The Voice of Prophecy, Lesson 4
This transcript was produced automatically using artificial intelligence. There may be inaccuracies in the transcribed content and in speaker identification.
🔗 Link to the original lecture
🔗 Link to the transcript on Sofer.AI
Table of Contents
- “Jewish” physics and the problem of “Hebrew wisdom”
- The Nazir: form and pattern, sight and hearing
- Kant, phenomenon, theoretical entities, and the ordering of concepts
- Inner experience, culture, and different perceptions among peoples
- The example of Zen and “Zen in the Art of Archery”
- Language, metaphors, and building patterns through culture
- Place, time, “the air of the land,” the special quality of the Land of Israel, and the difficulty of making the distinction
- Seventy faces of Torah, the holy tongue, seventy and six hundred thousand
- One truth, not pluralism, and the role of disputes in learning
- Jewish philosophy: influenced in form but not in pattern, and continuity
Summary
General Overview
The text argues that truth and wisdom as such are universal, and therefore “Hebrew wisdom” sounds like a contradiction in terms. But there is a national form in which a given people encounters that same universal wisdom, and that is “exactly what the Nazir says”: the knowledge itself is universal, but it is national in its form and pattern. The speaker tries to clarify the Nazir’s distinction between “form” and “pattern” through a description that emphasizes form as something seen, dependent on place and time, and pattern as something heard in the act of thought, dependent on language, culture, and the differing ways of life among peoples. He connects the discussion to a Kantian framework and to philosophy of science, offers examples of differences in perception between cultures and between individuals, and concludes with the distinction that Jewish religious philosophy is influenced by general philosophy in its form but not in its pattern, while hinting at the role of the commandments in creating shared patterns.
“Jewish” physics and the problem of “Hebrew wisdom”
The speaker presents a statement that attributes “Jewish physics” to Einstein through relativity, which is perceived as leading to pluralism, and explains that this is probably what was meant in the straightforward sense, without any personal comparison. The speaker states that the expression “Hebrew wisdom” appears to be a contradiction in terms, because if wisdom contains a true body of knowledge about the world, then it cannot be “Hebrew” but simply true or not true. He formulates a distinction according to which wisdom is universal in its subject matter but national in its form and pattern. Therefore there is a “Hebrew form of looking at wisdom” even though “there is no Hebrew wisdom” in terms of the content itself.
The Nazir: form and pattern, sight and hearing
The speaker quotes a definition according to which form is “seen” and “looked toward in the light of its special hues” directly in place and time, and is “revealed in a vision” in the air of a certain land and a certain period to the members of that people, while outside the land “the form is defective.” The speaker quotes that the “pattern is heard” in the act of thought, in the style of language, and in its influence on life, acting within it and acted upon by it, and that it “differs from people to people.” The speaker accepts as a premise that truth itself is general and cosmopolitan, and that “the truth of God endures forever,” but its faces are many, corresponding to the many nations differing in spirit, manner of perception, and ways of life.
Kant, phenomenon, theoretical entities, and the ordering of concepts
The speaker claims that the paragraph “sits after Kant” and points to the difficulty of understanding exactly the difference between form and pattern, while trying to interpret “the subject matter of wisdom” as the material or body of objective facts. He suggests that form is close to the Kantian concept of phenomenon and to what addresses visual perception, while pattern is an auditory-cognitive dimension tied to the style of language, intellectual ordering, and the rules by which phenomena are linked and classified. He uses the example of the law of gravitation to show that the same set of facts can be formulated according to “different drawers” and a different conceptual system, and connects this to the discussion in philosophy of science about the existence of “theoretical entities” such as gravitation, the electron, momentum, and velocity as organizing names for phenomena.
Inner experience, culture, and different perceptions among peoples
The speaker distinguishes between objective external descriptions and the “inner feeling” that accompanies the use of a concept, and argues that this feeling can differ from culture to culture. He brings examples from the problem of comparing experiences of color, such as red and bright, and claims that there is no indication by which to verify that the conscious experience is identical even if the linguistic conventions match. He presents a difference between a Western perception that separates subject and object and Eastern perceptions in which the “I” is not sharply separated from the environment, and links this to the claim that science assumes a human being observing the world, whereas in the East there is a different perception.
The example of Zen and “Zen in the Art of Archery”
The speaker brings up the book by a German professor named Eugen Herrigel on Zen and the Art of Archery and describes a visit to Japan in which Zen is taught through flower arranging, wrestling, or archery, as paths that seem disconnected to a Western person, while for the Japanese they are “exactly the same thing.” The speaker describes a Zen teacher who shoots an arrow and hits the target without looking, and connects this to a perception that does not separate subject and object and to the development of “sensors” that feel the environment and the target without seeing with the eyes. He uses the description to illustrate that things that seem self-evident in one culture can appear incomprehensible in another.
Language, metaphors, and building patterns through culture
The speaker explains that associative systems in language hint at inner patterns, and gives the example of the word “coarse,” which is used both for something rough to the touch and for coarse behavior, arguing that other cultures might not understand the connection. He claims that the inner conceptual world is not only innate but is built through speech and linguistic connections learned from childhood, and therefore patterns are also “acted upon by life and also act upon life.” He assigns pattern to a perception that arises from culture, style, and way of life, and form to something that can be communicated and taught, such as scientific concepts, whereas conveying “what I feel when I say” a concept remains difficult.
Place, time, “the air of the land,” the special quality of the Land of Israel, and the difficulty of making the distinction
The speaker has difficulty understanding why the Nazir associates form specifically with “the air of a certain land” and with literal dependence on place, and suggests that he would have expected to attribute that more to pattern, though he admits that place affects culture and language through images and life experience. He notes examples such as someone who does not live near the sea not developing sea metaphors, and mentions the model of the Eskimos with “seven different words for snow” and the fact that sharp discrimination of nuances depends on being within a culture. He states that it is accepted that there is a “special quality to place,” and that the claim is that in some sense the form itself changes according to place, especially around the Land of Israel, although he wonders whether there is not some mixing here with the concept of pattern.
Seventy faces of Torah, the holy tongue, seventy and six hundred thousand
The speaker cites “seventy faces of Torah corresponding to the seventy languages of the nations of the world” and proposes that each people has both a form and a pattern, and that outside the land the form may be “defective” but is not empty. He asks whether the holy tongue is one of the seventy and suggests that the holy tongue is not just another sector but “the one that broke into seventy,” with the seventy being partial facets. He brings the Maharal on “seventy souls who went down to Egypt” in order to describe seventy as separate sectors, and six hundred thousand as the stage at which a unique mixture is created for each individual while still connected to the whole, and compares this to the dispute over whether Moses is included among the seventy elders or is “above them,” as one equivalent to them all.
One truth, not pluralism, and the role of disputes in learning
The speaker states that this is not a pluralism of two truths but one truth, and when two truths appear, what we really have are half-truths. He explains that in analytical learning the multiplicity of approaches is not a “real argument,” but rather each approach represents one facet of the truth, and the correct possibility is built from understanding them all together in a synthesis that is not a superficial sum. He distinguishes between the halakhic plane, where Jewish law is decided so that there will not be “Torah as two Torahs” in practice, and a deeper goal of building a worldview in which each approach is “one chair here and one chair there.”
Jewish philosophy: influenced in form but not in pattern, and continuity
The speaker quotes that Jewish religious philosophy is influenced by general philosophy in its form but not in its pattern, and that even though changes occurred in it, its special pattern remained in continuity and in continuation from its first source, “for Jewish philosophy has a special continuity, in the words of the author of The History of Jewish Philosophy.” The speaker interprets influence in form as fitting the world of vision, logic, and concepts that can be conveyed and used to persuade, whereas pattern is an inner layer that is hard to penetrate or influence from the outside. He hints that the commandments create shared patterns that make possible an inner conversation within the Jewish people, and that accepting the commandments in the case of a convert is a condition for entering the rhythm of life from which one can begin to speak out of that same pattern, ending with a hint toward the continuation around “study is greater, for it leads to action.”
Full Transcript
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He said what he thought, that Einstein’s physics was Jewish physics. Meaning, relativity—as if they were on the far right in our time, and Einstein was perceived as leading to pluralism, the theory of relativity. To say that his physics is Jewish physics. I think that was the intention, at least in the simple sense. In any case, Heaven forbid, I don’t want to make any comparison of course; I’m only saying that the expression “Hebrew wisdom” is, on the face of it, a contradiction in terms. Because if it’s wisdom, if it contains some body of knowledge about the world, then it can’t be Hebrew. Meaning, if it’s true then it’s true, and if it’s not true then it’s not true. So what does Hebrew or non-Hebrew have to do with it? So we have to say that wisdom is universal in its subject matter, and that is exactly what the Nazir says. Meaning, the things themselves are universal, the knowledge itself, the information itself, is universal, but it is national in its form and pattern. Meaning, the way we look at things can change from place to place, from person to person, or from people to people. And in that sense there is Hebrew wisdom and non-Hebrew wisdom. There is a Hebrew form of looking at wisdom; there is no Hebrew wisdom.
[Speaker B] Not only that, it’s not only in the technical sense, because it’s not just a tool for encountering that wisdom, but it’s—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Also the way Judaism encounters it. And we’ll see that in a moment, because it seems to me that last time I didn’t define precisely enough the difference between form and pattern. Last time we spoke a bit about why it’s a tool for encountering Hebrew wisdom—meaning that sense—
[Speaker B] That encounters that same objective wisdom?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Certainly. That sense also determines what this thing means within me. In any case, the difference between form and pattern—we spoke a little about it when we discussed section Bet, fitting Hebrew thought into Greek form, and before that in section Aleph. We spoke there about two kinds of form: form and pattern. I’m not sure I understood it correctly last time. Meaning, I’m still not completely convinced that I understand exactly the difference he defines here between form and pattern. Let’s try to read it together and understand. “The form is seen, looked toward in the light”—looked toward in the sense of gazed at, yes—“in the light of its special hues, directly, in place and time. It is revealed in a vision in its full glory by its messengers in the air of a certain land and in a certain period to the members of that people when they are uplifted toward it.” When he said above “in place and time,” he apparently did not mean that it is not dependent on place and time, but the opposite. Meaning, every place and time sees a different form. And that’s what he says afterward: “in the air of a certain land and in a certain period to the people of that nation,” and “when they are uplifted toward it.” “Outside the land the form is defective.” That’s a function of place. “The pattern is heard in the act of thought.” So what does “heard” mean? It’s not heard with the ear. “Heard” means in the act of thought, expressed in the style of language and in its influence on life, which acts within it and is acted upon by it, “which differs from people to people.” It changes from one people to another. What came first? Before, it was different from people to people. Before that it was according to place, and before that it was according to people, right? I also think that’s the point that is supposed to be different. Therefore, even though the very subject matter of wisdom, truth, is general and cosmopolitan—that’s how we began, that’s the premise—truth itself: there is no such thing as Hebrew truth and non-Hebrew truth. It is general and cosmopolitan, and “the truth of God endures forever.” Its faces are many, according to the multiplicity of nations differing in their spirit, their mode of perception, and their ways of life. Their spirit, their mode of perception, and their ways of life—those are three things that are connected to one another, and the next paragraphs are really devoted to tying those three things together. That is probably one of the things he is trying to say here.
[Speaker B] Is that similar to the Kuzari? What? It sounds a bit like the Kuzari, this whole matter of form.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] To understand what form is? I haven’t had time to go over the Kuzari, but I’m not—well, I wouldn’t pin too many hopes on that. Not because I mean to belittle it—
[Speaker B] The point is—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The Kuzari doesn’t speak in these terms. It’s clear that Kant is sitting behind him here. That’s completely clear. This paragraph comes after Kant. Someone writing before Kant doesn’t talk like this. No, right—those are the two concepts we’re trying to clarify. Whoever suggested my proposal—the truth is I’m not one hundred percent convinced that I understand exactly what he means by form and pattern. I’ll try to explain what I think. If someone has another idea, maybe. It’s not completely unambiguous what exactly he means by the difference between form and pattern. First of all, it’s clear that “the subject matter of wisdom,” in our terms, is the matter of wisdom, meaning the body of wisdom, the essence of wisdom. And that is universal and cosmopolitan and all the rest of what he says here. That’s clear. Those are the facts in themselves. Form, that’s basically what… that’s what addresses visual perception. Form is looked at, it is seen, it is not heard. For example, form is the face that the object or thing—why did he call it “the thing itself”? Because the concept points toward the visual perceiver. Meaning, someone who perceives in a Greek form—what he sees of the thing-in-itself, this cosmopolitan thing—that is the form. So that is basically the ordinary concept of form, what we actually defined a number of times, like when we spoke of matter and form. I think that’s what he means. Pattern—the question is what exactly is pattern? Here I think he means… first of all, in his definition it is the auditory form, as opposed to the visual form, yes? That’s simply what he writes. Form is the thing seen, and pattern is the thing heard, the thing one listens to. But of course not with the ear; rather one listens in the act of thought, in the style of language, in its influence on life, which acts within it and is acted upon by it, and so on. I think form is the ordinary Kantian term for phenomenon, somewhere between the thing-in-itself and its appearance in consciousness. So form is the Kantian concept of phenomenon, using Greek terminology; we too identified this once as lying between those two things. Kant himself doesn’t speak of matter and form in these terms. Pattern, I think, is the intellectual ordering of those forms. Meaning, how I connect them, according to which rules they behave. If, for example, I relate to a certain collection of phenomena and say that this is the law of gravitation, yes? In principle, someone else could have perceived a collection—if I’m not mistaken we spoke about this somewhere—someone else could have perceived a different collection of forms, a different collection of phenomena, and defined that as a law unto itself. Why is our classification of this collection of phenomena a classification as though they belong to one law? They are all expressions of one law, all attractions of all bodies to one another. But maybe someone could come from another conceptual system and formulate the same set of facts that we know—which is really the form, the things that appear before our eyes—and formulate it according to different drawers, according to different processes of classification, according to a different language. That is one thing, meaning one thing that can change from place to place. A second thing is that even if we say we are using the same conceptual system, what that conceptual system says to us can change from place to place. Meaning, when I say “gravitation,” I have some feeling of what that concept means—an inner feeling. Here, in a sense, we return to matter. Meaning, this is the matter of the concept “gravitation,” not the descriptions. The external descriptions are objective and shared by everyone: bodies attract one another and everything is fine. But those are only the forms, the appearance of gravitation in the world. The concept of gravitation itself is some concept that I only feel—the matter of that concept, yes? I only feel it; I obviously don’t know how to define it. The moment I define it, I move straight into form. And that feeling can be different. It can even differ from culture to culture. In fact it is likely different. There are things that seem self-evident to us, and somewhere else they may have no idea what we’re talking about. It’s very hard even to grasp not understanding. I don’t know—the whole Western separation, which maybe he’s talking about, between object and subject. Each of us grasps that I am the person, a well-defined unit, and I observe the world around me. In the East there are many people who wouldn’t even understand what you mean when you say such a thing. It’s terribly hard to explain to them what one is even talking about. For them the whole business is one harmonious unit—I don’t know, the “I” is also not a completely defined concept there—but it’s a different outlook. The basic assumption of science is that a human being observes the world. So that is a completely different perception. There are concepts that for us are self-evident, and elsewhere they are simply… the concept of “I” is perceived in a completely different way. Naturally. The feeling. What I mean when I say the word “I” is a different feeling. It’s a different feeling because of the whole cultural system in which I live. So there are concepts where, even if the concepts are shared in whole or in part, there are links between the concept and the world itself. Meaning, each one is accompanied by some feeling, some inner insight, that accompanies the use of that concept. That is something that can differ from place to place, and it’s even likely that it does. There are many who ask: how do you know it doesn’t differ even between you and the person you’re speaking to? Even on the simplest level: when I say “red,” do I mean the same color you’re talking about? The answer is certainly yes—in the sense that we will call the same things “red.” Both of us will call the same things red. But the color red, which exists only in my consciousness, maybe what you see is what in my consciousness is called green—and you always call that red, because the convention is that all objects painted in this color are called red. It’s just that the image in your head is always what I call green. You understand that we have no indication whatsoever for knowing that this isn’t the case. We have no way to verify it, at least as far as I can think. There is no way to verify it. What? No, no. It will always match. I see everything green.
[Speaker B] A person for whom, say, the combination of blue and yellow is green, but to him it looks brown. Yes, apparently you see that blue and yellow not the way he sees it, or—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Or my aesthetic values differ from his; what seems beautiful to me differs from what seems beautiful to him. I don’t know. I think that’s a common belief in general. I’m not sure it’s true, but it’s certainly not a point I can test—meaning, there won’t be a practical difference that lets you check that question for me.
[Speaker B] What about what is brighter too? What is brighter?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, maybe not what is brighter, but what “bright” is. On what is brighter we’ll all agree, but on what we mean when we say “bright,” I’m not sure we agree. Meaning, it could be that what I constantly see as darker, you are used to calling bright, because what sits in your consciousness as dark is what, from your childhood, you learned to call bright, whereas I see bright in my head. So the two of us will agree and understand each other perfectly, no problem. Everything I say is brighter than something else, you too will say is brighter than something else. But is “bright” in your consciousness perceived in the same conscious form as in mine? I have no proof. Meaning, it’s not clear at all. At least not clear. I believe that it is so, but I don’t know; I have no way to verify it. No, there isn’t. This is one… I’m surprised this didn’t come through from our classes, because if not, our situation is serious. Of course there isn’t. Bright and dark, you can—
[Speaker B] A visual perception of it, a visual perception.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There is no definition of that at all. Visual perception is inside the head. You can define what outside causes the feeling of brightness or the feeling of darkness. Intensity—simply intensity of light causes a feeling of brightness or a feeling of darkness, let’s say, or other things; it doesn’t matter what brightness and darkness are called. But the question of how I experience that thing may differ between me and you. Meaning, even if we conclude that such-and-such wavelength is darker than another wavelength, that’s an objective definition in terms of wave—
[Speaker B] Length, in terms of frequency, in terms of how much light gets in and how much doesn’t.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But it may be that if a lot of light gets in, what you see in your head is more darkness—what I call darkness. You’re just used to calling that “more light” all the time. So there’s no problem; we always communicate wonderfully. Do you understand that our whole inner conceptual world may be utterly different, and yet we speak to one another as though we were born from the same womb—the same intellectual womb? Do you understand? We have no proof that it isn’t so. Personally, for some reason I believe it is similar among people, but I’m bringing this as an example of concepts that are a bit subtler, and there it’s pretty clear that it isn’t true. The very concept of “I,” for example—when I say “I,” to me it sounds like a very well-defined entity. Meaning, it is completely clear: I am here and everything else is worthless and also outside, yes? But there are cultures where they do not understand the concept of “I” so sharply; they don’t separate subject and object at all. I am not separate from the environment; I am part of some general organism. We always preach that, but our feeling is not like that. We grew up in a Western world. Our feeling—my feeling at least—is not like that. Meaning, intellectually I think I agree with it, but I don’t feel that way. I do not intuitively grasp the concept of “I” like that. But there are cultures where they say that is the basic perception; that’s how a person perceives himself. Meaning, he sees invisible lines stretching between him and the whole rest of the world—not only the living world. Even… not only does he see it, there are abilities. I think we spoke about this once too. There is a book by a German professor of philosophy named Eugen Herrigel called Zen in the Art of Archery. He tells about a visit he made to Japan. It’s really a fascinating book, simply an experiential description; there’s no philosophy there, it’s just very captivating. He arrived in Japan and wanted to study Zen, and he had a friend there who was a professor of law, and he took him to his Zen teacher. And he went to his Zen teacher, and one can enter Zen in several ways: through flower arranging, or through wrestling, or through archery, and one other way—those are more or less the paths. And by the way it doesn’t matter at all where you enter from; that’s another very interesting point. Meaning, you arrive at the same thing through three things that a Western person has absolutely no idea how they are connected. And for the Japanese it is exactly the same thing—three things where they don’t even understand what the difference is. Meaning, flower arranging, Japanese wrestling at the higher spiritual levels—I don’t understand at all how… it’s the same thing. It’s all the same thing appearing in different forms, and what difference does it make? You can learn it through this, or this, or this. We don’t even understand what he’s talking about when he says that. But there it’s like that: you can learn through here, through there, and apparently reach the same abilities, the same understandings—they apparently understand what they mean when they say that it’s the same thing. So that’s an excellent and fascinating beginning. And he describes there how his teacher would stand and shoot an arrow at the target without looking at it, and hit dead center without looking. Just like that. And he says not only on a range he knew; you could take him even to a range he didn’t know. When you develop within yourself the sight of those lines that tie you to the world—this is the whole basic difference between West and East, that they do not separate subject and object, that you are part of the whole, you do not stand outside it—then you develop the sensors for how to feel the environment; he feels the target even without seeing it. He doesn’t need to see it with his eyes. He can see toward it even—
[Speaker B] Without seeing with his eyes.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And if you could see the—
[Speaker B] The description, the description—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It’s incredible, really amazing. And he says that he himself improved in it. Meaning, certain abilities were also revealed in him in this matter. Meaning, we’re not lost yet. I just wanted to illustrate for you how things that seem self-evident to us can, elsewhere, be perceived as something that seems utterly Chinese—yes? Meaning, what on earth are you saying? You won’t even be able to explain to a person what you mean when you say such a thing. I think these things are at least part of what he means when he says “pattern.” Pattern is that perception that arises from culture, from style, from way of life—something you can’t put your finger on, but somehow this whole texture together determines in you some mode of relating—not the things themselves. Form itself is something one can communicate. Form itself is something through which one can convey experiences regarding the law of gravitation and teach gravitation. But to try to convey to someone what I feel when I say “gravitation”—I don’t even know how to begin with that. Now the assumption here is that this does depend on culture. Meaning, those who belong to the same culture probably, at least on some level, feel the same thing. I assume there are still nuances, but their inner world is somehow built in a similar way. Meaning, these things somehow also come to expression in more tangible things. You can sometimes put your finger on such things. When you see a connection between concepts—you sometimes see really amazing associative things. I always think about this: why does the word “coarse”—just an example, I’m remembering this example now, though there are many such examples—why does the word “coarse” characterize someone who behaves coarsely? “Coarse,” you know, is also the opposite of delicate to the touch—rough. Why is that the same thing? Can any of you explain why the same word is used to describe those two phenomena? You can say because it’s unpleasant to be around him just as it’s unpleasant—and whoever does enjoy rubbing a coarse object, well, it’s not that simple. It hints at something about what we feel when we say the word “coarse.” You can’t convey it in words, but if we all feel it, then apparently our systems of feeling are somehow similar. It may be that there are tribes—I’m actually quite convinced of it—or even peoples and cultures, yes, that live in a different cultural world, and there they simply wouldn’t understand the connection between coarse behavior and a rough surface. They just wouldn’t get it. You can talk to them until tomorrow; that metaphor does not exist in their language, they won’t understand what you want—what is the connection? Think of countless examples of this. It’s fascinating. I don’t know whether anyone ever did systematic research on this connection; I don’t know if it’s even possible, because you’re trying to grasp something you can’t define.
[Speaker B] Meaning—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] You can try to describe phenomena, for example. To bring an example where here people understand the connection between concepts and point to some tribe that doesn’t know it. That much is done a lot, fine, there are many examples. But what does it really mean regarding some inner world shared by all of us? When we say—do you understand that this world is also created, not only that we are born with it. Because as for being born, I don’t know to what extent we are born different from another world. Rather, through speech, through connection, you grow up from your mother’s womb hearing that “coarse” means both this and this. So that inner feeling accompanying the use of the word “coarse” is built in you out of language. Meaning, it’s not just some basic thing that we were born with and the whole nation was just born differently. It’s not exactly like that. It is tied to culture, and tied to the connections between concepts that exist among us and do not exist elsewhere. I think that’s what he means when he says “pattern,” or at least part of what he means. Yes.
[Speaker B] He says that the form is within the pattern, meaning that the form—the form is an instrumental thing, like something—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no, wait, let me try. I’m not done yet. I said I don’t fully understand it; I’m not sure I fully understand what he means. I’ll try to get a bit closer to what he says. Form is the conceptual world—let’s call it the world of phenomena. Now that we’ve already clarified all the levels, let’s summarize: we said there are several levels in perception. There is the matter of the thing itself, which I want to grasp, which is as if outside me. All right? There is the form, which is the form that appears in my consciousness when I observe it. “Observe” can also be with the intellect—I’m speaking about concepts too, not only objects. And that is the form. Now there are the drawers into which I arrange the various phenomena I see. That is the conceptual world, or what in philosophy of science are called theoretical entities. There is a well-known question in philosophy of science about the existence of theoretical entities. Do they exist at all? Is there such a thing as gravitation, or is it just a collective name for a set of phenomena? I happened to choose to gather them in these kinds of groups because it seems much more orderly to me. Someone else will come and gather them in other groups, and that too will seem orderly to him, and everything will be fine. Or is there really such a thing as gravitation? Is it just a collective name for a set of phenomena, or is there really such a thing? That force—is it something real, or is it some abstraction of mine that helps me describe many phenomena I see before my eyes? That is what is called theoretical entities. Like gravitation, like maybe even the electron is still in the category of a theoretical entity. Various things like that. Electromagnetic—
[Speaker B] What? Radar waves?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, radar waves, all these things. All scientific concepts, really, that are not concepts from everyday language, that were born in science. Momentum. Yes, that’s a theoretical entity. Is there such a thing as momentum? Even velocity—you can ask, is there such a thing as velocity, or is it a way I describe phenomena? I think there is such a thing as velocity. But momentum seems even more abstract than velocity. It’s some thing that is the product of mass and velocity—it’s not… what does that mean to me? It’s not… In modern physics, momentum is a more basic concept than velocity, but in the way people are used to thinking, that’s not so. So there is the conceptual world—that is already beyond phenomena as they appear. It is already an ordering of phenomena. Meaning, these are drawers, higher concepts, as it were, with which I organize the phenomena I absorb. Yes? And there is the meaning I have when I speak about gravitation. Meaning, okay, fine, now there is already the world of concepts—there is gravitation, there is electron, there is bright, there is dark, there is red, there are all sorts of things like that. Now the question is: what meaning do I feel when I use those concepts? That is already a level—the seventh of the—
[Speaker B] A higher level—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Which level? Relative to the matter itself? I think there is a difference. In some sense you go back again, but I think there is a difference. And this is really the purpose of all that we’re doing in these evenings, because what we’re doing there is basically describing thought as a process of perception. And we also discussed in the introduction to the Nazir that for the Nazir the distinction between logic and epistemology doesn’t really exist. Something that in philosophy is very clear—and that is a phenomenon that obviously depends on culture. Meaning, there is a field called logic and a field called epistemology. Logic is how one thinks, and epistemology is how one knows, how one grasps things from outside. Those are two things. But maybe thinking too has some part that is perception from outside and not only inner processing. Yes, that is basically one of the things the Nazir wants to solve here—to call the intellect too a sense. Yes, we already spoke about that. Meaning, not simply… it’s a different kind of perception, but it is also perception of things from outside. Now if I relate to it as perception of things from outside, then what am I actually saying? There is a concept—I’m speaking about concepts now, not objects. So there is a concept standing on its own, the concept as such. Now it appears before me in some form. It has connections to some super-concepts perhaps—that is, the super-concepts or the theoretical entity—and there is the feeling I feel when I say that entity. Now the question is whether I have gone back to the concept in itself or not. I think not necessarily. If I have gone back, then excellent—we have simply closed the loop back again. But it isn’t necessarily so. In principle these are two different concepts. One can argue that they are the same thing, but they are two different concepts. Who said that the concept—after all the whole claim is that the concept exists in the world and not only in my head. So who said that the concept existing in my head is the same as the concept existing in the world, the ideal concept being spoken of? Those can still be two different things. It may be that it is the same thing, but that would already be a synthetic judgment, not an analytic one.
[Speaker B] If it isn’t, then it’s form again. If it isn’t, then it’s form again.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, one hundred percent. That’s why I said it may be that we’ve gone back to the matter itself, and it may be that we haven’t.
[Speaker B] If we’ve returned to form… right, right.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, that’s the part… no, form and not pattern?
[Speaker B] Yes, it’s again—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Form again.
[Speaker B] Why form? It’s how you grasp the matter, it’s how you are with the matter. Why not? That’s the form. No, but after all it’s something that depends—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Obviously also—
[Speaker B] Pattern is part of form.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But pattern is a higher part of form, the more analytical part of form. The meanings that the concepts of form have for me, which are not necessarily the meanings those same concepts of form have for you. Now the objective thing—the list of concepts, let’s say—that is the objective thing. We all use gravitation, electron, dark, bright, all kinds of things like that, and therefore this belongs to form. All right? The line of concepts. Now the question is what feeling accompanies me when I say each such concept—that can differ between me and you.
[Speaker B] I think that’s the motto of the concept of pattern.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, we also spoke about that in the context of the concept of the good. Yes. So the question is what feeling accompanies me in this matter. And I think that is part of the matter of pattern. Now what happens? I think I tried, through these examples, to convey to you why pattern really does change from people to people. Which of course does not change from place to place—it changes from people to people; it depends on culture, it does not depend on—
[Speaker B] It depends on language. What? It depends on language.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, language is part of it. I don’t know which came first; it probably goes hand in hand somehow. Language both creates it and is created from it. Meaning, language is the perception.
[Speaker B] That’s what he says.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes: “and in its influence on life, which acts within it and is acted upon by it”—from the pattern. Pattern is something that is both created by life and creates life. So it is very hard to create some hierarchical picture here of what is first and what is second. Like we said before—religion. Yes, religion—I do not think that this is a feeling I was born with and the Indian was not born with. It doesn’t sound reasonable to me that we were born with a different conceptual world.
[Speaker B] Which religion?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The concept of religion, the feeling that accompanies the concept of religion. After all, we said earlier that religion… the attitude toward… really the opposite. The feeling is that these aren’t two separate things; they share something in common. What they share is the sense, the feeling that accompanies me when I say the word religion. That feeling accompanies me, and it doesn’t accompany the Indian. Now, I’m not claiming this is innate; it could be acquired. It’s acquired insofar as I grew up at that stage when my impressions were being formed, and I grew up in a language that uses the same word for both this and that. So patterns were built in me that really grasp the common element between these two things. Right? So it is both shaped by life and acts upon life. Obviously my patterns also affect the structure of the language; it works in the other direction too. Meaning, if I myself didn’t create a connection between the two kinds of feelings, maybe someone who feels it intuitively would create that connection, and somehow it would diffuse to the rest of the members of that society. Therefore this is something that is also influenced by culture, both acted upon and acting upon life, upon culture. Now the question is—I think I don’t completely understand what it means, this form that depends on the atmosphere of a certain land, really in the literal sense of a place. Apparently he wanted to say… what?
[Speaker B] He wanted to say the Land of Israel.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But I would associate that more with the pattern as well, and not with the form. It reminds me a bit of our topic in tractate Nedarim. Yes, after all this is… the argument was with you, right? Why is language, unlike other languages except the holy tongue, dependent on place?
[Speaker B] Dependent on place in the sense of a physical place?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, on the place where people speak. Meaning even if there are two people in front of me who do understand what I’m saying, the vow still won’t take effect unless the whole surrounding area here agrees to speak in that pattern. The outer circle that can be defined as having a specific language. Of course you could take it to absurdity and say that if three people inside the house speak this way, then maybe that’s the inner circle. Fine—like all concepts that can’t be defined all the way; philosophically no concept can be defined all the way. Fine, so that’s the idea. So there too, in fact, you see some kind of territorial expression, right? Which of course derives from the fact that a people sits on that land. It’s not just a country; it’s a social expression. But we know that—there are many influences, it’s not something detached. Meaning, a people—the culture of a people—isn’t detached from the place where it grew. Meaning, obviously my world of imagery won’t include the sea if I don’t live by the sea—let’s take the simplest level. The sea won’t be a metaphor for anything if I don’t know that concept, right? The sea suggests something deep, something infinite, vast, and therefore it evokes all kinds of images in us. Someone who doesn’t know the sea—it evokes nothing in him. So maybe his language will look different; he’ll have another expression for that. Maybe for him it will be a forest. A forest is thick like that, deep, infinite, and that’s fine. We don’t know what a forest is; for us, if there are three trees together that’s already an open miracle, so we use the sea. So there is some kind of—here of course I’m speaking on the lowest level, obviously, just the physical structure.
[Speaker B] He makes a point of emphasizing that the vessel very much affects the culture.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And the language.
[Speaker B] No, I think it’s like the model of the Eskimos, who have seven different words for snow—different kinds of snow, bigger snow, lighter snow, more… It’s all a matter of skill.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly the same as how all Indians look the same to us. Meaning all Indians—even, I assume, for most of you when you come to Bnei Brak, they all look the same to you. For me, not anymore; at first it was like that for me too. Meaning that’s just how it is, it’s not… So for someone who lives inside it, it’s just funny; these are simply different worlds—what exactly are you seeing? Every button on the frock coat is different: ah, that’s a whole different world, he studies in that yeshiva and that one belongs to this court. You don’t even notice that there’s an extra button on the frock coat; they added two, not one. Right? So it’s simply a question of what you pay attention to. And when you grow up in a place, the details jump out at you much more; your eye is much sharper. If you’re looking from outside, you’re not aware of the nuances. So the Eskimos have seven concepts for snow, and every snowflake is a different world. Fine? For us, everything here is all the same thing. Yes, but I think this is only an external expression of a deeper thing. And this is stated—and maybe it’s a little hard to feel—but we have received from our rabbis that there really is a special quality in a place. Meaning the Land of Israel is a prime example: it is supposed to be some kind of range more suited to the reception of wisdom. So the claim here is apparently that the form itself changes according to the place where you live. I would just think more that it affects the pattern and not the form—or maybe at least the pattern as well. Somehow it seems to me more connected to influence on spiritual, more abstract things. Form is specifically the relatively lower part, meaning the world of concepts. It affects the world of concepts: gravity, electron, sukkah, lulav.
[Speaker B] In the conceptual realm much more than gravity and so on—what is spirit, what is form, and so on.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So that is influenced by the land.
[Speaker B] It doesn’t have to be influenced by the land.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, fine, it’s hard to discuss, because we don’t have that grasp, so it’s really hard to discuss what differs. But I think that’s his claim—that there is some place here…
[Speaker B] …that has a special quality of wisdom which depends on the special quality of place, and therefore the pattern is something that spreads throughout the whole world. This unique part, in the end, is abstracted from every person and every place in a universal way.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The form is grasped differently in every place. The pattern is grasped differently by every people. Regarding the pattern, it somehow seems quite clear that the pattern is a function of culture, and the form is a function of place.
[Speaker B] But even regarding the form he says there is one specific place—its name circles through the whole discussion—he really is talking about the Land of Israel, and not as if there are other places where it is grasped differently.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “The air of the Land of Israel,” known, “and with a known special quality for its people.” So this is talking only about the Land of Israel.
[Speaker B] And what about that period?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] A function of time. No, no—it’s a function of place and time. We saw that in other places and at other times the Torah is grasped completely differently; there is an evolution of its appearance. That there is in Torah?
[Speaker B] No, it’s not connected to time. In the sense that time passed—it’s a different time—not necessarily attachment to a festival, to some special time.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no—period, yes, in the broad sense of time.
[Speaker B] The 13th century, the 15th century. Fine, that isn’t influenced by time.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Time is just a wheel turning back. Fine, fine. The question whether there is an objecthood of time—that’s a question in the Talmudic passage in Shevuot; that’s where the topic comes from. It’s…
[Speaker B] …something that can’t be explained rationally. There is absolute truth, and there is also another aspect in truth that each person can understand in a somewhat more personal way.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And why is that an objecthood of form and not of pattern? There’s no such thing in pattern?
[Speaker B] In pattern it’s something that changes; everyone sees differently. And form is something that belongs to the collective; it’s not just some fixed form. Even when they tried to explain it in such a way that would be comfortable for the whole public, because they had to explain it in a way that the whole people could understand, that is influenced by the form created by the air of the Land of Israel.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The intention here is the form, not the land, I think. He says here,
[Speaker B] “and a known period.”
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “It is revealed”—who is the subject of the sentence? Who is “it is revealed in a vision in all its glory”? Who is “it”? The form, right? “It is revealed in a vision in all its glory by its messengers in the air of a certain land and in a certain period to its people, when their eyes are lifted toward it.” Could “toward it” mean the Land of Israel? But he isn’t talking here about the Land of Israel. He’s talking about each and every people. He’s not talking about the Land of Israel. The phrase “eyes lifted”…
[Speaker B] …toward it—in the sense of what is being discussed?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That they are looking at it. It’s not something that reveals itself to you automatically; you have to make a certain effort, and then it reveals itself to you. An active method, not a passive one.
[Speaker B] Could it be that he is talking here about models of prophecy? Meaning, some type of form here that can be connected—can be connected—to ideal types of prophecy.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Prophecy is a mode of perception; it’s not some thing. What he calls form here—notice this. “The form appears visible in most of its unique shades in an immediate way.” Form is something that characterizes the object; pattern is something that characterizes the perceiver. That seems clear from him. Form is something that characterizes the object. And that is a function of place—that’s his claim. And pattern is influenced by culture and so on, because it is a function of the receiver. So as we already said, Kant taught us that there is the thing in itself, there is the form as it appears to our eyes, and that is still the world of phenomena that I observe. And there is the perceiver who looks at what he sees in his consciousness. After all, in science, what is the scientific process? The whole Western conception separates me from the world. So even after Kant that separation remains. But that whole separation exists here inside. Meaning, the phenomena I discuss are the appearances of the world inside my head. Those are the phenomena. And who is this one who discusses the phenomena? It’s me, consciousness. Do you understand? Consciousness plays a double role here: it also shapes the phenomena and presents them before the eyes, but it is also the eyes. Meaning there is some kind of double role that consciousness plays here. It’s like the rabbis of the Land of Israel.
[Speaker B] Let’s see, maybe the intention is…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] …in these matters, maybe Sinai means returning territories and so on. It’s exactly the same thing.
[Speaker B] But maybe the intention is the attempt to translate the material into something concrete, into “what does this mean for me?” And elsewhere—“clothing”—elsewhere Rav Kook writes that true law is connected to the Land of Israel and so on. Which is basically what the Sages have: to translate the ideals.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Not only in the Land of Israel. There are courts in every district in Maimonides, in the Land of Israel and outside the land. But courts in general exist outside the land too.
[Speaker B] Right, fine, I remember, it’s written…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There in terms of degree. Meaning, there are courts in every city and every district and every tribe. But one of the stages is missing outside the land, if I remember correctly.
[Speaker B] Yes, in Maimonides there’s something like that. So he writes that only in the land is there the power of the Sages, as it were, to translate form—to translate the ideas into “what does this mean” on the practical level, how to translate the ideal into halakhic ruling. And that could be form? Maybe.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I don’t know.
[Speaker B] But the concept of form is translation, yes, also a conceptual world.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Meaning, the whole Torah is full of conceptual matters: sukkah, lulav, Sabbath, purity, sacrifice, burnt offering. All these things are theoretical entities, that is, conceptual forms through which we grasp the world, basically. We’ll see this later; he comes back to it. It may be that this collection of concepts, this form, is unique to the Land of Israel, even though it was given in the wilderness.
[Speaker B] He tries—he says “in an immediate way in place and time,” and then he specifies: the place is this, the place is this, the time is this, human beings.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Why does he use that kind of language? It’s unclear. Why doesn’t he just say it? No, fine, not language—this just seems like a declaration; it doesn’t add any other understanding for me. Just say the Land of Israel. What is all this…
[Speaker B] No, no—a certain period for human beings.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What is “a certain period for human beings”?
[Speaker B] A period…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] …known, “in the air of a certain land and in a certain period for human beings.” Meaning it is revealed—that continues the phrase “is revealed.”
[Speaker B] What does “for human beings” mean? Huh? Family? Form? Yes,
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] that the form—the form belongs to the inhabitants of that place.
[Speaker B] Why suddenly “for human beings”?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, but that same people who now lives in that place has the form of that place. So I don’t know, I’m a little… From his description it’s clear to me, only regarding the pattern he brings in lifestyle and mode of thinking and everything. So somehow it’s pretty clear to me that when he speaks about pattern, he’s speaking about something close at least to what we were trying to say, I think. Meaning something that really is somehow connected to an inner structure. He also says that the form—wait, I think this is… the form can be influenced by other peoples, but the pattern cannot.
[Speaker B] That’s point five.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He wrote that in point five?
[Speaker B] At the end, about the unique relation between a people and its form and its pattern.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Ah, right, so that’s another point. I think this is a bit—we probably should also have read that, I’m just speaking in light of it too. Meaning, form is something that is influenced by other peoples, and pattern is not. Therefore I think what I said is correct. Meaning, if they want to teach me gravity, no problem at all—a Belgian, an Indian, or a Chinese person can come teach me the laws of gravity and physics and biology or whatever, and everything is fine. Meaning, this world of concepts is transferable from place to place. The whole world of concepts. But that same feeling that accompanies me when I use the concepts—that is a function of the culture within which I live. That is very hard to transfer and influence from place to place. It is something more internal to that people within which it exists. So I think that also somewhat points in that direction. I don’t know.
[Speaker B] And then he really says, “emanated in justice and in all its glory.” So what is he trying to say? He’s trying to say that there is, as it were, some place or some time where it is revealed in all its glory. Meaning he describes it in an immediate way. Meaning it’s not always the form of…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It’s simply the thing itself, therefore the form characterizes the thing, the phenomenon. The phenomenon exists in all its glory; it no longer depends on anything—that is the phenomenon. It is the phenomenon. Now the question is what it says to me when I understand it. When I say—the phenomenon itself, that the stone falls, the phenomenon of gravity—that is something that exists, it is completely clear to everyone, everyone understands it. It is unequivocal. The question is what the concept says to me—that is a function of my culture, of how I understand. I just don’t know.
[Speaker B] So what are those paths? Huh?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What are the paths? Those that lead the material and turn it into form, that is, translate it into form. These are metaphorical expressions. “The Torah has seventy facets corresponding to the seventy languages of the nations of the world,” which are processed into form and pattern as distinct particularities. So the bottom line is that every people has both form and pattern. And that ties in to what you noted earlier. I think only in the case of form does it pass through the fact that the people lives in some place, whereas in pattern it is a function of the people, which is not connected to where it lives. It is something the people can take along too.
[Speaker B] So maybe that people developed with this form. Huh? And maybe even with a deficient form? Huh? From what we saw earlier, it seems that all entities have their…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] …their form, but there can be a deficient form. A form not… there’s no such word here that—that’s it, there’s no pessimism in it. It’s a word from which one can also learn other concepts. Why not? It is what it is. That’s why he says “deficient.” But deficient isn’t empty. Deficient means there are shortcomings; we spoke about this last time. There are points that need to be drawn from the surroundings. There are correct points, there are points. He says, “The Torah has seventy facets corresponding to the seventy languages of the nations of the world.” Just as an aside, does any of you know whether the holy tongue is one of the seventy? No, it seems to me…
[Speaker B] …I think it says in the midrash there…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What? That Pharaoh knew seventy languages, and the holy tongue he didn’t know—apparently the holy tongue is something separate. So that’s a point I wondered about, because if there are seventy facets to the Torah, there should be seventy-one facets to the Torah, no? No,
[Speaker B] the holy tongue is the inner core. What do you mean? The holy tongue is the thing itself; it isn’t the language of the Torah.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Ah, that’s clear. I thought so too, but I didn’t remember a proof. Why? Because it’s clear that the seventy facets of the Torah are seventy forms, each of which is partial in some sense; therefore the external forms are deficient. And the thing itself—the holy tongue—is the thing itself; it is simply the totality of them all. The totality of them all, not as a superficial combination but as a fusion of them all; all of them together are more than one plus one plus one up to seventy. We saw something similar in the Maharal—those of you who were there—he spoke about the seventy souls who went down to Egypt. The Maharal speaks about the meaning of the concept seventy; we discussed that there already. We said that seventy is on the way to becoming a people: it is no longer individuals, but it is also not yet a people; it is a multitude. So we said that seventy is the division of the one into seventy sectors, each one separate from the others. And six hundred thousand is always the state in which the people of Israel is already called a people—six hundred thousand. So six hundred thousand is a state in which each person already represents some different blend of those seventy sectors. Let’s say this one has ten percent of the first, two percent of the second—very crudely speaking. But some collection of the whole Torah, all seventy facets. Another person has a different collection of weights. You can create infinitely many of these—apparently not infinitely many but six hundred thousand. There are six hundred thousand meaningful forms. But these are already mixtures in which each one is connected to the others. These are no longer horizontal sectors, do you understand? The seventy sectors each stand on their own. You can see that this is the understanding in the Maharal and in several places. The seventy sectors each stand on their own. Six hundred thousand is already a mixture—meaning each one is connected to all the others, because in each one there is something of this, something of this, something of this. Therefore no one represents just one facet alone, but each one represents something unique, because the composition of all the forces in him is something unique. And that is called a people. Until they reached that stage, they weren’t called a people. It means no longer individuals. Because individuals—each one is one that includes everything; that is called an individual. Abraham was an individual, Isaac, Jacob—each of them was an individual. When they break apart into sectors, they break into seventy. Everything apparently has seventy basic facets. That’s how there are seventy facets to the Torah, seventy nations each responsible for one facet in Torah, seventy basic languages each belonging to a nation, and so on. The seventy basic aspects, each standing on its own—the seventy coordinates, let’s call it, or something like that. The seventy basic aspects, each standing on its own. And after that there are different mixtures; that is, cultures can develop that are mixed-up, meaning a bit of this and a bit of this and a bit of this, and that creates a unique culture different from all the other six hundred thousand. The same thing also in spiritual connections, not only in culture. So the holy tongue really is not one of the sectors; it is the one that broke into seventy. It is not number seventy-one; it is the one that broke into seventy. And that reminds me a little—what else is seventy? Seventy elders, right? That’s what it always reminds me of. Also regarding the seventy elders there is a dispute among the tannaim whether the distinguished one who stands over them is included among the seventy or outside the seventy.
[Speaker B] “Gather for Me seventy men from the elders of Israel,” and Moses stands over them.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So the Talmud says there—that is the dispute among the tannaim whether the distinguished one is one of the seventy or stands over them, as you say. The concept of standing over them basically means that he is equivalent to all of them, meaning he is the one of whom they are the elaboration. Moses our Rabbi—certainly that is the case. Up to that point Moses our Rabbi was everything; he was the one. His first division is a division into seventy, and after that it branches out and intertwines. So “the Torah has seventy facets corresponding to the seventy languages of the nations of the world”—these are the seventy different facets. The seventy facets of the Torah, of the holy tongue of the Torah—that is not the seventy-first facet; it is the facet that includes everything, meaning the seventy are sectors within it. Deficient—what is deficiency? It’s also with the moon; an eclipse is a lack. So it isn’t full. What is there is correct, but it isn’t everything. Everything is simply everything together. There is a big practical implication regarding what we are always doing. And maybe before that: this is not pluralism, what we are saying now. Pluralism means there are two truths. There are not two truths; there is only one. Whenever there seem to be two truths and both are right, that is a sign that each is only half a truth. This is not pluralism, just a different approach without pluralism. Fine? So also when we study analytically, we study different approaches. This one says this, that one says something else. Very often the puzzlement arises—especially in light of what I’m always preaching to you—that one must build some world-picture out of the learning and try to sharpen our tools to know what to reject and what to draw close. But if we are basically agreeing with everything, then what? What exactly did we reject? Everything is possible. There is this possibility, and this one, and this one, and this one. The answer is that the correct possibility is the one that is built from learning all of them. The fact that all of them are correct is because this really is not a real argument. Each one represents something from the truth. Now of course on the halakhic plane, if Maimonides is right then Jewish law is such-and-such, and if Rashba is right then Jewish law is such-and-such. But the whole halakhic argument is created—and we’ll see this in the next sections—in order to build a world-picture. And in the world-picture there is no longer “he is right” or “he is right.” In the world-picture, this is a chair here and that is a chair there. Therefore Jewish law is a means; the goal is the world-picture. And in the world-picture specifically, one needs to know what Rashba said and what Maimonides said, and clarify well what each one did say and did not say. That is how we clarify each of the seventy facets. After we have clarified very well each of the seventy facets, we take them all together and see what comes out.
[Speaker B] But that’s not halakhic ruling. Halakhic ruling—no, right?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What is the meaning of halakhic ruling? There are various reasons here so that the Torah should not become like two Torahs on the practical plane.
[Speaker B] Do you want to join us?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Well, these are ancient disputes. I think not, but these are already ancient disputes. So this view—of this and this and this—is basically absorbing different facets, each separately, and one should not be alarmed that if so then we really rejected nothing. After all, the whole process of self-construction is to reject incorrect things, because then I’ve sanded down some corner that I previously had—meaning there was something I thought incorrectly, and now I removed it. That’s how you build. But if I remove nothing, if I grasp all of them—this is true and this is true and this is true—then I built nothing; I come out as I went in. So what’s the point? So first of all that’s not true, of course, because each one we do indeed build properly and reject… Within Maimonides himself we carefully clarify the reasoning—what goes with it and what doesn’t. We do reject many things within that too; and within Rashba as well we reject many things. But still there are two central directions. Okay, those two directions, when one understands both of them, create some new understanding, different from them, which is not the sum of the two; it is a fusion of the two. What time is it? Seven twenty-six. Good. Let’s do one more quick thing here before everything else. “Jewish religious philosophy is influenced by general philosophy in its form but not in its pattern. Although over time changes occurred in it, its distinctive pattern remained throughout all its periods, in its continuity and proximity to previous generations and in its continuation from its first source. For Jewish philosophy has a unique continuity,” in the words of the author of The History of Jewish Philosophy. There are several hints here, perhaps to the difference between form and pattern—hints that perhaps I made some use of earlier; I’m not sure I used them correctly, maybe I exaggerated—but we are influenced in form and not influenced in pattern. So perhaps this is a hint as to the difference between form and pattern. Let’s try to think: in what are we influenced, and in what are we not influenced? I simply assumed this before and presented what I presented. Meaning, we are influenced in the world of concepts, right? Meaning, Maimonides drew many concepts from Aristotle, all kinds of things—and not only he, meaning many of us draw concepts from all kinds of places. We are influenced in all sorts of sign-combinations, all kinds of strange and different things that enter and penetrate inward. But in what are we not influenced? That is the question. One could suggest some technical division. There is a collection of terms that is certainly unique only to us, and it too is not influenced: lulav, etrog, sukkah, tsara’at as we said earlier, sacrifices maybe not, but all kinds of things that are unique. So maybe that’s what you always meant. I don’t think so, because it doesn’t sound to me essentially different from other things. Meaning, okay, so there are concepts that came from us and concepts that are not ours. So what? Why is this form and that pattern? Form and pattern—one sees this and listens to that, yes? Meaning we are influenced in seeing and not influenced in hearing. And the reason for this, I think, is that what is seeing? We said: Greek logic, mathematical logic. That is exactly the logic that influences. Right? Meaning, when I say “I prove something to you,” I can influence you. Meaning, when I prove to you that there is gravity or I prove something to you, I can influence you. But understanding what the concept of gravity means depends on my cultural world, on how I live, what I live. And in that it is very hard to influence. Here there is some inner rhythm of Israel that is very hard to penetrate. So therefore I thought perhaps pattern is the uninfluenced inner thing, this inner culture, and the influenced thing is what is called form, somehow the concepts we absorb from the surroundings.
[Speaker B] A point that can persuade someone. Right?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] You can bring someone into contact with it—that’s it. You can persuade someone who is a member of our culture regarding something auditory.
[Speaker B] But that is to bring him into contact with…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] …it, yes yes, not persuade as proof, obviously. But if it were impossible to persuade someone regarding something auditory, we could close down this institution, because one of our goals is indeed to try to bring one another into contact with our auditory feelings. But that really depends on living in the same world. We’ll soon see that this is exactly what the entire observance of the commandments is for. The whole observance of the commandments—the whole seemingly rigid system that obligates all of us somehow to the same norms—is meant to create those shared patterns within whose framework we can speak. And truly, if someone does not live this thing, it won’t help. Now you’ll say, but there is a Greek who converts, so how can such things be transmitted to him? He converts, so he observes all the commandments, and therefore acceptance of the commandments is very important. Meaning, through that he becomes a Jew, because then one can begin talking with him. It’s not that you persuade him before he converts, and now he’s persuaded, and now he starts observing the commandments—it goes…
[Speaker B] …the other way around.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He observes the commandments…
[Speaker B] …and basically the commandments—isn’t that conversion? No, what? Basically the commandments—isn’t it not the actual acts?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The commandments aren’t the actual acts? That’s the point. Observance of commandments—observance of commandments, but not in an intellectual sense. Observance of commandments literally, like a servant. Meaning, to feel that you are obligated in this, to look in the Shulchan Arukh and the Mishnah Berurah to see what you need to do, to feel part of this whole business, to go with us in the same inner rhythm. Then one can begin talking with you, because then you are already on that level. You are no longer a Greek. Right, you used to be Greek, but that isn’t called Israel influencing Greece; rather, part of Greece is now simply called Israel. It’s not that Greece changed because Israel influenced it, or vice versa. Fine? Meaning, you cannot transmit this to someone who doesn’t live it. If he lives it, then he is already you, so then you can’t influence him. Therefore pattern cannot be transmitted; pattern cannot influence or be influenced. Maybe I’ll give you an example that also connects to the next paragraph and will also connect to what follows. No, I’ll leave that for the next paragraph. I’ll leave it—we’ll stop here. What I said was simply a basic point about the concepts that… A, I also had my own personal uncertainty here, but these are somewhat subtle concepts, and I hope we’re not wasting our time. Meaning, this sounds okay to you, not… It wasn’t a waste of time today, I hope. We just didn’t make progress, but I feel these are concepts that somehow one has to try to give a feeling for. I don’t know how to describe them on the board, so one has to convey them in various ways through various attempts to convey feelings. I hope we are members of the same culture, so we can.
[Speaker B] Does the Rabbi feel that there is… I don’t know how to explain it—that there is really something, on a deeper level beyond the more superficial levels of language and things like that, in terms of the effect of observing the commandments on an auditory language?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Correct, we’ll talk about that in the next sections. “Study is greater, for it leads to action,” right? That is the well-known paradoxical statement.