Rambam: On the Purpose of the Universe (Moreh 3:13)

Length: 1 hour 43 minutes
Synopsis: This evening (4/30/25), in our Thursday night women’s shiur, we learned through the entire chapter in the Moreh ha'Nevuchim in which the Rambam discusses the purpose of the universe. Technically speaking, this is part of our Friday morning Sefer Iyov Machshavah Lab series for women, but in order to make up for lost time, I decided to take it up in our Thursday night shiur. Thankfully, it's also a standalone topic. I'm happy with our analysis, and hope you find the Rambam's argument as enlightening as I did!

Here's the link to My Rejected Kiruv Article on the Purpose of Life, which I mentioned at the end 
-----
מקורות:
רמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים ג:יג
-----

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_06 0:12

Okay, so this is a part of my Mahshava lab EOF series, but not in the normal time slot. Okay. So the story is I've been giving the sheer to my Friday morning women's shear group, uh paralleling what I'm doing in high school for EOV. The problem is that we are getting a little, we're a little bit behind for Friday morning women's sheer. And I want to try to wrap it up before the summer. Um, so I'm basically going to try to do double time. So what we're doing is the Friday morning is still sequential. We're right in the middle of, so you can see on screen here, these are the top, we're going through the chapters in the Morning Vukun about um about uh you know Ram's theory of evil in the world. So we've done 3.8, which is matter as the cause of of of bad stuff, 3-9 as matter as a barrier to knowledge, um, and 310 as uh is what we did last week, which is uh Ram's theory of evil and God's relationship to it. And we're gonna continue that on Friday morning. It's to go into 3.11 and then 312, okay? But for Thursday nights for the next couple weeks, what we're gonna plan to do is take up one uh one night topics uh later on in the thing. So 313 is what we're doing tonight, purpose of the universe uh and God. And then next week, I hope to do what God can and can't do. Um, and we'll see where we go after that. So this is part of that series, but this is also designed to be standalone. So you don't need to follow the rest of EO for this. I'm only gonna I'll fill you in on one uh one piece of background information. Uh um, and uh, but this should be standalone here. And I'm also not going to really explain how this ties into EOF, uh, that I'll do in the Friday morning share. Okay, so what to expect this evening? Okay, so this is um, so I said this in the in the shear description. This is a long chapter, but the points are are relatively straightforward. Uh, and I wouldn't call them simple, but like I guess not a lot of moving parts. Okay. So if you feel lost, obviously ask, but there will be lots of text that we're gonna read through and just keep your eye on the ball. Don't get lost in the details um, because the details are not really my priority here. Okay. So that's point number one. Point number two is you know, some of this will feel relevant. And by relevant, I mean practically relevant. I mean like stuff that people care about and are asking about, and some will not, okay, and that's mostly uh the uh Aristotelian uh parts, okay? Um, but the thing is is that the Ramam is gonna is building an argument, and we owe it to the Ramam to follow his line of reasoning in order to make sure we're getting all the points. In other words, if we I I used to teach this and just go through and select the parts that I feel felt were relevant, and then I realized that that's not doing the Ramam justice. So we are gonna read through even the Aristotle parts, uh, even if it doesn't resonate with us. And the thing is that some of those Aristotelian parts are totally outdated, okay? You know, uh, and then like Ditto for for the the Torah's view, some some parts of the Torah's view are are are outdated, and I'll point them out when when they happen, okay. But much of this is still relevant to modern science, uh, if we uh if we recast it that way. Okay, and I'm gonna try to like call attention to that also. And I am not a knowledgeable, I'm not knowledgeable about science, so like if you're in the shear and you have like some point to correct me on, please do. And if you're listening to the recording, then please uh correct me as well. Yeah, Tamar.

SPEAKER_05 3:55

Um maybe I'm just like not parsing it, but what do you mean ditto for the Torah's view?

SPEAKER_06 4:00

Oh, sorry, yeah, meaning ditto for uh for some aspects of the the Ram Bomb's articulation of the Torah's view, meaning that um sorry. Uh you know, some some aspects uh are outdated. Okay. Um so that also makes it hard to relate even to the Torah, to the you know, to the stuff that like we we still hold in terms of Torah views. Um so we'll have to sift through that. Okay. And I have one more intro. Oh, which is like this is is um like the the last you know page or two is mostly proof texts, which doesn't mean that they're not important, but um, but it means that like uh they're they're uh are lower priority um and we might you know uh rush through them. Okay. Um so like if you see that we're getting to like the eight o'clock, eight fifteen realm and we we still have more pages to go, uh we're gonna, you know, the the last part is is very quick. Okay. So that's kind of the plan for tonight. Um and as usual, what we'll do is uh we're gonna read it and then take notes, and then you'll ask questions. And uh this is not gonna be one where like, you know, certain sheerim, I set up a problem and like we try to work on it together, but these EO Shirim have largely been we're reading through the Ramam and trying to understand what he's saying. And then if we have a problem with it, then we we we analyze it, but we're letting him take the lead here because uh I don't know enough about Eov to like you know give my own TR. I have to like use the Ramam. Okay, the only premise you're gonna need is something that we did spend a couple sessions on in Friday morning, which is Aristotle's Four Causes. We're not gonna go into depth, but basically, Aristotle um had this view of the physical universe, uh, which is that in explaining what he called the world of being and becoming, the world of change of, you know, in the on earth, let's say things you know come into being and pass away. So plants grow and then you know flourish and then wither and die. You know, human beings are born and they age, you know, they grow up and then they age and they die. So in this world, he said that all physical phenomena have four causes, okay? The material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause. So the material cause is what it's made of. The formal cause is what it is, or you could say what it's made into. This is the hardest one, and this is the one we've been focusing on in uh in on Friday, and we will not really be dealing with this so much tonight. So um, just to articulate it, though, it's the essence of the thing, what makes the thing the thing, the design of the thing or its organization. And then this is my favorite um uh quotation from this other book called uh The Hungry Soul by Leon Cass. Form or formal cause 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. Uh, and then the efficient cause is what makes it or what causes the change from the material into the thing. And then the final cause is what it's for. So for example, uh take a uh a rocking chair, right? So the material cause of the rocking chair is wood, okay. Maybe some glue, maybe some metal, depending on what it's made of, but it's the stuff that the chair is made of. Okay. The formal cause, what is the definition of rocking chair? Well, it is usually a a uh you know uh flat surface that is the approximately the size of a human, you know, rear end, right? A little bit bigger, uh, with a back that is, you know, uh angled in a way that um that you know, or I guess that you know that has some sort of uh curvature on its legs that allows for rocking. Okay, that's what it is. Uh the efficient cause is the carpenter that makes it. And then the final cause is to provide a uh uh a comfortable place to sit and rock. Okay. Um, I guess that's how you would say it. All right. Tonight we are only pretty much going to be focusing on the final cause. And so another other words for final cause is um is the why, um, the reason for its existence. Okay. And what's important to realize is why are these called causes? So these are called causes because without that, without each of them, the thing would not exist. So let's go through another example of this. Uh shoes. Okay, the shoes that uh, you know, my everyday shoes here. So the material cause of the shoes is leather and I think rubber on the sole. Okay. Um, that's what it's made of. The formal cause is uh it's not exactly the shape, right? Because you could have shoes that have different shapes. You know, Cinderella's shoe is a shoe, uh, and um, you know, my uh my shoppers shoes are shoes, but it is the the showness of the thing, the the you know, the uh uh receptacle for the foot. I mean, I guess that's how you would say the the uh you know uh a wearable receptacle for the foot. I don't know. The efficient cause is the shoemaker, and then the final cause, which is the one we're focusing on, is to provide uh um comfort and protection for the feet uh while walking, let's say. Okay. So each of these is necessary uh for the thing to exist. So if you did not have leather, those shoes could not exist. If you didn't have a concept of shoe, then it would just be a lump of leather. Okay, so you need the the the what the thing is in order to make the shoe. And you also need someone to transform the leather into the thing. But then for our purposes, the shoe would shoes would not have come into existence if people did not seek comfort for their feet while walking, comfort and protection, right? So for example, in societies where um people uh you know can where people walk on the ground and they either have ground that doesn't harm them or their souls are hardened, um, they don't they don't they didn't invent shoes. And so there's no cause to bring about the existence of shoes. Yeah, Tamar?

SPEAKER_05 10:10

Um, is it obvious that there for something to exist that always has to have a final cause or that the final cause is always necessary to existence? Like that's the one that I'm okay.

SPEAKER_06 10:22

So that's actually the first point that the problem starts on. Okay. Um so uh we'll get to that right now. Uh uh anyone have any other questions on the terminology here? And again, uh, we're not gonna get into what the formal cause is, but final cause is the one. Uh so final cause is is synonymous with the purpose, or you could also say the end, okay. The end, um, you know, uh in the sense of of uh in the sense of means and ends. Okay. Okay, so let's begin. And I've announced this every time, but I'm gonna say it again because this is the new uh a new series. So I'm using a what I call a synthesis translation here, um, which is um the uh Rahmam wrote the the the Murnevukim in Judeo-Arabic. And since I don't know Judeo-Arabic, I have to rely on translations, and there are six translations that I use. Um oh yes, uh Rukhali says uh teleological. Yeah, teleological means uh pertaining to the to the to functions or the reasons for the thing. Yeah. So um the three the six translations I use, and I'm just telling you this also in case you ever want to get more Navukim and learn it. So Friedlander is the free edition, okay. That's not why it's called Freelander. That's the public domain uh edition that was translated in the early 1900s. It's very readable, it's also not so precise. He also sometimes projects Christian concepts into it. Um, better English translation is the penis version, which is very precise, but it's also very scholarly and uses awkward words. The most modern uh translation is the Goodman translation that was released last year. Uh, and we actually just had the translator speak, uh, give a guest Sunday here at YBT. Very readable, very good footnotes. Sometimes he's, in my opinion, sacrifices accuracy for the sake of readability or clarity or precision for the sake of readability. Um, and then you have the Hebrew translations. You have the Kafak translation, which is my favorite one, um, that is a principal translator of the Ramam. You have the Makvili one, who's the modern Hebrew translator. Very good footnotes, but it's modern Hebrew, and I don't like modern Hebrew because I don't know modern Hebrew words. So it's more frustrating, but it's also very good. And then this Goldstein one, which is the one on Ahatorah. So what I do is I use Claude to combine all of them together, and then I check through all of them and make changes as I please. And that's what we're using. Okay, last point before we start is you know, since I'm teaching this in high school, I added these headings just so my high schoolers can get their bearings, but the Ramadan did not write the headings. So my first heading, what, why can and can't be asked about? It's clear if you see on the screen. What, quote unquote, why can and can't be asked about? Okay, so the Ramad lays out his premises here. Even perfect minds have grown perplexed in investigating what the ultimate end of this existence is. Okay, pause. Uh, I heard an interview by Sam Harris of Fukuyama, I don't know what his first name is, who wrote a book called The End of History. And the first question that Sam Harris uh uh asked him is like, do you want to clarify anything about the title of your book? And he's this this guy said, When I wrote the book, I meant end as in means and ends. Like, what is history culminating in? Like, what are we building towards? But people thought I meant like the end of civilization and like the world blows up and stop stuff stops happening. So ultimate end in this chapter does not mean when things cease, it means it's ultimate end in the sense of ends and means. Okay. In fact, I'm gonna take notes here. I also want to say something else at the outset. So notes uh so note number one is um is end in this context uh is uh meant in the sense of of means and ends. And then here's the thing, okay, is that uh is that in final causes you can have a hierarchy of of ends, okay. Um so like you know, um picture picture a kid asking why, okay, and then you give him an answer and he says why that? And you give him another answer and he says why that? Okay, and uh just to use an example here, um in fact I'm just gonna pull up the example. Uh I don't have it. Okay, here's the example is in is um is in chess, okay. What is the final cause of moving a piece? So it is uh to uh to capture the opponent's uh pieces, okay, to capture the opponent's pieces and uh control the board. Okay. What is the final cause of controlling the board is to um to corner and trap the king. Okay. What is the final cause of that is to to um to win the game, okay? And in chess, within chess, that is the final, that is the ultimate final cause. Okay, so this is in a progression from what the Roman would call proximate final cause or proximate end, let's say all the way to ultimate end. Yeah, Racheli.

SPEAKER_00 15:42

Um so basically, just to clarify, the like if you would say it in just like regular language, it would just be the point of like final cause means the point of that.

SPEAKER_06 15:51

The point of that, yeah, correct. Yeah, that's what I said, yeah. Um and now I said that within chess, the the ultimate end is to win the game, but you could also step outside of chess and say, well, what's the what's the final end or what's the point of playing chess? Entertainment. You know, what's the point of entertainment is, you know, and you could say, like, you know, uh enjoyment, you know, it's uh what's the point of enjoying yourself? You know, like so you can go you can go on and on, all right, um, until presumably some final, final end. Okay. Um uh I'll I might as well throw it in here. Aristotle said that within human behavior, um uh said that the ultimate end is is is happiness, okay, because uh as as Mortimer Adler said, um uh nobody can complete the sentence. I want to be happy because want to because blank. Okay. Um, in other words, you can't say that because if you said something in the blank, I want to be happy because you know, because I want my mom to be you know proud of me, right? Well, why do you want that? Well, so that you know it's ultimately gonna get to happiness. Okay, so within human beings, like happiness is the is the name that we call the the the total end. Okay, that's not really relevant for our purposes, but I just want to give it as an example of like there has to be a total, a final end because your your your motives cannot have infinite regression, all right. Um, and then it's just uh then then it's just futile. Um okay, so having said that, let's start. All right. Even perfect minds have grown perplexed in investigating what the ultimate end of this existence is. Now, when he says this existence, he means the totality of the universe, all right. Uh and universe is obviously a modern term, but you know, um the everything that exists in in the world. Okay. I shall now explain how this question falls away according to each of the various schools. Now that's that's alluding to the fact that, you know, why was the Murray and Buchim written? So it was written to guide the perplexed. Okay, but what was the major perplexity? The major perplexity was that the competing philosophy to Torah was Aristotelian thinking. And Aristotle held that the universe was eternal, and the Torah holds that the universe was created. And the Ramam wrote the Mur Nivukim, one of the reasons he wrote the Mur Navukim, uh, the second of the three books of the Mur Navukim is to argue for why the Torah's position is more compelling than Aristotle's. So what the Ram is going to do is he's going to say that even according to Aristotle, um the question of the ultimate end of existence falls away, and according to us as well. Okay, so he's already answering the question, by the way, that that this question in some sense is not going to have an answer, or the answer is not going to uh the question is not going to be uh valid. Okay. So here are his prefaces for why. Um oh hold on, let me just have to continue taking notes here. Uh okay, so uh spoiler alert Rambom will endeavor to show that according to uh in each school of thought, okay, which is Aristotle and us and Torah, um the the the question of what is the purpose of existence falls away. Okay. Okay, so now he says three premises. And this is his first one is gonna answer Tamar's question about uh what kinds of things have uh final uh final causes. Every agent who acts with intention must of necessity have had some particular end in view with respect to what he made for the sake of which he made it. This is clear and it requires no demonstration according to philosophical inquiry. Okay, so that's premise number one, okay, which is that that when do you seek a final end? Only of something that is acting with intention. Okay, that's that's premise number one. Okay, but he's gonna give another one. It is likewise clear that whatever is made thus by intention has been produced in time after not having been. Okay, so I'm gonna actually write these two just to pair them here. Okay, so so a final end um uh you know can be sought for anything produced by an agent acting with intention in time. Okay. Um so for example, you cannot ask the flame of a candle, what is your intention in burning? Okay, because the flame does not produce heat or does not burn intentionally. That's just what it does automatically, okay? Um, but you can ask a human being who sets fire to a building, why did you do that? Okay, if he did it intentionally. But if the human being accidentally knocked over the flame and it set the building on fire, you cannot ask, what was your final end of doing that? Okay. Uh similarly, like if someone is um, you know, uh uh flicking a pen around, okay, absent-mindedly, you can't ask, why are you doing that? Because they might not be aware that they're doing it, they might not be doing it intentionally. Okay. Um uh and then the only question here, which we're not going to get into, is what exactly does the ramen mean by intention? So for example, are you know when your dog does something, is that intentional or is that just instinctual, you know, and it's not controllable. So uh I don't know where the ramen would land on that question. Okay, so uh first two premises clear so far, because the third one's uh is a doozy. Okay, here we go. And it is among the matters that are clear and universally agreed upon that the being who is necessary of existence, okay, and this is my parentheses here just to explain to my high schoolers uh God is termed the necessary existence because by nature he by nature cannot not exist. Okay, just review uh let's learn a second uh review of our definition of of Hashem um from uh from last year. Uh the one necessary existence. Uh, who is non-physical and eternal in parentheses. Okay. So necessary existence means that, so to speak, it's God's nature to exist. That that uh, you know, for for everything else in the world, like for the, you know, uh, like this water bottle, right? Like, you know, at one point it did not it did not exist, and then someone chose to make it, and it's existing right now, but it might not exist in the future, it'll eventually be destroyed or whatever. Okay. Um, but God's exist by nature. So in the same way that you cannot, you can ask um, you know, who drew that that circle, you know, you could say, or who cut the fabric into a circle. You could say that the fabric by nature is not circular. Someone made it that way. But you cannot ask who made circles circular. No one made it that way. That's that's its definition. Okay, so God by definition exists. Uh Rakheli says in the chat, does Ramam explain Hashem's relationship to time uh and acting inside it? Um, I'm sure he does in some place, but not in anything that we're gonna be dealing with uh tonight. Um Vanessa says in Rabim Rufshir this past Monday, he commented how he likes Faria translating UK Vavka as the eternal, which is reminding me of this definition here. Yeah, with eternity tying into constant existence. Yeah, that's a good point. Okay, so um it is universally agreed upon that the being who is necessary of existence, uh oh, and by the way, the reason why I'm saying I'm clarifying this so much also is necessary existence does not mean that we need God. I mean, we do need God, but that's not why he's called necessary existence. We would call God the necessary existence even before the universe was created, even without a universe. He exists by nature. Um, and then everything else depends on him, that's true, but but we're talking about some some feature, so to speak, of God himself. Okay, so let me start that sentence again. It is universally agreed upon that the being who is necessary of existence, who has never failed to exist and never will, has no need of an agent for his existence. We have already established this. Since he is not something made, the investigation of a final end falls away with respect to him, and one therefore does not ask what is the final end of the existence of the creator, may he be exalted, since he is not a created thing. Okay, so let's let's let's take this in our notes here. Oh, you know what? I'm gonna make all this size 10. Okay, so uh in our notes, um, so we said a final end can be sought for anything produced by an agent acting with intention in time. Okay. So since God was not produced by an agent in time, okay, since he he uh is a necessary uh is the necessary existence, okay, um uh therefore we cannot ask what is the final cause of God, okay, or you know, or in lay layman's terms, why does God exist? Okay. And if you think about it, if you said why does God exist, so then if that question had an answer, what would what would be the implications for about God and about the thing that you're answering with? In other words, if the question was God exists for blank, so then how would that create problems? Yeah, Rachel?

SPEAKER_00 25:30

So if someone bought into the Aristotelian framework, then you wouldn't be able to ask that about the universe.

SPEAKER_06 25:36

Wait, wait, wait, are you answering my question or are you asking another question?

SPEAKER_00 25:38

No, no, I'm asking another question. Oh, okay.

SPEAKER_06 25:39

Answer my question first. Yeah. Uh Vanessa.

SPEAKER_00 25:42

Sorry.

SPEAKER_04 25:43

Uh with the Aristotelian framework, we're presupposing that having an end means having like a reason for being created, and like we can't assign that to God.

SPEAKER_06 25:52

Okay, um, that's that is true. Wait, wait, forget Aristotle. Okay, you want to read it? I don't know why everyone's going to Aristotle yet. We haven't mentioned Aristotle yet. Let me just ask the question again. Is is let me I'll just put this here on the screen, is that if you could give uh uh you know, uh identify a final cause of God, okay, a a uh you know uh a reason why he exists, okay um what problem or implication would that create uh about your your your view of God and that reason? In other words, how what what would shift when you said that, yeah, hoodie?

SPEAKER_03 26:34

Um doesn't it imply that either something created it, God, or that's indicated before God?

SPEAKER_06 26:40

Right. Okay, so then you would end up you would end up regarding that final cause as the supreme the supreme being, okay, or the you know the the ultimate reality, okay, because then you're saying that God exists for something else. So that would be what we're talking about when we talk about God. And then the question would just shift. Well, what what is the final cause of that? And we already said you can't have an infinite chain, so there has to be something that is the the ultimate uh the ultimate you know uh necessary existence. Um now, uh Rakeli, what was your question you were gonna ask?

SPEAKER_00 27:16

Um I was just saying if someone accepted like an eternal universe, then that you wouldn't be able to ask that question about the universe.

SPEAKER_06 27:24

Okay, so we're gonna get to the universe in a second, okay, because that's gonna be Aristotle's view that the universe exists eternally. Okay, so hold on to that for one second. Was there another question also? No. Okay, so now the Ram concludes this section by saying it has thus been clarified by these premises that a final end is to be sought only for what is produced in time by the intention of an intelligent being. That is, for whatever has an intentional origin, one must necessarily investigate what its final cause is, but for that which is not produced in time, no final end is to be sought, as we have said. Okay, so that's perfectly serving up what he's gonna say about Aristotle. So let me just summarize here. So um, so uh, I mean, we kind of just said that is uh, but but we'll say it again. Uh I mean, here he was talking about God, but we'll say um yeah, yeah, a final a final end is only to be sought, sorry, sought by uh sorry, sought for what is produced in time by an intelligent agent, and um for that which was not produced in time uh by an intelligent agent, uh no final end may be sought. Okay, so there you go for that. Okay. Any questions so far? Because now we're gonna go into Aristotle and then we're gonna go into the Torah. Okay, this is where it's gonna get this is the not fun part of this, okay? Uh because it's gonna again feel very uh outdated. After this preamble, know that there is no ground for seeking a final end for the totality of existence, neither according to our view, which holds that the universe was brought into existence, nor according to Aristotle's view of eternity. Okay, so according to neither view, the Torah view and the anti-Torah view, according to neither view, can you ask what is the purpose of the universe? Okay, how so? So he says like this for on his doctrine of the world's eternity, on Aristotle's uh doctrine, no ultimate end can be sought for any part of the universe. On his view, one cannot ask, what is the final end of the existence of the heavens and why are they of this particular measure and this particular number? Nor why is matter as it is, nor what is the final end of this species of animal or of plant? For on his view, all of this proceeds by way of an eternal necessity that has never ceased and will never cease. Okay, so let's pause there for a second, okay? Actually, we'll make another paragraph here. Okay, so according, so that let's let's uh we already said that according to both views. Oh, we did the spoiler. Okay, fine, so we already said that. So according to Aristotle, uh according to Aristotle, okay, you cannot ask uh you cannot ask what is the purpose of the universe as a whole, okay, nor can you ask that uh of any of its components. Okay, he's gonna qualify that in a little while, okay? But again, just in your own words here, why not? Like what you know, like you just let's just talk it out, why not?

SPEAKER_00 30:33

Because it wasn't created in time by an intelligent being, exactly.

SPEAKER_06 30:37

Because it was because it neither the universe nor any parts of it, okay, and he gave the examples of you know the heavens, matter, um, uh the the quantities involved, okay, etc., um, were brought into existence by an intelligent agent in time, okay. So you can't ask what is the cause of it, because that was the criteria he laid out. Yes, uh Hoodie.

SPEAKER_03 31:03

All right, I must have missed something. I don't understand because isn't God considered an intelligent agent in time?

SPEAKER_06 31:08

Yeah, but Aristotle does not hold that God created the universe, he holds that the universe is eternal. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Um, and that that's the uh uh I'll I'll highlight this here because this is the clearest place where he says both views that um uh neither according to our view, which holds that the universe was brought into existence, so that's creation, uh, nor according to Aristotle's view uh that the universe is eternal. In fact, you know what? I'm gonna actually just pause and uh and state this as a preface here, okay. Is um is I think okay, there are only is this a preface uh preface here, okay. There are only three views you can have about the origin of the universe. Okay, so one view is um one view is uh it is eternal, okay, it has no origin, okay, and that is Aristotle. Okay. Uh then you have our view, which is let's call this mainstream Torah, which is um it was created, Yeshme Ion, which is um uh in is it Latin is ex in the hilo, uh, and then out of nothing. Okay, and then there is a third view. Anyone know what the third view is? Which is kind of a uh a mixture of the two. And it's held by Plato, Raw Bog, and then some some Hazal. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_03 32:47

I was gonna think something along the lines of like the scientific like big bang theory where it's like not intentional, but it's still like does if it was created or it did come into existence. But after you said who believes in it, I don't know if that's true anymore.

SPEAKER_06 33:00

Okay, yeah. So the we'll we'll we'll show where where uh where modern science fits in. Yeah, Rokelli.

SPEAKER_00 33:05

Um that there's like matter and then it was shaped.

SPEAKER_06 33:08

Yeah, exactly. So is that eternally existing matter that God formed into the universe? Okay. Um, so uh so I th I I don't know what the up-to-date thing is about um uh in uh yeah, I don't really know which one of these modern science will fall into, but certainly with the big when the big bang was discovered, so that um that ruled out Aristotle, because Aristotle held that there's no changes in the universe at all. Uh, you know, uh and so like like there was no beginning point at all. So so when we we had evidence of the Big Bang, that either points to our view uh or it points to the fact that there was some eternally existing matter, but there's no way for us to know in science because uh we can't go back to that first you know moment of the universe. Rukheli says, where do Khazal hint to this last view? So the I I don't know the exact citation, but apparently there are Midrashin that say that God created the universe out of the Kiseha Kavod, out of the the the throne of glory, which seems to imply that it's speaking about some sort of material, uh, you know, material substance. And then the other place where they get it, you know, Rah Bog holds about this for um uh for like philosophical reasons. Um, and um and so he, I think, will probably quote a lot of other Hazals and say that they meant that the universe was created out of eternally existing matter, uh, because Rah Bog holds that all of Hazal held this. So yeah. Okay. Um yeah, it is interesting. Um, even more interesting is something that I'm doing uh right now, which will be next week. Uh, I won't spoil it for next week. Okay. Okay, so um, right. So Hoodie, I think the missing piece was uh uh Aristotle holds that the universe was uh eternal. Now, just to FYI, even though he doesn't say this here, Aristotle does hold by God. He just does not hold that God created the universe. He holds that the universe and God are both uh eternal, uh, and then the universe has some sort of dependency on God um for its uh function or its uh existence. But but there's no act of creation. Okay, they both always existed. Okay. So um, so that's what uh so you can't ask what's the purpose of the universe according to Aristotle, um uh, or what's the purpose of any part. Okay, now he says like this although, and although the natural sciences inquire into the end of every natural existence, that's what Rukhele was saying, the teleological approach. Okay, so in science back then in Aristotle's time was uh called natural philosophy, uh, and it was not nearly as rigorous as uh as our science, and there was no real experimentation. Uh, there was a lot of just like thinking about stuff uh based on observations, on like common sense observations, and um, it was viewed as a branch of philosophy. Okay. So they would ask, like, what is the purpose of this? What's the purpose of that? So he says, uh, so he says, you know, you might think that that would contradict what what uh Aristotle holds. This is not the ultimate end of which we were speaking in this chapter, for it has already been established in the natural sciences that every natural existent must have some specific end, and that this final cause, which is the noblest of the four causes, is hidden in most species. Aristotle constantly states in explicit terms that nature does nothing in vain, meaning that every natural action must have some specific end. He has already made clear that plants were created for the sake of animals, and he has likewise made clear regarding some existence that one is for the sake of another, particularly with regard to the limbs of animals. Okay, so the question here that the Ron was answering is wait a minute. Um even according to Aristotle, uh, don't um you know scientists uh seek final causes for every existing thing? Okay, so his answer is yes, but not ultimate final causes, okay, uh just proximate or local ones. Okay, so I think the easiest example for us is um like you know, uh what, you know, just give examples here. Example. Uh you know, clearly the purpose of eyes is to see, okay, uh, which is to allow the organism to get data from its surroundings uh based on the light, okay, uh, to better, you know, uh to facilitate uh survival. Okay. So, you know, or let's say another example is, you know, the purpose of the heart is to transport blood throughout the body. Okay. Um, so this is and just basic biology here. Okay. Um, so so we do look for those kinds of uh causes, but we don't look for, for example, he's saying we don't look for the the we don't ask the question, what is the purpose of mammals? Okay, uh, or what's the purpose of animals, let's say? Because he does say he does hold that there's a hierarchy in the uh in in in uh in nature, which I don't think we hold by now. I think we hold by like ecosystems where everything is like integrated, but he held that plants exist for the sake of animals, and uh, I don't know if he held that animals exist for the sake of humans. Um, but the limbs of animals is the is the clear example here. Okay. Uh any questions on this so far. Okay, moving right along. Know that the presence of this end in natural things is what necessarily led the philosophers to posit a principle other than nature, which Aristotle calls an intellectual or divine principle, namely the one who makes one thing for the sake of another. Okay, that's a can of worms I don't want to open, which is um that uh that Aristotle held that that since these things do have functions in nature, there must be some intelligence that is somehow participating in bringing this thing into existence. Uh, so that would be Aristotle's Angels, okay, which sounds like a name of a good motorcycle gang um in Athens, um uh which is uh the uh Skalim Nivdalim, the separate intelligences. Okay, we talked about that in our angel series. Um, and know that for anyone of fair judgment, among the strongest proofs for the universe is being brought into existence is the demonstration that holds with respect to the natural existence, that each of them has some specific end, and that one is for the sake of another. This is proof of intention on the part of an intending agent, and intention cannot be conceived except together with producing in time of something produced. So that's a fancy way of saying that that one of the strong arguments for um the fact that the universe was created as a whole is the fact that everything that you see in nature has a purpose. And we have this intuitive sense that that that points to a designer. So this is what you would call the entire category of arguments and proofs of God called uh or proofs of God as the creator, uh, the arguments from design. Okay. And even Rabbi Fader and Rabbi Zimmer um have you know a modern day um version of that, but not based on the functions of organisms. Okay, but Ram is saying, like, you know, you look around and like things have functions, and you would never say that functions uh you know came about like haphazardly. So, like, you know, there must be an intelligent designer. He's not giving a rigorous proof here, he's just saying it's one of the best evidences, pieces of evidence. Okay. Um, I shall now return to the subject of this chapter, namely the discussion of the final end. I say Aristotle has already made clear that in natural phenomena, the agent, the form, and the final end are one. That is one in type. Okay, so this is uh this is taking uh next step. Okay, according to Aristotle, okay, so when we were talking about the um the shoe or the chair, that's a man-made object, okay? But uh natural objects, sorry, in natural objects, uh existence, okay, um the efficient cause, the formal cause, and the final cause are one. Okay, he's gonna he's gonna give an example, all right. Um, for example, the form of Ruven is what produces the individual form of Chanuk, his son. What it has produced is the imparting of a form to its own species, to Hanoch's matter, and Chanuk's final end is that he should bear a human form. For some reason, because human forms are very difficult to um uh to think about, let's pretend that Ruven and Hanoch are dogs, okay? Just bear with me for a second, okay? So, for example, uh Ruvin, the dog, and Chanuk its its uh its offspring, okay, its puppy. Um okay, so what do you have here? So you have the the uh the formal cause, okay. Uh so what is the formal cause of Ruvin producing Chanoch? Well, only a dog, okay, meaning that's what the thing is, can produce another dog. Okay, so that's and that's how you know that it has its own unique formal cause, you know, uh, because it can it can breed. Okay, um, so only a dog can produce another dog, right? So so Ruvin's form is producing Chanoch's form. Okay, Ruvin's form is producing uh chanoch's form. Okay, what about the material cause uh the sorry the um the uh efficient cause? Okay, um so again, only a dog uh can change matter into another dog, okay. So the i.e. when a mommy dog and daddy dog love each other, um they become the efficient cause of baby dog, a puppy. Okay, so again, the uh the efficient cause is the agent that brings it about, so that's also dog. And then the final cause, okay, if I asked you what is the purpose of of dogs, what would you say?

SPEAKER_01 43:14

And this is not just true of dogs, by the way, but like all creatures.

SPEAKER_06 43:21

Yeah, Vanessa. Following this just to propagate? Yeah, is to make more dogs. Okay. So that's what he means that that the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause are all one. So so dogs make dogs for the sake of making dogs. Okay. Um, yeah, now Rukheli says in the chat, how wait, how is Aristotle using the term created? Um did he use the term created? Uh a while ago.

SPEAKER_01 43:53

Uh I might I might be blind to it.

SPEAKER_06 44:06

Oh, created? Oh, okay, yeah, yeah. Uh actually, no, actually, I'm not sure what he means there. Yeah, I'm not sure what he means by that. Um, yeah, good question. Um, I also don't I I'd have to check and see if that's a good translation. Uh I I I I'm not gonna go into that right now, even though it's a good question. Okay. Um, so that is uh that is the yeah, such in Airstiles view is the case with every individual of the natural species that required reproduction. For in in them, the three causes are one species. This refers to the first or proximate final end. But as for the existence of an ultimate final end for each species, okay, um, sorry, hold on a second. Just gotta keep our notes moving. Um as for the existence of an ultimate end, final end for each species, every student of nature has supposed that it is indispensable, yet knowledge of it is very difficult matter, and all the more so is knowledge of the final end of the existence as a whole. What appears from Aristotle's words is that the ultimate final end in his view of these species is the perpetuity of coming to be and passing away, which is indispensable for the continuance of the coming to be in this matter, whose individuals cannot endure, so that from there it may come to be the utmost of what can come to be, that is, the most perfect being that can arise from it. For the ultimate purpose is the attainment of perfection. It is clear that the most perfect thing whose existence is possible from this matter is man, and that he is the last of these composite beings and the most perfect among them. Even if it be said that all the existence beneath the sphere of the moon, meaning on earth, are for his sake, this would be correct in that sense, namely, that the motion of what changes is for the sake of coming to be, so that the most perfect being possible may come to be. Okay, so let me just translate it into English here. Is uh the most Aristotle would say about the final cause of species is that they uh exist to produce the the best form uh that is possible of their matter, and on earth the highest uh you know, the I guess the most perfect, the most perfect uh creature um made of matter is man. Okay, so he would say basically the purpose the purpose of of spe of of all species on earth is is is to perpetuate themselves and and produce the their their highest forms. Okay, um and uh and that is uh that's Aristotle's view, and then let's just finish up Aristotle's view here, and then we'll we'll uh we'll talk about modern science briefly. Aristotle is therefore not obliged to ask, according to his view of eternity, what is the final end of man's existence? For on his view, the first final end of every individual produced in time is the perfection of that specific form, and every individual in whom the acts necessarily deriving from that form have been completed has thereby attained his final end in full completeness. The ultimate final end of the species, in turn, is the perpetuity of this form through the continuance of coming to be and passing away, so that there should never fail to be a coming to be in which the most perfect being possible may be sought. It is thus clear that on the view of eternity, the demand for an ultimate final end of existence as a whole falls away. So for man, uh the the you know, the only purpose, uh Aristotle would say, is A, on an individual level, you should, you know, the your purpose is to perfect your human form, okay, and B, on a species level uh level, your purpose is to perpetuate human forms uh on the planet. Okay. So in other words, like if if you just look uh the way Aristotle sees the world is if you look at stuff in the same way that um that you know the eyes exist to facilitate sight or the lungs exist to facilitate breathing, he looks at all species and says, well, they're producing themselves, and they're producing the best, you know, they're they're trying to produce the best versions of themselves. Like you see, let's say dogs or roses, and like some of them are superior, some of them are inferior, but they're just trying to produce the best things. And then in aggregate, all the species on earth, you know, plants exist for animals, animals exist for humans, and humans exist just to perpetuate themselves. So, but there, but but that's the most you can say. If you said, why does that exist? Like, why is there a phenomenon of animals per se or humans per se? That you cannot say, because that exists eternally according to Aristotle. Okay, so that is the best you can have for Aristotle.

SPEAKER_01 48:50

Okay, any questions on Aristotle? Because we're done with that now.

SPEAKER_06 48:58

Okay, let me ask uh interlude question, which is um what to what extent would modern science agree with Aristotle's um with Aristotle's views uh here? So yeah, so we let's just line them up here, okay? We have um we have uh let's let's just ask for each one, okay? Um does modern science hold that the universe uh you know that that that you you can't ask for a purpose of the universe as a whole? Okay, that's one question. Question next question is we'll we'll go through each of these in order here. Next question is Does modern science hold that you can't ask for purpose of the components uh of the uh of the universe? Okay, question number three Does modern science hold that that that you can ask for uh the purpose of local phenomena uh phenomena within a closed system? So for example, limbs of animals. Uh and then does modern science hold that you uh you you can't that um that the purpose of species is to reproduce and uh and yield the best possible um version of themselves. Okay, so those are the four, I think the four claims that Aristotle is making here. Yeah, Tamara.

SPEAKER_05 50:45

Like components of the universe, you were saying things like the category of mammals?

SPEAKER_06 50:49

Uh yeah, like uh let's actually let's update it like um like gravity or matter. Okay, let's just use uh you know the real component components, building blocks. So what do you say for the first one? Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_03 51:05

Oh, I was just gonna say I would already say the second and fourth, I do think modern science agrees with.

SPEAKER_06 51:11

Yeah, okay, so we have uh second and fourth uh yes, and then Rukheli says no. No, no, yes, yes. Okay, so it seems like the first one is pretty obvious, okay, is yes, right? Is uh okay, yeah, we'll go through them. Okay, so so scientists think that's a ridiculous question, right? Uh uh because either they hold that there's no creator, okay, or and maybe there's not even an or, but like like they hold that the universe uh is eternal or stems from an eternal mechanism. So for example, let's say they hold that the Big Bang happened, right, which scientists do, they have to hold that there is some causal mechanism by which the Big Bang happened, you know, or some laws by which the the the Big Bang happened. Like even if you say, like, well, it was a quantum fluctuation, I don't even know what that means, they hold that there is some fabric of the universe in which quantum fluctuations can happen. So there is um uh there is something that they hold is an eternal something that you can't ask why for? Okay. Second one, does modern science hold that you can't ask for a purpose of the components of the universe? So um, yeah, you're right. I did word this pretty confusingly. Is there an easy way to say this? Let's say agree, right? Does modern science agree that you can't ask for a purpose of the universe as a whole? Yes, it agrees. Does modern science agree that you can't ask for a purpose of the components of the universe? I think the answer is yes, right? No scientist would say would would you know point to a fundamental law of physics and say, you know, why? Okay, uh unless unless they held that that wasn't a fundamental law. Okay, in other words, uh you know, you'll get to a point in physics where where scientists will you know, scientists will say that's just the nature of reality. Yeah, hoodie?

SPEAKER_03 53:30

I don't know if I'm just being like too particular, but I'm getting thrown off by saying about asking for, right? And you can't ask, but you're really are you really saying that they just don't believe there is? Yeah, yeah, right. Okay.

SPEAKER_06 53:42

Yeah. Uh yeah, Tamar.

SPEAKER_05 53:46

Um, I'm this is not I'm not saying this from like a like factual knowledge, but it just seems to me like the the definition almost of a law of nature is that you can't you can't ask for a yeah, I think that's that's good.

SPEAKER_06 53:58

I think that's good, right? Because if you if it did have a cause, that would be the law of nature, and the thing that you were looking at before would just be an effect of nature, not uh uh not a law or a local manifestation. Okay, does modern science hold that you can seek the purpose? Sorry, does modern science agree that you can seek the purpose of local phenomena within a closed system? Like, do scientists look for like you know, functions of organs in in creatures? Yeah, Vanessa?

SPEAKER_04 54:22

I would say yes to this one. Like, I think even the theory of evolution, it's like, oh, like the limbs appeared because fish had to transition from water to earth or whatever, yeah.

SPEAKER_06 54:31

Yeah, uh, so I I I I I heard this in a podcast and I don't remember who I heard it from, but they said that that biologists are almost embarrassed uh to admit that they are scientists who still hold by teleological thinking. Okay, in other words, teleology is this is uh is the belief that there are purposes in nature? And in physics, people used to think that it had purpose, you know, because of Aristotle, but but now we we just view it mechanistically. But in biology, you kind of have to say, what is the purpose of this, you know, of uh of you know this uh this limb or this uh this thing? So they they do hold by uh you know by functions, okay. And then this is the most interesting one to me. Does modern science agree, okay, that the purpose of species is to reproduce and yield the best possible version of themselves? Slightly trick tricky answer, but how do you answer this?

SPEAKER_00 55:31

Yes.

SPEAKER_06 55:32

Yes, okay. How so? You want to elaborate?

SPEAKER_00 55:34

Um, because like everything is well, I don't know if it's like on purpose, but like the idea is that like that's what ends up happening.

SPEAKER_06 55:43

Okay, kind of. Okay, that's that's good.

SPEAKER_03 55:45

Yeah, who do you yeah, is that theory of evolution?

SPEAKER_06 55:48

Yeah, okay, good. So yeah. So the only difference is like this is uh not with regards to each species, okay, because Aristotle held that species were eternal and unchanging, okay, but with regard to life as a whole, okay. So life as a whole, every species is basically just trying to survive and perpetuate itself in a way that will end up leading to a survival, uh, you know, survival of the fittest, and it will adapt. So like it's analogous to Aristotle's idea, even though it's not exactly the same. Okay, so this is surprisingly, Aristotle's view is surprisingly, you know, holds up even though his entire science was different than than ours. Okay, but in terms of the quest for purposes, then then it still holds up. Okay, now we get to the fun part. Okay, now remember, I'll just remind you of my reminder here, which is that the first part of this is substantive, and then the Ram just goes through a lot of proof texts, and we're not gonna like uh we're we're gonna kind of rush through the proof text uh because it's not as necessary. Okay, but on our view and doctrine of the world's being brought into existence as a whole after non-existence, it might be thought that this question is obligatory. That is the demand for a final end of this entire existence. Okay, let's stop here. Okay, so uh so uh hold on a second. According according to our view, one might think that we uh we are obligated to to seek a final end for uh existence. Now, why would we why would we think that based on what the Rome said so far? Yeah, uh Tamar.

SPEAKER_05 57:30

Because when an intelligent agent makes something, it's far from us.

SPEAKER_06 57:33

Yeah, because we hold that the universe uh was brought into existence um by an intelligent agent. Uh, and we said that that that is exactly the thing for which a final cause should be sought. Okay, so makes sense. Okay, so asking the question seems to be the right move to make. Okay. And then he goes on and he says, one might likewise think that the final end of all existence is solely the existence of the human species in order that man should worship God and that everything was made uh only for his sake, such as that even the spheres revolve only for his benefit and to produce what is needed for him. Okay, so he says, um, he says that one might think uh the Torah holds that the purpose um of all existence is for the sake of man to worship God, and everything else uh exists for uh for that end. Okay. So now the question is why? Why why would we think this? Because texts, okay. Uh, so for example, he says some of the plain senses in the in the books of the prophets lend uh this thought considerable support. Uh in Yesheahu 4518, he formed it, meaning the earth to be inhabited. So it sounds like why did God create the earth for human beings, okay? Uh were it not another puzzle in uh Yesheahu 3325, were it not for my covenant, uh, which is a reference to the Torah, which applies by day and night, I would not have appointed the statutes of heaven and earth. Okay, meaning makes it sound like why did God create the heaven and earth so that you could keep Torah? Um uh sorry, that was Yumiyahu 3325. Also Yesheahu 40, 22, and he spreads out the heavens like a tent to dwell in. Again, that makes it sound like God created all of the heavens for the sake of human beings to live on earth. And if the celestial spheres exist for the sake of man, all the more so do the other species of animals and plants. Now, brief reminder here, because the Ram will talk about it. They held back then by a geocentric universe, so the earth is in the center, and there were these concentric spheres made out of the fifth element that didn't change, encircling the earth, and that one had the moon in it, and then outside of that was another one and had Mars in it, and outside another one. So, and and the motion of the heavenly bodies is what is responsible for everything that happens on earth. So he's basically saying that you read the text of the Naveem and you conclude that all of this celestial machinery exists for man because it's all you know, it's all the changes on earth result uh are a result of the heavenly motions, and all these psukim seem to indicate that God made the heavens for the sake of man. Okay, so that's the we'll call that the religious view, okay, because it's the view that a lot of religious people have. And in fact, um, I I gave my students a fake uh extra homework assignment, meaning that they could do it if they want, but I'm not gonna give them points. Is at their Shabbos table, ask what is Judaism's stance on the purpose of the world or the purpose of the universe. And I guarantee you you're gonna get at least someone who says, you know, for man and so that man can worship God. Okay, but Ram's gonna disagree. Okay, so he says, like this. Oops, uh, that messed things up. I did write an article on this, and I was gonna assign that as homework as well. Okay, um, yeah, uh, okay, so he says like this uh but when this view is scrutinized, as befits the enlightened when they scrutinize views, the error of it becomes evident. For one may say to the holder of this view, with regard to this final end, the existence of man, could the creator bring him into existence without any of these preliminaries, meaning the sun, moon, stars, and planets, or is it impossible for him to exist except after all of them? Okay, so let's just we'll call this the breakdown, okay? Uh the breakdown. Okay, so uh ask the religious man these questions. Okay, so question one is is um if it's true that the purpose of the universe is man, okay, could God have created uh created man without all these other things in the universe? Sorry, things in the universe, or are they all necessary for the sake of man? Okay, now the Ramam uh uh irksomely or annoyingly does not spell out both alternatives. Okay, and it might be because he addresses it in the next chapter, but he says like this if he answers that it is possible and that God could have brought man into existence without the heavens, for example, one will then ask, what benefit then is there in all these things, which are not themselves the final end, but exist for the sake of something whose existence is possible without any of them? Okay, so if he answers, um, yes, God did not need to create all those things to create man, okay, or I guess you know, to create man. So then then ask, what then is the purpose of all those things? Yeah, Rochelle.

SPEAKER_00 1:02:51

Um, I don't know if my question's gonna be on the next. Maybe I'll save it till after you.

SPEAKER_06 1:02:56

Okay, sure. Yeah. Okay, so then he goes on and he says, Um, hold on. I'm just gonna keep moving this. Okay. And if and even if everything were for the sake of man, so now again, he's he's not saying again, you would expect him to say, um if he says no, that God uh could not have created man without all these things. So that's the implied question, is it what what if he answers no, uh all these things, these things were necessary for man? Okay, so the Ram does not address that here. Okay, we'll we'll we'll uh we'll take a nod to that uh afterwards. Okay, and even if he's if everything were for the sake of man and the final end of man were as has been said to worship God, okay. So now he says, if he if if he still maintains, sorry, maintains that everything exists for man and the purpose of man is to worship God, then ask Um is the final end of his being a worshiper? Okay, God exalted he gains no added perfection if all his he has created to worship him and attain a true apprehension of him, nor does he suffer any deficiency if nothing else uh besides him were to exist at all. Okay, so you you ask basically what is the purpose of man serving God? Okay, it clearly can't be for God's sake, okay, because nothing we do benefits him in any way. Okay, that's a basic principle about God, is we cannot we cannot affect God. God doesn't have any needs, God doesn't need us, God can't change, God can't be affected by his his creations. Okay, this is all basic Moranavukim 101 uh and the Mishnah Torah. Okay. And if one answers, okay, so then the classic answer is going to be uh uh and if he answers, this is not for his perfection, but for ours, since this is what is good for us and is our perfection. Okay, so if he answers, it's not for God's benefit, but for ours, okay, uh to for ours to to um to benefit us and perfect us. Okay, so then then ask the same question. Returns what is the final end of our existence in this perfection? Okay, what is the purpose of us benefiting ourselves and perfecting ourselves? All right, here we go now. The matter must inevitably end with the giving of the end as so did God will it or so did his wisdom decree. Okay, and this is the correct answer. So ultimately, you will have to say either God's such is God's will, or such did his wisdom decree. Okay, so that is that's the the uh the argument here. So again, is if you take the person who believes the plain shot of the Psukim that the universe exists for man, so then the question is Did God need to create all the heavens in order to have man or not? If he says no, he could have done it without it, so then you gotta open the question now what's the purpose of all the heavens? And if he says, Oh, do I reverse it? Could God have created man without all the other things in the universe? If he says, Yes, he could have. So then what's the purpose of all those things? And if you say he couldn't have created it and they're necessary for man, that's what the Ramah is going to go on to talk about in the next chapter, which is the size of the universe. That's my theory, at least, why the Rama talks about it. And that's what the homework is that I'm going to send you to do, which is watching. I have specific, I know it's a whole genre, but specific YouTube videos about the size of the universe. I do not think anyone in the modern era can really grasp the size of the universe and claim that all of that is necessary for man. I just think that's an egotistical view. Okay. So that's my claim. Ram doesn't make that claim here yet, okay?

SPEAKER_00 1:06:48

Can I ask on the last line? Or you want to get to it? Okay.

SPEAKER_06 1:06:51

Oh, well, I'll get yeah, yeah, I'll get to it. Okay. Um so so that so now this guy is still stubborn because he says, Yeah, God, I still believe that God, everything exists for the sake of man. Okay. So then you say, Well, what's the purpose of man? So he'll say, Oh, to serve God. Then you say, Well, what's the purpose of man serving God? Not God. So they say, Oh, the purpose is is for our Latovla, right? For our benefit. But then you ask, what's the purpose of us benefiting ourselves? And then you're kind of stuck. Okay. So ultimately all you're gonna have to say is it's either God's will or God's wisdom. Yeah, Roketta was your question.

SPEAKER_00 1:07:23

Okay, I feel like wisdom is confusing me because wouldn't you say that something is wise when it's like done for a reason?

SPEAKER_06 1:07:31

Good question. So this is actually a mystery that I have my own speculations about, but many times throughout the Mur Navuchim, he'll give us this little um choice. He'll say, This is God's will, or if you prefer, say God's wisdom. So he's treating these as synonymous. Okay. And the thing is, is I have not yet revisited the chapter, the chapters that he deals with God's knowledge, which is going to come up in oh, I didn't put it on this document. Chapter uh three, 16, and then uh again in three, like uh, I think 20 and 21. So uh I don't know in what sense he's using the using the word wisdom here. Okay, so it's a fair question, but I just don't have a comment on it now. You're okay.

SPEAKER_00 1:08:16

Okay, also just like when you say such is God's will, then you're just like that's it. Like there's no oh he's gonna explain.

SPEAKER_06 1:08:24

He's gonna explain okay. Yeah, okay, or he's gonna explain why that's the end. Okay, but first he he says uh he he just uh brings support for these uh some of these positions here. Thus you will find that the sages of Israel established in their prayers the words. This is from the Elah. We only say this once a year, unfortunately. You have distinguished man from the beginning and recognized him to stand before you. Yet who can say to you, what do you do? Uh and if he be righteous, what can he give you? Uh that's the important line here. In other words, man's righteousness does not give God anything. Okay, they uh have thus made plain that there is no final end there, but absolute will. This being so, and given our doctrine of the world being brought into existence, it is unavoidable that we say that the opposite of this existence, with its causes and effects, could equally have come to be. Uh, an absurdity would then follow with respect to the existence of everything that exists besides man, namely that it exists without any final end at all, since the sole intended final end, which is man, could have existed without any of these things. So that's going back to this uh this point here that um that if you say that everything exists for the sake of man, but those things are not necessary for man, so now the question is well, why do those things exist? And he's saying that you're gonna have to say that, like, you know, um that uh that that they have a final end also. Okay, so uh uh hold I'll suspend your your your question for a second. For this reason, the correct view in my judgment, consonant with the opinions of the Torah and fitting likewise with the opinions of philosophical speculation, that's Aristotle, is that one should not hold concerning all the existence, the existing things that they exist for the sake of man's existence. Rather, all of the other existences, too, are intended for their own sakes and not for the sake of anything else. The demand for the final end of every species of existence thus falls away, even on our view of the world's production in time. For we say that he brought all the parts of the world into existence by his will. Some of them are intended for their own sakes, and some of them exist for the sake of another, which other itself is itself intended for its own sake. Just as he willed that the human species should exist, so he willed that these spheres and their stars should exist, and so he willed that the angels should exist. In every existence, the intention is that existence itself and whatever cannot exist unless something else precedes it. He brought that preceding thing into existence first as sensation precedes reasoning. So, so he the Ram is adding a layer of clarity here, okay. So, so additional uh clarification okay, everything that God created exists for the sake of of itself, okay, or for the sake of something else to exist for itself. Okay. Um, I sent a quick uh comic to my students about this today. Hold on. Uh so the first analysis, everything has a purpose. Ants clean the soil, and it shows this little happy ant, like a janitor clean the soil, and it shows his face, he's looking all self-important, and then it says, This is anteater. Uh and it's looking at the ant, you know. So, like, I think that like represented that the ants exist for themselves, they do their own thing, but they also exist as part of an ecosystem in which they are food for the anteater, you know. So you you can have you can't have uh you can have both now on the surface, okay, there is a contradiction here, okay. Isn't this contradictory? Okay, um, and this is gonna have an easy answer, by the way. But um, you know, uh how can Rambaum say that the the purpose of of you know of everything is or the final cause, let's say the final cause is God's will or wisdom, and say that it exists for itself. Oh yeah, uh thanks for uh jumping in tomorrow. Uh yeah, okay, last two paragraphs of the Ram Bam. I'm just trying to think what I read. I'm just gonna put the last uh oh actually I think it's it's this part.

SPEAKER_05 1:12:27

Uh yeah, I was thinking of that part.

SPEAKER_06 1:12:29

Yeah, thanks. Yeah, okay. Um yeah, so how can Ramam say that the final cause is God's will and wisdom and say that that each thing exists for itself?

SPEAKER_02 1:12:40

Like those sound like two different answers, but I think that this is simple. Yeah, really?

SPEAKER_00 1:12:55

Um I'm kind of guessing here, but that it's just like an expression of God's wisdom.

SPEAKER_06 1:13:01

Yeah, okay, yeah, that's that's a good way to put it. Is that that um that uh that it is you know the each thing's existence is an expression of God's will or wisdom. Okay, I think that's one way to answer it. I think you can also just say, and I don't know if this is the same thing or not, is that these are are just two sides of the same coin, okay, which is which is God's will and wisdom is that the thing should exist full stop. Okay, just exist. Okay, and you'll see this from the the the Rama's proof text here, okay. Um, yeah, uh Hoodie.

SPEAKER_03 1:13:41

Also be reflecting this idea of like God will something into existence, but then after that, there's still like the it reminds me of Bakira. I'm just trying to think like in terms of there, you could have like God's intention, but then you also have like the the I don't know, am I going anywhere with this, or is it not connected at all?

SPEAKER_06 1:14:01

You know, it's funny because uh I I was smiling because like this is you're not the only one who has done this before, but like whenever anyone says, Oh, I'm gonna make this clearer by bringing in a comparison to free will, I'm like, like that's just gonna make things even more complicated. So sorry, fine. I really didn't have to. I'm sure you have something in in your mind that is yeah, I should probably develop it more. Never mind. Okay, that's that's fine. You can you can uh interject if if need be later. Um, okay, so let's read on uh because it's gonna get even clearer. He says, For this reason, the correct view in my judgment, consonant with the oh, I just did I just read this. Yeah, I read that. Okay, fine. Okay, so um, yeah, all right. So then let's this is gonna become clear with the proof text. Okay, proofs from Tanah. This view, too, has been expressed in the books of the prophets. It says, I actually want to read this in Hebrew, which I did not do with my students. Um Mishlay, he quotes Mishlei for this. Um 1614. Okay, um, not 14. 164. Everything God did is Lema'a nehu. Vagam rasha liom ra and and even the rush of the day of bad. So, oops, so he says like this uh everything God has made everything lama'anehu. It is possible, so lama nehu is an ambiguous word. It is possible that the pronomial suffix ehu refers to the object, the thing made, whereby lama nehu means everything God made, he made for its own sake. But if it refers to the subject, meaning the maker, with lama nehu meaning for his sake, its meaning would be for the sake of his own essence, may he be exalted. That is his will, since his will and his is his essence, as it has been established in this treatise. This is a big move here. Okay, let me let me summarize it first and then uh and then I'll take questions. So so this is now let's go into this part, proof text. Okay, so uh hold on. Uh okay, so um coal, col Hashem, Lema'anehu can be read two ways which amount to the same thing. Okay, uh one is everything Hashem made is for its sake, uh okay, I uh namely uh that that uh so you know uh for the sake of its own existence, okay. Um or everything Hashem made is for his sake, okay. Uh namely for the sake of his will, which is synonymous with his essence. Okay, yeah, Tamar?

SPEAKER_05 1:16:53

Um could you scroll up for one second to the paragraph that's above the notes right now? Yeah. I just want to I'm gonna take a screenshot of it, I think.

SPEAKER_06 1:17:00

Sure. Yeah, uh I forgot to put that in thing. I'll put it in the chat anyway. Yeah, that is too long to be in the chat. I will cut it up and put it into the chat.

SPEAKER_05 1:17:09

I got it, thanks.

SPEAKER_06 1:17:10

Yeah, okay. Um, okay. So okay, so first of all, what what does he mean? Like uh just w w what is compelling the Ram Bomb uh to say that God's will is uh is synonymous with his essence?

SPEAKER_02 1:17:36

Why is Ram saying that?

SPEAKER_01 1:17:42

I'll give you a hint. There's a mitzvah to say it twice a day.

SPEAKER_00 1:17:46

Because he is one.

SPEAKER_06 1:17:48

Yeah, because he is one, okay, right? Because he is one, okay. So, like, you know, in us, our will and ourselves are are are are not the same, okay? Our will is a component, a part of our totality that has many parts, okay? But it but God is absolutely one, and there is no distinction between his will and his essence. Okay? Okay, so this, yeah, Roquali.

SPEAKER_00 1:18:20

Wait, sorry, can I ask a question before I forget it? But it's like sort of okay. So you know the Rashi on the first passac of racious that where he says that Voracious can be stood up understood as like for the sake of racist, which is either like the Torah or the dancer. So, like that would be um in opposition to this kind of worldview.

SPEAKER_06 1:18:44

Okay, good. So I'm laughing because okay, so we've had a lot of scheduled disruptions in um in uh my high school. Uh like this week was all standardized testing and then APs, and then last week we had Yom Hasma Ut. So thankfully, they gave me my classes and I didn't have to cancel them, but they said, Could you just incorporate Israel in some way into your thing? So one class I gave a proper shear on Israel, but the other class was behind. So I said, Okay, we're gonna start off with a question. First Rashi and Breeshis, God made the world for Israel. Okay, what would the Ramam say about that? And then we just went into the entire Ramam. So um, like, yeah, so we'll the Raman will show us how to deal with that. Um, but uh just remind me if I forget by the end, okay. Um okay, so this is very important now, okay. Uh he's gonna bring one more proof text and then then this is gonna complete our understanding, okay, uh uh of of the Ram's answer. We have already let me move this up again. Um, sorry. You know what? I I should really just I I really should do this anytime I give a share. Just paste the text into the thing uh every time, okay. But I'm always gonna forget. Okay, we've already explained that his essence, may he be exalted, is also called his glory, as in please show me your glory, right? That's the famous one. Moshe Rabbi says, uh Harina is kovodeka, show me your glory. And Hashem says, You cannot see my face because no man can see me and live, right? So Moshe was asking to know God's essence. Okay, so glorious essence. His saying here, Hashem has made everything for its own sake, but then parallel his saying in Ishayahu, here's another one we have to look at the Hebrew for 437. Um, it's kind of a weird to translate Posuk. 437. Kianiashem Alkacha. No. Kolhanikra Bishmi, anything that is called by my name, the Zash I'm talking, Vlikvodi, and for my glory, barasiv, yet sartiv af asisiv. Uh, I have created it, I have formed it, I have even made it. Okay, so what does that mean? He says, Um, he is saying, everything whose making is ascribed to me, I made only for the sake of my will and for nothing else. Okay, um, as for I have formed him, yea, I have made him. This is what I explained to you that there are existence whose existence is only possible after the existence of something else. Hence he says, I formed that first thing whose priority is necess is necessary, as matter, for example, is necessary for everything that possesses matter. And then in or in or after that preceding thing, I made what it was my intention to bring into existence, and there's nothing there but absolute will. Okay, so that's the other other proof text is a kol hanikra Bishmi Um Lihvodi Lihvodi Brasiv. Uh Brasiv it's wait, I'm just gonna copy and paste the public. Kolhanikra Bishmi Lihodi, yeah. Okay, so yeah, okay, so what does that mean? So this means means that that um that uh everything I uh Hashem made, he made for his his glory, which is the same thing as his essence, which is the same thing as his will. Okay, um, and and the only uh and that's the that's the the Briya part, and then some things he made for the sake of other things. So for example, matter, okay, uh, is necessary for all physical things. Uh Rakeli says, if Hashem's will is unchanging, will the universe necessarily exist? Yeah, that's a that's a big deep question about uh how God can will the universe to exist without without change. Uh that's an important question, but not one that the Ram is dealing with uh in this chapter. Um, okay, so then he says the best summary that he can give. Uh, I think. Uh let's see. Can this fit? Yep. Barely. Okay. Uh so then he says like this. Uh and this is where he's gonna, I think, complete this. Oh, and this is my favorite proof text. When you reflect upon that book which directs every earnest seeker toward the truth and is therefore called Torah, meaning instruction, this matter around which we've been circling would become clear to you from the very beginning of the account of creation to its end. For in no case does scripture state of anything that it exists for the sake of something else, rather, of every single one of the parts of the world, it says that he brought it into existence and that its existence conformed to its intention. This is the meaning of, and God saw that it was good. So it says that after many things, okay. Uh we are Lakim Kitov. Okay, um, so for you already know what we've explained regarding their saying the Torah speaks in the language of human beings, and that good for us is an expression of what conforms to our intention. Concerning the whole, it says, God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good, meaning that everything produced in time was produced in accordance with the intention and will not deviate at all. This is the meaning of his saying, very, for it is possible that a thing is good and conforms to our intention for a time, and afterwards the whole matter disappoints. He therefore informs us that all these things that were made were made in accordance with his intention and his will, that they not cease to be continuous according to the intention set within them. Um, okay, so this is my favorite proof text here, which is Bayar Elohim Kitov, okay, is said after each component of a component of creation, which shows and and Tov sorry, Tov means in line with intention. So this is essentially saying that each thing was not made for the sake of another, but was made for God's intention, which means that it exists for itself. Okay, and I want to bring my own proof text from this, okay, which is that um this is a disproof of the everything was created for man theory, okay. Namely, um anyone know which uh what is the only creation other than man that God created but does not say on that day it was good.

SPEAKER_02 1:25:03

There's one thing God creates and does not say it's good on that day, yeah, Vanessa.

SPEAKER_04 1:25:08

It's a second or the sixth yeah, okay it's the second day, okay?

SPEAKER_06 1:25:11

He creates the firmament, okay, and he does not say God said let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and it'll separate between the water and water. He makes it, and then uh it's so, and then it just says, It was evening morning date uh second day, right? But he doesn't say it's good, but then elmakomad. So let God said, let the waters gather from under the heavens into one place, and the dry land will be seen, and it was so. And God called the dry land, uh earth land, and the gathering of water he called uh seas, and God saw it was good. Okay, and then he says, then he creates the vegetation and he sees that's good. So Rashi says, Mitne malo nemar kitok the sheni. Why was it not said uh kitog on the second day? Lefishilo nigmura melechas hamayim adiomashlishi, because the the work of the water was not complete until the third day. Vahari Hiskilba Basheni, he started it on the second day. Vidavar shalomigmar enobimiluo vituva, something that is incomplete is not in its state of fullness and goodness. Uh shlishi, shagomar melechas hamayim, but on the third day when he completed the work of the water, the hishil the gamar melechas alcheras, and then he began and completed something else, Kafelbo Kitov. It it says it repeats Kitov Shnepa me twice. Ahas Lag Lagomar Malachas Asheni, the achas lemalachas a young one for the work of the second day and one for the uh the work of the of that day. Okay, so so how does that disprove the theory that God created everything for man? Or what would the Torah I'll start you off, okay? Um given the premise that God does not call something uh good if it's not yet complete, okay. Yeah, Tamar.

SPEAKER_05 1:27:14

Then you shouldn't have said anything was good until man was created.

SPEAKER_06 1:27:17

Right. Then he shouldn't have said uh it is good until man was created, because everything else was incomplete. Okay, so you see from here that that when God says about each thing it was good, it means that it is done and exists uh in a state of goodness. Yeah, it's a great, great proof, right? Uh yeah, I like that a lot. Uh okay. So then he said, yeah, Vanessa.

SPEAKER_04 1:27:50

I like the proof. I fully agree with you. I'm just this is more of a devil's advocate thing, but couldn't you say that it was he only decided it was good when he saw it was good for men? Like, couldn't you like reason that way?

SPEAKER_06 1:28:01

Um what would that mean? That he didn't see Oh, you mean like in each well then why wouldn't the why wouldn't the Rakia be good even on Second day before it was done because that's also gonna be good for man. Okay. Yeah. Good good question. That clarifies it. Okay. All right. So now he is going to state uh okay. So you know what? Yeah, hold on. Let me just consider what I want to do for this because this is now we're gonna get into the slightly longer proof text. Oh, we don't have that much more. Okay, good. We can do this. Um, I'm gonna go a little bit over time. Okay. Do not so this is gonna be the closest thing, Rakhili, that the wrong guests to answering your question. Okay, do not be misled by his saying regarding the stars that he created them to give light upon the earth and to rule by day and by night. Okay, supposing the meaning to be in order that they should do this. So, in other words, when you read um, when you read the the stated reason for the stars, it makes it sound like they exist for man, you know, and it not just that, but it says um 17. Uh it says, um God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth to rule by day and by night and to separate between the light and the darkness. And then it says, Oh no, hold on. Oh, this one let there be luminaries in the expanse of the sky to separate between the day and the night, and they will be for signs and for appointed times and for days and for years. So that makes it sound like why did God create the heavenly bodies so that man can keep track of time? Okay, so that's not what it's saying, though. Rather, it is informing us of their nature, which he will to create in this way, namely, as light giving and as ruling. This is like his saying concerning man and have dominion over the fish of the sea. Okay, so it was meaning it's not that he was created for this, okay, which is again if you said that you know that's in the puzzle at Telemelochim, that um God created man, uh Vimerkim Nasi Adam Bitsoman was saying, let us make man in our form and like our likeness. They will rule over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, over the animals, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So he says, uh, it does not mean that that's why God created man, that that's not man's uh nature or purpose. Um uh, but meaning just that uh, and as for his saying concerning the plants, that he gave them over to human beings and to the other animals, this has already been explicated by Aristotle and others. And it is plain plants exist only for the sake of animals, since nourishment is a necessity for them. The stars are not so. I mean to say that they do not exist for our sake, so that their benefit should reach us. For his saying to give light and to rule is, as we've explained, an informing us of the benefit that comes from them, which overflows upon the lower world, according to what I've explained to you regarding the nature of the constant overflow of good from one thing to another. That good which constantly reaches a recipient is such that, from the perspective of the one to whom it reaches, the one who has been benefited appears as though he were the final end of the one who has caused his good and kindness to overflow upon him. It is as one of the citizens of a city might imagine that the final end of the king is to guard his house at night from thieves. It is true in a certain sense, for since his house is guarded and this benefit comes to him through the king, the matter comes to resemble the case in which the king's final end is indeed to guard the house of that particular man. Okay, he's gonna universalize. According to this principle, we must interpret every text whose plain sense indicates that something exalted has been made for the sake of what is beneath it. Its meaning is that the matter follows necessarily from the nature of that exalted thing. We are obliged to hold the view that all this existence is intended by him according to his will. Oh, okay, no, sorry, I'm gonna skip the uh I'm gonna reserve that for uh uh a major point. Okay, so what is he saying here? So he says, so this is a clarification, okay? What about the psukim? Um what about the English? The Psukim in creation, which indicate that that certain things, lofty things, uh were created for the sake of lower things, okay, like the the heavenly bodies were created for the say for human functions, uh human utility, uh, or um uh uh or man was created to rule the fish. Okay, so his answer is that that uh this is not stating their final cause, but the their their nature, that that they they lend themselves, they were created in a manner uh that is conducive to these utility uses. Okay, so so for example, God could have created heavenly bodies that are not light enough, you know, or that aren't that don't lend themselves to basing a calendar around. Okay, but he he created it in in ways that do. Um okay, um, Roke, I'm actually not gonna get to your your question quite yet. I just want to make sure that we uh we finish this here. This is now the most important tying everything together point, okay. He says, according to this principle, we must interpret every text whose plain sense indicates, I know I just read this, that something exalted has been made for the sake of what is beneath it. Its meaning is that the matter follows necessarily from the nature of that exalted thing. We are obliged to hold the view that all this existence is intended by him according to his will. Important point, and we shall seek no for it no cause and no further final end whatsoever. Just as we do not seek a final end for his existence, so too we do not seek a final end for his will, in accordance with everything that has been produced in time, oh and will be produced, comes into being as it is. Okay, so that's the final step, okay, is that that everything exists for uh for for God's will, okay, or wisdom, which is the same as his essence. And just uh oh, actually I'll I'll follow with what the Ram said, okay, and just as we do not seek a final cause for his his essence, okay, which is the same, you know, sorry, uh yeah, which is the same as his will and wisdom, okay, uh because his essence was not produced by an agent uh in time, so too we do not seek a final cause for his will or wisdom. Okay. Rather, the most we can say, I'm just gonna summarize what he said before, we can say is God's will or wisdom is for this thing to exist, period. Okay. Uh, which is like saying for its own sake, yeah, tomorrow.

SPEAKER_05 1:34:40

This might be kind of like a funny observation, but I feel like it's um it's like we only have like um like empirical knowledge that it's God's will for things to exist.

SPEAKER_06 1:34:50

Yeah, that's a good way to say it. So that that's my favorite example is uh is if you ask, you know, why do we have a heart? You can say empirically, well, what do we see it doing? It's really a what question. It pumps blood throughout the body. You can say, what does the blood do in the body? But if you said, why did God make us with a heart instead of some other way to get the blood, you know, to the different parts of the body, that's like a why question that you can't answer. Like, like that there's no empirical way to answer that question. You could just look at what is the thing doing. Um okay, uh last couple paragraphs here. You know what? I've been ignoring this the whole time. The window's been open, it's freezing in my room. I didn't realize this is gonna get so cold.

SPEAKER_01 1:35:31

Okay, there we go.

SPEAKER_06 1:35:32

Um, okay. Do not mislead yourself into thinking that the celestial spheres and angels were created only for our sake, for he has already made our worth clear to us. Behold, the nations are but at the drop in the bucket. Consider your own substance and the substance of the spheres, the stars, and the separate intelligences, and the truth will become clear to you. You will know that man is the most perfect and most noble of what has come to be from this lower matter, but no more than that. And if his existence is compared to that of the spheres, let alone that of the separate intellects, he is very, very lowly indeed. This is an outdated point, because we do not hold that the spheres are made out of a different kind of matter than than stuff on earth. But we do hold that the laws of nature are more exalted than particular human beings. Uh, it says, Behold, he puts no trust in his servants, and in his angels he charges uh with deficiency. How much less in those who dwell in houses of clay whose foundation is the dust? Know that the servants spoken of in this verse are not at all of the human species. The proof of this is his saying, how much less in those who dwell in houses of clay whose foundation is the dust? Rather, the servants mentioned in this verse are the angels. Likewise, the angels to whom he alludes in the verse are without a doubt the spheres. Okay, again, we don't hold by spheres. Elephos himself has already explained this very point and reiterated in his second speech in a different language, um, saying, Behold, he puts no trust in his holy ones, and the heavens are not pure in his sight. How much less one who is abominable and corrupt, a man who drinks iniquity like water. It has thus been become clear that his holy ones are his servants, and that they are not of the human species, and that his angels to whom he alludes in the earlier verse are the heavens. The meaning of deficiency is the same as they are not pure in his sight, namely they're being possessors of matter. Uh for although theirs is the purest of matter, the most luminous and radiant, nevertheless, in relation to the separate intellects, it is murky, dark, and not pure. Okay, all this is outdated. As for his saying concerning angels, behold, he puts no trust in his servants, his meaning is that they have no firmness of existence, since they are made according to our view, and even according to the view of those who uphold the doctrine of eternity, there are effects. Their share in existence is therefore not utterly firm or stable in relation to him who is absolutely necessary of existence. And the saying, how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, is like saying, How much less those who dwell in houses of play? It is as if he said, How much less abominable and corrupt, namely man in whom distortion is mingled and runs through all his parts, that is to say, detachment of privation to him. Iniquity, Avla means distortion, as in a land of uprightness, he acts crookedly. And the word each is equivalent to autumn, since human species is only called each, as uh he who strikes a man so that he dies. Okay. Last paragraph. That was all outdated, Aristotelian stuff, but I read it because I have a super ego and I want to finish the thing. Okay. Um, last part is Oh, I just uh oh I think I just copied the wrong thing. Okay, such then is how one ought to hold. For when a man knows his own self and does not err regarding it, and he understands every existence as it is, he will find rest, and his thoughts will not be troubled by seeking a final end for what has no such final end, or by seeking a final end for which has no final end other than its own existence, which is bound up with the divine will, or if you prefer the divine wisdom. That's the sentence where he unifies uh everything together. So the the the summary is if you understand all these principles, um uh actually what let's let's actually summarize it. I think it's like I said, the the points are very simple here, okay? If you understand that the only thing uh the only kind of thing you can seek uh a final cause for is something brought into existence by an agent in time, okay, then you will not seek a an ultimate final end for the universe as a whole or any of its uh you know components, because you'll realize that that all those were brought into existence in time by God's will or wisdom, uh which is synonymous with his essence, uh and and you can't have a final cause of that. The most you can say is God's will or wisdom is that the thing exists for its own sake. Sorry, for its own sake, and God calls that good. Okay, so uh that is uh that's the end of the chapter. Um and just to answer Rukheli's question really quickly is what does Rashi mean when he says, or what the midrashram that Rashi quotes mean when he says that you know the world was created for Israel? So you have to say that according to this, that it means that that the that it is either it's teaching some completely separate idea, okay, or it's saying that that the creation of the world is conducive and ideally suited for for you know Israel to flourish keeping Torah, you know, like for example, uh let's say you're the I'll give the raw rabag's argument, uh, which is the purpose of man is to seek truth and to grasp knowledge of the chma and beneficence in God's uh creation. Okay, and there's a lot of chachma and beneficence here. Now, what has more chachma and beneficence? Earth or Mars? Earth. Earth has so many species and so much chachma and diversity, and there's so much to do, and everything is suited for man. Mars is not like that. Mars is very barren and there's not much to see, you know. So um, and again, I'm not trying to update this in terms of modern science about like, like, well, man can only develop in a place like Earth, but um but I think that's how the Roman would say that you have to interpret that cazal, or it's teaching some other idea. Uh it does not mean that God created the world for man. Okay, so that's the end of the chapter. And, you know, I I want to say, I should have said this earlier. Some people, when they hear this, feel like it's anticlimactic, that like really you all you can say is that it exists because of God. But I have to point out to you, and and not anticlimactic, but some people feel it's like a religious cop-out. But it's not because we just said earlier, scientists would say the same thing about physics, that physics, you cannot say why it exists. It just exists. That's the nature of reality. And we hold that the nature of reality is not the physical reality, it's the metaphysical underpinning cause of reality, which is God's will. And you cannot understand God's will because that's understanding God's essence. So, so it might be a letdown because you know, a person, I think what a person wants is a purpose that like um that gives them meaning. And that is the article that Rakeli referred to that I wrote for uh for Aisha Torah that they rejected um uh because they didn't like the way I said it. Um, so I'll I'll send that in the chat. I tried to uh to uh present the Ramam's idea here in a way that does extend it into how you can make a meaningful life out of this. Um, but the Ram does not address that here. Okay. So um I'm sure there are more questions. If you have more questions, you can put it in the chat. But I am happy that we got through the entire chapter. Uh and I I I I hope you can see that I I was right. It is a long chapter, but the points are really very few and recurring. And it's just a matter of like getting yourself to think in this way and seeing seeing the chain. Okay, um, so next week on the agenda, uh, I hope to do God in relation to the impossible, which I did do a Judaism demystified episode of, and I'm probably just gonna go through uh those sources, but we're gonna center it in the Rombom. Um, uh, I think. And so don't listen to that episode. If you've listened to it before, that's great. Don't listen to it again right before sheer, otherwise, it's gonna be a lot of uh repetition. Okay, thanks for coming, and uh until next time. Bye.

SPEAKER_03 1:43:24

Thank you. Good night.