Parashat Naso 5784 — 06/15/2024
Beginning with Bereishit 5781 (17 October 2020) we embarked on a new format. We will be considering Rambam’s (Maimonides’) great philosophical work Moreh Nevukim (Guide for the Perplexed) in the light of the knowledge of Vedic Science as expounded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The individual essays will therefore not necessarily have anything to do with the weekly Torah portion, although certainly there will be plenty of references to the Torah, the rest of the Bible, and to the Rabbinic literature. For Bereishit we described the project. The next four parshiyyot, Noach through Chayei Sarah, laid out a foundational understanding of Vedic Science, to the degree I am capable of doing so. Beginning with Toledot we started examining Moreh Nevukim.
Bamidbar 4:21-7:89
We now return to Rambam’s discussion of Gd’s Names. Before Shavuot we had discussed the “Explicit Name” (Shem haMefurash) or the “Being Name” (Shem Havayah), which is written Y-K-V-K but is never pronounced (traditionally it was only pronounced during the Yom Kippur service by the Kohen Gadol – see a Yom Kippur Machzor for a description of the entire service). This Name represents Gd’s essence, and therefore is co-extensive with Gd. The other names represent Gd’s actions, and Rambam is at pains to indicate that they are not attributes of Gd:
As for the other names, all of them, because of their being derived, indicate attributes, that is, not an essence alone, but an essence possessing attributes. For this reason they produce in one’s fantasy the conception of multiplicity; I mean to say that they produce in one’s fantasy the thought that the attributes exist, and that there is an essence and a notion superadded to this essence. For the indications of all derivative terms are such that they indicate a notion and a substratum that is not clearly stated and with which the notion in question is connected. However, as it has been demonstrated that Gd, may He be exalted, is not a substratum with which some notions are connected, it is known that the derived names are to be understood either with reference to the relation of a certain action to Him or with reference to directing the mind toward His perfection.
As Rambam has discussed extensively in this first part of his treatise, Gd is Unitary, and has no attributes – that is, there is nothing about Gd that is divorced from His essence. The other Names of Gd then cannot be attributes of Gd, notions that are, so to speak, hung onto Gd like an accessory. Instead, they are descriptions of Gd’s action – Gd’s interaction with the world. And, as in the case of the anthropomorphic terms we discussed earlier, the use of these other names can lead to confusion among those whose understanding is not so sophisticated. There are, however, some cases where there is precedent indicates that we must use these names:
For this reason Rabbi Haninah would have shrunk from the dictum of Scripture, the Great, the Valiant, and the Terrible, were it not for the two necessary obligations mentioned by him. He would have done so because these names produce in one’s fantasy the thought of essential attributes, I mean the thought that these names refer to perfections existing in Him. And when the names deriving from the actions pertaining to Him, may He be exalted, were multiplied, they produced in the fantasy of some men the thought that He has many attributes, just as there is a multiplicity of actions from which these names derive. Hence Scripture promises that an apprehension that will put an end to this delusion will come to men. Thus it says: In that day shall the Lord be One, and His name One; which means that in the same way as He is one, He will be invoked at that time by one name only, by that which is indicative only of the essence and which is not derivative. In the Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer they have said: Before the world was created, there were only the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Name. Consider now how this dictum states clearly that all the derivative names have come into being after the world has come into being. This is correct, for all these names have been laid down’ so as to correspond to the actions existing in the world. However, if you envisage His essence as it is when divested and stripped of all actions, He no longer has a derived name in any respect whatever, but only one original name that indicates His essence. In fact we have no nonderivative name except the one in question, namely, Yod, He, Vav, He, which is the articulated name simply.
The reference to R. Haninah harks back to a story we had in a prior entry, where the prayer leader, instead of saying the canonical words of the Avot prayer (first prayer in the Amidah), viz. haKel haGadol haGibor v’haNora / Gd, the Great, Mighty and Exalted (translated in the Rambam text as Great, Valiant and Terrible – I have given the more standard translation you will find in prayer books nowadays. The last word might be better rendered as Awesome, although that word has become pretty adulterated in common speech nowadays.), added a whole string of other adjectives. R. Haninah rebuked him, saying, “Have you exhausted the praise of the Creator?” In other words, we really shouldn’t be able to use any of those terms, but because Scripture did use them our prophets included them in the prayers. We only have permission to follow the wording of the prophets, who were perfectly clear on Gd’s Unity, but not to innovate on our own, since we are not at that level where we can begin to have the chutzpah to do so.
Why then do we use the various action-names of Gd, in our prayers and in Scripture itself? Of course, I think the first answer always has to be that “Torah speaks in human language” – the expressions of Scripture have to be comprehensible to ordinary people so that they can learn from them what appropriate behavior is. Thus, we have the anthropomorphic terms describing Gd as having various body parts or human emotions. We know it is not true, but it gives us a concrete idea to hang our hats on. Unfortunately, it gives us a concrete idea, and anything defined and rigid is by definition not true of the infinite Gd.
I’d like to suggest that one of the reasons Scripture and liturgy use these terms is that they can be a starting point not only for understanding, but possibly also for experiencing the reality of Gd, to the extent that a human being is capable of such experience. Assuming that intellectually we understand that all the “action names” do not really apply to Gd, in the sense that they don’t capture who Gd is, when we state that Gd is “Great, Mighty and Exalted” we feel some discomfort. “Great?” Really? We see that even the appellation “Great” is insufficient to capture Gd’s majesty, so we start expanding our conception of “great” until we abstract away all the limitations and get to a transcendental level of “greatness.” Whether this is a particularly efficient way of transcending I don’t want to speculate. It seems like a kind of contemplative technique of intellectual abstraction that gets woven into our prayers to induce us to transcend. Perhaps this is also a secondary purpose to using anthropomorphic terms about Gd. Gd has hands? Really? And so on. For the simple, it gives us something to help us understand. For the more sophisticated it gives us something to help us transcend. This is of course my speculation, which you can take for what it’s worth.
…..
Just a point on the actual parashah, Naso. The last verse (7:89) is the verse where Gd “speaks” to Moses from above the Ark cover. The verb used for “to speak” is midaber, rather than the usual m’daber. Midaber is not a real Hebrew word, so Rashi tells us that the words should be read mitdaber, which is a reflexive form. Rashi clarifies: “Gd was speaking to himself, and Moses heard on his own.” In other words, Moses was able to cognize within himself the “the first Divine thought that is the basis for the manifest universe” in the words of the Ari (see the quote from last week). In other words, Torah, at least the Supernal Torah, exists within Pure Consciousness, and we can cognize it ourselves, if we will but purify ourselves to the requisite degree.
******************************************************************************
Commentary by Steve Sufian
Parashat Naso (Raise the Heads, Count, Lift Up)
In this parshah, Gd commands a census (raising of heads) of the Gershonite branch of the Levis. Moses completes the Tabernacle, Gd gives Aaron and his sons, through Moses, the Priestly Blessing, three blessings that raise us up:
Numbers 6:24-26:
“May HaShem Bless you and Safeguard you”
“May HaShem Illuminate His Countenance for you and be Gracious to you.
“May HaShem Lift His Countenance to you and Establish Peace for you.” (Art Scroll Stone Edition Chumash)
“Bless,” “Safeguard,” “Illuminate His countenance for you,” “Be Gracious to you,” “Lift His countenance to you,” “Establish Peace for you” – all these combine to bestow Gd’s Name on us, the result of which is that Gd Blesses us, Lifts us up.
What does it mean to have Gd’s Name (not “Names”) Bestowed on us?
It means that the complexities of life are simplified, the many ways we experience Gd are united into One and our life becomes one with Gd, not separate from Gd: “All Your names are one” we know from the Aleinu “It is our duty” prayer we recite daily.
What additional lifting up occurs when Gd Blesses us through a census?
Within the Unity, the Oneness, the diversity is raised: we are One with Gd and yet also continue to play our roles as individuals, roles in which we continue to behave devotedly to Gd, to “Love Gd with all our heart, and soul and all our might” and to love Gd’s Nature, including all people, to “love our neighbor as ourself (our Self) Gd, from Gd’s Point of View, Blesses us, Raises us higher and higher so that there is no distance between Gd playing the role of Gd and Gd playing the role of Creation, including us.
May we be lifted up today and every day to experience deeper and deeper openness to the Priestly Blessings, to Gd’s Name, to Gd’s Blessings and deeper openness to living these and sharing with all and all.
Love and Baruch HaShem