If I understand the Rabbi correctly, does that mean that if I know intellectually that God exists, that means I believe in God?

Yes.

Who is “staff”? Did Rabbi Michael Abraham answer the questions?

Where does it say “staff”? If it does, it’s probably me. But here I don’t see a username like that.

I’m writing a long comment here because I heard the Rabbi say some very harsh things: that faith is not certainty, and that one should stop explaining it that way, because it breaks people, who later discover that they have doubts. In my humble opinion, those people simply did not know what faith is, and that is why they are broken. But that does not mean that faith itself is doubtful.

First I’ll address the Rabbi’s answers.

1. If faith is a synonym for knowledge and has no independent meaning, then why multiply unnecessary words in the Torah and the Prophets? And in general, are there unnecessary words in the Torah that are merely synonymous? The word knowledge appears in the Torah in various forms, and the word faith appears at other times. Does the Torah mean the same thing, and only for literary beauty does it change the wording?! The simple understanding is that every word has a root and a deep meaning in the Torah, and is not merely a synonym (as many medieval authorities and later authorities did, elaborating and explaining the meanings of words), and certainly not a word as significant as this one, around which man’s whole purpose in the world revolves, about which so many books have been written and so much has been said—is it really just a synonym for knowledge?!

2. The root of the word faith is from the word amen (which we answer after a blessing)—the letter tav does not appear in the word faith, so it is not from the word truth. And amen means to affirm something. The question is: affirm what?

One could also say that it is from the root of the word craftsman or artist, and one has to understand the connection between faith and artistry.

3. Many verses are not understood at all in light of this explanation: “But the righteous shall live by his faith”—does that mean by his intellectual items of knowledge?

“And his hands were faith”—did his hands intellectually know that there is a God?

First of all, who compares to our teacher Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook, who encompassed the entire Torah, both revealed and hidden, with all his knowledge and phenomenal holiness, and who expanded so much on the matter of faith, with so many modes and angles of explanation in order to come close to understanding what faith is at all and how to identify it in our souls? The discussion is lengthy (The Lights of Faith, Attributes of Re’iyah: Faith, Essays of Re’iyah, Eight Notebooks, the beginning of The Ethics of Your Father, and more), but according to his words it is certainly clear that faith is not in the intellect but rather an intrinsic power in the human soul, which definitely gives a person certainty—just as it is certain to me that I am alive, and I need no proofs for that, not because of my intellectual knowledge on the subject, but because of this “power” called faith in the human soul, which is greater than the intellectual faculty that needs proofs.

And here is a bit from his words:

“Faith is neither intellect nor feeling, but the most fundamental self-revelation of the essence of the soul, which must guide it according to its character. And when its natural path is not corrupted, it needs no other content to support it, for it finds everything within itself. When its light weakens, then intellect and feeling come to clear a path before it. And even then it must know its own worth: that its servants—intellect and feeling—are not its essence. And when it is established firmly in its stronghold, then intellect and feeling will succeed in clearing the path and in producing the intellectual and moral means that remove the obstacles from its way…”

In answer to point 2 above: faith comes from the root artist/craftsman, meaning that the Artist is the Holy One, blessed be He, and we are His artwork. Just as an artist impresses something of his soul into the work, and we can identify something conveyed to us from the artist’s soul through his creation, so too we are the creation of the Holy One, blessed be He, and in us there is, Supposedly, something of Him imprinted. This is the essence of our life—“one who blows, blows from within himself”—and this part is the certainty within us about Him, the Artist, the Creator. It is the bond between us—the very life within us, which is the connection between the creation and its Creator.

In addition, it also comes from the root amen—which means to affirm—because by the very fact that we are alive, and our life is from Him, we affirm the Artist of the creation, because there is life here that stems from the source of life and verifies Him and testifies to Him. Therefore life itself is faith, long before our intellect and our knowledge, for the intellect is only one of the powers of the soul, which is that very life connected to its Creator.

From some of what can be brought from the words of the medieval and later authorities to strengthen these explanations—for example (at times I added a question showing why it does not fit with the explanation of intellectual knowledge):

Saadia Gaon, Beliefs and Opinions—why does he call his book by two synonymous words? Wouldn’t it be enough to say Beliefs or Opinions?

And what does he mean in the following words:

“When I came to understand these foundations and the evil of their consequences, my heart trembled for the various kinds of the human species, and my soul moaned for our nation, the children of Israel, from what I saw in this time of mine: that many of the believers do not possess pure faith, and their opinions are incorrect.”

There seems to be a clear distinction here: there is faith without correct knowledge, and it is still called faith, just not pure faith.

And nothing is clearer than his following words:

“The Creator spared us all these labors swiftly, and sent us His messengers and told us by way of report, and showed us signs and wonders with our own eyes in which no doubt was mixed… and we became obligated to believe in His Torah on the basis of what our eyes saw and our ears heard. And if it takes time for the investigator among us until his investigation is completed, he should not be concerned by this… for all human beings are equal in sensory knowledge, praised be the wise Guide. Therefore you see that in many places the Torah addresses women, children, and fathers together in recalling the signs and wonders” (Beliefs and Opinions, near the end of the introduction).

Note: faith that is not built on analysis and yet is certain as a result of our seeing and hearing.

Rabbi Joseph Albo, Book of Principles:

“Faith in a thing is the formation of that thing in the soul as a strong image.”

Note: why doesn’t he say knowledge? Why “a strong mental image”? What is he trying to say?

Book of Principles, first essay, chapter 18:

“Therefore you find that God said to Moses at the time of the giving of the Torah: ‘Behold, I come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you, and they will also believe in you forever’ (Exodus 19). That is, I want to verify for them the very existence of prophecy as an essential verification, and also to verify for them that you are My messenger to give the Torah through you. This would be because they themselves would attain the level of prophecy, and thereby the very existence of prophecy would be verified to them; and also because they would hear Me speaking with you when I wish to give Torah through you. This is an essential verification of prophecy and of the mission of the messenger. Therefore, after that exalted event, it is impossible that any doubt or suspicion of forgery should remain, since at that event two things were verified for them that are necessary in order to verify the existence of Torah from Heaven: one, the existence of prophecy, for they were all prophets at that hour and heard the voice of the Lord God saying to them the Ten Commandments; and second, that they heard the voice saying to Moses, ‘Go say to them: Return to your tents; but you, stand here with Me, and I will speak to you all the commandment and the statutes and the ordinances that you shall teach them, and they shall do them in the land…’ (Deuteronomy 5). In this way it was essentially verified for them that Moses was the messenger through whom a lasting Torah for generations was to be given.”

Note: according to his words, faith comes by way of prophetic power, which verifies the thing, and not from intellectual proofs, which are doubtful proofs, but rather from certain proof like the proof of prophecy.

Maimonides, Laws of the Foundations of the Torah:

“The Israelites did not believe in Moses our teacher because of the signs he performed, for one who believes on the basis of signs has a defect in his heart, since it is possible that the sign was performed by magic or sorcery… And through what did they believe in him? Through the revelation at Mount Sinai, where our eyes saw and not another’s, and our ears heard and not another’s—the fire, the voices, and the torches—and he approached the thick darkness, and the voice spoke to him, and we heard: ‘Moses, Moses, go tell them such and such…’ For before this event they did not believe in him with a faith that would endure forever, but only with a faith after which there remains doubt and thought.”

And Rabbi Judah Halevi, who many times Repeats this in the Kuzari and builds for us a foundation that faith is sight—like eyesight—and not intellectual proof.

The Kuzari, first essay, sections 1–30:

“I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who brought the children of Israel out of Egypt with signs and wonders, sustained them in the wilderness, and gave them the land of Canaan after bringing them across the sea and the Jordan with many miracles, and who sent them Moses with His Torah, and after him thousands of prophets, all of whom called people to his Torah, promising good reward for the one who keeps it and punishment for the one who transgresses it. We believe in everything written in this Torah, and the matter is lengthy.”

(12) The Khazar said: “It was not for nothing that I had first decided not to ask the Jews what they believe, because the chain of tradition among them has long since been cut, and their wisdom diminished, for their poverty has left them no good quality. And shouldn’t you, Jew, have said that you believe in the Creator of the world, its arranger and governor, He who created you and provides your sustenance, and the like of these divine attributes, in which every follower of a religion believes, and because of which he aspires to truth and justice, wishing to resemble the Creator in His wisdom and justice?”

(13) The Companion said: “What you say is correct regarding a religion founded on logic and aimed at the governance of a state—a religion that indeed arises from speculation. But many doubts fall upon it. And if you ask the philosophers about it, you will not find them agreeing on a single action or a single opinion, because such a religion is built on arguments, only some of which the philosophers can prove demonstratively, while for others one can only bring merely sufficient evidence, and for the rest one cannot bring even adequate evidence, much less proof.”

According to the Kuzari, one should not build religion on intellectual proofs, but on sight—like eyesight—of faith, which needs no intellectual proof after it.

(14) The Khazar said: “I see that what you say, Jew, is more acceptable to reason than your opening words, and I now wish to continue listening to you.”

(15) The Companion said: “Yet my opening statement itself is the proof—and more than that, the evidence—like eyesight—after which there is no need of either evidence or proof.”

Summary: according to Rabbi Judah Halevi, a person has the capacity for a faith-sight that is above proofs and intellectual evidence.

And likewise later on:

The Kuzari, fourth essay, sections 1–31:

“For this inquiry that we find in Sefer Yetzirah was Abraham our father’s inquiry, at a time when God’s unity and lordship had already become clear to him, though he had not yet merited revelation. But after he merited revelation, he abandoned all syllogisms, and asked of the Divine only to be pleasing to Him, after God had taught him what that good pleasure was, how it could be attained, and in what place. The sages have already expounded on the verse ‘And He took him outside’—‘Go out from your astrology,’ meaning: abandon the wisdom of the stars and all doubtful natural wisdom. And Plato too tells of a prophet in the generation of Marinus who said, by way of a vision from God, to a philosopher who had labored greatly to attain divine revelation through philosophical inquiry: ‘Not by this path will you reach Me, but rather through those whom I have placed as intermediaries between Me and My chosen creatures’—that is, the prophets and the laws of truth.”

The Kuzari, fifth essay, sections 1–28:

“Our belief in the truth of these opinions is not clarified through study, for if that were so we would need an infinite chain of studies. Rather, there is in the rational soul an activity, an emanation of the Divine that cleaves to it. Were this emanation not to include a universal intellectual form, it could not imprint it upon the rational soul. But anything whose essence includes a universal intellectual form is a non-corporeal substance. Hence this emanation is an intellectual substance not in a body, but existing in its own intellectual essence. The soul’s picturing the forms to itself is a perfection for the soul, but it reaches this perfection only when it cleaves to that intellectual substance.”

A further explanation of what that faith-sight is: that connection in the soul to the divine emanation, to the universal intellect, which unlike all intellectual knowledge is certain—like the certainty of prophecy revealed to a prophet.

Maharal, Path of Faith, chapter 2:

“Habakkuk came and based them on one [principle], as it is said: ‘But the righteous shall live by his faith.’ The matter is this: the essence of the believer is that he gives himself over to Him, blessed be He, and trusts in Him, and does not depart at all from God, blessed be He, in any direction. For this is the matter of faith: that one cleaves completely to Him, blessed be He. Therefore he has cleaving to Him, blessed be He, by means of faith. When a person believes in Him, blessed be He, with all his heart, he cleaves to Him, blessed be He, and does not depart from Him. And this too is complete perfection, because all the commandments are for a person to have cleaving to Him, blessed be He. Therefore he said that he based them on one.”

According to the Maharal, faith is a connection and cleaving to God, not intellectual knowledge.

“And his hands were faith.”

Nachmanides on Exodus 17:12:

“The meaning of ‘and his hands were faith’ is that they remained steady and enduring in their uplifted position, as in ‘and there was a fixed obligation upon the singers, due each day on its day’ (Nehemiah 11:23), and likewise ‘and we make a firm agreement’ (Nehemiah 10:1), meaning something fixed in a covenant, and similarly ‘a peg fastened in a secure place’ (Isaiah 22:23).”

Hezekuni on Exodus 17:12:

“Anything that remains in its strength and standing and does not weaken or diminish from what it was is called faith, as in ‘and I will fasten him as a peg in a secure place,’ which the Aramaic translation renders ‘in a lasting place.’”

This has nothing to do with doubts.

Abarbanel on the Torah, Exodus 17:8–16:

“And some explain ‘and his hands were faith’ as referring to the matter of Moses’ raised hands, for Israel saw with their own eyes that whenever Moses raised them, Israel prevailed. This gave them great faith in Moses our teacher’s cleaving to God, blessed be He, and in his holiness.”

Alshikh, Torat Moshe on Exodus 17:8–12:

“‘His hands were faith’—for when Israel saw regarding Moses’ hands that whenever Moses raised his hand, Israel prevailed, and whenever he lowered it, etc., the meaning was that when they directed their hearts heavenward, they saw the providence, as explained above, by means of Moses’ hands. In this they acquired the state of faith that God was in their midst.”

Wouldn’t it be simpler just to say they knew?

Netivot Olam, Path of Faith, chapter 2:

“‘And I will betroth you to Me in faith’—for betrothal is connection to the Holy One, blessed be He, and this is through faith, which is cleaving to Him, blessed be He. And so too great is faith, for the Holy Spirit rested upon them, all because of the complete cleaving possessed by the one who has faith, a cleaving that extends without end, as is known in the secret of faith.”

What is the great secret in intellectual knowledge of God?

What is the complete cleaving that extends without end? Is that just intellectual knowledge that God exists?

Binah Le’Itim, part 1, homily 3 for the second day of Sukkot:

“…that caused Israel to believe with complete faith in His providence, and they went out from under the burden of the heavenly ministers. And this needed to continue until sunset, the head of the planets, because after its setting it becomes evident that its power is not absolute. This is what they said: ‘When Israel looked upward’—that is, when in their wisdom they looked at the stars and their indications, and saw and knew clearly that evil was before them according to the stars’ judgment, and nevertheless they regarded this as nothing, but rather subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, acknowledging in their hearts and submitting themselves to believe that absolute power belongs to the First Cause, blessed be He, who rides the heavens and is Lord over them—then they prevailed.”

Faith here stands against their clear knowledge.

Me’or VaShemesh, Beshalach:

“…to say that Moses’ power was to strengthen faith in the hearts of Israel. When his hand prevailed and they were strengthened in faith, Israel prevailed. And whenever he lowered his hand, etc.—that is, when he could not establish the root of faith in their hearts, then Amalek prevailed. This is what they said in the Talmud: when they subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven—that is, in the secret of complete faith—then Israel prevailed. And when their thought became confused, meaning that Amalek’s action left an impression on their hearts so as to bring them to doubts, God forbid, then Amalek prevailed. And this is ‘and Moses’ hands were heavy,’ meaning that Moses’ power was heavy upon him in holding them in faith. ‘And they took a stone’—that is, the foundation stone, which is the faith of Israel, namely the kingdom of Heaven—‘and put it under him, and they supported his hands,’ meaning to strengthen him so that there would be power in his hands to root complete faith in the hearts of the children of Israel.”

Was Moses strengthening their intellectual knowledge that God is great, and in that way overcoming the doubts? Were there philosophical discussions there all night long? And why did the doubts disappear—knowledge is always doubtful.

And there are many more sources.

And let us say amen.
You can publish a sourcebook for the benefit of the public. Here we generally discuss arguments. And among all this, I found no argument.
All the best.

1. In one of your talks you said that if it were proven to you that you were wrong, you would change your mind. That is apparently a nice statement with nothing behind it. It is much easier to say “I was wrong” than to be dismissive.

2. My central argument, which you missed, is similar to an argument you yourself made, in all humility, about Einstein and Dickens: that if someone does not understand philosophy, there is no point responding to what he says in philosophy—and by the way, on that I agree with you.

So I will say that someone who does not know the definition of faith, and thereby testifies that he does not understand the very beginning of the study of faith, there is no point responding to what he says on the subject of faith.

3. I heard you at the launch of your book God Plays with Dice and was very impressed. There you answered an atheist in such a respectful and Nice way, and likewise in your discussion with one of the secular philosopher-poets. But apparently because you saw that I am not secular, the response became dismissive.

Unfortunately, because of the dismissive response here, and because of things you have said elsewhere that I have only now been exposed to—about various rabbis in wild generalizations (who apparently, if they were atheists or secular, would receive a different attitude), and also about the Prime Minister, and more—everything you say has lost all value in my eyes, which I think it is fitting that the readers should also understand.