Avraham, Moshe & Questions

There is an inherent contradiction between the derech of Avraham and the derech of Moshe.

The psukim record Avraham obeying G completely without question in the Akeidah incident. This is particularly strange considering Avraham has received assurance from G that Avraham would have a great nation through Yitzchak. Aside from the obvious objections anyone would raise when tasked to kill their own son, Avraham had blatant contradictions that he presumably could have requested G to resolve. But the psukim give no indication that Avraham responded in any way other than performing exactly the commandment as it was given to him.

Moshe is almost the exact opposite of this. He questions G for days. And he has good questions which G answers. Interestingly, Chazal are very rarely critical of Moshe's continued questioning of G. Even moreso, we say that Moshe's nevua was inherently superior to the nevua of Avraham. So then the obvious question is: who's right?

On the one hand we say that Moshe was the greatest navi who ever lived or would live. It seems that we must say that he was doing something better than Avraham. But the Akeidah is also a pretty fundamental part of our nation as we can see from the psukim as well as our tfillos. So it doesn't sound right to say that the psukim are suggesting that Avraham was doing something wrong when he obeys loyally without question.

I would answer the question by saying that the premise of the question is that either one of them was doing something wrong - I would suggest that they were both implementing different "styles" of b'chira.

Avraham trusted G completely and would do whatever He commanded without question. To him, the basic Truth of G's Existence meant that his own personal understandings were largely irrelevant. G's knowledge is incomparable to our own. If it is clear in one's mind that the commandment is from G, what can one do but follow it?

Moshe had a different style. He questioned G endlessly until he understood. Perhaps this was necessary because of the role he played in history - he had to understand all of the Torah in order to teach it. In some ways, Avraham didn't need to know as much as Moshe. But if Moshe's way is superior, then Avraham missed an opportunity to understand the Ratzon Hashem.

It's possible that Avraham's methods are superior and Moshe simply got further along through his derech than Avraham did with his. Perhaps Avraham's derech can only go so far until one must go further as Moshe apparently did. Or perhaps if Avraham were in the position of Moshe he could have negotiated the release of the Jews without the need for miracles (as most of his troubles were resolved without miracles).

I don't think there's any clear "winner" other than deferring to Moshe's superiority, but the Torah and chazal's treatment of the Akeidah leads me to conclude that they are not at odds, rather different styles of approaching the same goal.

Avraham sought to be in line with the Ratzon Hashem by following it as completely as he understood it.

Moshe sought to be in line with the Ratzon Hashem by questioning it completely until he understood it.

I don't think either are wrong, just different.

The Visionary

Part of my theory on nevuah is that it's not so different from what we mean when we say "visionary." I'm thinking like Steve Jobs or Nikola Tesla. Men who had conceptions of the world of tomorrow that were in line with reality. Obviously these men did their "prophesying" for personal motives to some degree.

Steve Jobs didn't want to move the world toward a better society - he wanted to sell iphones. But he understood the value of computers better than those around him - he understood why people would want them and how to sell them - things his competitors didn't see.

Tesla seemed to revel in the beauty of invention and understanding. But ultimately focused his energies on battling Edison and making money. But his understanding of the world and what inventions we were capable of was far more advanced than those around him.

What if these predictions are what the psukim mean? Dreamers of dreams. If such an ability were focused upon one who had Torah values and saw the innate value of the Torah system - we would have world peace.

What if Shmuel was a navi because he understood the workings of the world better than anyone around him; that he had predicted the outcomes of battles because he knew where to focus his attention; that he understood with clarity certain failings of society and also had insights on methods of improving the world? What if the common practice was to convey these messages to the masses through literature we now call the divrei neviim?

Sometimes the psukim are lyrical, sometimes direct - always focused on the central tenets of Moshe. Would it be so crazy for the Israelites to describe such a person as communicating with G?

What Moshe did would almost have to be different - he created (what has proven to be) and unending system for mankind to maintain. This is either extremely unlikely or obvious. The system lasts because something about it is eternal. There is no other culture which has gone on like the Jews - without a homeland or a government. For millenia we have sustained ourselves in foreign corners of the globe. Everywhere, we survive despite the demise of every other culture we have outlived.

From that time, from that region - we are the only ones still around. What Moshe did was beyond Steve Jobs.

Musings on Bereishis

1. Adam is rarely referred to as "ish" often "haAdam" which is strange - I don't have a clear way to read that
2. By contrast chava is often called "isha" - I don't know if anyone talks about these first two
3. The tree of life was referenced first but all the hubub is over the tree of knowledge of good and bad (which doesn't sound like it should necessarily be a bad thing from its name). Also, what is the tree of life? is it Torah?
4. After the chayt G becomes really worried that Adam will eat from the tree of life because adam would then live forever so He kicks adam out and blocks the garden with a sword
If the tree of life is Torah is this saying that G responded to adam's chayt by preventing him from gaining some kind of Torah insight which prevents death?
I think that pshat in "let us make man" is that G was consulting all that was created and confirming that the man thing He was creating had a place in it.

My general approach is that the story is a kind of philosophical pre-man study in the vein of Locke and Hobbes. G investigates the pre-state of man, explaining that he naturally had a tzelem elokim to study the world (so he named all of the animals),

1) that man naturally feels alone in the world because of his clear distinction among the animal species,

2) that with a partner man can gain comfort and live in peace with his natural distinction,

3) that before man even exists there is a choice whether to choose the bad or good path or the path of life

4) we are innately drawn to the bad or good path and the Torah (the path of life) is withheld to us by whatever the sword symbolizes (perhaps a fear of death?)

I think that adam somewhat reflects all of us - we all have the natural distinctive ability to study the world. But before we even begin or maybe seconds after we've just learned the names of the animals, we turn to study good and bad, abandoning the natural state of man which led to our existence (the path of life).

We choose it because of desire, weakness, fear, anger, pain, etc. But if we would even do as little as eat from the tree of life beforehand we would have knowledge enough to survive the path of good or bad.

It strikes me as an extremely cogent explanation of man's natural inclination to get mired in the good and bad rather than enjoy the garden. Fortunate are the people who have the Torah - one day they will find the garden.

Problems with the Multiverse

At it's core, the multiverse theory is a bad one.

I think that the cultural sense of the multiverse is more like parallel universes such as the mirror universe on Star Trek - a universe which functions much as ours but with different people in it.

Many don't realize that its support among the scientific community comes from it being the only viable alternative explanation for the rampant order which we perceive in our universe. If there are numerous unknown universes with different physical constants, then we shouldn't be surprised to see our universe be as ordered as it is - after all, it'd have to be ordered in the first place for us to even exist to ask the questions.

I was discussing this with my friend today. It's not a scientific theory because it doesn't yet pose a potential experiment to falsify it. And it's not really a philosophical theory either since it doesn't so much build off of our logical conclusions and inferences. In reality, it is questioning a premise.

We see so much order in the universe that we have identified certain forces of order (gravity, evolution, etc.). The multiverse argument is really primarily questioning the premise that just because we see order, doesn't mean that there is order. "What if it's all really just chaos and order popped up one day in one corner of reality?" It's a fair question and of course, it's a possibility.

But it's a bad theory. If we take that premise that all of the order which we perceive is actually pure chaos at it's base, we have to throw out every idea we've ever had. Why should gravity work tomorrow? If it's all just chaos, it could stop functioning at any moment. So too with all of reality.

More so, when we allow the premise that the order which we see reflects some basic underlying order which we cannot see, we discover amazing principles and abilities - electricity, flight, etc.

I don't say that the multiverse theory is wrong per se. It is, of course, a possibility. But as an approach, it hasn't had as much success as the scientific or philosophical methods.

A Question of Translation

In many ways, my questions regarding prophecy is a question of translation.

Not only to understand what the term "nevua" literally means, but a more thorough recognition that our modern frame of reference is completely different from that of the early state of Israel. I don't naturally crave idolatry, nor does my culture. I don't imagine the planets and stars to be gods.

It could be that their conception of G was very different from my own. After all, we had very different evidences to consider. It's true that my science was built after theirs and with an awareness of  the failings of their sciences, but the raw data was the same. Their conclusions, though vastly different than ours, were still based upon their understanding of the world around them.

I wouldn't call them wrong per se, just different. It's like a different language. When the Rambam says the word "nevua" he has a scientific action in his mind based upon the Rambam's understanding of Aristotelian science - I'm trying to understand what a modern translation of "nevua" based upon our modern science would mean.

Practically speaking, what are we saying happens when someone receives nevua? Is it like an idea? Is it a term that chazal place upon one who uncovers basic truths? What role does prediction play? Could the psukim's demand for consistent prediction be an attempt to root their "predicters" in empiricism? Would a scientist with a hypothesis born out by experimentation qualify as a navi?

But there seems to be more to the navi than mere prediction. He seems to be rooted in Torah principles and engaged in studies of maaseh hamerkava (another term that ought to be better defined). He is considered a different field of study from the chochomim and dayanim. Yet he can gain special legal authority to violate biblical commandments in his era (but never avoda zara). Also, the Rambam brings down their ability to "find things" as somehow related to their abilities (perhaps some kind of connection to our modern detective stories - Sherlock and such?).

What was this practice of nevua? What does the term mean?

Why Prophecy Matters

Why do I care what prophecy is (if it's anything)?

I guess it boils down to the idea that there is a G.

From my limited remedial study of science it seems clear to me that underlying the universe are several fundamental laws, often referred to as universal constants. These constants are in extremely precise proportion to each other. And if they were not as precisely in proportion as they are, the universe would be a true tohu vavohu (a mixed-up worthless heap). 

The mainstream thinking is that our universe where the constants are perfectly precisely in sync is a an accident. That there are numerous such universes which have different proportions and are consequently tohu vavohu. We only happen to see the universe with perfect constants because a prerequisite to our existence is the precision - if one were to be in one of the other tohu vavohu universes, we would quickly explode/implode/bend/break/die. Since we require the precision to exist, we would only ever be asking the question of our origins in such a universe.

It's a possibility, but it strikes me as intellectually dishonest to see a high degree of order and precision and presume random assembly - it is of course possible, but with each degree of precision, it seems less and less likely.

Therefore, I find it more likely that there was a "fine tuner" who put the constant in precise order and call this "fine tuner" G. 

By the very logic that led me to conclude that there is a G, I know that It is intelligent. In fact, extremely intelligent - It shaped the universe with precise constants. From this alone, I cannot conclude much anything else about G for certain - He could be a scientist outside the universe who created us as some kind of experiment, He could be a child and we are the equivalent to a toy model in His bedroom. These are all mere projections of why humans would engage in creation - so I know nothing at all about Its motives.

But then we have the historical record. It seems that some humans may have interacted with G. I can't know for sure, as I have never interacted with G in the way those men depicted their interactions, but still the historical record suggests that it happened. More so, as a Jew, I have found the Torah system to be very personally rewarding and to have an extremely good understanding of human nature in general.

Regardless of any motives which may exist for G, the Torah system seems to be in line with human nature. Add that to the fact that the Creator of the universe obviously has a greater level of understanding about the universe than I do, and I conclude that there may have been an interaction between G and man and He shared some fundamentals of human nature with man.

So then why does prophecy matter? He already gave us the Torah.

The thing is, I'm not sure what that prophecy was - our mesora describes it as a communication (though without sound and rather as a kind of telepathy). It could be that the Am used prophecy as a shorthand to say "this guy speaks fundamental truth" or it could be that the navi went into a seizure while dreaming and had visions of the future (this is roughly the Rambam's view) - I genuinely don't know.

Regardless, if there is a possibility that we can "communicate" with G, who created everything, why would we devote our energies to anything else? By studying His universe, we have unlocked unimaginable powers and brachos - electricity, atomic bombs, traveling to distant planets. Who knows what we could do if we gained knowledge enough to control the fundamental constants of reality - split the sea, turn the river to blood, create a tangible darkness - who knows?

I don't seek this knowledge out of a thirst for power (though it is tantalizing) but rather out of a sense of urgency - we live in pain as humans with the aches of life, the pangs of hunger, the fear of death - theoretically any of these could be undone with proper understanding of reality (we have already done much to resolve hunger and pain by using our minds - why not go further?).

So it brings me back to the fundamental basic question: what did Moshe do when he spoke to G "face to face"?

Thoughts on the "Distinctive Spirit"

There is a thing called ruach hakodesh by chazal. According to the Rambam this is a precursor to prophecy. But what is it?

Shimshon purportedly used ruach hakodesh when battling the Plishtim. He battled the Plishtim by inciting them to battle him with riddles (the same word used by G to describe prophecy in general). He would pose a strange riddle to them and when they couldn't answer the riddle, they became angry and he would then defend himself.

This was apparently some kind of political maneuver which prevented the Plishtim from starting an all-out war with Israel. But Shimshon's ability to consistently defeat the Plishtim in battle was considered to be rooted in his ruach hakodesh.

So what can we make of this concept? Did Shimshon "dream" them to defeat? Were his "riddles" somehow causing his victories? (Side question: what did his nazirus have to do with anything?)

I heard a shiur from my rabbi recently discussing the Rambam's discussion regarding ruach hakodesh. From the Rambam's view it sounds more like a motive than any kind of magic power.

My sense is that ruach hakodesh is a kind of root motive of a person. Most people live their lives for their own enjoyment or avoiding pain, or gaining power or any other such similar operating motive. I think that such motives can vaguely be referred to as the ruach of the person - the person's spirit. A man who seeks money guides all of his actions towards that end. I think that ruach hakodesh is in that vein.

A person who so fully devotes himself to reality and its ways will have a different perspective on the world. He won't be maintaining the culture around him but rather constantly striving to improve his world and bring it to be more in line with the Will of reality.

An interesting example of this would be Yosef. The Rambam cites him as an example of  someone who became a navi but had ruach hakodesh in the house of Potifar when he was a slave. How could Yosef, a slave, being directing all of his actions toward improving reality while he was cleaning Potiphar's stables? I think that Yosef cleaned Potiphar's stables for different reasons than any other slave - he did so to improve the world.

Maybe Yosef was just trying to follow the underlying principles of reality and act justly toward his master, or maybe he conceived of a possibility that if he worked hard enough for Potiphar he might be able to attract a more powerful master whom he could use to help the world (this is eventually what happened with Paroh).

In any event, I think that this typifies the "distinctive spirit" - a complete will to follow the principles of reality - and more so to make them extant in the world. I wonder if this is the precursor to prophecy - a complete commitment to reality.

In explaining Shimshon, I think that he was able to devote himself completely to protecting Israel and devised a strategy how he could do so - the fighting came from his clear and perfect will. Consider Bruce Lee - a small strong man who should not be able to defeat opponents far stronger than himself but due to his understanding of himself and the human body capable of defeating almost anyone in one-on-one combat.

I assume that Shimshon had a similar ability based primarily upon his will to enact the principles of reality coupled with his nazirus (this may have been a special role in society that was particularly helpful for him as his mother was visited by an angel and told specifically to maintain his nazirus and he lost his abilities in combat after losing his nazir status).

Perhaps ruach hakodesh means that a person devotes everything they are to kodesh - the most basic and true principles of reality. I'm not certain about any of these ideas, but I think that they raise some interesting questions and perhaps shed some light on the term for now.

What is Prophecy?

The primary goal of this blog is to understand what prophecy is (if such a thing ever occurred).

I have my own understanding of the world and won't really be taking time to prove out all of the positions I have from scratch. But I will presume that there is a fundamental intelligence governing reality (which, for the sake of brevity, I will often refer to as G) and that there is historic evidence that at some point in human history some humans were able to "communicate" with this fundamental intelligence.

I was born Jewish (so we can be clear about my biases). I have tried to be honest in investigating these areas and have come to the conclusion that Judaism records at least one interaction between man and G. However, I have no conception of what this "communication" was like. Presumably it was not a physical interaction but rather some kind of direct mental communication such as telepathy.

I have consulted some of the works of Jewish philosophy which deal with this area but I am somewhat skeptical about them as many were written several centuries after the last book of prophecy was written. I have also studied the world and found little evidence of prophecies outside of Judaism.

So I will be updating with random half-thoughts and theories about what prophecy is and how we should understand the term/practice today. I will try to cite sources but I will be weaving together different ideas from different places so I may miss some attributions. I can't guarantee that my views are either reasonable or rooted in Torah Judaism. I am an orthodox Jew and try to steer clear of kfira (heresy) but in areas such as these maintaining certain positions often bristles against dangerous ideas which I hold to be detrimental to human development. That being said, I do not endorse any kfira or heresy and may adapt my views accordingly.

I would be happy to consider any alternative views/explanations which are shared over the course of this project.

P.S. The meaning of "Riddles & Dreams" is that the Torah records G specifically explaining to Aharon and Miriam that the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu was distinct from any other prophecy and that G only ever revealed Himself to other prophets in "riddles and dreams."