Q&A: On the Unity of the Divine Name
On the Unity of the Divine Name
Question
In Da’at Tevunot, the Ramchal divides God’s modes of governance into two main categories: unity and judgment. It seems that the Tetragrammaton corresponds to unity, and the name Elohim corresponds to judgment (though I’m not sure I understood that correctly). But when we intend by the name Elohim, “mighty, possessing ability, and master of all powers,” that seems to imply unity—that He is unlimited and has exclusive rule over everything. So I don’t really understand how the name Elohim can be identified with judgment and not with unity.
In addition, is the claim correct that the Ramchal was the one who merited to reveal the subject of “the revelation of unity” more than anyone else, in a way that the Ari did not? Someone told me that the Ari wrote about it a bit, but specifically the Ramchal was the one who revealed this topic broadly and significantly in the world.
Answer
I think that judgment is strict justice, and unity is kindness. The difference between kindness and strict justice requires a lengthy discussion, and this is not the place. Briefly, I would say that strict justice is conduct according to rules and by force, a separation between one thing and another. Kindness, by contrast, is conduct that goes beyond the rules (just as kindness is giving money that one is not obligated to give according to the law). Judgment separates between what is permitted and what is forbidden according to the rules of the law. Unity unifies everything into one great organism of which God is the soul. The unity of God means that He has no parts and that He is one.
As for the second question: I don’t know. But I treat that kind of slogan with skepticism.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
I would be glad if you could explain and simplify this point for me a bit, since to this day it is still completely unclear to me—what does it mean that God is one and has no parts?
I never understood that. I understand that He rules, but what does it mean that He is one? In my humble opinion, according to most approaches in Kabbalah (as much as I tried to check), the physical world—even according to those who say that tzimtzum is not to be understood literally—is not part of God, but rather a separate creation ex nihilo. So what does that mean?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I also think that this claim is very vague. I only tried to explain the Ramchal’s intention and the accepted use of this terminology. In general, the statement that something is one and not two is context-dependent. For example, a nation is considered one thing, but others will say that it is a collection of thousands of people. A human body is considered one thing, but some will say that it is a collection of molecules, or cells, or elementary particles (depending on the resolution). Since we are not standing before the Holy One, blessed be He, and observing Him, it is hard to define the meaning of the statement that He is uniform and undivided. I am not sure that this is completely meaningless (although it certainly could be), but the discussion about it seems to me quite unnecessary and irrelevant.
I did not understand your comment that the world is separate from the Holy One, blessed be He. I completely agree with that (although those who maintain that tzimtzum is not to be understood literally—words that of course are devoid of meaning—do not agree with it), but why is that relevant to the discussion of His unity?
The Lord is one and His name is one means that there is no partnership with Him whatsoever.
How could He be divided if He is not physical and not material, and has no form and no body?
Rather, He is one—spiritual, pure, refined, whole, and one.