Ralbag al ha-torah

Hakdama Part 1

Blessed and most revered be God, foundation of all existence, whose “insight” (T'vunaso) , “wisdom” (chochmaso) and “knowledge” (Da’ato) bring into being, a system of existing things, whose existence exhibits a wisdom and grace which none but He can completely apprehend.

Praised be the creator, who, because of the 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.

This hashgacha is not limited to the magnificence of man’s anatomy and physical abilities by which his physical existence is maintained, but rather extends to guiding man along the path of mental development- the one true fruit of human existence for whose sake alone lowly material reality 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.

Biur D'varim:

Questions:

1) What is the logical objective of the first part of the hakdama to peyrush ha-Ralbag?

Answer:

As we established in the introduction to "Derech tevunot" the trained thinker's strategy is to seek principles that are beyond the obvious, in a model of the world other than that of experience. There are specifically two types of principles that he seeks:

a) First principles that are prior to the subject- those needed to formulate the potential for the subject itself.

b) Proximate principles that are needed to see how the first principles relate to the inyanim of the subject as it actually exists.

The first subject of the Chumash is the fully realized or the excellent man. The hakdama sets up the first principles of Torah needed for there to be such a thing as the excellent man. The rest of the Ralbag moves toward establishing the proximate principles needed to apply the first principles to the various inyanim of the fully realized man.

According to Ralbag, the first principle needed for the excellent man is the of the lawful Creation for the prior Chochma of its Creator. This prior Chochma is musag by in the musagim in two dimensions:

a) As a highest "principle" insofar as the musagim combine into the highest uber system of a unified "universe".

b) As the "hashgacha" underlying the development of excellence of organization of each individual musag.

c) Man as a part of the creations has an excellence in his own human framework IE the minds hasaga of the Chochma expressed in the musagim.

In the world of our experience we compartmentalize Chochma as being expressed in the world "out there" in physics, chemistry and biology. We do not think of it as applying to us-the human world. If we did believe in the full extension of Chochma why would we not seek our natural excellence? How could we possibly believe in the foolishness of pursuit of our own chosen ends? The first principle of Ralbag then de-compartmentalizes Chochma. He formulates a sense of Chochma as it extends to the totality of nimtzaim- man included. It is only in a real world with this extended sense of Chochma that a potential inyan of excellence for instruments of Torah to facilitate.

The first principle of mitzvot then is not something about the inyanim of the subject of mitzvot. Rather the first principle is about something prior to mitzvos from which the potential for inyanim of mitzvos could arise- an extended chochmas hashem..

Questions for comment

1) Based upon this first principle what would the purpose of mekomos be?
2) Based upon this first principle what would the purpose of stories up to Sinai be?
3) Based upon this first principle what would the function of the aseres hadibros be?

Paragraph 2 redone (part a)

If Emes were obvious in all the inyanim, man, in seeking wisdom, would have no need for anything beyond observation. The more one would observe real world inyanim, the wiser one would become. Yet, we see this is not the case, neither in terms of the apprehender or the apprehended. Indeed, all real world things have many bechinot -principle characteristics - some intrinsic some extrinsic, all of which are Emes. For example, a table's structure, its measure of length or width are intrinsic principles of the table itself. Its use, its value, the time of its construction- are extrinsic principles.

Biur D'varim

The mature Soul shifts from being an intuitive observer whose thought strategies are only useful for the obvious models of the world to an Emes apprehender

Questions:

1. After establishing the need for an observation based methodology Ramchal identifies and refutes the hypothesis that Emes is obvious in all inyanim. Why is this hypothesis assumed to be natural to the Ramchal's student?

2. What is the difference between inyanim and bechinot?

3. Ramchal shifts the relationship he is referring to from the observer (mashkif) of inyanim to the apprehender (masig) of apprehended (musag). What is the significance of this transition?

Answer:

I will offer a hatzaa that will constitute the basis for answering these questions. As we mentioned earlier, all people yearn for Emes that is proximate and real to them. This beginning approach to knowledge, while natural, limits the intuitive thinker to finding Emes as it appears in obvious principles that apply to the characteristics evident in the world as seen by the senses. The fan wondered about the obvious sports principles as seen in the world of sports and the politico wondered about the obvious political principles as seen in th eworld of politics. Neither considered other frameworks or models of the world, in which to research than the one most immediately apparent to them. To expand in ones sense of principles, ones strategy of seeking Emes has to shift from the original one of the observer limited to models of the world such as politics and sports, worlds of obvious principles of Emes in inyanim, to a masig who seeks all possible principle characteristics in the musag in worlds beyond that as seen by the senses. Specifically the Soul must be awakened to two things:

1) there are more advanced thinking strategies beyond the ones we are used to utilizing in the world as seen by the senses.

2) there are more advanced models of the world which allow focus on characteristics of things that are not evident in the world as seen through the senses .

It is this point that Ramchal brings out through his first statement. Indeed, if every expression of Emes were obvious, then the strategy of seeking Emes that is developmentally most obvious to us -ie being mashkif upon inyanim- would be the only one that we would ever need. However, once we realize that observation limits us to Emes as expressed in the obvious principle characteristics of things only, we understand that we need other tools as well. Specifically we must realize that our concept of principle characteristics needs to be expanded. This is the meaning of bechinot. So long as we were observers only, all we could seek was the emes as revealed in the world as framed by sense perception.

As an example of transcending the limitations of the world of sensation let us reconsider 9/11 once again. To this day, there are many who cannot grasp the notion of a mortal idealogical enemy willing to use all means, such as Al -Qaeda- why is this? The reason is that our experience of politics and religion precludes us from considering the notion of a mortal enemy as real. Our experience is filled with secular nations for whom the pursuit of happiness- ie physical pleasure and honor of the individual- is the only value. Subsequently society is an instrument of this pursuit of happiness. Westerners do not take Religion very seriously, in their mind it is not instrumental to the pursuit of happiness. As such the reality of an idealogical enemy, so bent on religious dominion that he will sacrifice his pursuit of happiness and actually employ all means is unthinkable. How could anyone seriously believe a society exists for anything but the pursuit of happiness? To conceive of a world of politics in which there actually exists an idealogical enemy who does not conform to our experience of the pursuit of happiness is simply unimaginable.

An example of this limitation of the intutive thinker, this tme in in the world of Torah is the 10 dibros as explained by the Ralbag on Chumash. The intuitive reader might notice that the Ralbag spends a tremendous amount of time on formulating these 10 dibros as the foundations of mitzvot.Very few however, if any, will spend the time needed to incorporate these foundational principles into his own study of Mitzvot-though this is the stated essential point of the Ralbag. Why is this? The reason is that foundational principles have no meaning in the world of the intuitive thinker. The intuitive reader is accustomed to a torah world composed of an endless list of discrete topics, with no apparent higher synthesis. In this world there is no meaning to general principles such as the dibros underlying the discrete topics. For the trained thinker however, the first principle of research is that the habitual observation based framework to which we are accustomed is by definition a gateway to a superior framework based upon hasaga of the principles of a field. Subsequently the trained thinker appreciates the Ralbag as a founder of paradigm seeking to provide the soul with the intellectual bridge from observation of torah to hasaga of the field of Torah.

As an example of the opportunity of the trained trained thinker let us take the example of Newton and the falling apple. Newton had a Eureka moment when he saw the principle of gravity in the world of material objects via the example of an apple. Why is it that Newton saw gravity while everyone else did not? The reason is that everyone else was locked into the obvious Emes as seen through in the world as seen by the senses. In this world of obvious principles apples are foods to be enjoyed or perhaps missiles to be thrown. They are assuredly not a system of natural material bodies. To be seen as a system of natural material bodies, a mind would have to be framing apples in a world of physics ie other than the one of the senses

paragraph 2-3

If Emes were obvious in all the inyanim, man, in seeking wisdom, would have no need for anything beyond observation. The more one would observe real world inyanim, the wiser one would become. Yet, we see this is not the case, neither in terms of the apprehender or the apprehended. Indeed, all real world things have many bechinot -principle characteristics - some intrinsic some extrinsic, all of which are Emes. For example, a table's structure, its measure of length or width are intrinsic principles of the table itself. Its use, its value, the time of its construction- are extrinsic principles.

These principle characteristics are not equally obvious however. Some principles are revealed easily through the immediate use of the senses. Other principles are more remote and require real effort to be revealed. The relative remoteness of a given kind of principle also varies from one real thing to another. Principles that may be relatively proximate and immediately obvious to our senses in one thing may be remote in another. For example the use of table is obvious to everyone- i.e. for placement of food and utensils; the use of bread is similarly obvious- food for man. In the case of plants however, the use can be revealed only after great effort- if it is to be revealed at all. The conclusion to be drawn is that not all real world objects are proximate enough that their principle characteristics can be revealed through observation.

Shifting the Souls thinking strategy from that of the "observer" to that of the Emes apprehender

Questions:

1. After establishing the need for an observation based methodology Ramchal identifies and refutes the hypothesis that Emes is obvious in all inyanim. Why is the hypothesis that Emes is obvious natural to the Ramchal's student?

2. What is the difference between inyanim and bechinot?

3. Ramchal shifts the relationship he is referring to from the observer (mashkif) of inyanim to the apprehender (masig) of apprehended (musag). What is the significance of this transition?

Answer:

Once Ramchal liberates his student from thinking of Emes , as an instrument of dominion, establishing it instead as an end in its own right, he begins to develop the orientation of the students Soul to to the means or the thinking strategy by which this Emes is revealed. The student, utilizing his intuitive strategy, would naturally gravitate toward Emes as he is accustomed to seeing it in the world. For example the fan observes plays and reveals the coaches strategy, the politico observes international events and reveals political strategies. The intuitive thinker is predisposed to thinking of Emes with a strategy limited to finding Emes as it appears in the characteristics evident in the world as seen by the senses. The mature mind realizes that rather being the totality of Emes, the Emes as seen in the model of the world as seen through the senses is merely the form of intellectual apprehension (hasaga) that is most proximate to us. The Soul must realize that so long as it is locked into the thinking strategy of the observer,one that is useful only in understanding the world of the senses, it cannot order its thought to excellence. Specifically the Soul must be awakened to two things:

1) there are more advanced thinking strategies beyond the ones we are used to utilizing in the world as seen by the senses.

2) there are more advanced models of the world which allow focus on characteristics of things that are not evident in the world as seen through the senses .

It is this point that Ramchal brings out through his first statement. Indeed, if every expression of Emes were obvious, then the strategy of seeking Emes that is developmentally most obvious to us -ie being mashkif upon inyanim- would be the only one that we would ever need. However, once we realize that observation limits us to Emes as expressed in the obvious principle characteristics of things only, we understand that we need other tools as well. Specifically we must realize that our concept of principle characteristics needs to be expanded. This is the meaning of bechinot. So long as we were observers only, all we could seek was the emes as revealed in the world as framed by sense perception. The fan wondered about the obvious sports principles as seen in the world of sports and the politico wondered about the obvious political principles as seen in th eworld of politics. Neither considered other frameworks or models of the world, in which to research than the one most immediately apparent to them. To expand in ones sense of principles, ones strategy of seeking Emes has to shift from the original one of the observer limited to models of the world such as politics and sports, worlds of obvious principles of emes in inyanim, to a masig who seeks all possible principle characteristics in the musag in worlds beyond that as seen by the senses.

As an example of the limitation of thinking stratgey of the intuitive thinker and the opportunity of the trained one let us take the example of Newton and the falling apple. Newton had a Eureka moment when he saw the principle of gravity in the world of material objects via the example of an apple. Why is it that Newton saw gravity while everyone else did not? The reason is that everyone else was locked into the obvious Emes as seen through in the world as seen by the senses. In this world of obvious principles apples are foods to be enjoyed or perhaps missiles to be thrown. They are assuredly not a system of natural material bodies. To be seen as a system of natural material bodies, a mind would have to be framing apples in a world of physics ie other than the one of the senses

The same limitation can be seen in the reader of the 10 dibros as explained by the Ralbag on Chumash. The intuitive reader might notice that the Ralbag spends a tremendous amount of time on formulating these 10 dibros as the foundations of mitzvot.Very few however, if any, will spend the time needed to incorporate these foundational principles into his own study of Mitzvot-though this is the stated essential point of the Ralbag. Why is this? The reason is that foundational principles have no meaning in the world of the intuitive thinker. For this thinker the impoverished world of torah to which he is accustomed is the only one that can exist. In this world there is no meaning to general principles such as the dibros. For the trained thinker however, the first principle of research is that the habitual observation based framework to which we are accustomed is by definition a gateway to a superior framework based upon hasaga of the principles of a field. Subsequently the trained thinker appreciates the Ralbag as a founder of paradigm seeking to provide the soul with the intellectual bridge from observation of torah to hasaga of the field of Torah.

This realization about the hierarchy of principle characteristics in which Emes can be musag and the accompanying worlds of things in which they are framed is the heart and soul of Ramchals new strategy of thinking. It foreshadows the core instrument of logic: the statement. It is the role of the statement to select the principle framework - the subject - in which we are seeking the Emes of the observable inyan.

Derech Tevunot introduction

Paragraph# 1

The yearning for Emes 1 (i.e. curiosity) is a natural inyan 2 in the Nefesh Sichli 3. So natural is this yearning to man, that one cannot find a person of sound mind who doesn't seek to reveal Emes and banish falsehood, to the best of his ability, in the inyanim he happens to be Mashkif 4 upon.

Biur Shemot

1) Emes refers to the membership of a thing in the real world external to us. In order to understand this notion we must liberate ourselves from the notion of "truth" we are accustomed to in our education. The "truth" of education refers to facility in plugging a case into the official general formula we learned in school. We are all familiar with this phenomena in study of "math" and the "sciences". In the the case of derech tevunot, Emes refers to the illumination in the mind of one whose exploration of the observable world has achieved its end of insight. The “end of insight” presupposes true curiosity about something puzzling about some feature or attribute in the real world that triggers a yearning for insight. For example we perceive that the twin towers are knocked down by jets. This triggers real curiosity- why would the twin towers be attacked? The answer to this question, that there exists a mortal idealogical enemy to the US, an enemy so completely convinced of the rightness of his ideology that he must force conformity upon humanity by all possible means including the killing of civilians in the twin towers, is the insight that is the Emes. It is critical to note that while the formula of school are formal and meaningless to us, they were illuminations to the people who discovered them. Gravity is a formality to us, to be plugged into problems in school for no good reason. For Newton, gravity was an illumination resulting from inyanim that he had great curiosity for. Great thinkers are deeply saddened by the "dominion" serving use their beloved insights are put to by school. They seem unable to stop this process however.

2) Inyan primarily refers to a feature or “attribute” of a thing in the real world. Inyan refers secondarily to the semantic meaning of a word that allows us to communicate about these same features or attributes. For example, the actual event of destruction of the twin towers is an inyan in the real world. In semantic terms the words “destruction of twin towers” is a meaning that allows us to communicate about the event on 9/11.

3) Nefesh Sichli is the mind -that by which we know Emes. This mind has the power to utilize the lower tools of the psyche (the nefesh) to attain insight into Emes. This includes observation, using the senses to note inyanim such as destruction of the twin towers in the real world.

4) Being Mashkif is scientific observation, the minds use of the senses to identify inyanim in the real world in service of curiosity. It does not refer to idle use of the senses for appetite.

Biur D'varim

Yedias ha-Emes is an end in its own right, not an instrument of dominion

Questions:

The introduction's characterization of the Soul contradicts our experience in two fundamental regards:

1. Ramchal asserts that “yearning for Emes” is a natural property of the soul to be found in all people. If this were true, surely all students would want a life long education. Yet our experience indicates the exact opposite. Almost all people want no part of education and flee it as soon as they have earned their degrees. Where is the evidence for this foundational principle that "yearning for Emes is a natural inyan in the Nefesh Sichli" ?

2. Ramchal seems to indicate that the Soul yearns for an Emes revealed in ” the inyanim he happens to be mashkif upon"- i.e. observation. This emphasis upon a method rooted in observation seems to be appropriate for people lacking access to an intellectual heritage to build upon- such as Adam ha-rishon or Avraham Avinu. Why would the abnormal method, used by people lacking access to mesorah, be appropriate for post Sinai readers who are beneficiaries of the richest possible intellectual heritage of Moshe Rabbenu?

Answer:

If the objective of school were to nurture the soul's yearning for Emes as an end in its own right, the fact that people flee education would indeed be a contradiction to Ramchal. But is school dedicated to the end of nurturing the Soul's pursuit of Emes? All evidence points to the contrary. In this society the educational system does not see its mission as developing natural curiosity about real things, but rather in maximizing its potential for dominion in the sense of a skilled work force. Because of its false mission, education today thinks nothing of rushing students to facility in disconnected principles for which they had no curiosity. This emphasis upon facility in disconnected principles may produce armies of skilled workers and honor seeking PHD students, but it comes at a horrific price. The Einsteins and Feynman's who retain their delight in seeking Emes in observable phenomena become an extraordinary rarity. The vast majority of students view abstract principles as, at best the ticket to a career and at worst a cynical game whose value exists only in the prison like world of school.

It is therefore precisely outside the world of education that "the yearning for Emes is a natural inyan in the Nefesh Sichli". The fan delights in revealing the coach's theoretical principles-the strategy embedded in the play, not merely observing the play itself. The political junkie delights in his insight into the hidden motivations of the international incident not observing the incident itself on television. The murder mystery reader delights in revealing the theoretical framework of the killer, not the factual depiction of the murder itself. As Ramchal rightly points out, all people yearn to transcend observation into the superior Emes of theoretical principles that are proximate and therefore real and of interest to them.

The Torah world, while certainly shielded from the worst abuses of the general societies educational system, is nonetheless greatly effected. Unlike Western education whose mission utterly subordinates the student's development to dominion, Jewish education retains a real, if sometimes obscured commitment to the end of developing the soul's natural curiosity. There are subsequently a larger proportion of students who view Emes as something to be organically emerging from real world observation. Such students yearn for a reading of Torah instrumental to this organic unfolding. Yet in the Galus environment such a student will feel a disconnect of his Torah study from the observable natural world. How could a Galus Judaism, a pile of dry bones lacking embodiment in its proper political infrastructure, not be so disconnected? It is precisely this sense of disconnection of torah study from observation that had pushed the student to read derech tevunos in the first place. In the absence of a sufficiently vibrant intellectual culture in the Jewish community proper, the intellectual culture of general humanity must be adapted to the task. It is this path that is pointed to by the Rambam. The allusion to the Adam ha-rishon experience of naming the environment purely in terms of the inyanim of observation speaks powerfully to this Rambamic reader. Only the student pursuing the Rambam's path of Torah study of utilizing the general human path, the path of Adam ha-rishon's naming of the environment, would seek out a work dedicated to connecting Aristotelian logic to Talmud study. The path to resonant organic Emes is precisely what this student has long craved and what Ramchal's introduction promises to deliver. Ramchal's treatment of Torah study as an extension of the original naming process itself, his immediate focus on supplying the method by which to connect the Torah study to the soul's natural interest in naming the observable environment speaks precisely to the educational gap this student has long sensed in his Galus Torah education, but has been unable to surmount.