Rambam on the Satan and Ra (Part 4: Theory of Ra)

Length: 1 hour 22 minutes
Synopsis: This morning (4/24/26), in our Friday morning Sefer Iyov series for women, we began with a review of 3:8 and the satan, then quickly learned through 3:9 while avoiding epistemological potholes, and finally began 3:10, one of the most important chapters in the series. Here the Rambam formally presents his theory of ra, defining what it is, what it's not, and where it stands in relation to God. We read and discussed this chapter at a quicker pace than usual because I wanted to make sure we finished it all in one session. I have a feeling we'll go deeper and gain a clearer understanding of the nuances when we review next time (בג"ה).
-----
מקורות:
רמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים ג:ט-י
רמב"ם - משנה תורה: ספר המדע, הלכות יסודי התורה ד:ז
בראשית א:יב,כא,כה
Leon Kass, "The Hungry Soul" (pp.35-36)
Moshe Halbertal, "Maimonides: Life and Thought" (pp.329-330)
-----

The Torah content for the month of Iyyar is sponsored by Naomi Schwartz Rothschild in memory of her mother, Breindel Bracha bas Mordechai z”l, whose yahrzeit falls on the 8th of Iyyar. She learned and lived Torah, and was a tremendous baalas chesed.

-----

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

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:12

Okay, so uh last time we covered three eight, which is the Rahm Bomb's uh uh treatment of the relationship between matter and raw, and uh which we'll go over in a little while, we'll review. Uh so the agenda today is to take up three nine, which is very short, and then three ten, which in my in some ways is the most important chapter in it's hard to say the most important chapter, but in some ways the most important chapter for understanding Saudi Parallo for why bad things happen to good people. Um, I know it's all necessary for that, but uh uh if I had to pick one chapter to to prioritize, it'd be this one. Um, okay, but let's review. Okay, so last time what we did, and again, interrupt if you have any questions. We're going to do a quick review. I'm just gonna kind of like run through the notes we did. First of all, just a note again on translating Ra. Ra in English, sorry, in Ra in Hebrew means badness, evil, harm, corruption, deficiency, degradation, suffering, um, you know, uh coming out of existence, or I guess going out of existence, all these things. And in English, you're forced to choose a term, and the terms sound very different. Moral evil sounds very different than objective harm, but in Hebrew it's all one term. So um uh we're just gonna from now on use the word ra and your mind can fill in the blanks. Okay, so what did we do last time? Mornavukum 3.8. So Rahman first stated that all ra only happens to physical things by virtue of their matter, not by virtue of their form. Uh, form itself is not subject to ra. So to me, the clearest example is a building deteriorating. The form of the building is the design, um, which exists first in the mind of the architect, and then is you take uh materials and you transform them into that building. You embody the building in a material way. But when the building is deteriorating, the design isn't changing. It's the material that is ceasing to embody that design. You know, the the bricks are crumbling and the you know, the uh, you know, the whatever, the the wood is rotting and warping. The material is deviating from that form. Okay, so that's what it means for the building to deteriorate. So for this reason, or not for this reason, but in but the reason for that is as Ramam says, matter is always attached to privation, and its nature is to constantly cast off one form and take on another. So there we use the term or we use the example of apples. So you have an apple, which is a certain you know, conglomeration of organic matter, of you know, starches and proteins and fiber, whatever is there, and it's in the form of an apple. But as it rots, that matter is becoming something else. It's it's degrading, it's decomposing, and it it pulls away from that form and becomes something else. And then we use the example of the circle of life from the Lion King, where all matter in nature is constantly going through these cycles. Um brief note here in modern physics, uh, we say that everything is moving ultimately towards uh towards uh you know uh lower order. Uh, but in for our purposes, then I think focusing on the the cyclical aspect of it is uh is more productive. Okay. So then we we go one more level of uh of of insight here, which is that matter is the cause of all ra, uh sorry, cause of all ra uh in in this sense. Ramam then moves to physical ra in human beings. So all deformity and malfunction of the human body occurs because of man's matter, not his form. So for example, if you have uh, let's say you have some sort of limp, so it's not the design of the human that's flawed, it's your matter not conforming to that design.

SPEAKER_07 3:47

Yeah, as they don't know if this is uh relevant or not, it's a different matter, but is there is there a difference between saying matter is the cause of raw versus matter is raw?

SPEAKER_02 4:00

Yes, um uh there is a difference.

SPEAKER_07 4:03

Uh one is I'm asking because it sounds like the nature of matter is that it's like degrading or changing and not staying in in line with the forms, therefore that sounds to me like it is correct.

SPEAKER_02 4:15

Okay, that's that's a really good question. So we will answer that today in today's chapter, uh, explicitly about why we don't call matter Ra. Um, but uh I will just as a note say that according to um uh we'll review what we said about the satan in a little while, but there are uh um uh what do you call it? People who follow the Rahmam's approach in the Mordebuchim who do claim that the satan in safer ev is matter. Okay. Uh and uh and I and I think that is the closest you'd get to the idea that you just said. Um, but we do not hold, I'm convinced that we don't hold that matter as raw. Uh it's just the cause of all raw. Okay, and you'll see why uh by the end of today. Uh that's a good question.

SPEAKER_07 5:02

Can I ask one more question?

SPEAKER_02 5:03

Yeah.

SPEAKER_07 5:03

Is Ra objective in this sense or is Ra something like that?

SPEAKER_02 5:07

We'll keep that up also. Yeah, we'll keep that up also. Yeah. Um okay. So uh yeah, we use other examples, by the way. Down syndrome is caused by an extra chromosome. So the point here being that it's not that you're lacking matter, you could even have excess matter in some material way that that could cause a deviation from the form. Uh, again, same thing with a building that the um, you know, that uh uh, you know, you you have a brick that's too big that could throw off the entire wall. Um uh okay, so that is in human, the human body, okay, and obviously animal bodies. All right. Next level is likewise all of man's virtues and goods stem from his form and all the vices in Ra stem from the matter. So how so? We said that man is a unique creature in that there is uh there are two layers of form. There's the the form of his physical body, but then there's the form of him as a human being, which is his tellem elukim, uh, which we talked about in a couple of the first two parts of this uh immediate series. Um, so the tselemelukim is the cause of knowledge, truth-seeking, bakira batov, you know, emulating God, all those good things. And the cause of Ra is your animalistic physical body deviating from that form or pull or resisting that form or pulling you away from that form. Um, and uh that is uh uh that's what causes Ra. And the point we made as well is that the animalistic nature of a human being is only bad insofar as it takes you away from your form. The goal is not to eliminate it, the goal is to harness it under the auspices of your form. That's why we say the whole of a vaca, you should service them with both your yetzirs. Uh, your itzahara is not intrinsically bad, it is only bad because it is not partnered with yetzer tov and being directed by it. So that's why, for example, in animals, we say that them following their instincts is good, uh, because that caused them to thrive. Only in the human does following our animalistic instincts take us away from our Telenor. All right, so that's uh that is that. Uh, and then um the last point in the chapter was that it's inevitable that you'll have that a human being will face this tension. Don't think that facing the tension between the Yetzhara and Yatzar Tov is unjust. It would only be unjust if God didn't give us the ability to overpower our Yetzar uh Hara. Uh, but because we are a physical creature that's a hybrid with a non-physical component, there is inevitably going to be tension. Okay, so uh that was three eight. And then we move from there to giving a baseline decoding of the Satan allegory. So we lined up all of our clues and said that from Sephred Eov you see that this Satan is with the angels, but uh but not with them. He's one of the angels, but he's he's uh identified as distinct from them. And we see that Hashem asks where he comes from, and his answer is walking, uh wandering the earth and walking around on it. Another clue from the Shorish of Satan, that according to the Rishonim, sorry, according to some Rishonim, it means accusation, but according to the Ramam, it's Sintet He, which means to deviate, like in Sota or Shote or Hadas Shote. We the biggest clue from Khazal is Rish Lakish's statement, um, which uh which is in uh oh I I I did look this up. Hold on just a second. I have to say this on the recording. Uh I looked it up after Shir. Uh in Bhava Basra Daf Tezain Amad Aleph. Um Satan, who yitzarara, who malchamabas, that the satan, the yitara, and the malhamavas are all the same. Uh, and we know the Rama saying that the cause of Ra is matter deviating from form. So we said, what is the Satan? It is the tendency of matter to deviate from form, which is the cause of all ra in the universe and in man. And the best word we could use for this in modern English is entropy, but we noted that this is not entropy in the same way that physicists use it, because A, physicists hold that everything is winding down, that everything is ultimately trending towards a state of disorder, whereas the Raman was not saying that. And also, physicists don't say that entropy is the cause of you overeating at a meal or giving or speaking Lashan Hara, you know, or not learning. Um, but so this is like philosophical entropy, okay, uh, entropy in a philosophical sense. And then I think the last step, oh no, not the last step we did, the last uh question we asked about the answer about the satan was why do ghazal use three different terms for the same thing? So we had my theory and then my recollection of Rebbe's theory. My theory is that satan is is the most is the purest term because it's naming the thing by its nature, the cause of deviation, satan. Uh, so that's the tendency of matter to deviate from form. You call it it zurhara when you're referring to the tendency of man's matter to cause him to deviate from his form, his cell melokim. And then you call it malachamabis when you're talking about the rest of nature, of the tendency of all matter to deviate from form in organisms, which causes their death and deterioration, and in the rest of the physical world, which is uh, which is also to be uh you know, deterioration of their forms. Rabbi Chate's answer had to do with uh all three terms for in the realm of man. So he said you call it satan when it stems from external circumstance, um, uh, you know, as if it's like uh uh an opponent or an antagonist. Um so let's say like an eo when uh you know these events happened to him and that caused him to uh threw him into these questions. You call the itahara when it's uh referring to the internal desire, and you call it Malachamavas when it stems from something related to man's uh mortality or immortality fantasy. So, for example, you know, Kohelas of man trying to be immortal or Paro thinking that he's a god, that would be like Malachamavas. Um, but again, this is my recollection. I did not listen to this here in recent uh recent years. Yeah, Ayala.

SPEAKER_08 10:47

Um are we able to elaborate or just going back to what makes man different, that his matter brings him away from his form, whereas animals' matters don't?

unknown 10:57

Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 10:57

Is it because it's a different qualitatively different type of form, or is it just the form is different?

SPEAKER_02 11:02

Let's go back to the squirrel. So in in Leon Cass's example, the squirrel's form is its squirrelness, and its squirrelness is the cause of its vitality and all of its squirrely activities. Um, and uh and so that's all it has. It's the the squirrel matter and the squirrel form. And when the squirrel dies and it doesn't no longer have that form, it decomposes. Um and uh and that's it. It only has one nature in that sense. Man, though, has an animalistic nature, uh, which is related to his body, but then on top of that, so to speak, there's his cell melokeme, which is um which is uh, you know, we hold, we didn't really talk about the immortality of it, but we hold that it can last after death. When a squirrel dies, that's it. Uh, the only squirrel form that's quote unquote permanent is the form of the species, which each particular squirrel is an embodiment of. But with the human, we hold, I mean, most Rishonim hold that your particular soul has existence after death. You know, your knowledge or your attachment to knowledge or your mitzvos, you know, um uh, you know, that you uh do during your lifetime or you gain during your lifetime exists after death. And it's in that sense, it's non-physical and beyond the material. So so what you're doing during your life is you have an am you start off a pure animalistic body, as you know, babies are pure animal, and then as you develop, you are that form is being shaped and influenced in its uh activities by a higher form, which is the telmelochem, which which is contrary to it in it in what it wants. Again, that's like the uh, you know, when in a in a squirrel, you know, when it ages, it's the matter trying to deviate from the physical squirrel form. But in you, you have that going for you, and you also have your animalistic drive for pleasure, immediate pleasure, pulling away from your desire to seek knowledge, you know. Uh so there's there's a higher tension there. Um, I don't know if that answers your question.

SPEAKER_08 13:10

Uh so would you say those are two different forms or those are one form of the unity?

SPEAKER_02 13:17

I would say it's two different forms.

unknown 13:20

Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 13:21

And so throughout life, we're like actualizing a second form.

SPEAKER_02 13:24

Yeah, correct. And remember, forms can be hierarchical, like in the example that Cast gave of the um, you know, you have the table made out of wood. So form of table, matter of wood. But then wood itself is a combination of form and matter. Uh that there's the form of wood and then the matter that makes that up of the different kinds of cells, and then each cell is also a different kind of form. So forms are hierarchical. So I guess another question is, you know, is this just merely a higher level in that hierarchy, or is it of a different nature? Um, I don't exactly know how to navigate that question.

SPEAKER_08 13:58

Just to the point that forms are hierarchical. Is it like a hierarchy leading to like the top, which is like Hashem, like a God, like all?

SPEAKER_02 14:06

Yeah, so I accidentally encountered over um over uh Chavez the Rambam explaining that ultimately God is the um is the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause of the universe. Uh and he said that God is not the formal cause in the sense that God is somehow like you know related to the physical universe as part of it, but in the sense that we define form as the thing that makes the thing the thing, right? So the form of the pen is it is its writing ability. It doesn't have the ability to write, it's not a pen. So ultimately, since God is the is the cause of all existence, the continuous cause of all existence, without God, some nothing can exist, you know. Um, so in that sense, God is the highest form. But um uh yeah, I don't uh that's a that's another question I don't really know how to navigate about like what the relationship is between God and other forms. Um, yeah. Okay, so last thing we did last time, which we were slightly interrupted by at the end, was uh the this baseline decoding of the Satan. So it was on that day, which we said is either the day of creation or the day that this happened to Eov, the Beneha Elohim, which are the laws of nature, the forces that govern the universe, or if you want to say the form of the physical universe. Remember, just like the design of the building is its form, so too the design of the universe are the natural laws. They came to present themselves before Hashem, which means that mushal brings to mind the harmonious and systemic nature of the natural laws, like all you know, um uh there to enact God's will. And the Satan, which is entropy, the descent, the tendency of matter to deviate from form, also came among them. Why also? Because the Satan is is one of the angels, but he's not like one of them. So on the on the one hand, the Satan is a malach in that he's a law of nature and carries out Hashem's will. On the other hand, the Satan differs from the other angels in that the other laws of the nature are maintaining the structures in the universe, whereas the Satan is degrading them and causing change. And the mushal, the thought experiment I gave is what would the universe be like if it were only Beneha Elohim and no Satan? It would be static structures with no change. What would the universe be like if it was only satan and no angels, no other angels? It would be constant chaos. So both, if you have both of them together, you have a universe of forms of coming into being and passing away that is made possible by the cooperation of these, like, so to speak, creative or maintaining forces and then the degrading uh deviation forces force of the Satan. And when Hashem said, Where did you come from? that's kind of what he means. That Hashem is asking on behalf, so to speak, of the world of forms, of the non-physical laws of nature, and entropy is not found in the laws of nature, meaning that gravity is not subject to entropy. So where do you come from? You're not from here. And the Satan answers, I come from walking around on the earth and wandering on it, walking around, like again, picture someone going around a track. That's like cyclical uh manifestations of entropy. And then wandering, picture aimless walking are chance occurrences of entropy, uh, like a vase falling off the table and it breaking, or like a uh, you know, uh lightning striking a tree and interrupting its natural cycles of growth and decay, you know. So it's all it's all in nature, but these are two machalim about how we perceive uh the instances of Satan in the world. So that was the last part sheer, and then I had to interrupt uh uh, you know, um abruptly. So I don't know if anyone had any other questions, but this is the end of our review. So if there's any questions on anything we just said, this is a good time to ask them. Okay, so now we're gonna do a very short chapter which is only making one point.

SPEAKER_07 17:48

And yeah, asking I'm sorry, I couldn't find it just for the sake of the completion of science. I think it's just important to note that even though scientists do all my you know psychological thermodynamics that everything is going towards a state of increased entropy, there aren't there isn't an understanding of how complexity arises. They just don't have answers for that. They have local answers, but as a rule, that's not considered you know because the question is I think it's okay. Thanks.

SPEAKER_02 18:23

They don't so even though scientists hold by the second law of thermodynamics that everything is a transordinal disorder, they don't have an explanation for how complexity arises.

SPEAKER_07 18:32

Yeah, they have it locally as a glyphs within a greater decay, but yeah, just it's just not fully accounted for.

SPEAKER_02 18:40

All right, thank you. And thank you for being the person I can count on who knows science more than uh way more than I do. I'm not I'm not a science guy really. Um uh yet. Okay. Okay, so um, so three nine. So I'm gonna read this chapter, okay. I'm gonna read it in its entirety. Um, and I just want the the questions we're gonna ask here are um question one, what is the Rambaum's main point here? And then question two is why is this its own chapter? In other words, how does it relate? Or I guess how does it follow from the previous one? And uh and why isn't it included? Okay. Um, so let's just read this and talk about it. All right. Matter is a powerful barrier preventing the apprehension of the non-physical. Okay, the way Ramam says non-physical is apprehending that which is separate from matter. So, for example, matter prevents us from apprehending God, who is totally devoid of matter, and the angels, the laws of nature. Okay, so matter is a powerful barrier preventing the apprehension of the non-physical as it truly is, even the noblest and purest matter, namely the matter of the heavenly spheres, and all the more so this dark and turbid matter that is ours. Now, remember back then they thought that the um the celestial spheres and everything above earth was made out of a different type of matter that was not subject to degradation. Um, we don't hold that anymore because if you go up to the to the outer space, you'll find that the moon is made out of the same stuff as on earth. Um, okay. Therefore, whenever our intellect aspires to apprehend God or any one of the separate intellects, meaning when we try to understand to know God or one of the laws of nature, it finds this great barrier interposing between the two. Um, okay, this is alluded to in throughout the books of the prophets, that we are screened from God, that he is hidden from us in it by a heavy cloud or by darkness or by mist, sorry, mist, or by an enveloping cloud and by similar illusions, all pointing to our incapacity to apprehend him on account of our matter. This is the meaning of the verse in Tehlim 97:2. Clouds and darkness are round about him, drawing attention to the fact that the obstacle lies in the turbid character, turbid means murky, character of our own substance, not that he is a body surrounded by mist or cloud or fog that prevents his being seen, as the literal sense of the parable would suggest. This parable occurs when it recurs when it says he made darkness his hiding place. So, in other words, it does not mean that God is a physical being surrounded by physical clouds. It means that God is clouded from our apprehension by our matter and by the fact that God is totally non-physical and is a barrier, and we have a barrier to apprehending him. Likewise, his, may he be exalted, revelation in a thick cloud in Shemos 19.9, and in darkness, cloud and thick darkness in Debarin 4.11 at Sinai, these two were intended only that this very notion be inferred from them. For everything perceived in a prophetic vision is a parable for some meaning. And although, and and though that great assembly at Sinai was greater than any prophetic vision and beyond all analogy, it was not without meaning. That is, his revealing himself in a thick cloud was intended to draw attention to the fact that apprehension of his true reality is impossible for us on account of the dark matter that encompasses us, not him, for he is not a body. So Sinai is depicted as God in a cloud, not because he was on the mountain in a cloud, but because uh this tremendous prophetic vision also had this obscurity that we it was the clearest, you know, sense we as people had of God's reality and of whatever that revelation was, but it was still obscured. Last paragraph. It is moreover well known and universally accepted in our. Our nation, that the day of the assembly of Mount Sinai was a day of clouds, mist, mist, and light rain. As it says in uh Shehoftim 5:4. Hashem, when you went forth from Seir, you marched from the field of Edom, the earth trembled, the heavens also dropped water, the clouds too dropped water. This then is also the intent of darkness, cloud, and thick darkness. Not that he was encompassed by darkness. For near him there is no darkness whatsoever, but rather perpetual, brilliant light, the overflow of which illumines all that is dark, as it says in the prophetic parables, and the earth shone with his glory. So in other words, on at Harsenai, the phrase of clouds and darkness was is part of the mushal, but it also was literally cloudy and rainy on at Harsenai. So you see from there that Seattle is the most uh divine city because it's uh of the cloud and the rain. Okay, um, so what's the Ram's main point here?

SPEAKER_06 23:00

It's basically one point and then a bunch of examples. And it's really in that first paragraph, yeah, Gala.

SPEAKER_08 23:13

Matter prevents us from apprehending God.

SPEAKER_02 23:17

Right. Matter uh prevents us from apprehending God. Now let's just sorry, let's say God um let's actually let's let's broaden it the way he says it from apprehending that which is not physical, okay? Uh God and angels, for example. Okay, Olamhaba as well, uh, you know, the soul, okay. So let's just elaborate um and and just ask, even though this might be obvious, how? How so? How does matter prevent us from apprehending God? Let us count the ways. Yeah, Ayla.

SPEAKER_08 23:52

Just a clarification question before we're going on. When we say that which is not physical, God and angels, do we also mean forms? Or how do forms fit in there?

SPEAKER_02 24:01

Yeah, forms, uh, forms as well. Well, okay, so so that's a little tricky, right? Because um uh yeah, let's put God God and and uh God, angels, forms. Okay. Um uh so forms, we can apprehend forms, but all the forms that we encounter in the world are a combo of form and matter, right? That's how we uh we read uh just to um to open up that old can of worms again. Uh hold on. The rhombom that I keep quoting. Um I think it started here.

SPEAKER_01 24:49

Oh no, no, sorry. There is uh I just wanna I maybe I didn't read this yet. I just want to read this one Rambom. Um maybe I did earlier. Uh Amada Sovietora 4.

SPEAKER_02 25:14

Yeah, lolam in ataroe golem belotsura otsura belogolem. Uh a person never sees material without form or form without material. Ella lev adam hush machalikha guha nimsa bada'ato. Rather, it is the mind of man that divides the body that exists in his mind, in his knowledge, viodeshu muhubarmi golematsura, and knows that it is comprised of form and uh matter and form. Vyodeeshiesham gufim shagulm muhubarisodos, he knows that there are certain bodies whose material is comprised of the four elements, vaguim shagulm pashut, and then bodies whose material is simple, and not composed of any other body. So, for example, a hydrogen, right? You that that is physical, but you know that hydrogen is not composed of other elements. But surus sha'in lah near, the forms that have no material, that's like what you're talking about, Ayala, God and the angels, nearing la'ayan, sorry, in on nearing la ayon, they're not um uh uh visible to the eye, him yaduim, but they are visible in the mind, they're known in the mind's eye. Kamoshi don adonhako below, just like we know the Lord of all without the seeing of the eye. So God and angels are purely non-physical, but when you look at furniture, okay, a table and a chair, you know that they share a common form, which is the form of furniture, but you don't see the form. Your mind extracts it from those material embodiments. You know, when you see uh triangle, square, and circle, your mind knows that shape is the form that they all partake of, but you can't see the form of shape. Does that clarify?

SPEAKER_08 26:57

Yeah, I think so. So like forms exist in the mind, maybe. I don't know, or maybe they have a real identity, but matter, like you can't understand matter. The way you understand matter is by forms.

SPEAKER_02 27:10

Exactly, yeah, yeah.

unknown 27:11

Okay.

SPEAKER_02 27:12

Yeah. Uh and that's why if you have uh if you go down, uh just to go to the Leon Cass, um, you know, you notice I've been using form uh matter and material synonymously, but when we read Cass, he used it um uh interchange uh he he he used um matter or sorry, used material, but then he says, uh this is just go through this example again. Uh form and material are interdependent not only in definition, but usually also in fact. Though distinct as ideas inseparable in speech, they are especially in living things grown together in the unmattered form or the informed matter that is the given thing. The dog in its flesh, the oak and its roots, no less than the desk and its wood, are each as separate, inseparably related and mutually interdependent as the concave and the convex. Okay, here we go. Uh the relativity and interdependence of material and form also persist at multiple levels of organization. The oak wood that is material for the table is itself a special form, say, of xylem and phloem, which are in turn special formations of cells, which are special formations of carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, and so on and uh and and and on. At the lowest level, some least or ultimate material would be reached, if any such there be, that would that could not be analyzed further into its form and material, and whose parts, if it had parts, would be homogenous with the whole. Such an ultimate material would be more than material relative to some other form. It would be matter. Okay. So what you're asking is, can you understand pure matter? No, you can't. Because pure matter would, when you're understanding, you're understanding the combo of form and matter, pure matter is literally incomprehensible because it doesn't have form. It is the stuff that that you know that that is subject, and and by the way, subject to uh higher forms. By the way, that is my shot. I've never seen this inside, but I think it's a great shot of the Mishnah in Khagiga about the four things that you can't think about. Um, because uh Ramam explains that if you think about these things, then you're you're they're beyond the realm of the mind to apprehend, and you're going into the realm of the imagination. So it says, Um uhistakal ba arbaa devarim, royalok iluland bala olam. Um, anyone who contemplates four things, it'd be uh it'd be better better if he never came into the world. What is above, what is below, what is before, and what will what will be after. So what is above is god uh is pure non-physical things. We cannot have any positive knowledge of God. And if you think that you're engaging in positive knowledge of God, then it's tainted by your imagination. Okay. What came before is before the universe. Okay, you can only the human mind can only go to up to a certain point in the creation. You cannot understand what preceded the creation because that was before the existence of of uh of fore man matter. What will come after the creation, same thing. But I've never seen a good explanation of mala mata, what is below. So my shot is it means you cannot understand the nature of matter, uh, or not the nature of matter. I did even you can't even say that. Can't understand pure matter because it it has no form. Okay, that's my shot of that. Uh uh that I just haven't ever seen any uh explanation of it. Okay, okay. So, why what does it mean when we say matter prevents us from apprehending God? So let's just use God as the example. For example, uh, why can't we apprehend God on account uh of our matter? And and remember, this is Moshe Banu who said, show me your glory, uh, meaning show me your essence. And Hashem said, Um uh lo suha li rosa, you cannot see my face, you lo uh your aniha adam bhaqai, no man can see me and live. Yeah, okay.

SPEAKER_04 31:00

Um do you mean when you say that like this most simple form of matter has no form, do you mean that it has no form or that the form and the matter itself are like tied so tightly that you can't differentiate one from the other, like it's all one thing?

SPEAKER_02 31:18

So what I meant is that I mean I think both statements are true, but I meant the first way that that uh that you know uh uh seem theoretically like you know an entity, the smallest entity, you know, that it makes up everything else um is comprised of form and matter. Like let's say, let's take, you know, in the olden days they thought let's say like atoms were the smallest thing, but then we found out that no, atoms themselves are made up of matter and within an atomic form. So then take those like little other subatomic particles. Like if you get down to the the the the the smallest thing and you separate the form from that matter, it would just be matter without form. Like I I think like and that's why like I I did the um scale of the universe. IL you'll remember this. Um uh there's this cool thing that you can show your kids. Oh, is this the wrong? Oh, yeah, yeah. So that you could zoom in and out in terms of the size of things. So if you go all the way in, and I don't know if this is still current, by the way. Um you get down to here. Uh you've got, oh wait, is that in Hebrew? Why is it in Hebrew? Hold on. I is this made I didn't know this was made by Jews, and it says English. That's funny. Hold on. Let me just go to the old one. Um, why is it in Hebrew? Uh okay.

SPEAKER_07 32:48

Did you try Tim Urban's app?

SPEAKER_02 32:50

Uh oh, hold on. I don't want the volume here. Uh I don't know about Tim's Tim Urban's app, but you can share it in the chat after. Okay, going all the way in. Okay, so you've got their ultraviolet light, uh glucose molecule, water molecule, angstrom, um, uranium nucleus, neutron, proton. Now, links shorter than this are not confirmed. So we go all the way in. You've got up quark, down quark, strange quark, charm quark, uh high energy neutrino, top quark, okay, all the way in. Very small. So I again I don't know if this is still current, but what they say is oops sorry, quantum foam, or string. So, like, those would be the things that, like, I guess would you you would not be able to break them into form and matter. It would just be matter that makes up all the other form. Yeah. Okay. Um, yeah, uh, Tamar. You can answer your this question.

SPEAKER_05 33:50

Yeah, well, I was gonna answer the question of um why can't we understand God? What what what's the reason for that that's caused by matter, I guess.

SPEAKER_06 33:58

Right, yeah.

SPEAKER_05 33:58

Um, and I was gonna say that um the way that we understand things, like the way that our minds work, is filtered through our physical experiences, like when you're thinking about an abstraction. I mean, I think different people, different things, but there's there's the the processes of the mind are still working through physical proxies to some extent, and that I think is a is a mechanism that is not then you can't apply that to understand God.

SPEAKER_02 34:24

Correct. Okay, good. So all our uh knowledge ultimately derives from sense perceptions of the physical world and is therefore limited, limited by those sense perceptions. Okay, I'm sure there are smarter people than me who can explain why that is. Uh that's going into epistemology, but just from experience, how do you know stuff? You you first see things, you know, and then you abstract from that. So again, take a little kid who like sees, let's say the only animal he sees is a dog. Okay. So there's there's this bird thing walking around, then he sees a cat, and he realizes, oh, these are these are two specimens that are similar in some regards, but then like different in other ways. So he now he has this abstract concept of like, you know, um animal, and then he sees a lizard, and then, oh, well, that's also a creature that goes around and moves stuff, but it's different, you know. So you're you're extracting it from that. Um, so it's always rooted, so all concepts we have will always be rooted in those uh sense perceptions uh that were their their uh their origin. Um uh whereas God is, you know, and and angels, etc., are completely oh, let's just say God, whereas God is completely beyond the physical. Uh so therefore, any knowledge of God we have is tainted by that physicality in some way. Yeah. Um furthermore, there is another obstacle that human beings have. So other than our so aside from our our let's say aside from the pure knowledge, sorry, aside from the material limitations of pure knowledge, how else does our animalistic nature interfere with our ability to know things? Yeah, Tamar. We also have emotions. We also have emotions, right? We have emotions that uh that cloud our objectivity with subjectivity. Um, uh, you know, for example, you know, wanting things to be a certain way or not wanting them that way. Okay. Uh and uh, you know, and that you can argue can be overcome. Like it seems like Moshe Rebano uh did not have his perceptions were not uh influenced by emotions. Uh, in fact, that's a requirement to be a navy. Uh that the the Ramam says um in order to be a Navi, uh one of the baseline requirements is Saefer Hamada, Yesodia Torah 7. Umeda shall kel minabi aspineadam. It's one of the foundations of the religion to know that God prophesies to mankind. Uh Nivul only uh falls upon a person who's wise, who's wise, who's great in wisdom, mighty in his midos. And and his inclination does not overpower him in any matter in the world. Elahu Mizgaver Bidato al Yitzro Tamid. His mind is continually ruling over his his his yetra constantly. Uh Baldya Rukhava Nachhona Admod, and he has a very abstract mind. Um, yeah, okay. But so Moshe Guru escaped that, but he can't escape the fact that that even Moshe derives all of his knowledge through physicality. And even Navua, you know, uh I guess normal Navua comes through physical channels. Yeah, Ayala.

SPEAKER_08 38:01

In the first answer, when you say that it's tainted by our physicality, yeah. Is it tainted or is it limited? That like we could only come up with possibilities based off of yeah.

SPEAKER_02 38:11

Um, I I'd say limited is another good word. Uh uh, I the reason why I use tainted is I think tainted it fits better with the mashalim that the Ramam uses, of it's dark or cloudy uh or obscure, you know. Um, so I wanted to capture that in my my words. Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 38:27

Are you able to elaborate a little bit more on why that would be instead of limited?

SPEAKER_01 38:31

Yeah. Give me one second. If anyone wants to jump in and say it, then you can say. Yeah, Elsie.

SPEAKER_07 38:46

Well, one thing is that I um I'm drawing from things I've read, including from the I I don't remember which essay in more tomorrow either, about the the concepts that we have are all drawn from our experiences in this world. It's really not possible to have ideas that aren't, you know, sort of you know, coming from something that you experience physically. So let's say you have, you know, an apple, an apple, an apple, something in our minds which uh allows us to have the I the reach the form of apple as an idea. The the physical apples are are what we're experiencing, and you can't really um I don't think it's possible to really come up with an idea that that isn't somehow originally organically emerging from our physical experiences. I don't know what kind of concepts we can have that aren't emerging from our experiences in the physical world. Like even your imagination, you try and come up with an animal, a new animal or something like that. Like for a story, it's gonna be composed of things that we've experienced in this world. I don't know what else there is.

SPEAKER_01 39:51

Right.

SPEAKER_02 39:52

Yeah, I think an area that that uh bears more thinking, which uh which you know some people in this year can uh talk about more authoritatively than others is math, because math is is uh is dealing with purely uh pure abstractions, but but you know, Raman would argue that even the the mathematical building blocks that we have, like quantity, are ultimately abstracted from the physical world. Yeah, Tamar.

SPEAKER_05 40:15

Um I I just want to say I I agree with that. I mean, I think you know the the the choice of abstraction is always rooted in something and it has to have to trace back to our experience. But also, um I was just thinking of this this thing that my uh I don't know, maybe Jewish, not religious PhD thesis advisor once said, not not not trying to connect it to um this, but he said that um uh the the thing that happens when you're doing math is you're taking like other parts of your brain that are meant for like physical things and you're co-opting them into understanding the mathematical concept. Um I think I think the you know I I think I'm the experience that I think that this is is like even if uh let's say I'm thinking about something that's mathematically very abstract, I also have this sensation, let's say, of like moving objects around in space or something like that, which is not right, which is still physical, you know, it's not only a yeah, yeah, that's that's a good point.

SPEAKER_02 41:13

Uh I there's a lot more to be said there. I I just can't go into it because I don't know enough about epistemology, and uh I also think it'll take us too far afield to explore that topic through discussion right now. Okay. Um last question why is this its own chapter? How does it follow from the previous one about matter as the cause of uh Ra? And why isn't it included in that one? Now, again, when I say why isn't it included? I mean you could speculate and say, like, well, you know, Ramam wrote the Murnubuchim in a series of letters to his students, and he just he was done with the letter, but like, no, I think there's a conceptual harmony, uh unity to each parak. Yeah, I see.

SPEAKER_07 41:45

Sorry, just back on that question for one second, but also I'm in I I'm not remembering where I learned this, but when the Ramba doesn't Ramam say that there's two different ways that that we get knowledge is one through the physical, and that Nabuah is you have to fall asleep or something, so you don't have sensory input so that the knowledge comes to you without that distraction.

SPEAKER_02 42:08

Well, even when it's not coming through your senses, but it's coming through your imagination, and your imagination is all derived from sense perceptions. It's just so, for example, like uh for those of us who can uh visualize things, so you know, I see this water bottle, and then I can close my eyes and I could conjure up the image of the water bottle and I can manipulate it however I want. That's my imagination. Um, but with the Navua, the you're not being supplied with imagin with uh with images through your senses, you're being supplied directly from God, however that was.

SPEAKER_07 42:45

Right, but yeah, the point that I I was going with that is that um in terms of how matter you know um can fully knowledge, like we we can only get our knowledge either even through Nabua, it is always coming through some kind of experience with this with this entity that we know is a changing, non-static, you know, thing that's always moving away from forms.

SPEAKER_02 43:11

Right, correct. And and if if anyone's wondering, well, what about Moshe's Nabua, which did not operate through the imagination? Uh, you know, I know one person who can answer that question. His name is Moshe Robeno. So we don't understand how that works, uh, but uh, but that's uh Nabuz Moshe is its own topic. Okay, why is this its own chapter? How does it follow from the previous one?

SPEAKER_01 43:31

And I'm not looking for a sophisticated answer here, I just want to maintain the continuity.

SPEAKER_02 43:44

So I kind of actually uh uh actually gave it away in my my chapter headings about where we are and where we're headed, is that uh 3-8 was about matter as the cause of all ra and the examples he used uh he used were uh you know uh i i in human beings were actually that's not gonna say another thing on it. Matter was uh uh three eight was about matter is the cause of all ra. Okay, and then I'd say three nine is about matter as the the um uh as the cause of the the true ra for human beings, which is knowledge of God. Okay, so I think it's just a more specific application of the general thing. Why he set it apart. I I used to have this. Um, I think actually one of my students, uh Jonah, said that um 3-8 was still talking about cycles, about natural cycles um in the physical world, and 3-9 is talking about in like man's uh mission uh in life of to gain and to gain knowledge. So again, uh maybe it can be said better than this. I just wanted to show what the what the bridge is. Like this is not like a random uh a random thing. Okay, once again, it took a lot longer than I thought. Okay, now we're gonna start a very, very, very important chapter. Okay, now I think because of the time, um I think what we'll do is like this. I do want to make it through the entire chapter, but what we'll do is we'll we'll factor in reviewing it next time in depth. Okay, uh, there's a lot to process here. Okay, so let's start off. Those mutakalimun. Okay, so so who are the mutakalimun? Um, so mutakalimun literally means the speakers. So um different religions in the time of uh medieval philosophy went through like their own, you know, uh rationalist uh movements. So obviously we have the Rambam uh in you know uh using applying like you know rational thinking and also like uh you know uh premises from from uh Aristotle and stuff to examine Torah. The the Muslims also had their own school of thought, and then the the in Christianity you had Thomas Aquinas and applying Aristotle to to Catholicism. Okay, so the Mutakalimun were rationalist um Islamic uh theologians, okay, uh, which the Ramam talks about at length through the Mornabukan. All right. Um so he says, and this is gonna be a very confusing sentence, those Muqalamun, as I've informed you, conceive of non-existence only as absolute non-existence. As for the privations of all qualities, they do not regard these as privations. Rather, they treat every privation and its corresponding quality as though they were two contraries, like blindness and sight, death and life, placing them on the same level as heat and cold. Okay, so I'm just gonna state this uh the way I understand it, which is the mutakali moon, um, which is uh uh uh plural, by the way. Um uh uh well I'm gonna add this word mistakenly because you'll see the Ram is gonna criticize it. Mistakenly uh um think of privations as uh sorry, privations and their corresponding qualities uh as two contrary things. Okay, so for example, uh he uses uh two examples here. I'm gonna throw in another example because the Ramam uses later on. Um they think of blindness and sight, death and life, darkness and light as um as two two opposites of the same nature. My example like this is, you know, like two flavors of ice cream, okay? Um, okay, chocolate and vanilla. Okay, so this is not 100% clear until you see what the Ram is going to argue with them about. For this reason, again, interrupt me if you have any questions here. Uh, for this reason, they state categorically, I'm I I think I it's better for this part right now if I guide you through it rather than asking you what you think he's saying in each step. For this reason, they categorically state that absolute non-existence does not require an agent, and that an agent is required only when something is made or produced. This is correct from a certain point of view. Yet despite their saying that non-existence does not require an agent, they maintain, in accordance with their own principles, that God causes blindness, causes deafness, and brings what is in motion to rest. For these privations are, in their view, existing things. Okay, so just to summarize here, um, they correctly hold that absolute non-existence does not require an agent. Okay, so for example, I know we just said that you're not supposed to um imagine uh what happened before the universe uh came into existence, but imagine before the universe came into existence, okay, there was nothing. Okay, you don't need to ask who created the nothing because nothing is nothing. Okay, you do need to ask who created the something, all right. So absolute non-existence does not need an agent to bring into it about non-existence is the default, all right. However, um uh they uh however because they hold that privations are thing uh are are something, okay, uh, you know, positive existences, or it's like actual exist, you know, actual qualities that exist, they hold that uh privations do require an agent to come into existence, and and they accordingly say that God causes blindness, uh, sorry, blindness, death, and darkness. Okay, this is all a setup, okay, for the Ramam to state what he holds our view is. Okay, uh, so hold off. I I know no one's asking questions right now, hold off any questions. If it's not clear, you'll it'll get clear right when we say Ramam's view. Okay. It is fitting that we inform you of our own view on this matter, as philosophical inquiry demands. You already know that one who removes an impediment is in a certain sense the cause of the motion. For example, if someone removes a pillar from beneath a beam and the beam falls due to its natural weight, we say that the one who removes who moved the pillar moved the beam. So you have here a pillar, you have this beam. Sorry, yeah, you have the beam, my phone on it. So if I pull away the bottle and the phone falls, you would say, I moved the phone, okay, just loosely. That's how we talk. Uh, this is stated in Aristotle's physics. In the same way, we say of one who removes a certain quality that he produced the corresponding privation, even though a privation is not an existing thing. For just as we say that one who extinguishes a lamp at night that he produced darkness, so we say of one who destroyed someone's sight that he produced blindness, even though darkness and blindness are privations and do not require an agent. So um loosely, you know, when we we speak loosely, we talk in those terms. We say that someone who moved an impediment to motion moved the object, moved the object that fell. Uh, or someone who who poked out another person's eye uh made them blind, or someone who extinguished uh a light, a you know, a candle made it dark. Okay. Uh even though um even though blindness and darkness are privations, not things, okay, and do not require an agent. Um let's just actually stop and and think about that for one second here, just to make sure we all understand it here. So what what the Rambam is uh disagreeing with the Mutukalimun on is that that um light is a thing, but darkness is not a thing. Darkness is just the absence of light, okay? But the Mutukalimun treat darkness as a thing, so it's you know, in other words, rationally you need an agent to bring about a thing that didn't exist before, but you don't need an agent to bring about a privation. In fact, an agent cannot uh directly bring about a privation because when you extinguish a light, darkness is just what results automatically, because darkness is just the privation of light, but you do need an uh an agent to produce the uh the the light itself. So, too, if I if I blind you, if I poke out your eye, I'm not making you blind. I am destroying your sight, and blindness is just the result, blindness is just what we call lack of sight. Okay, so that that's the the shift he's trying to get us to to have in our thinking here. And he's gonna keep going, okay? But um uh um uh he's he's building up to stating that as an absolute theory. I just wanted to give you uh an idea of where he's going. Okay, according to this interpretation, the statement of Isaiah becomes clear in Yeshua 45.7, which we quote in Davening, but we make one change. Yotzer or Ubore Choshech, ose shalom ubore ra, who forms light and creates darkness, who makes peace and creates ra. For darkness and ra are privations. Notice he does not say ose chosek or or ose ra, making darkness or making ra, since these are not existing things to which the term making could be applied. Rather, he uses the term bore, creates for both, because this word has a connection to non-existence in the Hebrew language, as in Brachis Bara Elohim, in the beginning, God created, that is, he created from non-existence. And the manner in which privation is attributed to the act of an agent is according to the way we have described. In the same way, you should understand the verse. Who has um uh who has set man's mouth? Uh Samta uh Misam Pela Adam, or who makes one mute or deaf or sighted or blind. Um, this passage can also can be explained as follows: namely, when it that it means, who is it that created man as a being endowed with speech or creates him lacking in speech? That is, bringing into existence matter that is not receptive to that quality, whatever quality it may be. For one who brings into existence a certain matter that is incapable of receiving a certain uh given quality may be said to have produced that privation, just as one who is able to save a person from death yet refrains from saving him, may be said to have killed him. Okay, so let's just talk note these examples here. Um we say uh when we say that God, by the way, what's the context of this Shemos 411 about who is set in man's mouth, who makes one deaf or mute, or blus-sided, or blind? Yeah, Vega.

SPEAKER_00 55:10

Um, I think that's when Moshe is um kind of hesitant to take this position. He should he says that he isn't a man of speech.

SPEAKER_02 55:18

Correct, right. This is this is in in God's response to Moshe when Moshe is trying to get out of the uh the mission by saying that he uh he can't speak properly. So when we say that God makes one um mute, deaf, sighted, or blind, okay, um, we do not mean all these things in the same way. Okay, rather God does make sight and speech, okay um, but uh but blindness and muteness are privations of sight and speech uh and cannot be made. Okay, so how does God you know what what does it mean? What does this mean then? It means that God makes a person with matter that does not receive the quality of sight or speech. So for example, if if if you if if if if someone is born blind, you wouldn't say that God made blindness, you'd say that God made this person whose matter does not uh does not have the form of sight. Okay, now this all sounds like word games, okay, uh, but hopefully in this next paragraph, there will be a shift that starts to happen in your understanding. Okay, this is where he he launches the first pillar of his theory. Okay, it has thus become clear to you that according to every view, the act of an agent has no direct connection to privation whatsoever. Rather, we say that the agent produced the privation incidentally or indirectly, as we have explained. But what an agent produces essentially, whatever agent it may be, is necessarily something that exists and this and his action is connected only to what exists. Okay, so this is pillar number one, which is uh um uh an agent uh can only directly produce uh what exists. Uh an agent uh uh cannot uh produce a privation directly, uh but only incidentally uh uh or indirectly. Okay, I'm using or indirectly because some people don't like the word incidentally, makes it sound like an accident. Okay, so uh so again, let's just use a couple a couple examples here, right? So so you can uh you can kindle a fire to make light, okay, but you can't make darkness. Okay, darkness is the privation of light, and all you can do is remove the light, and darkness will follow automatically. Okay, same thing is you can um you can uh I'm trying to think of an example that the Rum does not use here, just that would that would illustrate this here. Um you can uh paint uh a painting, okay? Um uh because a painting is a thing, okay? Uh but you can't make uh uh maybe that's a bad example because you could like uh you could produce a blank camera. Oh actually that is a good example, right? Hold on a second. Uh but you can sorry, but you can't make blankness. Okay. You can, you know, the uh uh you can uh destroy a painting and blankness will will result automatically or you can you can create a canvas that has no painting, okay, but you can't directly make uh uh blankness. Okay, okay. So now that's not blankness, okay. Again, now now if you have any questions, you can ask me, okay? Uh because the Ram was taking a step-by-step into understanding his theory of evil. Of Ra, I mean. Okay. So now he's gonna answer one of SE's questions. After this preamble, you must recall what has been demonstrated.

SPEAKER_05 59:41

Wait, I'm sorry, could I ask the question? Yes. Um, raise my hand right now. Um to me, it sounds like the way that Ramam is saying it is obvious, and the way that the Islamic philosophers are saying it is like kind of wacky. Is that just because of the way that we think about things now?

SPEAKER_02 59:56

I also have had that question. Um, and uh to be fair, I have not looked up those Islamic thinkers in uh in um what do you call it, in um uh in their firsthand sources. I don't know if we have their firsthand sources. Um, but yeah, I don't know an answer to that question. I I would guess just from the fact that they were intellectuals, that they probably had some sort of like like more sophisticated way of uh of presenting that argument. Uh, but I uh personally am not motivated to um to examine that. I think what we do need to do is we'll examine, I think maybe this will answer your question. You will find examples of things that we identify as ra that we think are actual existences. Um uh and and I think you'll see the intuitiveness uh in those. Okay, and then you'll see how the Ramam is correcting those. Okay. Um all right, so let's go to that step now. After this preamble, you must recall what has already been demonstrated that Raos are only Raos in relation to some particular thing, and whatever is Ra with respect to a given existing thing, that Ra is either the non-existence of that thing itself or the non-existence of one of its proper states. Okay, so all Raos are relative. Okay, um either they are ra um uh uh what did you say here? Uh yeah, uh relative relative um yeah, uh you know what in fact he said it uh whatever he said it best, whatever is ra is only ra uh with respect to a given existing thing, whether that be the existence of the thing itself or a proper state of that thing. Okay, and here's where he states his th his his theory of evil, okay. Um for this reason, the following proposition has been stated in absolute terms all raos are privations. Okay, the example of this is in the case of a man. Sorry, the example of this in the case of a man of man is that his death is a Ra and it is his non-existence. Likewise, his illness, his poverty, and his ignorance are all raos with respect to him, and all of these are privations of qualities. Okay, so death is the privation of life. Um, illness is the privation of health, poverty is the privation of wealth, ignorance is the privation of knowledge. All right. Uh now you might be thinking, well, what about X? What about Y? So he says like this if you trace the particular cases of this general proposition, you will find that it never fails, except in the view of one who does not distinguish between privation and equality or between two contraries, or of one who does not know the natures of all things. For example, one who does not know that health in general is a certain equilibrium, homeostasis, and that it that's the modern term for it, and that it belongs to the category of relation, and that the absence of that relation is illness in general, or that death is the privation of form with respect to every living being. And likewise, whatever is destroyed among other existing things, its destruction is nothing but the privation of its form. Okay, so so he says like this. Um the only re there are only two reasons why a person might think there is an exception to this rule. Okay, one is he doesn't distinguish between privation and quality. So who makes that mistake that we've talked about? Yeah, the metukali moon, uh however you spell it, okay. Or two, someone who makes a particular mistake about the nature of a thing. Okay, and I think this the uh the this is a good example, okay, is uh so his example uh is uh someone who thinks that uh disease uh is a thing will say, look, uh this is an exception to the Rahmbaum's statement that all Raos uh are privations. Okay but in reality um we know that that disease is not uh and we'll qualify this is not a thing. Um actually what hold on, let me use an example from one of my students, okay. One of my students asked uh uh said, um aren't germs bad and aren't germs a thing? So that's an exception to the ROM bomb.

SPEAKER_06 1:04:55

So how would you answer that given what the ROM said? Yeah, um I can try that again.

SPEAKER_08 1:05:13

I was gonna say that germs are actually not bad and they do serve a very important function in the maybe human versus ecosystem in general, but sometimes when they're not functioning properly or something, then it can lead to raw.

SPEAKER_02 1:05:29

Okay, so that that that's good. I'm gonna actually go one level further than that. So, first of all, germs themselves are not raw, okay. Um uh in fact, their the their existence is part of the creation, uh, which is good. Okay. Um what is raw is when germs uh throw a person out of homeostasis and and and uh and that pri and the privation they cause is raw. Okay, and I'm gonna pair this with another example here, okay. is um is example number two is uh oh so in other words like this in other words in other words okay ra can sorry ra is not a thing even though it can be brought about by a thing so for example okay um uh blindness is is not a thing um but if i use a knife to poke out your eye i am using a thing to cause a privation okay the knife i use is not raw even though it causes raw indirectly in this case yeah tomorrow um i have a separate question which i think if you want to keep making this you can ask because i know you have to go soon also uh yeah okay my question this i feel like we might be too early in the rum bum for this question so you can tell me if this is just something that's gonna be addressed later um but it seems to me like this statement that uh ra all race privation um is like well then like what like I have um I think that people use the word ra because they have some sense of something like kind of like things I don't like things that yeah stop me from achieving my goals whatever it is exactly that's like there's some intuitive Ra and to what extent is the Ramam talking about that or is he defining some other philosophical thing called Ra which is like related I don't know do you understand my question? Yeah yeah so I I think your intuition is correct that the Ram is laying the groundwork for addressing that question but he's actually uh gonna address it in 312 about the and this is that's gonna fully address Estee's question also of S he asked about whether the Ra we were talking about is objective or subjective. So um so he's given us a a premise which is Raws are relative but he's not yet distinguished between objective Ra and subjective Ra. Okay so I uh we will uh the Raman will address that. Okay. Um okay so let's go on. Oh by the way I just want to note here as well uh regarding um uh tomorrow's earlier question about how it doesn't feel like the Mutukalim's mistake is really that reasonable but you know it is interesting in many religions and cultures they view Ra as an actual thing so for example you know in Christianity uh I mean I'm not that I'm a Christian theologian but like the the Satan Satan is evil right or in Zoroastrianism there's a God of good and a god of evil and there's light and there's darkness and each one is its own existence but that's not what that's not what we hold here. Okay so now he's gonna talk about God. All right um he says after these premises it must be known with certainty that of God may he be glorified and exalted it cannot any in any way be said that he produces Ra essentially I mean that he intends as a primary intention to produce Ra. This is impossible. Okay now we got to stop and ask why it's impossible but let me just state the premise here okay um therefore uh it cannot be said that God produces Ra essentially or directly okay why not though given what the Ram said why can't you say that God produces Ra uh essentially or directly because it's not a thing that is produced directly exactly because no one no agent can directly produce Ra because Ra is a is is privation is a privation and doesn't require an agent to produce it. Okay. Rather all his acts may he be exalted are absolutely good for he produces nothing but existence and all existence is good. All Raus are privations and no action is connected to them except in the manner as we've explained now this is going to answer Essie's other question namely that he brought matter into existence with a nature it has that is it's being perpetually conjoined to privation as is already known and for this reason it is the cause of all destruction and all Ra. Therefore whatever God did not endow with this matter is not subject to destruction nor does any Ra befall it. Okay so the only sense in which God does produce Ra Ra is sorry Ra is indirectly in that he created matter with its nature uh of of entropy okay which is the cause of all Ra in uh in sorry in the physical universe okay uh and whatever isn't physical uh doesn't partake of Ra okay and then let's just get to this last last part here and then we get we could discuss um last part is uh the true reality of God's act in its entirety then is good since it is existence. For this reason the book that illuminated the darkness of the world stated explicitly and God saw everything that he had made and behold it was very good. Even the existence of this lowly matter in the state it is in conjoined to privation which necessitates death and all Raos all of this too is good on account of the perpetuity of generation and the continuity of existence through succession. It is for this reason that Rabbi Meir interpreted uh Vihine Tov Maod as Vine Tov Mabis uh that it was very good he said is death is good in accordance with the idea to which we have drawn our attention okay so in other words even this matter uh which is which is joins to privation and is the result of all death and ra um is ultimately good because it is the cause of a dynamic universe uh in which things come to be uh and pass away. Okay. Um in other words um in other words uh even though matter causes particular Ra matter is part of the Tove of the universe God created uh by design okay so that is why we would not say that matter is Ra or the Satan is Ra because the Satan is Tov it's part of the Tov of this universe that that God says Tovat it's the cause of particular things suffering Ra because that's part of the design of the universe but it itself is not Ra. God did not so God did not create anything Ra because you can't create Ra but also matter itself is not Ra.

SPEAKER_07 1:13:09

It's good because God wants a universe in which things come to be and pass away I don't know if you're unable if you're able to unmute yeah yeah yeah yeah so that that okay yeah okay good and then the last uh last sentence here is the end of the chapter sorry so I could just clarify so that means that it's not Ra because Ra is only subjective so it can't be anyway.

SPEAKER_02 1:13:29

Ra is always just a relationship okay well I wouldn't say I wouldn't go so far as to say it's subjective right now I'd say that that that Ra sorry it's always in a particular not that the Ra is subjective but Ra is only identifiable in instances that are in particular correct you know relative persons relative to particulars right so so in other words so for for a an organism to die it's it's raw for that organism because it's losing its life but for organisms in plural to die is very good for the for creation because that's how you have successive generations of species which is what God says is good. And in fact if you go through the creation account um then you'll see that where does God say when it comes to living things where does a God say where does God say uh kitov oh sorry to Tov Oh I see what's going on hold on uh it's messing it up because the tonin kitov so where do you see the words kitov uh in living things is Vatotehar's desha ase must be a zera leminehu so the earth gave forth um I'm just gonna use translation here uh the earth sprouted grass herbs would yield seed of every kind and tree is bearing fruit containing seed of it every kind and God saw that it is good so it's attached to the the species perpetuating itself and then once again by the that's just not okay once again by the um the animals uh sorry the birds and the fish um is lemine hem of is call of kanaf leminehu for its species because it is good and then by the animals um uh uh kolrem sodma leminehu so the species are good but in order to have a perpetuation of species you you require things coming to being and passing away so it's bad for the particular but good for the uh the existence of the species as a whole and the last sentence he says here is he says remember what I've told you in this chapter and understand it everything that the prophets have said uh that all good is essentially from the act of God will then become clear to you as Brahishi's Rabba said nothing rah descends from above okay so the ultimate uh point here uh you know uh this is something that you you you have to sit with oops sorry hold on a second here this is something you have to sit with here which is that what the Rahmam is trying to do is he's trying to to like it sounds like he's playing word games okay but what he's really trying to do is he's trying to inaugurate you into a different way of thinking about Ra. All right um and that if you understand what Ra is Ra is not an actual thing it is a privation of of of an existing thing and God only produces things that exist and any privations that are found in the material world are part of the nature of a world of coming to be and passing away and are good on the whole um and it's only Ra insofar as that particular thing is lacking this particular existence. Yeah I see uh let me add to your question first or your comment.

SPEAKER_07 1:16:51

Oh no I just had like a just to clarify that God creating the whole world includes Ra.

SPEAKER_02 1:16:58

So in that way he created it but not in it's not in the specific yes correct correct yeah yeah that God created a world that has matter that is what allows for Ra by design but he does not create he does not do particular Raos because no one can he only produces existence okay um I I'm gonna say something which I don't know if I like all right um in fact let me quote it from someone else this is where I saw it. Okay so uh your uh the the book uh my uh usual book commercial here uh let me unblur how do I unblur turned off the video uh unblur so this book called My Monides Life and Thought by Mosha Halbertal if you're looking for any good book on the Rambom this is the best book in my opinion because it goes through the Rambam's life and his works and overviews all the major concepts in uh in the Rambaum and it's good for someone on an introductory level and it's good for someone on an advanced level um okay so what he says is this uh I I I'm sorry I don't have this on the screen uh this is on page 329 the problem of evil and the purpose of existence the problem of evil presents one of the most difficult problems faced by monotheistic religious thought conceptually the problem can be stated as follows how is it possible to affirm simultaneously the following three propositions um let me just write this part out okay um sorry one oops sorry it's still in hebrew one god is omnipotent two god is good three evil exists okay that's the problem if god is not omnipotent we can understand the phenomenon of evil god though good lacks the power to prevent it similarly we can understand the phenomenon of if God is all powerful but not good God has the power to prevent evil but because he is not essentially good he is indifferent to the evil that occurs in the world on the face of it however monotheistic religious thought seems committed both to God's omnipotence and to his goodness so how can it account for the existence of evil all right um so that is the that's the problem of uh of the existence of evil now what what Halbertal says that I don't know if I like is like this he says um many efforts contend with the problem of evil sorry many efforts to contend with the problem of evil try to maintain both God's goodness and his omnipotence by denying that evil really exists the history of theology is replete with such efforts which tend to be questionable and problematic. Maimonides is part of that tradition and in dealing with a problem he denies the existence of evil. He thereby takes upon himself a very difficult task which he works to discharge in a unique way informed by his overall view of the world. So Halberd is I think overstating the case he's trying to say that the Ramam gets rid of this by denying the existence of evil. I will not state it like that. I would say that of these three premises the Ramam upholds these two God's omnipotence and goodness but he redefines what evil means in a manner that shows that it is not a problem, that it's not in conflict with God's goodness and omnipotence. So that's what the Ramham is trying to do now. And the point I'm trying to stress here is that there does need to be an intellectual reframing of evil because uh in order to to solve that but what Ramam is ultimately going to be doing is changing how you relate to evil uh and that's gonna take several chapters to do. All right but this is the uh but but we need this step first um in order to do this. Okay. I think this is a good stopping point for today. I think what's going to happen is like this is that next time we'll begin by reviewing everything we we had here and hopefully there will be new problems that arise or new clarity that emerges from our review. And then we'll go on to the next couple chapters in which he talks about the kinds of evil in the world and what their causes are and why they need to exist. Yeah SD just just on that last quote that saying that the Rambam denies evil I mean that's kind of saying well the Rambom denies evil as you mean it when you're asking that question exactly yeah yeah right yeah that's that's a good point right yeah yeah we will emerge from this not thinking of not holding hopefully not holding on to the same view of evil that we had when we went in so yes yeah okay um uh this is heavy stuff but uh uh thank you for joining me for the ride and uh I like I said we will I will try to make Shear happen on Friday even though I get into my destination at 10 it's possible I'll have to start a little bit late but uh hopefully we'll work it out. All right all right have a good choice everyone thanks for coming thank you thank you thank you