Rambam on the Satan and Ra (Part 5: Intro to the Types of Ra)

Length: 53 minutes
Synopsis: This morning (5/1/26), in our shorter-than-usual Friday morning Sefer Iyov series for women, we began with an efficient review of the Rambam's theory of ra which we covered last time in 3:10. We then read and discussed the short 3:11 about the cause of interpersonal ra. Finally, we learned through the first part of 3:12, where the Rambam diagnoses the philosophical disease that makes people think there is more ra in the world than tov. Next time (בג"ה) we'll learn through the second half of this chapter in which the Rambam classifies the three types of ra and their prevalence.
-----
מקורות:
רמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים ג:י-יב
R. Nachum Rabinovitch, "Grant Our Portion in Your Torah" (pp.12-13 in Pathways to Their Hearts)
בראשית פרק א
-----

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_00 0:08

Okay, we are back to uh Eov, and I think this is part five. Let me just make sure that that's correct. Yeah, part five of Ramam and the Nature of Ra. So um what we did last time was 310, which uh my heading of 310 in the Mornibuchim is um theory or definition of raw and God's relationship to it. Uh and so what I'm hoping to do today is we're gonna review 310, okay, uh, taking as much time as we need. And the way I'm gonna review is we'll we'll just read through and uh I'm gonna read through the notes I took during shear last time, and I'm gonna kind of rely on you to raise questions and problems if you have them. Uh even just like, you know, if you want to just say, like, can we clarify something, even if it's not a specific question, uh, that's fine. And then 311 is a very short chapter, which we will definitely finish, uh, even uh if 310 takes a while. And then I like to start 312. 312 is perhaps the part of the Mur Nukim in these chapters that I think sticks with people the uh the longest and uh and and like shapes your view the most, which is the purpose, the type, sorry, the types of raw in the world. Okay. Uh yeah, so then 310, sorry, three 311, and then start 312. Okay. Um also in case you have you uh you missed it, um, in my Thursday night share last night, I did 313, the purpose of the universe. Uh, so that is available. And you don't need to listen to that in order, even though it is in order here, because it's not part of the series of Ramam on the nature of Ra. Okay, so let's read what we did last time. We're not gonna read through the Ramam text unless we need to uh consult it. We'll just read through my notes on it, which uh incorporated a lot of the same um what do you call it, the same uh language. Okay, and also I don't have my second monitor, so if you type something in the chat, I might not see it. All right, so first point he made was to call out the Metuk Mutukalimun, who are the the uh uh it's a group of the Islamic theologians, uh, and he noted that they think of non-existence as absolute non-existence, like you know, before the universe was created. Um, and but they think of privations of you know the absence of qualities as an actual thing. And my analogy, which I I still think is useful, is uh they would think of light and darkness uh and uh you know, uh sight and blindness the same way that we would think of vanilla and chocolate, that chocolate is not just a lack of vanilla, it's its own thing. So they view blindness as its own thing and darkness as its own thing. Um and they correctly hold that that absolute non-existence does not need an agent to produce it. So, for example, the question of you know, God created the universe Yeshmi Ain out of nothing, no one has to ask the question who created the nothing, because absolute nothing is nothing, right? You don't need to create nothing. But because they hold that privations are things, they do hold that that the creation of privation requires an agent, and they hold that God is the agent. So they hold, they would say literally, you know, uh uh not through any sort of hyperbole, that uh that God makes someone blind or creates darkness. Okay, so that's that is their view. Okay, we uh don't agree, okay. We mean Rama. Okay, we hold that um that darkness and uh and blindness uh are privations and they're not things. So loosely speaking, we would say that if you um if you extinguish a candle, you're making it dark, but that's not precise speech. Really, what you're doing is you are removing the light, and then darkness is just the absence of light. So no one, no one can directly make a privation. Okay. Same thing when we say that God makes someone mute, deaf-sighted, or blind, like he says to Moshe Benoit, you know, who who made man, give you uh set man's mouth and who made him uh you know blind or or or uh without speech. So loosely speaking, God does make those things, but not directly. How does God make someone blind? You can't make blindness, blindness is not a thing. So what it would mean is he created matter, and matter has certain deficiencies inherently, and this person's matter was such that it didn't lend itself to sight. Again, I don't know what the cause of blindness is. Let's say, like, you did not have properly developed rods and cones, or there was something like uh, you know, deviant in your optic nerve, or something in the part of your brain that processes images. So there is a lack of um of the proper uh material conditions to allow for sight, and that is what results in blindness. But God cannot directly create blindness. So that's when he makes his first universal statement, which is an agent can only directly produce what exists. An agent cannot produce uh privation directly, but only uh incidentally or indirectly. Okay. Um and uh we gave those examples. Okay, so that is his first point, uh, which is kind of like the premise of his uh of how he's gonna talk about ra. So any questions on that first point or clarifications, even if it's not uh articulated question. Okay, next he starts talking about ra. So he says all raos are relative, namely they're relative to the the property that is lacking. So um, for example, death is the privation of life, illness is the privation of health, poverty is the privation of wealth, ignorance is the privation of knowledge. And he says that the only reason why you would challenge that statement is if philosophically you held, like the Mutukalim, that privations are existences. So then you wouldn't say that raws are relative, you say that there is an absolute existence of darkness or of uh of sickness, or if you didn't understand the nature of a particular thing. And I think sickness is the best example of this, is I think that the average person does uh talk about sickness as though it's an actual thing. So, for example, they say, I caught a cold, right? Um, and they treat the cold as something as a uh as a positive thing, or I have a disease. But really, that's not what the raw is. Really, the cold that you catch is let's say you have a bacterial infection, and the bacteria cause your body to deviate from its normal processes and its homeostasis, and that resulting deviation is what produces the symptoms uh that we call sickness. So, really, you don't have a sickness, it's that you don't have homeostasis and therefore your body is ill. Um and uh and same thing is that you don't, I don't know if anyone says I have blindness, but like, you know, you you if if I uh you know the analogy I gave is like if I poke out someone's eyes, so you would loosely say I made them blind, but what you're doing is you're just causing causing a material deviation that that destroys the sight, and then blindness is is the resulting thing. So you the only way you would view blindness as a positive thing is if you just didn't understand how blindness worked, um, or if you held like the Mutagali moon. So that was the second point. And from there, he says, therefore, it cannot be said that God produces raw directly or essentially. Okay, why not? This is not a point about God, but but no one can produce raw directly because you you an agent cannot produce non-existence. An agent can only produce that which exists, and uh, and if the if the thing doesn't exist, then then the privation that that that is the state of privation. So, so how does God produce Ra in the universe? The only way he produces Ra is by creating matter. Matter is always subject to privation, uh, and it's always in a state of flux, like the Ram said in 3-8. It's like a married, um a married uh uh harlot where she's attached to one man but she's seeking another. So too, matter is always in one form, but it is always seeking to take on another form. And as it does that, it's gonna shed the form that it currently has, and that's gonna result in privation. Yeah, Tamara.

SPEAKER_03 8:34

Um I'm not sure if this was addressed already, but uh, do we explain why it has to be this way? Like, meaning there's two things that I could think, like I have an intuitive sense of some kind of raw things that I would could portray as raw, like illness and other things. Um, and then if you think of examples, like all the examples I can think of might be interpreted, may be interpretable as privation, but like is there a logical reason why it has to be this way?

SPEAKER_00 9:01

Um good question. So um just trying to think where we want to answer that. Give me one second.

SPEAKER_03 9:07

I have a little bit of a suggestion.

SPEAKER_00 9:08

Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, what's your suggestion?

SPEAKER_03 9:10

Okay, my suggestion, and I I feel that there are some maybe some like jumps in it, um, but is that we something to do with like our sense of good is related to um things existing or working properly.

SPEAKER_00 9:27

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 9:28

So then um the things the the raw just like the things that we see as bad is like that there is some potential that's not happening, or something like that. I'm like trying to put it into words. Okay, so it does kind of align with privation in that way.

SPEAKER_00 9:42

So maybe I misunderstood your question. Is your question why we view that as raw or why uh yeah, say your question one more time.

SPEAKER_03 9:50

Okay, my question is a little bit of a problem because it's it's lacking a definition of a precise definition of raw to start with. But I think that the problem is sort of saying things that we all colloquially would call raw are also they all do come from privation.

unknown 10:06

Right.

SPEAKER_03 10:06

Maybe not all of them, right? I don't know, but like all of them. Okay, so then my question is like, can we spell out logically why the things that we experience as raw all come from privation? Why aren't there things that we experience as raw that are not privation?

SPEAKER_00 10:23

Okay, so I think the best way to I think it's a good question. I think the best way that the to address that is um in the next two chapters, uh, where the Ramam attempts to classify all types of raw into only three categories. And then we can ask about each category what is the necessity of this? And then we could also ask, is there anything that is we consider raw that does not fall into one of these categories? So I think I don't know if that's the most direct route, but I think that's the most um uh fruitful route for our purposes, because we're going there anyway. Okay. Okay. Um, so his last point was what I thought you were initially asking, which is um which is why does this raw of matter exist? Why is matter such that it always has privation? Uh, you know, and how does that fit into God's uh, you know, the grand scheme of things? Now, if you heard this year last night, you'll know that you cannot ask why ultimately uh God made the nature of something the way it is. But here, the Ramam does give an insight here, and I'm this one I actually do want to read uh the Ramam's words. He says, um He says, do do do do do Actually I'm gonna read the last three paragraphs. After these premises, it must be known with certainty that God, sorry, that of God, it cannot be in any way said that he produces Ra essentially. I mean that he intends as a primary intention to produce Ra. This is impossible. Rather, because again, it's impossible not just for God, it's impossible for anyone to produce Ra essentially. Rather, all his acts are absolute good, for he produces nothing but existence, and all existence is good. All raos, and if you want elaboration on that, then listen to last night's year on the chapter 313. All Raos are privations, and no action is connected uh to them except in the manner as we have explained, namely, that he brought matter into existence with the nature it has, that is, it's being perpetually conjoined to privation, as is already known. And for this reason, it is the cause of all destruction and all ra. Therefore, whatever God did not endow with this matter is not subject to destruction, nor does any ra befall it. We mentioned that in the allegory of the Satan, where Hashem asks um the Satan, where do you come from? And the mob in there said that he's uh God is asking that from the perspective of the world of non-physical existences. And he's saying, Where do you come from? meaning you're not, you don't hang out around here because there's no ra in the world of angels, right? Like gravity is not subject to deterioration or privation. Uh, only material things are uh are are subject to that. Okay, so then he says, This is the part I want to get to the true reality of God's act in its entirety, then is good, since it is existence. For this reason, the book that illuminated the darkness of the world said it explicitly, and God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. Even the existence of this lowly matter in the state that it is in, conjoined to privation, which necessitates death and all Raos, all of this too is good on account of the perpetuity of generation and the continuity of existence through succession. It is for this reason that Rabbi Mare interpreted uh Vyarluh Kim Hine Tov Maod as Hine Tov Maves, death is good, uh, in reference to the idea that we have drawn uh to which we have drawn attention. So, in other words, God's will for the universe, or let's say, I mean, we know for the universe, but Iran would say for Earth, is that Earth is this dynamic place of coming to be and passing away, uh, and you cannot have dynamism and change without privation. So the fact that Ra has this nature of privation and then it's always trying to escape one form and take on another, that is part of the design. And as a whole, that's good. Because if you did not have that process, then you wouldn't, you the only alternative is a static world where nothing changes. Now, could God have created a static world? Yes, but evidently he didn't. He created a world in which you know things happen and generations come and go. And if you look at the account of Brașis, um with I'll just show it to you so you don't have to trust me on this. Uh, if you look at the first barricade of Brașis, when God starts creating the uh types of animals or sorry, types of organisms, um, so he says, uh, light is good, um, the dry land and the seas are good. Okay, then uh Vatoze Haards Desha Ase Masria Zera Leminehu. So he uh the uh the earth-sprouted grass um uh that yields seed, leminehu, according to their species. The eight oze preasher zarabo leminehu, and trees that make fruit that they you know sow according to their species, varkim kitov, and God saw that it was good. So you see two in references to species, and it's good. Okay, then with the um the uh creatures of the sea and the birds and the uh uh and the serpents, it says also by sataninim hagdolim, God created the great serpents, um, sea creatures, they call nefesh ha kaya haromesis of share shots, and he created all the creepy crawls according to their species, and every bird according to its species, Vyaralkim kitov. And he saw that it was good, and then same thing with the land animals. He created the wild animals of every species and the domesticated animals according to its species, and every creeping thing according to its species, Vyaralkim kitov, and God thought it was good. So, what do you see from here? The good is connected to the species, and you cannot have species without the endless succession of individuals that come into being and pass away and and and reproduce. So, so we cannot say why God wanted to have species of cows instead of just one uh immortal cow, but we can say that that is what God did, and that that coming to be and passing away of the cows is part of the that's what he's calling Tove. So even death and and uh and deviation from matter is Tove in the grand scheme of things, even if it's bad for the particular individual, cow or human. And then he concludes by saying, Remember what I've told you in this chapter and understand it, everything that the prophets and sages have said, all that all good is essentially from the act of God will then become clear to you, as Brieshis Rabba says, uh, in Davara, Yor and Milomala, nothing bad comes from on high. Okay, and that is the end of the Ramban of our reveal.

SPEAKER_02 16:39

Any other questions? Okay.

SPEAKER_00 16:49

Um next is a very short chapter, which is 311. Okay. Um I'm having deja vu. If it turns out that we did this, then tell me. I'm suddenly having deja vu. I don't know if we actually did this, but uh I'll trust someone who's gonna remember. Okay, very, very short, it all fits on the screen. So 311, Ram says like this the great raos that human beings inflict upon one another on account of their aims, desires, opinions, and beliefs are all likewise consequent upon privation, for they all stem from ignorance, that is the privation of wisdom. All right. So there is a famous um mach locus between Aristotle and Plato. I always forget which one's which, in this case, that um that I'm saying, sorry, I'm gonna read the entire thing. It's sure enough, we're gonna read the entire thing. Okay. Just as a blind man, because he lacks sight, constantly stumbles and injures himself and injures others as well, because he has no one to guide him on the way, so too the various sects of humanity, each person in proportion to his ignorance, inflicts upon himself and upon others great raos that befall the individuals of the species. If there were wisdom among them, whose relation to the human form is like the relation of the faculty of sight to the eye, all their injuries would cease, both those they do to themselves and those they do to others. For through knowledge of truth, animosity and hatred are removed, and the harm that people inflict upon one another is abolished. This has already been promised, as it says, and this is a reverence to the time of Mashiach, and the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and so on, and the cow and the bear shall graze together, and so on, and the suckling child shall play by the hole of the asp, and so on. That's Ishayahu 11, 6 through 8. Uh, so those are all metaphorical um statements to not literal animals getting together, uh getting along with each other, but that's um talking about how um people who were once the Jews' enemies will be at peace with us. Um, you know, so these predatory animals, which are the enemies of Israel, will no longer prey upon them, upon us. Then it gives the reason for this and says the cause of the removal of these enmities, rivalries, and tyrannies will be that the knowledge that human beings will then possess of the true reality of God. Quote from Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Hashem as waters cover the sea. Okay, so in other words, what's gonna be the cause of world peace at the time of Mashiach is knowledge, because the only cause of strife and harm that we cause each other is ignorance. And so once you have knowledge, you will remove the cause of uh of uh of harm. Okay, so summary is very easy here, okay. Basically, it's it's two points, which is um all raos that we cause to each other stem from privation of wisdom. Okay um and uh the the cure for this for for for these Raos is knowledge. And this is why uh at the time of Mashiach, um sorry, at the time of Mashiach, uh uh there will be world peace uh because at that time there will be an enormous influx of knowledge uh which will remedy the privation uh uh and its consequences. Okay, so um any questions or problems with what the Raman is saying here? And if not, then I'll share the problem that pretty much every class I've ever taught uh EOF2 has has had. Or you can guess what that problem is if if uh if uh what do you call it, if you don't personally have that problem. Yeah, tomorrow.

SPEAKER_03 20:58

I think you would have to explain how every harm, interpersonal harm comes from lack of knowledge.

SPEAKER_00 21:04

Okay, yes. Uh so categorically though, the I think the thing people have a hard time with is um aren't there cases where I know that something is harmful but I do it anyway? Okay, so so what about cases where I know that something is bad or harmful, but I do it anyway? Okay, how can you how can you say, uh so let's say for example, like, you know, um I know so let's say for the self, I know that smoking is bad, uh, but I smoke anyway, or I know that lush and hara is bad, but I speak it anyway. Okay, right? Like how can how can the Rambaum say that all Raos uh that that stem from human beings uh uh is is caused by a lack of knowledge? Now I don't think this uh the answer to this question is as new to you as it is to some to many of my students, but how would you answer that question? And this is what I was going to refer to, by the way, as the moch locus. I'm pretty sure it's a machologist between Aristotle and Plato is it possible to knowingly do harm? And I think someone correct me if I'm wrong. I think Plato's the one who holds that it's not. That that if you're if you're engaging in something harmful, it must mean that you don't know that it's bad in some sense. Whereas Aristotle said, no, you can have knowledge, but your bad habits can override that. So Ram's coming down on the first side, it seems. Yeah, anyone?

SPEAKER_04 22:42

Wait. Is there still a question or you just answered it?

SPEAKER_00 22:45

Uh well, I'm I'm articulating the other side, but I'm not explaining the side. I think people the students would ask that on Plato. How can Plato say that that all knowledge all harm stems from lack of knowledge? Like I know stuff and I still do it. You know, I still I still uh you know I know that if I don't you know study for the tests, I'm gonna do a bad uh job and it happens anyway. I know that if I overeat at Thanksgiving, then I'm gonna have a stomachache. Yeah, SD.

SPEAKER_04 23:11

I mean, I guess it depends what you mean by know. I mean, you may have the facts, but it's not really registering as reality for you.

SPEAKER_00 23:18

Okay, correct. That is the essential answer. Uh, let me just look at the chat here. Um, so the answer is by knowledge, we do not simply mean the facts, okay, or information or intellectual uh data, right? Um rather, we mean knowledge uh that is real to you. Okay, and in fact, I actually wrote about this um in my What I'm Thinking About This Morning Post, which I'm not gonna put on screen, but uh it was uh Rabbi Nahum Rabinovich's um uh statement about what the Rama means when he says that the form of man is uh is the soul, um, and uh and the soul is knowledge. So he says, I'm just gonna read this here. Uh, this is an excerpt from Pathways to Their Hearts from the essay titled uh Give Us Uh Our Portion in Your Torah. So he says, the Dea, the knowledge to which Maimonides refers, is not a repository of propositions and proven truths, though no doubt they participate in the formation of Dea. When Maimonides speaks of Dea, he does not mean the information accumulated in one's brain as on a hard drive. A computer can contain a great deal of information, but it is not conscious of it. A book may store much information, but a book, even a Torah scroll, has no life force. Maimonides identifies Dea with the form of the soul. We cannot define precisely what a soul, Nefesh, is, but wisdom, understanding, knowledge, life experience, mitvah observance, and everything else that one encounters in life, these are all the raw materials that through man's vigorous desire to serve his maker shape the soul. This is, in essence, the entirety of man, and this is the perfection that constitutes his share in the everlasting linking him to the eternal. The process by which we shape our thought, emotion, and other mental powers according to the Torah values manifest the potential of the form of man's soul, the divine eternal aspect of man. So, in other words, that in other words, it's not truly knowledge unless it affects the entire human organism. Okay. Um, so so we'd say, you know, someone who says, I know that smoking is harmful, but I do it anyway, okay, might have that intellectual knowledge, uh, but he's distorting it, okay, by in various ways. Okay. Uh, for example, by convincing himself that he's an exception, okay, uh uh, or that it's not really that bad, you know, or that um magically he's going to be saved, you know. Um and uh and same thing about like uh you know, same thing who someone who speaks, you know, who who speaks Lush and Hara uh and and knows that it's bad, okay, must on some level be distorting. Well, okay, it could be that they they're ignorant of it also, but but distorting that knowledge um uh you know through the filters of their ego and emotions. Uh okay, I saw a chat comment. Per primordial snake, yes. Um okay, so one more question on this, and again, I think that this is not new to us. Okay, the question is like this is how do we know that that's what the Rambaum means? Okay, uh, other than uh it's the only answer. Okay. Um uh, you know, in other words, like like like you know, uh, and I'll give you a hint, okay. Have we seen the Rambaum talk in the recent past about how our emotions interfere with our knowledge?

SPEAKER_02 27:09

The answer is yes.

SPEAKER_00 27:13

So the answer is is um we saw him devote a whole chapter to this, uh, which was three nine. That's where he talks about matter as a barrier to knowledge. And there we spoke about how your um, you know, I don't even think we needed to say this. Not only do your your your does your do your psychological drives, you know, disincline you to pursue knowledge, but they actually like warp and distort the knowledge that you have. Um, and uh that's just a part of the human being that you are a hybrid organism. We are a hybrid organism, and our our you know, knowledge of of uh of non-physical existences like God and the angels, not only is it tainted by our senses, which is what we talked about, but it's tainted by the animal drives that that impose psychological, subjective fantasies and fears onto everything. Um, and uh that is uh, and Ron calls that an interfering with knowledge. So, in other words, so the bottom line, uh bottom line is there are two types of privation of knowledge. Okay. One is is your mind isn't in line with reality, and then the second is your emotions aren't in line with your mind, okay? Um, or ultimately in line with reality. Okay, and that is uh so both both of those are considered privations. Uh, and then then we would have to do what Tamar says is go through all cases of human harm that we cause to ourselves and each other and and just like get that point clear through examples, but we're gonna do that in 312. Okay, any questions on this? Because if not, then we're done with that chapter. As I said, short chapter. Okay, moving right along. 312. Okay, this is perhaps my favorite chapter in this section. Okay. So he says like this It often occurs to the imagination of the masses uh that raos in the world are more prevalent than good things, to the point that in many of the sermons and poems or songs of the all nations, they include this theme saying, it is a wonder if any good is found in the world, while raos are many and constant. This error is not found among the masses alone, but also among those who suppose they know something. Okay, so so common belief is there is more Ra in the world uh than Tog. Now, I don't know exactly what he's talking about when he's talking about the sermons uh or the poems and songs, but when I hear poems and songs, I mean, do you think I I ask this to every uh you know every group, do you think of any particular genres of poems and songs that are often about all the bad stuff? Like this the world life is filled with so much suffering and bad. I'm just trying to think if we have anything like that in the world. Like religiously, or or just like that's what I'm wondering. Like, yeah, like what what maybe I'm maybe back then it was religious, but can you think of any uh any genres here? Let me look at the chat here. The blues, yeah. So blues is one candidate. Okay, that's why they call it the blues, I guess.

SPEAKER_01 30:23

I feel like in general, when people write poetry or it's what's driving them to do it is this very deep emotional like turmoil.

SPEAKER_00 30:31

Yeah, right. Like, like, like, let's say like uh you know, someone who's writing about like uh uh a lost uh lover or someone who you know, heartbreak or heartache, um, or like you know, I think probably a lot I I don't listen to gangster rap, but I'm sure a lot of it has to do with like, you know, violence and crime. Um, you know, uh, I think there's like you know, genres of like emo or like angsty songs that that teenagers listen to about how how how much how bad their life is, you know. So like that's the kind of thing that he's talking about. Okay. So it's a popular belief. Okay. But then he calls out one particular person, Abu Bakr al-Razi, uh, who lived from 865 to 925, who was a uh physician who also um was or fancied himself a philosopher. So he wrote a famous book that he called The Divine Things, in which he included much of his ravings and ignorance. Among them is a notion he thought up that there is more ra, uh but thought of is like uh Rama's being snarky here, that there is more raw in existence than good, and that if you compare a person's ease and pleasures during his time of tranquility against the pains, afflictions, diseases, disabilities, anxieties, sorrows, and calamities that befall him, you will find that his existence, that is, the existence of a human being, is a punishment and a great raw for him. All right. He proceeded to establish this view by surveying these misfortunes one by one, thereby undermining the correct view of the benefits bestowed by God and his manifest kindness, namely that God is perfect goodness and that all that comes from him is absolutely good. Okay, so so he's saying Al-Razi um uh made the same claim, uh, which he attempted to verify to substantiate uh scientifically, okay, by tallying all the raos we experience and showing that the ra um uh outnumbers uh or outweighs the good. Okay. Um and the ram does not does not uh like that. Now, before we go on um and read what the ramam how the Ram's gonna correct this, okay, what would you guess the Ramam is gonna state is the cause of this error?

SPEAKER_02 32:41

Yeah, SD. Misunderstanding of what Tove and Ra are.

SPEAKER_00 32:46

Okay. So one possibility is misunderstanding of what Tove and Ra are, and that is definitely part of the answers. Um any other theories? Guesses? Yeah, ayala.

SPEAKER_03 33:04

Maybe just being overcome by pain, like emotionally.

SPEAKER_00 33:08

Okay, right. So another one is um is you know um being overcome by pain by his own pain, uh, which distorts uh uh his thinking. Okay, good. Any third guess? Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 33:29

Well those go together in a certain sense, don't they?

SPEAKER_00 33:31

Well, um I think I thought Ayala was saying something slightly different, which is not that not that he's misidentifying pain with Ra, that's what you were saying, but that the pain puts him to a state where he can't think objectively about what Tobin Ra are. Yeah, and Ayala's honor. For sure. Yeah. Okay.

SPEAKER_03 33:54

So here's the maybe I was thinking of two things. Um, one was um not recognizing good that does exist.

SPEAKER_02 34:05

Okay, good.

SPEAKER_03 34:05

So it's kind of like the flip side of the other one, but I think it's a separate thing. Um and uh I forgot what the other one.

SPEAKER_00 34:11

Okay, fairly probability uh uh recognize the good that does exist. Okay, so let's see what the Ramam says. Okay, uh he encompasses these, but uh, but he he uh he traces it to uh a particular uh malady. Okay. The cause of this entire error is that this idiot, Al-Razi, and those like him among the masses, judge the whole world from the standpoint of the human individual. Every ignoramus imagines that all of existence is for the sake of him personally, as if nothing else requires any consideration. And if something befalls him, contrary to what he wished, he concludes with certainty that all of existence is Ra. But if a person contemplated the entirety of existence, grasped it, and recognized what a small part of the universe he is, the truth would become clear and manifest in. For those who rave on about the multitudes of Raos in the world, they do not claim that this holds with regard to the angels, nor with regard to the celestial spheres and the stars, nor with regard to the elements and what is composed of them in the way of minerals and plants, nor even with regard to the various species of animals. Rather, their entire thought is directed only at some individuals of the human species. They are astonished at one who ate harmful foods until he contracted a skin condition. How did such a great affliction befall him? And how did such a raw come to exist? And similarly, they are astonished at one who engaged excessively in sexual intercourse until his sight was impaired, uh, and they are appalled at the calamity of his blindness and so on in similar cases. Uh side note here, I I think I don't know for sure, but I think the blindness thing I think blindness is a possible um uh symptom of uh syphilis or some other STD. And they used to syphilis. Yeah, okay. They used to think that I think that's also what they think uh one theory about Beethoven's deafness. Uh, I don't know if that's uh true or not. Um, but they they thought that that they didn't realize that it was an infection, they thought that it came from uh excess sexual intercourse. So that's that's what he means there. Okay, so what is the problem saying the cause is? So he says the cause of all this is well, okay, let me let me ask you if you had to distill this into the shortest possible answer, um what's the shortest answer you can give to what the cause of this mistake is?

SPEAKER_02 36:32

I think you could get it down to one word.

SPEAKER_00 36:36

Gyva? Okay, Gaiva, yeah. I was gonna say the hint is is the three letters, which is ego, okay? Uh, which is so and it's it's a twofold mistake, okay? Is um specifically um defining ra based on on oh sorry, sorry, um measuring raw based on yourself as the metric and defining raw um as um as you not getting what you would desire, okay, and ignoring all the tove uh outside of yourself, uh, which really is in the majority. Okay, so I think all of you had the correct answers, but uh, but really um hitting it on the head is the is the uh it's the ego, okay. Um Rufka says self-centeredness, uh ego is not always bad. Well, self-centeredness is also not always bad. Um, so let's define ego then, uh, which is what what type of ego, maybe egotism, okay, is is um having a a uh uh an exaggerated sense of your own greatness and centrality in the universe. Okay, I'm gonna use that example. Okay, and by the way, just as a side point, okay, support for this, um who is the uh according to Torah, okay, uh according to Torah, who had the most knowledge uh in human history? Not a true question.

SPEAKER_02 38:25

Moshe Moshe?

SPEAKER_00 38:26

Yeah, Moshe. Okay, and uh who was the most humble? Moshe. Moshe, okay, right? So Rahman Moskowitz always used to say is this is Rahman Moskowitz. Uh, I I've never seen this inside, okay. Remember Moskowitz always used to say that you know, from from here you see that in Judaism, uh humility does not mean having a low self-image, okay, or like looking down on yourself. Okay. Rather, um, humility is having an accurate view, uh, an accurate like like uh uh knowledge of the self uh within the grand scheme of the universe. Uh okay. So the question, uh and I this is a fun question that I I like to ask when I'm teaching this idea of humility here is um, and I don't think there's only one answer, but uh if you asked Moshe, okay, are you the greatest nubby uh who ever existed? Okay, how would he answer that question? What would you say?

SPEAKER_02 39:35

He would say yes, probably.

SPEAKER_00 39:36

Okay, I agree he would say yes. Uh but anyone want to add to that? I think there's a way he would say yes. So I think he would say yes in a factual way, okay, without the rush of haughtiness uh that comes from seeing himself as the cause of his own greatness. Okay. Um uh and I'm gonna use an analogy here, but I I don't think this is actually like a correct analogy, you know, but like the same way he'd respond if you asked him uh his his eye color. Okay. Now, obviously, knowledge of the universe is more important than eye color, but like I mean to say that when someone asks you what color eyes you have, well, okay, I can't speak for everyone. Most people don't say it, don't answer in an egotistical way. It's just like a factual thing, like, you know, this is the color of my eyes. So Moshe would say it just as a matter of fact. So he's not gonna, so the reason why I'm going through this is because when I ask this question to high schoolers, a lot of them say that he would not say that he's the the greatest prophet. But that's that's lying, that's a false view of the self. Like he Hashem told him that no Navi ever arose like Moshe Rabinu, you know? So I don't think he would lie or fake himself out, but he would just recognize what his actual level is and what his place is in the grand scheme of things. Uh, and you and another thing Rahim Moscow used to quote, I'm sure this is a middle somewhere, but that David Malakh said, I'm like a worm. Avram Vinu said, I'm like dust and ashes, and Moshirveinu said, and I, what am I? Meaning like, like, like David saw himself as the lowest organism, but still an organism, a creature. Avram saw himself as like just like like a speck, like, like uh in or uh inorganic matter. And Moshe Beh was like, I'm nothing in the grand scheme of things. Yeah, ST.

SPEAKER_04 41:38

Do you have anything to say on the difference between let's say let's say someone asked him onto that question? Like there's a difference between the factual question of, you know, like I have a higher level of Navua, or I have, you know, um, you know, more knowledge and more direct, more knowledge than anyone else. But to say that he's the greatest Navi, which he which he was, does have like a um an element of like assessment and judging. It's almost like I almost feel like the answer will be like who cares? You know, but but I feel like but but that isn't the answer. The answer is he is the greatest. So there is some level of non-factualness. In other words, it's not is your level of Nivua the clearest. The question is, are you the greatest? Which is it which has um, like I said, like assessment as opposed to a factualness story.

SPEAKER_00 42:27

Yeah, so you know, I'll I'll uh I'll answer, and this might be cheating, but um Ramam makes this uh extreme sounding statement. It's kind of weary says this, but he says that um that the term Navi as applied to Moshe and as applied to the other Navim is a homonym. Uh, that it's the same word, but it means something qualitatively different because Moshe's Navua was singular, no one had anything like it ever. And that's you know, talking to God face to face and all that that entails. So it is not so and again, this maybe maybe this is cheating, and you could just ask about some other uh question like knowledge of God, but like like it it's not like like if there's a way to say greatness the or greatest, not in a comparative way or in an assessment way, but just in a like you know, objective way, that no one else talked to God face to face, you know, that's kind of the the the Okay, is that what you meant?

SPEAKER_04 43:27

Because I thought that is what I meant, yeah. Because the question, are you the greatest? Are you okay? So you were saying that that was asked as like, so to speak, like a factual question.

SPEAKER_00 43:36

Yeah, it's a factual question, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_04 43:37

But then what does that have to do with a nevos?

SPEAKER_00 43:39

Because you're saying that because Moji he truly was and and when I asked this to students, there are always students who say that he would deny it, you know, as if somehow Right, but that's different.

SPEAKER_04 43:56

But I think that's because saying are you the greatest then is an equivocal use for the word greatest, because because you're saying are you the most knowledgeable whoever whoever lived, or do you have a Distinctive, you know, communication with God, would they also say that he would deny that? Because I think greatest is the evaluation, and that's where people think humility comes into play that you're saying it doesn't.

SPEAKER_00 44:19

Right. Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 44:20

I don't think it's the same point.

SPEAKER_00 44:22

I hear the question. Um, I think though that that in the same way, if you asked him, you know, um, you know, does anyone know more than you do? Yeah, where would you what would you say that falls out on the two Right.

SPEAKER_04 44:37

I think the answer would be he would say no. And that that would be That's factual. That's not an assessment. The word data is factual.

SPEAKER_00 44:48

That really is the primary point I'm making. And then with the assessment thing, like I'm presupposing that there is an objective assessment, um, not in terms of like caring about comparing people to each other, but like you know, seeing where you a person falls out on the scope of what is possible for the human creature. And human I think he's mapped that out, you know, or or something like that.

SPEAKER_02 45:17

Yeah.

unknown 45:18

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 45:18

I think it's an important uh distinction. Uh I don't think for our purposes we need to uh um probe that any further than.

SPEAKER_04 45:26

Okay, yeah, no, I just wanted to know which one you meant when you were asking the question.

SPEAKER_00 45:28

Yeah, no, no, you're different. Yeah. Was there another question, just now? Never mind. Okay. Okay, so um, so uh right. So in other words, just to go back to the main point here is that that what causes Al-Razi to say that that that the universe is bad is because he's judging everything by himself and he's defining bad as things not being what I want. Um, but really, then the Ram says, uh uh I have to type this part out also, is if only he were to look at the universe as a whole, okay, um uh, or even the world, he'd see that sorry, he'd see that the good always outweighs the bad. Okay, and the Ram's gonna um argue this more in detail uh later on in the chapter, okay. Um, and that bad isn't, you know, like like these types of bad aren't found in the stars and galaxies, et cetera. Okay, I mean there is raw there in the sense of deviation from from form, but not the kind of raw that Al Razim means of like, oh, like like this is this is a uh a poorly designed universe, you know, um, which is really what the implication of the statement is. Um okay, and then now he's gonna talk about that point right now. He says the true way of considering this is that all existing individuals of the human species, and all the more so those of other species of animals, are something of no value whatsoever in relation to the whole of ongoing existence. As scripture makes a clear saying, man is like a breath, Tillim 144.4, man that is a worm, and the son of man a maggot, EO 25.6. How much less those who dwell in houses of clay? EO 4719. Behold, the nations are as a drop from a bucket, Yeshahu 40.15. And all that is said in the language of the prophetic books on this theme, which is noble and of great benefit for a person's knowledge and of his own worth. Let him not err and suppose uh that existence is for the sake of him as an individual alone. Um, rather, now this is the point that we focused on last night, okay, in 313. Rather, existence, according to our view, is because of the will of its creator, in which the human species is the least of what it is of what is in it in relation to the higher existences, that is, the celestial spheres and stars. As for comparison with the angels, there is in truth no comparison in value between him and them. Man is merely the noblest of all that comes into being in this lower world of ours. That is the noblest of all that is composed of the elements. And even so, his existence is a great good for him and an act of grace from God in what he has signaled out for uh with, in what he has singled him out with and perfected him. The majority of the raos that befall individuals of the species are due to them. I mean deficiencies existing in the persons themselves. It is over our own deficiencies that we cry out and call for help, and we suffer from the ra'os that we bring about by our own free choice, yet we attribute them to God, uh exalted as he above that. As he made clear in his book, saying, uh, Sheikh's lo, lo, uh banav mu'am, uh Dorikesh of Saltol. Is the wrong his? No, the defect is his children's. Uh and Shlomo explained this saying, the foolishness of man corrupts his way, yet his heart rages at Hashem. Um okay, so the so the the summary of this point here is uh moreover, we don't even hold that the universe exists for for man. Okay, man is merely the highest creature on earth, um, but not in existence. Uh and um and man's value in the grand scheme of things, uh grand scheme of things is very, very little. Okay. Um and uh what was that last point he made? The last point is um oh yeah, is that um that if he were to examine these raos, which the Ram was about to do, he'd see that they all stem from deficiencies within ourselves. Um uh yet um uh okay, uh but we still blame God. Okay, and I'm gonna quote this Pasuk. As Shlomo said, uh and this is from Misley. This is a great Mishlei Pasuk. Um sorry. Um man's foolishness corrupts his path, but uh his heart rage is at a sham. Yeah, tomorrow.

SPEAKER_03 50:05

I think this is a minor point, but it's about uh uh man not being the greatest creature. So um I mean I guess there are angels, but in terms of does this um change at all with the way that we understand what planets are and stars and things like that now?

SPEAKER_00 50:24

Right. So here's the here's the tricky part, okay? On the one hand, the Rambam held, like Aristotle and everyone back then, that the heavens were objectively superior to um, and heavenly bodies were objectively superior to what was on earth because they were made out of different material that was not subject to deterioration, and the motions were perfect and were attributable directly to God, and that they're responsible, the heavenly bodies are responsible for all change that occurs on earth. So, so they held that that um that man is objectively of lower rank. Okay. So on the on the one hand, we don't hold that anymore, like we talked about last night, that we hold that man is made out of the same stuff that this that the uh that the heavenly bodies are made of, and you know, we are literally made of stardust, but we also have a much, much, much bigger uh we know that the universe is much, much bigger than um than Rahm Baum or Air Solo ever thought. So so while so there's like a trade-off, we don't we no longer view ourselves as qualitatively inferior to the heavenly bodies in terms of our material, but quantitatively we recognize our own insignificance to a much greater degree. So uh, you know, and uh and we know that like, or I guess we don't know, but like Ramam is saying there's no reason we should assume that man is the highest creature in existence. And I think that carries over to now, which is that you know, now we know that there are so many other planets and galaxies out there, like for all we know, it could be that there are other there's other intelligent life or other life that is more um a higher level than we are, but like that there's nothing wrong with that. Like, like that's that that you know, that would not, you know, if anything, it'll just make us realize our place even more. So I don't know if I'm answering your question.

SPEAKER_03 52:15

Uh yeah, that's what I was asking about.

SPEAKER_00 52:19

Okay. All right, good. Okay, you know, I think unless there are any other questions, I think this is actually a good natural stopping point because what remains is the Ram is now going to go into three types of raw and what they are and why they have to exist. And I think I'd like to tackle that in an isolated in its own session. Okay. So I think this is a good stopping point, even though we had a shorter share than usual today. And uh, Blenetter, next week, we will continue with that that point. Okay. Thanks for coming. Uh, thanks for the flexibility of starting late and uh and uh have a good chavez. See ya. Thank you, Shaw.

SPEAKER_02 52:55

Thank you.