Answer

You don’t understand what the laws of logic are. The borrowed use of the term “law” confuses many people. Laws of nature are laws that someone legislated. Their force does not come from themselves, and therefore it cannot be that God is subject to them, because then it would follow that He is subject to that legislator. But the laws of logic are not “laws” in that sense. No one legislated them. They are necessary in and of themselves. Therefore God too is “subject” to them. And that is because being subject to the laws of logic is not really subjection. God cannot make a square triangle because there is no such thing as a square triangle. An omnipotent being can do anything that can be done or imagined. But He cannot do something that is undefined and nonexistent. That is not a limitation on His omnipotence. Just as He cannot make a wall that stops every shell and a shell that penetrates every wall at the same time. That is not a deficiency in Him, because a deficiency is only the inability to do something that could in theory be done.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner (another one):
Hello!
Through your wonderful website I heard a lecture in which you explained, clearly and intelligently, the words of the Rashba, who argues that God is above the laws of physics but below logic, and therefore one cannot think (or mutter) that God would create a circle that is simultaneously a triangle.
Now I found what was written about this in the attached file (p. 53).
I’d be glad to hear your opinion/response to what they wrote there in the name of the Rashba and in the name of the Derashot HaRan (there in note 11)—do you think there really were medieval authorities who held this? If so, do you think it is simply a mistake?
I’d also be glad to know whether you wrote about this in one of your books or in some article.
I’ll take the opportunity to say thank you very much for the wonderful site!
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Thanks for your comments.
I skimmed quickly through what you sent. It seems to me that the author is mixing up concepts. The Rashba is simply copying what Maimonides says in the Guide, and both of them hold that God is subject to the laws of logic but not to the laws of nature. (He brings there a distinction between things impossible in themselves and things impossible only from our perspective, but I think that’s what he means.) This is typical Chabad pilpul: either I don’t understand it, or he himself didn’t really understand it either. His conclusion at the end is that God is omnipotent, and anyone who denies this is like someone denying established Jewish law—which is itself nonsense, of course. But does omnipotence also mean power over logic? He himself wrote above that apparently it does not. So I didn’t understand what he meant.
In any case, anyone who holds that God is not subject to the laws of logic—if there is anyone like that—is simply mistaken. At the end of my book Two Carts I wrote about this. The source of the discussion is in an unpublished article, here.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Thank you.
 
But what about his “proofs” from other responsa of the Rashba in which it is “proven” that the Rashba actually holds that “omnipotent” means the ability to break the laws of logic? How do you deal with those things? Or did his “proofs” simply not convince you at all?
 
(More generally, as I understood it, you apparently think that it doesn’t really matter exactly what the Rashba held—because either way, belief in “omnipotence” above logic is absurd. Still, I’d be interested to hear whether you reconcile the Rashba’s other responsa (or the Ran’s words) which, according to him, prove that omnipotence includes power over logic, or whether that just doesn’t interest you.)
 
I saw various announcements that you’re publishing a new book. Is that actually true? If so, roughly when is it expected to come out?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I didn’t get into the details, but it is clear that even if the Rashba says this, it cannot be correct. Still, in every case one has to examine whether we are really dealing with logic or with physics, and the boundary is not so simple. For example, the statement that “the Ark did not take up space” is seemingly a deviation from the laws of physics (because it deals with the world), but it contradicts the laws of geometry, which is part of mathematics. Since this is about the world, in my opinion this is not a deviation from logic, because one could cause us to measure things differently, or “bend” space, and the like. That is not necessarily—and also cannot be—a deviation from mathematics.
I really am working on a new trilogy that will try to present a comprehensive and systematic theological picture, and above all a “lean” one—that is, without unfounded and implausible additions. I don’t know when and how it will come out. The first book is supposed to contain five notebooks that appear on the site, and it deals with philosophy (proofs for the existence of God and the basis for religious obligation). The second will deal with Jewish thought, and the third with Jewish law.
All the best and thanks,
Michi
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
I’ll just note that I saw one Hasidic rebbe (I think from Chabad) who wrote in disagreement with the author of Sefer Ha-Ikkarim, who held that God is below the laws of logic—as you say. According to that rebbe, God is above the laws of logic.
 
And this is because, in his view, our very capacity for speech and thought within logic—or more precisely, logic itself—is a kind of creation. That is, we creatures indeed have the limitation that we cannot think outside logic (and so it would be nonsense, like some of the empty pilpulim of Rabbi Shagar and the like), but we assume for various reasons (and because He is absolutely unique, and if we said He were not above logic then He would not really be unique, since besides Him there would also be laws of logic over which He has no control) that God is absolutely primordial, and that the law of non-contradiction and the like were themselves created by Him. In other words, the moment He created intellect, He thereby created logic. But He Himself is above these laws. It’s just that, as stated, we have no idea how it could be possible for two logically opposite things to be true simultaneously in Him.
And that rebbe’s proof was from the Talmudic statement that the Ark did not take up space.
 
[By the way, that same rebbe also answered the famous question, “Can God create a stone that He cannot lift?” And he answered that God as grasped by our intellect—meaning, at the level of wisdom in Kabbalah, that is, within logic—cannot, because at every moment He can cancel the limitation, so it turns out He was never actually limited. (And the meaning of “omnipotent” is that He can do everything that can be done; breaking logic for us is impossible.) But God as He is in Himself—I know that He can do it, but I do not understand what that means. In other words, since I know that God is absolutely without definition—not even logic—therefore I know that He can be yes and no, and not and yes, simultaneously. It’s just that for us, in our intellect, such statements are devoid of sense and meaning—but I still know that He Himself is beyond that.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Logic is not a creation, because even that very statement itself is made within the logical framework. This discussion cannot be carried out. Logic is not a thing, and therefore there is nothing to discuss as to whether there is something else besides it. As I wrote in the notebooks (I don’t remember where at the moment), there is a confusion here between the laws of logic and the laws of physics. The laws of logic are not laws in the ordinary sense. They were not legislated and could not have been otherwise, unlike the laws of physics.
In my opinion, this kind of talk stems from conceptual confusion, very common in Hasidic writings (this will be dealt with somewhat in the second book of my trilogy). These are just empty words, in my opinion. He doesn’t know what it means, but he knows it anyway. That is empty nonsense.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
But that’s exactly the dispute, and I didn’t really understand where your proof is.
 
You argue that the laws of logic were never legislated (rather, they are true in themselves, by their very essence). That rebbe argues that they were legislated (except that we have no ability to understand what was before that—somewhat similar, though not exactly, to the concept of time).
 
Indeed, the proofs that the laws of logic themselves were created—those proofs themselves are produced by our intellect (as with all discussions in epistemology about the structure of our intellect), and therefore the intellect really says that with respect to God Himself (His very essence, in the language of Kabbalah), we have no grasp at all. It may be both yes and no at the same time. It may be not, and it may be that this is true and that is also true—the law of non-contradiction is true because God decided so.
 
How exactly can disputes of this kind be decided? Can you refer me to an explanation of this?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I don’t know of any orderly treatment of this topic, and not by accident. There cannot be such a treatment. I can also say that clouds are birds, or alternatively that clouds are both blue and triangular and round as well (and for extra piety I can add that I myself don’t understand what this means, but I believe it), and now go look for someone to refute it. How can one even deal with something like that, which claims nothing at all? If you show him that his words are contradictory or meaningless, he’ll tell you: correct, but that’s fine even though it’s contradictory or meaningless. So what sort of treatment/decision are you looking for? With logical tools? Or perhaps prophetic tools? After all, even if prophecy told him it isn’t true, he would say: I know, but I believe it anyway. Without logic there is no meaning, no analysis, and no claims or arguments.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
On that you are certainly completely right. But in Hasidism it is explained (and I am not at all an expert in the subject) that because of various logical considerations, it is impossible to say that He is below logic, since that conclusion itself creates many strong paradoxes that are far more disturbing than saying that He is above the laws of logic—a statement that has no sense or intelligibility in our intellect, but is not a logical paradox.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
That statement is seemingly a paradox, since it says something outside logic (which is a condition for speech and thought). But beyond all that, it is simply meaningless, and as such it is indeed not paradoxical but merely says nothing at all. The statement “blah blah blah blah” is also not paradoxical—would you expect some answer or serious discussion of it?
By the way, there is no such thing as logical considerations that teach that He is not under logic. These are just empty words.