treatment of EOV. Now, if you just look through the table of contents, you would see that his quote-unquote commentary on Eeve is 22 and 23. However, all of this is necessary, uh is a necessary buildup to his treatment of EOV. So what I would love to do, and what I'm trying to do with my high school students is to take them through and to take you guys through all of these chapters. But there's a problem, okay? The problem is time. Um, and with my high school students, we are just getting up to uh 313, and we have roughly a month and a half of classes left. Um, and I don't know how I'm gonna pull how I'm going to pull it off. Um, because after we do this, we need to get back to the actual Safer EO. Okay. So that's one problem I have. The other problem is that with you guys, I have even fewer sessions because we only meet once a week. Um, and uh we also go more in depth than we do with my high school students. And I don't want to go into the summer um very much because I can't guarantee that I'll be able to give shear and I can't guarantee that I'll want to give shear on you during the summer. So that's a problem for me to solve. Um I'm going to probably post in the chat about certain options about what to do about this. I as much as I hate to do this, what I might end up doing is um using some Thursday night sessions to cover some of this material, uh, and then doing it in both of them. I I don't like to do that because it's different groups for different um, you know, different people can come to different chirom. Um, but uh I don't know. Maybe I'll make it work so that like there are standalone things on on Thursday night. I I don't know how I'm gonna do it, but that's that's my problem. Um, but I just wanted to let you know that there's a problem and that the the the next leg of our journey is gonna be through the Mornbuchen. Okay. All right, so let's do a very quick review, and I'm not gonna allow myself to get uh uh sucked into the trap that I did last time, which is like talking about the soul. Um okay, so uh we went through the ideas of form and matter, okay, or form and material. And in the Rambam, I read this in the Mishnah Torah, Hilkusisode Torah 2, 3, where uh and I'm just gonna re-quote this just to get our minds into the game again. Uh he says, everything on Kharas Barak who created in his universe is divided into three categories. Among them are creations that are composed of matter and form, and they continually come into being and pass away, such as the bodies of humans, animals, plants, and minerals. Okay. That is the category we are going to be discussing uh today. Okay. Then he said, this other category, which we no longer hold by, as far as I know, uh, among them are creations that are composed of matter and form, but do not change from body to body or from form to form like the former. Rather, their form remains fixed in their matter forever, and they do not change like these. These are the celestial spheres and the stars or planets within them. And their matter is not like the other kinds of matter, nor is their form like the other kinds of form. So that was what the ancients held was the, you know, um, the fifth element, the quintessence, uh, these heavenly bodies that were physical but did not undergo change. They didn't come into being and pass away like the stuff on earth does. And then the last category is this, and among them are the creations that are from for that are form without matter at all. And these are the angels. For angels are not a body or a corporeal substance, but rather forms separate from one another. Uh, we spent a lot of time on angels, uh, saying that those are what the Aristotelians call the separate intelligences, and what the Ramam is clear, uh referred to all forces in nature, okay, among other things. Meaning we said that that angel is a functional term that refers to anything that carries out the will of God. But when you're talking about the universe, um, then an angel is uh is angels are laws of nature, essentially. Uh, that's the way we conceive of them nowadays. Okay, so that's one part of the review. Next part of the review is a uh a refresher on material and form. So material or matter is what the thing is made of. Uh, and form is the hard one to define, uh, which is what the thing is or what it's made into, the essence of the thing, what makes the thing the thing, the design of the thing or its organization. And then I'm quoting uh Cass's definition, Leon Cass's definition that I liked is form is what makes a being a unity and a whole in the world and through time. Form is that order or ordering that makes a one of the many components, giving it an integrity the components by themselves do not have. Okay. And then we are not really going to be discussing the efficient cause, which is what makes the thing, what causes the change, or the final cause, what the thing is for. Okay, that's the review. What are uh any questions other than what is the soul? Which is off the table. Uh we will end up talking about the soul, but uh yeah, just any review questions for now. Obviously, we can come back to the question.

SPEAKER_05 5:42

I came on a second late and forgive me if you already said it. Can you just like remind me what what's the context in which we're discussing this?

SPEAKER_08 5:48

Yeah, so the context is these chapters in the Mornivukim, which is we want to get here, which is Ramam's commentary on Safer Eov. Uh, but there are all these chapters that lead up to it, which I understand as being necessary to understand Eevee. So we are about to start 3-8, which is matter as the cause of Ra. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Um, speaking of Ra, um, this is, I think, a better time, as good of a time as any to introduce my disclaimer. Okay. Um, so uh if you encounter the term Ra in Hebrew and you translate it to English, then the translation will often depend on the context. So you can translate Ra as bad if it's an adjective, or badness if it's a uh a noun, or evil, you know, with a moral connotation, or harm with a sort of physical uh connotation, corruption, again, either moral corruption or the corruption of a substance, deficiency, degradation, suffering, deterioration, pollution, uh um uh rotting, you know, all these terms uh, you know, are are um various meanings of ra. Okay. So the problem is in English, you're forced to choose. Okay. So for example, you'll find statements like um uh, you know, um uh you know, Mojravenu uh, or let's say tzadik viralo, okay. A tzadik that ra happens to him. But in English, you're forced to say, you know, why does evil happen to a tzadik? Or why does suffering happen to a tzadik? Or why does harm happen to a tzadiq? Now, if you think about it, those are very different things in English, okay? Um, but uh but you have to choose if you're trying to translate Ra into English. Uh similarly, you'll find like statements um uh like I'm blanking on it right now, but the only one I can think of is Moshe Rabinu um, you know, saying to Hashem, like, um actually this is another uh hold on a second. Uh I'm thinking of another example. I think Yonah says this. Um Yona says, for example, when he's suffering from the um the heat, uh he says, Oh uh hold on just one second here.

SPEAKER_07 8:14

Uh wait, let me just look at ra.

SPEAKER_08 8:16

Yeah, Vayera El Yona Ra Gadula Gadola Viharlo. So this is after Ninveh is saved. It says that um uh uh it says uh Vayera El Yonah, Ra Agadola. So Yonah suffered a Ra, a very bad Ra. Again, I can't even say it in English without using the word suffer. Um uh and then he Davins to Hashem and he says, Hashem, you are uh Rav Chesed Viniha Mahara, you are abundant in kindness and you change your mind regarding the Ra. Okay, and that's referring to the Ra that um that Hashem was going to bring upon the um the Ninevites, okay. And uh and then Hashem says to uh says that um that Hashem appointed a kikayon, which is some sort of plant, uh, and it grew over Yonah to be a shade on his head to save him from his Ra. Okay, now if you just look at like these three instances here, like these are very different kinds of Ra. Like it seems like the Ira a Yonah, does that mean that he suffered? Does that mean that he viewed it as Ra, as evil? You know, or when it says that uh uh Yonah or that it says that Hashem changed his mind from doing Ra to the people of Nineveh, does it mean that Hashem's punishment is ra? So like it's very frustrating that in uh in Hebrew, when you're translating to English, you have to choose. So in Hebrew, though, you can use a to use a fancy term, multivalent term, ra, and all the meanings will come to mind, and your mind will just naturally, you know, um settle on whatever meaning you think is correct, but you're not committed to one or the other, you know. So in talking about the problem of tzadik viralo, which we're gonna be talking about now, I don't want to have to commit to a specific meaning because we're gonna be using the term ra in so many ways. And it's very frustrating if you're using English translations that you'll talk, you'll you'll see things saying like, you know, why does Hashem do evil to a tzaddik? But that's already taking a value judgment on saying, well, Hashem is doing evil. Like, no, maybe it means why does Hashem bring suffering to a tzaddik? Or why does a tzadiq suffer bodily harm, you know? So from this point until the end, I'm going to try avoiding translating the term Ra as much as possible. So we'll use the term Ra and Ra-os uh to describe bad stuff. Okay. Um, and if you catch me using a translation, then um, you know, sometimes I'm I am translating the text because the text uses a specific term. Uh, but I I want to try getting our mind into thinking about ra. Oh, and by the way, another thing also is um, you know, I didn't tell my high school students this uh at first, but what the Ramam is doing here and what Safe for Eov is doing is by the time you get done with learning the Ramam and Eov, you are thinking of Ra in a different way than when you started. In other words, I think when people go into the question of Tsadik Viralo, they have a certain idea of Ra and they want to know why that stuff happens. But what I think has to happen in order to answer that question is for your idea of Ra to change. And that's what the Ram is going to be taking us uh us on this journey through.

SPEAKER_07 11:31

Yeah, I think sorry.

SPEAKER_05 11:38

Um yeah, I just wanted to say that we did this with Rev A Rap report when we were doing told Did you do a fake and the and the and the Rev is talking at length about Ra, how people deal with Ra. And we talked about different facets, and then we just use the word Ra also because Okay, good same reason. Yeah, good.

SPEAKER_08 11:54

Always nice uh to know that there's uh there are other thinkers that are uh confronting the same problems and using the same solutions. Okay, so we are now gonna start the Ram Bombs um 3-8. And my personal heading for this is matter as the cause of Ra. Okay. Um now I just want to take a note, make a note here. I've said this in in recent sheerim. Um, you know, Ramam wrote the Morin Vukim in Judeo-Arabic, and I don't know Judeo-Arabic, so I'm forced to rely on translations. Um and the translation that I've started using uh is my own sort of uh uh solution here. Hold on, let me just show you. Um, so what I've been doing, uh, and I'm I'm not saying this so much for you guys, I'm saying this for people who are gonna be listening to this year who are very opinionated about what translations of the Mordevukim should and shouldn't be used. So, what I've been doing is I've been making what I call synthesis translations. Okay, so what I'll do is I will take three English translations, Friedlander, um Pinas, and uh and Goodman, and then three Hebrew translations, um uh Kafich, Makhbili, and Goldstein, who's a new uh newer translation. And I will use uh either Chat GPT or Claude to I have my own like like uh custom prompt where I have it um synthesize all six translations and then favor the ones that I prefer, which are uh penis, kafek, and makbili, and then come out with a uh a synthesized translation, and then I'll go through it and I'll check it against the different translations that I like and then come up with my own translation based on that. Okay, so you will not find this translation anywhere other than on my computer. All right. Uh, but it's a synthesis of all of all three of them. And if anyone who is listening to the East Europe has any quibbles or quabbles, I forgot what the word is, uh, with any of my translations, then feel free to take it up with me. Uh and we'll uh I'll I'll change accordingly here. Okay. Um, hold on. Okay, so um let's read and we'll take notes as we go. And if you see these black portions here, it's because I have examples that I've preloaded that I want to make sure not to forget. Okay. All bodies that come into being and pass away. Pause. Okay, so again, in the Ramam and the Mishnah Torah, we're talking about this category of that includes humans, animals, plants, and minerals. Okay, basically all physical things that we encounter on Earth. And now we know that this is like all physical things, okay? Because even again, we they thought that the moon and the stars and the sun did not undergo change, but we know that those are physical things just like the things on Earth. Okay, so all physical things that come into being and pass away are subject to destruction or corruption or deficiency only on account of their matter, not on account of their form. With respect to form itself, and considered in its own essence, there is no destruction, corruption, or deficiency. Rather, it endures. For you see that the specific forms remain constant and permanent or fixed. Destruction slash corruption/slash deficiency reaches form only accidentally. Okay, and he's using the word accidentally here in the Aristotelian sense of incidentally. That is because it is joined to matter. The nature and true reality of matter are such that it is never free from privation. For this reason, no form remains permanently in it. Matter continually casts off one form and takes on another. Pause. Now, if you're going, what? Then uh you're not alone. Okay, we have to we have to analyze this here. Okay, so let's start off with his first claim here. Okay, all bodies that come into being and pass away are subject to destruction or corruption or deficiency only on account of their matter, not on account of their form. With respect to form itself, and consider it in its own essence, there is no destruction, corruption, or deficiency. So in my notes here, I'm gonna say here, I'm gonna go ahead and start using the word ra because that's where the ram is going. All sorry all in physical in physical things, all ra, which is um, I'm gonna use the terms destruction, corruption, and deficiency, okay, only occur or actually let me start in a different different way. All ra only occurs to occurs to physical things by virtue of their matter, not by virtue of their form. Okay, so what what do you think the Rama means by that, or can you give an example? I'll I'll add here there is no destruction, corruption, or deficiency of form of the forms themselves. Yeah, SD.

SPEAKER_05 16:58

And I think what he's saying is that when you have something, like an apple, yeah, there's the form of apple, which is like another thing in the what makes for an apple or the apple. It doesn't make the apple itself because it has a physical um because it comes into being and then leaves because it's material. That you know, and like that apple can rot, let's say, we'll call that raw for the apple. That can happen only because of its of its changing material nature, and not because of the form itself. That that form stays, but the physical aspect is what is subject to raw.

SPEAKER_08 17:34

Okay, good. Uh ding ding ding, you've unlocked one of my go-to examples, the apple. Okay. Uh, but this is gonna be my example number four, all right. And yeah again, it is a good example, but I'm gonna start off with um examples that to my mind are a little bit uh simpler. Okay, so let's go through three examples, and hopefully this will become clear by the time we're done with these these three. Number one is a building, okay. So um so if if you have a uh uh a building, okay, a physical building, okay, um and it deteriorates, what is going on in terms of its form versus its matter? Okay, so let's just plug this in here, okay, uh, in terms of our definitions here. The form of the building is its design, okay, which was uh which which began in the mind of the architect um and was uh was imposed onto matter by the builders, okay, or if you want to say um the the builders transformed the raw material into a uh an incarnation, I guess an incarnation, uh flesh, uh embodiment uh uh of the uh of that design. Okay, so so what exactly uh uh exactly is deteriorating not the design, okay, but the materials adherence to that design. Okay, so again, picture let's say you have a uh a brick, the brick wall of the building that the design requires that it it it you know be a solid wall, okay. Um, but now let's say the bricks start to degrade and this brick falls out here. So what is changing? It's not the design of the building. The design of the building is the same as it was before the building was built, and after the building was built, and after the building is is gone, but it's the the material that was constituting that building that is, so to speak, pulling away from that material building. Okay, so the form is not undergoing degradation. It's the material, it's the material component of that embodied form that is undergoing the degradation. And hold that thought for one second and then I'll take questions. Um, the second example, which for some people is gonna be simpler than the building, is a uh an Easter bunny. Okay, or I should say a chocolate Easter bunny. All right. Um, I think the first time I ever taught Eov, then it was during Easter, and like there were chocolate Easter bunnies around, and so I was it was on my mind here. Okay, so like what happens uh when a chocolate Easter bunny uh melts? Okay, so uh the form, i.e. the shape uh that the chocolate was molded in uh into does not change. It's the material, the chocolate, um that is is, you know, uh again, I'll I'll use this term pulling away from that form uh and no longer being formed by it. Okay. Uh so that those are the two examples I think that are the that that the wrong was talking about. And when he says when he says the way he says it is he says that um uh uh that they deteriorate only on account of their matter, not on account of their form. Oh, sorry, what is this? Oh, he says um, yeah, yeah. Destruction, corruption, deficiency reaches form only accidentally. That is because it is joined to matter. So when we when you look at the building, you do associate, you know, because we only see things that are a combination of form and matter, you do think to yourself, oh, the building is deteriorating. And when you say building, you're referring to the form and the matter, but really it's not like you have to separate it in your mind, like the form is not changing, it's only that combo, and uh the only change is occurring because of the material aspect of that combo. Okay, any questions? Yeah, Ayala.

SPEAKER_06 21:54

This is uh because form doesn't change, like the form is constant.

SPEAKER_08 21:59

Yeah, the form is constant. Okay. I'm going to give one more example because I think these examples I'm giving here are dynamic that involve change. I want to give one static example, even though the Ram is not talking about static uh forms of Ra. Okay. Um I don't know if you've ever seen on uh on YouTube or whatever, um, that uh there are people, one of these like weird talents that certain people have is uh they can draw a perfect circle. Okay. I remember the first time I ever saw this was uh it was like a video that was being taken by some kid in a class, and like the uh his his math teacher was uh was like like kind of like like boasting about how he could draw a perfect circle and all the kids were taunting him saying, No, you can't. So he just goes up to the board, takes chalk, he he concentrates for a little while, and then he just goes, whoosh, and then just draws a perfect circle, and everyone like freaks out because it's like a you know perfect circle. And I'm sure they have perfect circle uh competitions. So if you think about um uh uh imperfect circle, okay, so if you uh uh have two people attempt to draw perfect circles, okay, one of which is good and one of which is bad. Okay, so we can all picture, except if you have effantasia, we can all imagine a uh uh imperfectly drawn uh circle. Okay. So so the question is what makes the bad circle bad? How would you how would you characterize the badness of the bad circle? Like what do we mean when we say, oh, that was a bad circle? We don't mean morally bad.

SPEAKER_05 23:40

Yeah, tomorrow the differences between the drawing and an ideal circle that's like the mathematical circle.

SPEAKER_08 23:47

Exactly, right? So so the the it's the the difference between the material circle, which is you know drawn with ink, chalk, uh, etc., and the the I the the the the form of circle, right? Which is the ideal mathematical abstraction, okay, which is uh what's the definition of a circle? A geometric shape with a circumference that has no angles and is equidistant from the center, probably something like that, right? So so the thing is is like in the material world, uh there is no perfect circle, okay, but uh uh rather we judge the perfection uh or imperfection uh by how closely the material um uh the material instance um approximates the the the the true form. Okay, so for some people that might help us uh better to to think about this, okay. That like thinking about the uh the the form. Okay, so those are my three examples here. And I'm using these examples because these are um these are involve uh these all involve man-made things, okay. Uh either a building that you build or a chocolate bunny or a circle that you draw. Okay. I'm reserving Essie's example for the next uh the next phase. Okay, but any other questions here. Okay, let's go on to the Ramam's next point, okay, which I actually uh uh um read before. Okay, so he says like this the true nature, sorry, the nature and true reality of matter are such that it is never free from privation. Now, privation is um a term that if you poke any of my high school students, they'll start saying a lot because I've been uh using it uh in teaching them EOF. Um uh privation uh is um I think in in common, I know it's not a very common word. I think when people use it in speech, though, like if you look it up in the dictionary, um find privation. Yeah, so I guess the the common definition here is a state in which things that are essential for human well-being, such as food and warmth, are scarce or lacking. I'm talking about though the formal definition, which is the loss or absence of a quality or attribute that is normally present. Okay, so this is not just a uniquely human thing, doesn't have to do uniquely with human needs. Um, but he's saying the true nature and reality of matter are such that it is never free from privation. Okay, uh the difference, obviously, the words really to deprivation. Uh I think the difference is deprivation is referring also to the act of taking something away, whereas privation could just refer to like the the state of existence. For this reason, no form remains permanently in it. Matter continually casts off one form and takes on another. Okay, so for this, um my go-to example. Actually, let me just uh uh take this in the notes here. So this point is that the um matter is always uh uh attached to privation, uh and its nature is to constantly cast off one form and take on another. Okay, so uh the example of this is uh an apple. Okay, so if you think about it, um when an apple uh is growing, okay, um uh you have uh organic matter that is taking on the form of apple. Okay. Um when it's ripe, it fully embodies that form. And then as it rots, its matter is once again, again, uh it it helps to uh anthropomorphize or to um uh personify uh the uh you know the the process here is like um is casting off okay, the form of apple and taking on the form of whatever the apple degrades into, let's just say soil. Okay. Um and another example of this, which I uh happen to really like is the circle of life in the Lion King. Okay. And unfortunately, when I first started, well, fortunately, when I first started teaching EOF, I would ask the question, how many of you have seen the Lion King? And everyone would raise their hand. Now I've asked, um I've asked my students, how many of you have seen the Lion King? And it is a minority. Even children who were raised by responsible parents of the 80s and 90s um uh are not showing their kids the Lion King, and it makes me sad. Um, so um uh let me just show you for those who don't know, I won't I won't embarrass anyone by asking. Um Circle of Life speech. Okay, uh this is not necessary, but I'm gonna do it anyway because um yeah, okay, so everything the light actually is not we don't need everything like this part. Oh, here we go.

SPEAKER_03 28:54

That's what it'd be in getting your way all the time. Simba. Everything you see exists together in a delicate balance.

SPEAKER_02 29:07

As a king, we need to understand that balance and respect all the creatures, from the crawling ant to the leaping antelope.

SPEAKER_01 29:16

Yeah, don't we eat the antelope?

SPEAKER_02 29:17

Yes, but let me explain. When we die, our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eats the grass. And so we are all connected in the great circle of life. Good morning, Zazu.

SPEAKER_08 29:32

Okay, we don't need Zazu talking. Okay, um, yeah. All right, so um, so what's the example here? So I like this example because it goes through many phases. Okay, so you have antelope, okay, and what happens is the antelope is eaten by the lion. Now, what's going on with antelope uh is eaten by the lion? So you have antelope matter, which is in the form of antelope, okay. The lion kills the antelope, and as soon as it kills the antelope, something happens. Okay, I don't exactly we don't exactly know what it is, but life stops. And now, you know, as Cass pointed out in our example with the squirrel, somehow there's a relationship between um the form of living uh creatures and their their um the form of organisms and their their vitality and their life. So, you know, the squirrel, the squirrel's material is held together in a squirrel as long as it's alive, but as soon as it dies, that's when it begins to decompose, when that thing that was holding it together loses its integrity. Okay. So in the case of a lion, it violently ends the life and then chews and eats and digests and metabolizes the antelope. Where what's going on now? The antelope matter is becoming the form of lion. That's what it means to metabolize, right? Is that all of its uh, you know, its fat and its protein and its um uh you know uh uh carbohydrates or whatever, you know, whatever, whatever it is, is becoming transformed into lion matter. Okay, but then eventually the lion dies and it rots and its uh can you know the things that constituted it become soil, okay, uh, with nutrients in it. Okay. That soil then in turn gives rise to grass, which either takes the material and transforms it into plant matter. I don't you know talk to your earth science teacher about how exactly that works. And then the grass is then eaten by the antelope, and uh and that's the circle of life. Okay. Um, so that uh is another example. And again, I like this example because it is um uh it is you could see the dynamism in it that like it occurs cyclically in nature. Okay. Uh keeps on going uh again and again. What was my next example? Is this relevant here? Oh no, no. Okay, uh that comes later. Okay, so um, so then he gives a mushroom here, all right? And this mushroom will make it even clearer. Uh and this is uh uh you know, I have to say this because this is a women's shear. This might seem sexist, okay, but you'll see in a second why it's not. Uh, and he could only use this example. How remarkable is the saying of Solomon in his wisdom when he likens matter to a promiscuous wife. For matter is never found without form, and thus it is always like a married woman who is never without a husband and is never single. However, since she is a promiscuous wife, she continually seeks another man to substitute for her husband, and she entices and attracts him in every possible way until he obtains from her what her husband had obtained. Such is the condition of matter. Whatever form it possesses prepares it to receive another form. It never ceases to move so as to cast off the form that it presently has and to acquire another. And the same situation continues once the new form has been obtained. Now, again, having taught this for many years, whenever I read this, there's always some, again, I taught this mostly to women, there's always some woman who says, like, oh, this is sexist. Ram is like talking about promiscuous women. And I say, no, no, no. Ram is talking about a promiscuous wife, not a promiscuous woman, a promiscuous wife. Now, why is that a critical part of the mushal? Because in halacha, and now you can say this is sexist, but in halacha, a woman can only be married to one man at a time. Okay. Uh, but a man can have multiple wives, or at least in in you know, in the olden days. Okay. So the the idea is that she is attached to one man who's her husband, but then she's straying seeking another man. Okay. Then she breaks off from her husband, marries that guy, but then because she's she's promiscuous, she then starts looking for another man. All right. So you couldn't have that mushle in Halaha with with promiscuous men because they can have multiple wives, but matter can only be in one form at a time. So that's why it's not, you know, the the the point is is the attachment to one and seeking another. So too, matter is always in one form, but it is always by nature, again, trying to escape it and to pull away. And this is true for things on earth that have very short lives, uh, you know, in that form, like um, you know, again, like a rotting apple or like melting ice. But it's also true of mountains eroding, you know, a mountain, the matter in the mountain has a certain form, but it's eroding and becoming, you know, dust or dirt or whatever, or like land masses or planets and stars. Everything is always undergoing change, and it might take millions of years, but it is uh it is still subject to the same nature. Yeah, uh, did you have a question?

SPEAKER_06 34:40

Yeah, are you able to elaborate more on why the privation is what leads to this like casting off of forms?

SPEAKER_08 34:48

Okay, good question. I don't even know if I don't, I'm undecided about the cause and effect implication of the way you frame the question, uh, that the privation is the cause of this. The way I would say it uh is that that the nature of matter is to resist the form that it has and take on another form. And as a result of that, then there's always going to be privation following matter around. In other words, the building, you know, if you if you could imagine, for example, a building that was made out of uh impervious matter and never degraded, there would be no privation there. But because matter is always trying to pull away from the form of a building, there's always going to be privation that just gets bigger and bigger and bigger, or more and more and more as it takes on another form. You see what I'm saying?

SPEAKER_06 35:45

So because of like the laws of entropy, or like because matter is degrading, that's right.

SPEAKER_08 35:50

Correct. Yeah, yeah. SD.

SPEAKER_05 35:54

Why are you framing it in terms of like resisting and trying? I mean, isn't that the nature of matter? Is that it is yeah.

SPEAKER_08 36:01

The reason I'm doing that is twofold. One is because the um the Rambom and Tanakh, I mean, if we're gonna uh uh learn that this is what I was talking about, uh personifies it, okay, to make it easier to to talk about. Um, and uh the other reason is uh I'm sorry, I should say two reasons. One is it makes it easier to think about, and two is that this is how Hazal and Tanakh talk about it, okay, like in personified terms. Uh that it is trying to do stuff. Oh, I guess there's a third reason also that has to do with uh with human beings, which we'll see at the end of the chapter. Um, but yeah, it we're saying essentially the nature of matter is to do this. Okay, you'll you'll see why by the end. Okay, why I'm why I think personifigation helps. Okay. Okay, so that was the second point here. Um okay, so then the Ram begins to transition to talking about human beings. Okay, he says like this it has therefore become clear that all corruption, destruction, or deficiency arises from matter alone. Okay, um, I'm gonna type that out as a even though I kind of said that earlier. I'm gonna type this in slightly positive terms. Matter is the cause, is is is is therefore the cause of all ra. Okay. Now let's start talking about human beings. Thus, in the case of man, for instance, it is clear that the deformity of his physical body, the fact that his limbs do not conform to their nature, and also the weakness cessation or the troubling of his functions, no matter whether all this be inherent in his natural constitution from its beginning, or be only a supervening accident. Again, he's using accident here in um in Aristotelian terms, um, that all this is consequent upon his corrupt matter and not upon his form. Similarly, every living being dies and becomes ill solely because of its matter and not because of its form. Okay, so let's let's go through examples of this. Um first of all, let me state the the universal, which is that all um, what did he say, all um uh deformity and uh and malfunction of the human body only occurs because of man's matter, not his form. Okay, so examples. Um one example is uh mobility impairment. Okay, um now I'm thinking again, I for some reason my mind latches onto specific examples. Uh one of my best friends in high school um had cerebral, I can never say the word cerebral palsy. Cerebral palsy, I can't say it. Um, and he had difficulty um walking. And one of the causes of difficulty was that one of his legs was a different length than the other. And I remember he had um every pair of shoes that he had, uh, it was interesting because like the the he had like custom shoes, and one shoe would be like a very thick sole uh in order to make it so that his legs were um were even. Okay. So so what is the cause of, and I'm again, I'm there's many forms of of uh mobility impairment, but what is the what is the cause of of this? Not the design of man's uh anatomy, okay, i.e. the human form, the human uh physical form, okay, uh, but rather this specific person's matter not conforming to that design, right? In other words, you would not look at my friend and say that, oh, look, this is a design flaw in the species. Okay, you would say that no, clearly the the the normal um uh you know uh functioning of of legs is that they are the same length or that that you know, whatever. Like the there's there is a norm, and this is an anomaly that stems from this person's matter not being in line with that that uh ideal form. Okay. Uh I'm gonna go through just a couple more examples here in uh just to give us uh an idea here. Blindness, okay. Um, let's talk about two types of blindness, okay. Uh let's say like uh you know congenital blindness. I actually don't know. Do anyone know what um what is the people who are born blind? Anyone know what the cause of that is? Okay, so it's not due, I guess I think we can say this, it's not due to a deficiency in the design of man, but due to a particular um you know lack of this person's matter conforming to that design. I'm gonna make this up here. Let's say like like lacking um an optic nerve. Okay, I don't know if that actually happens, uh, or rods and cones. Okay, I'm sure it has something to do with rods and cones, okay. That's what everyone talks about when they talk about blindness. Um, okay, okay. Or alternatively, uh alternatively, um uh blindness in old age is often due to cataracts, which used to not be uh operable, um, which are an excess of matter that blocks the eye, the eyes function. Yeah, Rivka.

SPEAKER_00 41:34

Um, I just wanted to say, like, sometimes people are born, like, they don't necessarily do an eye exam right away. So, but there's bacteria that can get into the baby's eyes, and then like they could experience blindness soon after birth.

SPEAKER_08 41:46

Okay, right.

SPEAKER_00 41:47

Unfortunately. So there is medicine that they recommend for that upcoming.

SPEAKER_08 41:50

Okay, thanks. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. All right, and we'd have to look at what the bacteria exactly does, but according to the Romans thesis here, it's gonna be a something that involves uh deficiency in the matter, not in the not in the form. Okay, I'm gonna give another example. Um is uh Down syndrome. Okay. Um, what is the cause of Down syndrome? Anyone know? Extra chromosome. Yeah, an extra chromosome. Okay. Uh so again, a uh it is a a material um a material component not aligning with the let's call it the neurotypical uh uh anatomy, uh anatomical form. Okay. So my point is that when we say it's a deficiency, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're lacking something. It could also be that you have excess of something. Uh, but it's in in either case, just like we if you have like a a brick wall and one of the bricks is too large, then it's not gonna be conforming to the design of uh of the wall. Okay. Um, and let's use one more example here, um, which is uh to talk about a process here is aging. Okay. Anyone have an up-to-date uh understanding of how of what's going on when when people age? If not, I'll use my layman's uh understanding.

SPEAKER_07 43:14

What happens when people age? What do you mean? Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 43:18

Like on a cellular level, do you know? So once again, I'll say, and again, I I don't know what I'm talking about here, but like something, something cells wearing down and and not functioning in line with their design. Okay. I don't know exactly what the what the cause is exactly, but like my point in all these examples here is that oh sorry, and then uh and that in turn um resulting in a deviation of the body from its form. Okay. Now uh I can picture someone listening to this and rolling their eyes saying, like, we Know that how medicine works now, you know. Yes, we know medicine works, but what the Ramam is trying to do is he's trying, I mean, Ramam held by Aristotelian way of looking at stuff, but like what I'm trying to say, and I said this at the very beginning, is that even though uh certain Aristotelian concepts are outdated, they still are we can't we can still look at the world philosophically in these ways. And the Ramam is going to be um uh explaining Sadik Virato in those terms. So you can't just object to this by saying, oh, it's Aristotelian. You have to show me how something is no longer true. Like, for example, we we we saw that we no longer hold that the planets are unchanging in their material form. That is no longer true, okay? And likewise, we know that the planets no longer control um what happens on Earth and are responsible for all the laws of nature. So like that's an actual flaw in the theory. But but what we're talking about here is a different way of looking at the the processes that science has a stance on now. And as we saw from Leon Cass, I mean, Leon Cass is a is a, you know, has a PhD in biology, and he still finds value in looking at organisms through the uh hilo, uh, the uh hylomorphic Aristotelian way. So if anyone does have an objection, please voice it. But like if this seems outdated, it's because it is, but that doesn't mean that it's false. Okay, it's just a different way of like looking at uh at what's going on here. Yeah, SD.

SPEAKER_05 45:27

Is that also just describing how we how we understand these things?

SPEAKER_08 45:31

Yes, yeah, and that's why I'm saying that uh, you know, in the olden days, they had one subject called philosophy, and there was natural philosophy, and then like uh, you know, um, like theology and metaphysics, natural philosophy is what they called science because what they were doing is they were just thinking about the natural world in certain categories. Now we have a specialized thing called science with its own methods and based on a more rigorous empiricism, but but elements of natural philosophy of just how we think of things is still a valid form of philosophizing. Like we still think about these things in these ways.

SPEAKER_05 46:11

Um, so yeah, I mean, I would add that there's no such thing as matter. I mean, matter is a is a category that we make about what we experience in the world. There's no right entity called matter, so unless it's all matter. So this is how we think about it. We think of matter, this is what we're thinking of. When we think matter, this is what we're thinking. We're thinking of something that exists that's subject to change, that you know, things like that.

SPEAKER_08 46:35

Yeah. Okay. I might have quoted this anecdote before when I was in college. Then I had a professor who was talking about how true scientists do not view philosophy as a valid form of knowledge. And um, I tried unsuccessfully. I don't know if it was because I was presenting it poorly or if this guy just didn't hop or if he had too much resistance, but I was trying to argue that, like, okay, I get that you want to say that science has its own methods, but science, the scientific method is based, it's based on a certain philosophy, okay. And the it's taking stances on on things that are not subject to scientific the scientific method. So like the the premises of science of like cause and effect, you know, that cause and effect exist or that reality exists or all this other stuff, that's that is is uh uh that that's in rooted in philosophy that you cannot test scientifically. And then when scientists create, you know, uh, you know, constructs like matter or talking about like facts or talking about energy, those themselves are constructs, you know, are certain ways of thinking about things. And yeah, science is trying to develop them based on its methods, but like at the end of the day, like everything is form and matter, everything is is is is the the mind imposing its ideas on existence.

SPEAKER_05 47:57

Yes, I yes, I wrote a book on this. Also, I wanted to say the irony of just I it always makes me crazy. He was making a philosophical statement.

SPEAKER_09 48:05

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 48:05

And the the hypocrisy was just intolerable.

SPEAKER_08 48:09

That was what I was trying to to to to to tell him, and he couldn't uh he couldn't hear it. Yeah. In fact, you know, it's funny, I'm not sure.

SPEAKER_05 48:15

No, I'm saying just the very act of saying that science doesn't like philosophy is a philosophical statement.

SPEAKER_08 48:19

Exactly, right, right. Yeah, test that. Show me the uh the the lab results for that, you know. Um yeah. Um by the way, Essie, I meant to actually I I at the beginning of the year, I meant to to actually read your book in preparation for this part of me teaching EOV, uh, because I thought it would help me to at the very least have the vocabulary to talk about these uh these concepts, but I just forgot to do it. So maybe that's when I'll start reading the Chavez. Uh yeah.

SPEAKER_05 48:45

Okay, well it's not the whole book, just the first part is about it. So daunted by the length. Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 48:51

The nature of nature. That is the title of the book. If you want to book blog here. Um okay, so um, so that is uh man's physical body. Okay. Um similarly, every living being dies and becomes ill solely because of its matter and not because of its form. All right. Um, so um, again, we talked about um uh Down syndrome, but uh uh do we want to give an example of a disease? What would be an example of a disease um that is um that we can clearly see is caused by the material of man, the matter of man not aligning with the form. Anyone have a favorite disease? Yeah, not a favorite disease. Yeah, Rivka.

SPEAKER_00 49:34

Um, diabetes.

SPEAKER_08 49:35

Okay, can you uh you want to give it a shot explaining? I don't understand diabetes well enough to explain uh how that is matter not aligning with form.

SPEAKER_00 49:44

Well, it's just some people like they process insulin differently, and so every time they consume matter, like sugary things or don't have sugary things, their body reacts very adversely to it without the medicine.

SPEAKER_08 49:56

Okay, all right. That's that's that's good enough for our purposes here. Is that the uh a diabetic uh a diabetics uh sorry, a diabetic dia. Yeah, that's how you spell a diabetics body um uh lacks the uh the the I'm gonna say the matter. Okay, that's why you need to supplement, let's say, with insulin or whatever, to uh uh to process sugars in the same way as a non-diabetic. Uh so again, this is not a lack in the form of the design of the human, but in that particular person's uh material body. Okay, but now we get to a different realm. He says like this abrupt shift. Okay. Um all man's acts of disobedience and sins are consequent upon his matter and not upon his form, whereas all his virtues are consequent upon his form. For example, man's apprehension, meaning like uh comprehension of his creator, his mental representation of every intelligible, his control of his desire and his anger, his thought on what ought to be preferred and what avoided, are all of them consequent upon his form. On the other hand, his eating and drinking and copulation and his passionate desire for these things, as well as his anger and all bad habits found in him, are all of them consequent upon his matter. Okay. So this is now a uh uh if there's any, if you're gonna characterize anything as a leap, this is a leap. Okay, uh, but if you understand it, it's not a leap. Okay, so so he says like this is likewise, all of man's virtues, virtues, uh stem from his form and all of his vices, actually I'm gonna add to this, all of his virtues and uh Tove stem from his form, and all of his vices and ra I'm sorry, and Ra stem from his matter. Now, the question we have to ask is is how so? And this is where we hesitatingly pull out of the bag our can of worms of the soul and crack it open just to say C and then close it again and put it away. Okay. Anyone want to explain in form and matter terms having to do with the soul, um, how this statement is uh what what the meaning of the statement is here? That all of man's virtues stem from his form and all of his vices stem from his matter.

SPEAKER_05 52:33

Yeah, SD I mean if his form is his rational aspect, then the good things that he does come from that, and then all the you know, things that he does from his physical nature, those are the raw things.

SPEAKER_08 52:51

Okay, good. Okay, good. So we said that when you think about man, it's a little difficult because there's the the body of the human being, which is subject to form and matter, just like any animal or any plant, but then there's a form of that which is the tellemelochim. Okay, so the true form, the true or the higher form of man is the tselomelochim, uh, which we'll call for now the the um the truth-seeking uh rational principle. Um and the matter uh of man is the animalistic body, okay. Um and all you know the the the good activities uh and functions that Rambom listed stem from that non-physical uh tellum. Uh and the whereas the default uh position uh I guess the default um trend of the animalistic body, animalistic body, is to resist the influence of the uh of man's true form and seek out uh the the uh you know the uh the the goods of the animal of the animal form. So this SD is why I was saying that the terms of resistance and trying and striving are useful because if you're talking just about the inanimate world or even the world of you know non-human organisms, then you could just describe it as matter doing its thing. But in the human being, we actually do experience this as resistance or as a pull. In fact, we call this, we call this sort of the itzarhara, right? Okay, the itzahara. Now, I I want to point this out because I again I think that the um uh I think that people don't really talk about the itzaharah in these terms enough, which is that um what makes it raw, okay, so it's not that our our animalistic uh tendencies are inherently um evil, okay. Uh and the proof, not the proof, but the uh the parallel example here is that when wild animals follow their desires um they thrive, okay. But when a human follows uh its animalistic uh desires, then that ends up being ra for it, okay, both in terms of animalistic goods, okay. So see all of Mishlay, if you just follow your desires, then you end up like harming yourself bodily and psychologically, uh, and in terms of the true, the true good, um, of the true good of a Tselam Elochim, uh, which is uh uh i.e. truth seeking. Okay. Um, and this is why I like the um the uh uh the quotation of uh we'll call her what was her name? Uh Alyssa Rosenbaum, okay, um, the philosopher, uh, which is um man has one fundamental choice to be a rational human or a suicidal animal. Okay. Uh and I like that because all the fundamental bhira, free will choice, comes down to are you aligning yourself with your Yitzir Hatov, which is your inclination that is governed by your Telem Elohim, to seek truth and to make good choices and to emulate God, or are you being pulled by your animalistic desires to pursue immediate pleasure and avoid immediate pain and do what is only good for your own immediate selfishness? You know, that's the fundamental choice of human beings. Um, so that's why the ultimate state for the human is not to get rid of the yethara, but to channel it and harness it under the auspices of the Tel Melukim. All right, that's Bahol of Vavecha, Servisham with both of your Yatsirs, Yitzirhara and Yatsiratov. Okay. Any questions on that so far? Okay, last paragraph in the Rama, and then we're gonna we're gonna make another jump. He says, Inasmuch as it is clear that this is so, and according to what has been laid down by divine wisdom, it is impossible for matter to exist without form, and for any of the forms in question to exist without matter. And consequently, it was necessary that man's very noble form, which as we have explained, is the Telamelochim, uh and the Demus Elohim, the divine form, the divine likeness, should be bound to earthly, turbid, and dark matter, which calls down upon man every imperfection and corruption. He, God, granted it, I mean the human form, power, dominion, rule, and control over matter in order that it subjugate it, quell its impulses, and bring it back to the best and most harmonious state possible. Okay, so that's his conclusion here, which is that that uh that insofar as as all physical existences are a combination of form and matter, uh including man, uh, it is necessary that man face this inner tension between his telemelochim and his animalistic matter, okay. Sorry, his uh his you know divine form, okay, which is the telemelochim, and his animalistic matter, um uh animalistic matter, okay. Um and that's why God gave us dominion uh over that that aspect of ourselves. Okay, in other words, it would be un in other words, you can't uh in other words, you can't say it's uh it's unfair for uh for this attention to exist, okay. Uh like that that's what it means to be physical and human. Okay. Uh it would only be unfair if we lacked the ability, uh, the ability to resist this pull. Okay. Uh, but we don't. Okay, we have that ability. Okay, and that's the end of the chapter. Any questions on this? Again, this is gonna be a long development, and so certain questions that you have now may be answered in subsequent chapters, but I do want to hear them if you have any of them immediately. Okay, so now I make a uh uh a curricular decision here, all right. Um, the Rambam does not present his definition of the Satan until uh the Murden Vukum 322. But this is the point in my curriculum where I introduced the Satan. I don't remember why originally I made the decision to present it here, uh, but I think this is the earliest time that we can understand the satan. And I'm going to go ahead and present it. Um uh far be it for me to disagree with the Rambam uh in terms of where to talk about it, but in all fairness, the Ramam actually did talk about it earlier in the Morden of Bukhim as well, and we didn't do that. Um, and so I think that, you know, and the Malbim talks about it at the very beginning of Eo. Okay, so let's quickly review our um our uh just the minimal uh mushle of the of the Satan. So in Eev 1, 6 through 12, it says, it was on that day, the angels came to present themselves before Hashem, Vyavo Gam Hasatan Besokam, and the Satan also came among them. The Satan said, From where did you uh uh where did you come from? Uh uh satan ashem, the satan answered Hashem and said, um, from wandering the earth and walking around on it. Okay, so we have certain clues here, okay, about the Satan, about who the Satan is, which is that he is with the angels, but but but not with them. Okay, in other words, he presented himself before Hashem with the angels, but he is singled out, okay. Um Hashem asks him uh where he comes from. Okay, he answers from wandering the earth and walking around on it. Okay, that's clues in the mushal. Okay. Next clue is from the word satan. What is the shoresh of satan and what does it mean? Okay, now uh I'm gonna have you guess what the shoresh is and what it means. And there are two answers among the Rishonen. Okay, I'm gonna quote from the Ramam, but I'm curious what you would what you would guess. Any guesses?

SPEAKER_05 1:01:37

Like what letters or what does it mean?

SPEAKER_08 1:01:39

What letters and what does it mean? Yeah, uh Ruka.

SPEAKER_00 1:01:45

Um, is it like sota or is that what it sounds like?

SPEAKER_08 1:01:47

Ah, okay. That is the Ramam's view. Okay, so the there there are some. I'm just gonna give a nod to the other Roshonim here. The Sum Roshonim, um uh the the root is synthetnun, which means uh which means like accusation. Okay. Uh and in fact, it it was a little perplexing to me because I heard I I I uh I didn't actually didn't finish it. I started listening, re-listening to a shear from Rabbi Chait uh called the S uh oh actually I'm I'm not gonna spoil the title of the shear yet, uh, where he said that that this was the uh the definition or the uh the the meaning of the shoresh. Um, but I wasn't sure if he was explaining according to the Ramam or not. Uh the Ramam says explicitly, in other words, he could have been quoting other uh Rishana. I'm just saying this in case anyone has heard Rabbi Chait say that it's Sifna, which is accusation. Um uh uh but according to the Ramam, it's sin tet he, which means uh deviation. Okay, so three examples of this, as Rivka pointed out, number one is the Isha Sota, uh, which is usually translated as the straying wife. Uh that's the woman who is married, whose husband warns her not to be secluded with a specific man, and then she disobeys that. Okay. Uh another, anyone know another word that is um uh related to this root? And the hint is that um sin and shin in uh in Hebrew can sometimes be interchangeable.

SPEAKER_07 1:03:17

Anyone know another word?

SPEAKER_08 1:03:23

So another word is the shote, someone who has a mental disorder. Okay, so disorder is another thing that means like you know, deviation. And then a third one, which you could say is just another instance of this, is if you've ever learned Hilko's uh uh aruminum in depth, uh, there is one type of of Hadasim called the Hadas Shote, which is a deranged myrtle. Uh, which is uh that'd be a good um a good punk name if you're if you're uh a woman whose name is Myrtle, uh you could start a band called the deranged myrtles. Um, but um uh that um uh hadasim have to have all the leaves uh from one stem in in a line, but if they're staggered, then it is a Hada Shota, uh and it's it's the wrong uh wrong species. Um so that is another just instance of string. So so it means to deviate or to stray. Okay, so that's another clue. And then chazal, okay. Anyone know what the the statement that everyone needs to know about what the satan is? Uh it's one statement made by Raish Lakish and Bababasra or Babakama. Um that that the is like the decoder ring for understanding the satan. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Yeah, ST.

SPEAKER_05 1:04:33

I think it's Zoo Zat Zer Satan, Zu Yatahara, Zo Malachamavis.

SPEAKER_08 1:04:37

Yeah, is Am Resh Lakish, who satan, who yitara, who malahamavis. The satan, the evil inclination, and the angel of death are all the same. Oh, I didn't quote the source. Uh it's somewhere above a basra basra above a comma. I think it's above a basra, if I'm not mistaken. Um, uh okay, so and that was the the chate that Rabbi Shir, uh the chait that Rabbi Shir, the shear that Rabbi Chade gave, uh, which is um uh the Satan, Malachamavis, and uh the Yatara, okay. And then clue from the Rambom is oh, and I gave it away. I forgot to delete this. Okay, is that all matters is deviation from form? So, what is the satan according to the Rambom? Big reveal. So the modern word would be entropy, okay, but uh there's asterisk on this, asterisk on this, which is the tendency of matter to deviate from form, which is the cause of all ra in the universe and in man. Okay, and this is the the the the asterisk here, which is uh which is note uh in modern physics uh entropy uh refers purely to, and correct me if I'm wrong, SD, to um the tendency of matter to go from an ordered state to a disordered state. Okay. Um but in uh in uh in our usage it will also Refer to the tendency uh of man's matter to resist man's form.

unknown 1:06:09

Okay.

SPEAKER_05 1:06:09

I think it would be a little more accurate to say higher higher energy, lower energy. That would be the more organized, less organized, but experientially it's okay. Higher energy. Uh just because it takes more to to stay stay organized.

SPEAKER_08 1:06:25

Okay. Uh, which is an ordered uh a more ordered state in in in in practice to a uh a state of lower energy, which is a disordered state. Yeah, okay.

unknown 1:06:41

Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 1:06:42

So so in other words, I think entropy is a very good word, but just don't this is actually a pitfall that people who know more about science are more prone to fall into, is that don't equate the terms. I just think that that's the best one-word term for this. Um, in other words, and the reason why I want a one-word term for this is because um, okay, I don't know if you can hear the honking outside, but there's a lot of honking. Um, is that uh the satan uh is one word, okay? Now, one question you we have here, and in fact, maybe we'll end on uh okay, we'll see how far we go. Uh actually, no, I want to start to decode the allegory here is in what sense, or I guess let's put it this way, okay. Why do Hazal use the term uh use three different terms? Uh different terms to refer to the same thing. Okay. Um uh in other words, like if they're all the same thing, why would you have three different terms? Okay, so obviously the answer is gonna be that there's different shades of meaning here, okay? But any anyone know or wanna wanna theorize why there what the three terms would mean here, or why you have three different terms.

SPEAKER_04 1:07:59

Um I can't raise my hand because I'm driving, can I make a suggestion? Yeah.

SPEAKER_07 1:08:03

Yeah, go ahead.

SPEAKER_04 1:08:04

Um I just I'm just just speculating, but I wonder if this is referring more to the physical entropy, like the um uh matter deteriorating from disruption.

SPEAKER_08 1:08:16

Good. That is my uh understanding, which is that that physical manifestations of this uh of this uh tendency, yeah, I see.

SPEAKER_05 1:08:29

I just wanted to correct something I said before, but I can say it after we finish this point.

SPEAKER_08 1:08:33

Okay, sure. Um okay, so my answer is that uh satan is the the abstract uh concept, okay, of the tendency, uh tendency of matter to deviate from form. And then Yetah is the human manifestation of this tendency, which is the animalistic body deviating from the divine form. And uh the um, and then the Malhamavis, like Tamar said, is the physical manifestation of this tendency, um, uh, which is like all degradation, physical corruption. Okay. Rabbi Chate's answer, um now again, this is um I started re-listening to the share. I listened to the share a bunch of times, but uh but I didn't recent listen to it recently. But my recollection um is that all three refer to different um experiential manifestations of the Yetzarhara, uh, of um of the Itzarhara. Okay, and that Khazal call it satan when it stems from an external circumstance. Okay, so for example, in Eev, and say for Eev, Eeov's all of the stuff, the bad stuff that happened to Eev and his uh physical body was being done by uh the Satan from the outside, okay? But they call it Yitzhara uh when it's when it stems from an internal desire. And then Malachamavis, he said, is when it stems from something related to man's mortality or immortality fantasy. Okay, so he wanted to say that these are three terms the Khazal use, uh, all about the specific form of the human interaction with this phenomenon. Whereas I understand it to be about like, you know, in the universe itself. Yeah, I see what was your correction.

SPEAKER_05 1:10:32

I said higher energy, lower energy. It's actually more organized potential energy and lower energy and like randomness.

SPEAKER_08 1:10:38

Okay. Of more organized potential energy. Yes. And randomness.

SPEAKER_05 1:10:47

This disorganization randomness, yeah. Which actually kind of works very nicely with shipping like disorganization being like the physical non-directed.

SPEAKER_08 1:10:59

Yeah, yeah. Uh I I there are many entropic people out there, uh, including ourselves, but but hopefully less so than others. Okay. Um, I'd like to end today by again, Ramam does this later on, and we'll see this in depth, but I want to really quickly then go and decode, just put it all together and decode the the bare bones of the mushroom here. Okay, so it was on that day. Okay, now I have two interpretations of what this is. Um, and uh I don't know for sure what the Ramam holds, but either this refers to um uh the day of creation, okay, because this is a mushroom about the entire universe, or the day that that all this happened to Eov. Okay, what are the Nehalohim is the laws of nature, uh, i.e. the forces that govern the universe, okay, or the form of the physical universe. Okay, if you think about it, the laws of nature are the things that give form to the matter of the universe. Okay, they came to present themselves before Hashem is a mushroom for um the harmonious array and and cis you know uh systemic nature of natural laws. Okay, in other words, picture all the angels arranged, ready to respond to Hashem. That is a mushroom for nature, like you know, uh being there to obey the the the the will of Hashem. Okay, now here's the okay, and the satan, what is the satan? Is is entropy, okay, which is the the tendency of matter to deviate from form. Now, this is the question I want to ask you, okay. And Rama makes a big deal about this, and then Malvin makes a big deal about this. Okay, the satan also came among them. So how would you describe uh how would you describe the relationship between the s the Bene Ha Elohim and the Satan? Okay, the laws of nature and entropy. Yeah, Rivka.

SPEAKER_00 1:13:10

Um, like some are like intended by God to create, and maybe the Satan like stands out, you know, he's there to test, or he's there, whatever he is, like he has an extraacious or something.

SPEAKER_08 1:13:23

Okay, so I think you're on the right track, but let's put this more in terms of let's forget human beings for a second, uh, and and not talk about testing. Let's talk about in if this is a mushroom for the operations of the universe here, okay. In what sense, let's start with the easier question. It once in what sense is the satan a malach? Because he we're saying he's a malach amave. So in what sense is he a malach?

SPEAKER_06 1:13:49

And he's carrying out Hashem's will.

SPEAKER_08 1:13:52

Yeah, on the one hand, the Satan is a malach, okay, uh in that he is sorry, in that he is a law of nature and carries out Hashem's will. Okay. On the other hand, um, the Satan differs from the other laws of nature. Now, this is where you're gonna have to suspend your disbelief or sorry, put aside your modern thinking about physics and think about this from an Aristotelian perspective, just to grasp this point here. So if you ask Aristotle, or not Aristotle, if you ask someone who's who's operating in an Aristotelian way, what is the difference between what the other angels are doing in the universe and what the Satan is doing? What would you say the difference is?

SPEAKER_07 1:14:48

Yeah, Estee.

SPEAKER_05 1:14:50

Sure, but maybe they're kind of like they're all maintaining like an order or a direct or a directive or something that is staying consistent and he's introducing like change and chaos.

SPEAKER_08 1:15:03

Okay, good. So the other na sorry, the other not natures, the other angels, uh sorry, the other laws of nature are maintaining the structures in the universe, um, whereas the satan is is is degrading them, okay, and causing uh change. Yeah, Rivka, what were we gonna say? Or was that okay, all right. So uh to to help you understand this here, I I just want to give a thought experiment here, which is a two-part thought experiment, okay. What would the universe be like if there were only Bene Helohim and no Satan? Okay, and then what would the universe second question is what would the universe be like if there were only Satan uh and no Bene Halohim?

SPEAKER_07 1:15:58

Anyone want to answer either one? Yeah, Steve.

SPEAKER_05 1:16:09

I mean, we we need the Satan would be totally overcrowded and you know, um and overfilled and there would be no change. It wouldn't even keep happening.

SPEAKER_08 1:16:18

Okay, so that that I think is the key thing is that it's pr I arguably would we even get to the point where it would be overfilled? I'm not sure, because I think the the fundamental thing is there'd be only structures with no change. Okay, in other words, it'd be static. It'd be only static structures with no change. So again, if the angels are the form of universe, God could create a universe which is just matter in forms. Okay, and again, this is easier in an Aristotelian universe because you could say the the planets and the stars are that, okay. Yeah, Rufka.

SPEAKER_00 1:16:52

Um, maybe like things would just constantly be breaking down. So, like, you know, this whole nothing from something or something from nothing creation, it would just constantly see like everything shattering or like like a puzzle piece that never like puzzles that never come together, like everything as soon as you get it.

SPEAKER_08 1:17:08

So I I think you're you're you're thinking the right way, but it's even worse than that. Okay, yeah, uh Fega.

SPEAKER_01 1:17:15

No, I just have a question on the one second on the Satan.

SPEAKER_08 1:17:20

So is it's so what would be what would it be with just the satan and no uh Bnehalohim is only chaos, okay, with no structures. Okay, so not even puzzle pieces, all right. Is uh or or you could say tohu va vohu, uh however you spell tohu.

SPEAKER_05 1:17:37

The heat heat death of the universe, that's being yeah, exactly.

SPEAKER_08 1:17:43

Um, so that's really what I want to what I want to get across here with the um with the the relationship between the Benehalihim and the Satan is I know we hold that entropy is a law of uh of the universe, uh, you know, um, and it's hard to think of it as different than gravity in a fundamental way because gravity also causes change. But in in Aristotelian framework, you have like the things that give structure to the universe and then the thing that allows the matter to change from one structure to another. And that's the relation between the Nehlahim and the Satan. Tegan, before I get to you, um uh uh I want to just fill out the rest of this uh this module here. So when Hashem said to the Satan, where did you come from? Okay, anyone want to guess why he's asking, where did you come from?

SPEAKER_07 1:18:32

Yeah, Ayala?

SPEAKER_06 1:18:34

Maybe it's like counter to the purpose or goal of all the other forces.

SPEAKER_08 1:18:39

Okay, that's a good guess, but at the same time, we have to recognize that the Satan is a Malach, so he is still doing Hashem's will. So even if he's against the the other Malachim, okay. Anyone else want to guess? So the Malbim explains based on the Rambam that Hashem is asking from the the perspective of or I guess it from from the world of pure forms without matter, okay, because as the Rambam says, the Satan is is not found uh in forms, okay, but only in matter, okay. And that's why the Satan answered is from wandering the earth and walking around on it, which is that the satan is only found in physical existences, that's on earth, okay. Um, and there are two um manifestations of satan. Now, this is another thing where, in my opinion, this is not an objective uh two categories. This is like from our perspective, which is um walking around refers to cycles of nature that uh that involve uh entropy, and then wandering is accidental occurrences of satan. Okay, so just as an example of this, um is like okay, so let's say uh cycles of nature that involve entropy is growth and death. Okay, whereas uh let's say um uh you know knocking uh a vase off the table uh and it breaking. Okay, so in other words, there are things that are just cyclical in nature that it's just part of the patterns, is that they come into being and they pass away. And then there are other things which are accidental or incidental or chance occurrences where like something undergoes entropy uh or or a deficiency, not as part of a cycle, but like as something that like just occurs, you know. Um, so that is the uh that's the two categories of of satan and how we perceive it. Okay. First, let's go to Fega. What was your question about the Satan?

SPEAKER_01 1:20:57

Um does the Satan degrade or cause change? Because the two are or like because the two are different. Uh I understand how degrading causes change, but change could also come from other sources too.

SPEAKER_08 1:21:10

I do not think that change can happen without degradation, because any change is gonna involve the thing losing one form and and taking on another. And the loss of that form is gonna be um is gonna be uh is gonna be you know characterized as satan as deviation.

SPEAKER_01 1:21:27

Right, but for things to exist in their natural form, then there has to be something that allows that to happen.

SPEAKER_08 1:21:35

Well, theoretically, you could have static things in their natural form in an unchanging universe, and there's no problem with that. It's only once you introduce change now you need an agent of change and you need the ability of matter to deviate from form, and that's going to be satan. And that's why you have this like ballet of the the ibn alhim working with the satan in a dynamic universe. Oh, sorry, you want I actually have to stop shear right now and take this uh an emergency. Okay, everything's okay, but I need to take this. I will continue next next time.