Saturday, November 24, 2007

Ralbag's Hakdamah la-torah: Tefilla or Perush?

A modern "introduction" to a work typically identifies an objective, as well an outline of the plan or method by which the author intends to realize his objective. There is much in Ralbag's introduction to the Torah that is therefore very familiar to us in this regard. Ralbag defines Torah as a tool of attaining wisdom and states a clear plan for helping the reader realize this attainment. What is incongruent in Ralbag's presentation is his interweaving of Tefilla into the introduction.
Blessed and most revered be the tzur ("rock"), foundation of all existence, whose “insight” (T'vunaso) , “wisdom” (chochmaso) and “knowledge” (Daato) bring into being, a system of existing things, whose existence exhibits a wisdom and grace which none but He can completely masig. Praised be the Creator, who, because of His desire to benefit the creations and facilitate their maturation, directed His hashgacha upon these lowly beings, developing them through the appropriate stages climaxing with the emergence of Mankind.
Our first intuition is to uncomfortably ignore the indiscretion of the Master, to interpret it as a vestige of ancient style. This serves the purpose of maintaining our intuition of what an introduction is and puts the burden of breaking convention on the shoulders of Ralbag. But an honest appraisal will not bear out our fervent wish that Ralbag be in agreement with us regarding the nature of introductions. His Tefilla is anything but a stylistic flourish lacking conceptual significance. This can be seen in the introduction to Milchomos Hashem where once again Ralbag begins with Tefilla. At the conclusion he emphasizes what he has done
אמר לוי בן גרשום אחר התהלה וההודאה לאל והשאלה ממנו להישיר לפנינו דרכו, ראינו בזה הספר לחקור
Tefilla is anything but a stylistic affectation, it is clearly a fundamental dimension of the introduction itself. As moderns however we are at a loss to honestly confront this phenomenon in the Master. What function does his Tefilla serve? What do we gain in our understanding of the subject of Torah through the Tefilla? Why doesn't Ralbag just define Hashgacha and its place in Creation rather than share a Tefilla with his readers?

If we look more carefully at the nature of Hashgacha we will understand the problem Ralbag is grappling with, as well as the unique nature of his introduction. Indeed, Ralbag himself paves the way in the continuation of His intro:
This hashgacha is not limited to the magnificence of man’s anatomy and physical abilities by which his physical existence is maintained. It extends to guiding man along the path of mental development- the one true fruit of human existence for whose sake alone the lowly material of Aretz is endowed with tzura to the extent that it is. We refer of course to the divine Torah, which is a regimen that orders those who practice it properly to true success.

It is vital that we keep in mind that it is impossible for us to completely apprehend the wisdom and grace expressed in the nature of the Torah’s existence. In reality we know but a pittance and are ignorant of much, as is the case with our knowledge of the nature of all existing things with regard to their wisdom and grace. In reality we masig but very little, as is well known to all those who do real research in the natural sciences- and come to appreciate the gap between our models of the of the laws of the Universe and their reality... It therefore follows from the fact that the Torah is divine, [that it’s nature will also only be incompletely understood].
It is intriguing that Ralbag defines the Torah as an instrument specifically designed to facilitate human wisdom, yet emphasizes that it is impossible for us to completely apprehend the wisdom and grace expressed in the nature of the Torah’s existence. In reality we know but a pittance and are ignorant of much. Why the emphasis on the need for humility?

The reader is of clearly one who Ralbag realises will fully expect a complete knowledge of of the wisdom of the Torah. Why is this? The answer goes to the heart of the nature of understanding Hashgacha. To be ignorant of Hashgacha is not just to lack an individual concept. To not understand Hashgacha, is to think that man naturally attains knowledge through his own power. It is to not appreciate the deep anti thinking trends in man that only Hashgacha can overcome.

To follow the modern course,to immediately identify an objective and detail the plan to attaining is wrong-minded. As Ralbag states so well אחר התהלה וההודאה לאל והשאלה ממנו להישיר לפנינו דרכו, ראינו בזה הספר לחקור

It is only after we state our dependence upon Hasgacha and request help through Tefilla that we can honestly speak about Hashgacha. We cannot use the modern introductory tool that presupposes man's intrinsic capacity to know to state that we indeed depend upon Hashgacha!
That would be an inherent contradiction and an incomplete understanding of what Hashgacha is. Rather we must enter the Masters tefilla a la גַּדְּלוּ לַיהוָה אִתִּי; וּנְרוֹמְמָה שְׁמוֹ יַחְדָּו
Hashgacha cannot be something that is talked about, it must be acted upon. To merely talk of Hashgacha is folly. How can we talk about Hasgacha without acknowledging our need for Hashgacha in order to talk about it? Before we talk about hashgacha we must engage in Tefilla with the Master- we must act as people who treat Hasgacha as a reality, and only after begin the stating of problems. Such problems,though superficially sharing an external form with a modern introduction, are essentially distinguished.

The Modern intro presupposes mans intrinsic power to solve the problems he sets out for himself. The Jew sees problems as an obstacle insurmountable by his own power , a basis for requesting illumination from the source of Hashgacha גַּל-עֵינַי וְאַבִּיטָה-- נִפְלָאוֹת, מִתּוֹרָתֶךָ.

21 comments:

David Guttmann said...

Welcome back !

>directed His hashgacha upon these lowly beings, developing them through the appropriate stages climaxing with the emergence of Mankind.

As far as I can see this is the only mention of hashgacha in the text and as I understand it refers to the natural development of existence ending with mankind. (He seems to accept R. Yosef Kimchi piruah in na'asseh adam as ani veha'aretz see Ramban and redak.

Why is Ytbarach Veyta'aleh hatzur seen as tefila and not an acknowledgement that He is mekor haberachot?



Of course in Milcahamot hashem he declares that he is praying quite clearly. But he uses a different language there. It sounds like the tefilla of "Shelo ikashel bidvar halacha" which is the doubt that is always present with us humans who have a limited vision of time and events.

Unknown said...

Yoni, are you saying....

Just a Tefillah require a matir of recognition of incapacity to be a meshabeach, so to a person who is investigating the mysterious davar kadol world of Hashgacha should naturally feel the need to be mispallel that he will have a proper yidea.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

David Guttman

Thank You!

1) Wouldn't an "acknowledgment that He is the mekor of Berachot" be in the category of Zechira and therefore avoda shebalev rather than Talmud Torah?

2) Shouldn't a tefilla "shelo ikashel" be a private matter to be said to oneself prior to writing, rather than something to be put into the introduction for all to see?

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

Pinny

I see a difference. In tefilla there is a recognition of the inability to Mishabeach- sefatay tiftach. However this is part of the Tefilla itself.

In the intro Ralbag is doing tefilla, as part of the action of talmud torah a totally different institution. This doing of tefilla is shown to the reader,as a part of the introduction, rather than being done privately by the Ralbag.

The reasson for this I am arguing is that the Ralbag is not merely being Mitpallel himself, he is educating the reader regarding the place of tefilla-ie the relating to hashgacha-in the act of limud.

David Guttmann said...

RJS,

I see acknowledgement as more than zechira but a basic level of Yediah. If I wnat to start off on the derech to yediat hashem I have to acknowledge His existence rationally first. I arrive at that through logical steps to the realization that there is non contingent Being. That in itself does not translate to anything practical unless I continue to look at his deeds so that I can follow in his steps. That is the story of the Torah "koach ma'asav ...".

2. I am also not sure that the tefila should not be also a declaration that I am human and just like I pray to HKBh to guard me from mistakes, I ask you reader to keep my vulnerability as a human in mind.

The reason I am arguing is that I always had a problem with tefilah for sechel (ata Honen) as it seems to me to step over into the area of bechira. I therefore interpret them as declarations and acknowledgement that my sechel derives from HKBH and I should not let my Chochma lose sight of that. It puts a damper on hubris.

David Guttmann said...

>the place of tefilla-ie the relating to hashgacha-in the act of limud.

The Rav in one of his shiurim lezecher abba mari uses Rambam in sefer hamitzvot on leovdo bechol levavchem which is the mitzva of tefila he adds also zeh talmudo. The Rav sees therefore talmud torah as tefila. I however do not think that it is a tefila for hashgacha. Hashgacha is a result from this process of avodah shebalev which brings the necessity to act in away that fits retzon hashem which is mushgach.

David Guttmann said...

>to act in away that fits retzon hashem which is mushgach

To be more exact it cannot be bad since it is Retzon hashem thus Mushgach.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

David

You seem to remove zechira from the realm of Yedia. Why is this?
הלכות תפילה פרק ח
ב ומצוה לרוץ לבית הכנסת, שנאמר "ונדעה נרדפה, לדעת את ה'" (הושע ו,ג

Incorporating the realization of Hashem and His ways into ones strategies of planning and operation is a knowing also.

David Guttmann said...

You seem to separate between Talmud Torah and Tefilah suggesting that the latter is avodah shebalev and zechirah is part of it while TT is different. Then you suggest that both TT and Tefilah are different aspects of Yediah. What I am saying is that Tefila has two parts - hoda'ah and Bakasha. The part that is hoda'ah (acknowledgement as in Mizmor letodah) belongs to Yediah and is related to TT because based on Rambam in Sefer Hamitvot Mitzvah Asseh 5 he quotes Ovdehu betorato where he describes Avodah shebalev. If that is your point I agree and Ralbag in his hakdamah has that in mind when he says ytbarach ... and yes Zechirah is part of it because that is contemplating God's deeds.

I see hashgacha as the actions that one puts into effect based on the TT and Tefilah and the yediah developed through it. That is the hashgacha as it relates to us humans.

Ralbag is talking about the hashgacha that we attribute to HKBH as part of the system that he put into the world so that man comes into being. It is more "hanhagah " then "hashgacha". When he gets to man he describes his path to Hashgacha through the Torah which is the "plan of action" to become Mushgach.

The practical implication that I see is that to me TT and Tefilah are only tools for us to know how to act within hashgacha. I am not mitpalel for hashgacha, I am mitpalel and if I act according to the insight I gained in that process I am mushgach. Tefila is not asking from HKBH for help but avodah shebalev (dibuk) that teaches me how to act correctly.

After writing this I am now thinking maybe you and me are not so far apart and I am just adding a pirush ledevareicha. Am I correct?

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

TT and tefilla are tools that allow us to function in Hashgacha.This is a general truth about mankind.

What do you call the awareness that the individual me, the instance of man that is me, in my individual seekings is consequently functioning within this principle of hanhagaso and hashgachaso. Though logically implicit in the idea that man is within hanhagaso,the experience of reflection upon the self is distinct.

It is this awakening of individual awareness which is what I am calling the tefilla part.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

David

כיצד היא הכוונה--שיפנה ליבו מכל המחשבות, ויראה עצמו כאילו הוא עומד לפני השכינה

David Guttmann said...

ויראה עצמו כאילו הוא עומד לפני השכינה

I see that as a commitment to act according to the conclusions I arrived at in my contemplation of Hanhagato of Teva - we also find a similar statement by Avraham at sedom - when he tried to understand HKBH hanehaga he was - Odenu omed lifnei hashem.

>It is this awakening of individual awareness which is what I am calling the tefilla part.

Maybe you are saying the same thing. It is not enough to contemplate how hashem runs the world we also have to insert ourselves into the system and act accordingly.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

Yes.

1) The contemplation of the general hanhaga-TT. It is done with a special instrument- hotzaat davar mitoch davar in maamarim.

2) The inserting of the self into the system-tefilla-pallal judging oneself. This is done through ordering the general-shevach-to the self-bakasha.

Ralbag guides the reader to do tefilla prior to TT-and presto we see his perush.

Matt said...

Rabbi Sacks,

First of all, I must say that I really like your new approach to blogging. I found the length and style of this post to be easily digestible (by my mind), and I think it will help me to solidify and remember the ideas we discuss every Shabbos. Please continue!

I also wanted to underscore your methodology point: "Our first intuition is to uncomfortably ignore the indiscretion of the Master, to interpret it as a vestige of ancient style. This serves the purpose of maintaining our intuition of what an introduction is and puts the burden of breaking convention on the shoulders of Ralbag.

I've recently noticed this anti-thinking trend in myself, and have started to realize its detrimental impact on my development. The more I learn, the more I realize that real learning is not merely an accumulation of ideas, but a complete overhaul of one's habits of mind and view of reality. If we expect everything to fit in to our current ways of thinking, refusing to strive to see things from the masters' point of view, how can we expect to undergo such fundamental changes in our thinking? All we will gain are a number of ideas here and there - and even those ideas are not likely to affect the way we view reality, since we only apprehend them through our undeveloped intellects.

This is the mistake of the guy who considers his task of reviewing shiur complete when he can "say over" his rebbi's sevara. If he wants to be able to say ideas, fine. But if he wants to be able to think like his rebbi, then he'd better be prepared to push his mind. More importantly, he must be prepared to relinquish his old ways of thinking - to truly realize, "Wow - I reallly don't know how to think!"

The development of the mind is an interesting thing.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

Thanks Matt. I will do my best to continue.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

Matt

I like that distinction of accumulation of ideas vs overhaul.

Matt said...

Rabbi Sacks,

I have a question. You write: "It is to not appreciate the deep anti thinking trends in man that only Hashgacha can overcome."

Aren't these anti-thinking trends psychologically caused? If so, why can't they be undone or countered through psychological methods (i.e. mussar or psychoanalysis)? Why is the hashgachah necessary? Moreover, why can't they be overcome in the same way that we overcome any developmental impediment in the aquisition of a skill: through training. Is there no such thing as improvement of the mind through training? Is it all hashgachah?

Take, for example, the anti-thinking trend that you pointed out in this post: the habit of attempting to preserve our own intuitive way of thinking and expect the master to revolutionize our minds for us. Before I read your post, I had not thought of this this anti-thinking trend before, but now that I am aware of it, I will be more vigilant not to succumb to it in my own learning. If I go even deeper and understand the psychological causes of this trend, I will be far less affected by it. Isn't this an example of a natural (rather than hashgachic) development of the mind?

Furthermore, how were people such as Aristotle and Einstein able to rise to such high levels of mind without hashgachic aid? (I am assuming that they did not have hashgachic aid because they did not hold by hashgachah pratis).

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

Matt,

1) Aristotle believed in an external causitive agent, the active intellect, that illuminated the mind. This agent was indeed a natural phenomenon, however it was not a belief in human power. I don't eally know what Einstein thought about the causality of knowledge. In that sense yes a thinker can overcome anti intellectual trends to a certain degree through nature-this is not human power though.

2) One does not have to acknowledge hashgacha to be a beneficiary of hashgacha.

3) Of course the thinkers who did not understand hashgacha, ie people like ourselves, if guided by a baal mesoarah,ie Ralbag, can through tefilla get further than if we were
left to our own devices. This is a critical element of the interplay between Mose Rabbenu and Pharoah who did not recognize hashem,ie hashgacha. Rabbi Chait's shiur on this is one of my absolute favorites. I have mentioned it before.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

The Debate Between Pharaoh and Moshe During the Ten Plagues

* Sunday, February 23rd 2003

Rabbi Joshua Maroof said...

"Meshoch hasdecha leyodecha..."

This post also fits with the Rambam's placement of Hilchot Teshuva in Sefer Hamada.

Just out of curiosity though...is this prayerful intro a particularly Jewish phenomenon, or something that can be observed in the works of other theologically oriented thinkers? I would suppose that anyone who shares the basic notion of our dependence on hashgaha for knowledge could partake of this.

Also, David Guttmann has a very nice approach to explaining the Rambam's take on hashgaha. I think it would be interesting to see a more explicit dialogue on that issue between you.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

R Maroof,

Can you specify which part of David Guttman's comments you were referring to? I was thinking of writing a seperate post on this, it would help focus the piece if you could summarize what you see present and what you se lacking in the thread as it is.