[Avodah] "Does God Change His Mind?"

[Michael Makovi]

R' Micha said:
> Attributing an emotion to HQBH doesn't mean He actually > experienced that emotion. (At least, in any hashkafah that > survived to this day.)

Rav Berkovits explicitly says in G-d Man and History that Hashem
actually did experience that emotion; He does NOT act "as if" angry,
but rather, He actually is angry. And it's not that His emotions are
like ours and we are creating Him b'tzalmenu; rather, ours are like
His - we are created b'tzalmo. (He also notes that we are referring to
His emotions in His relations with us (such as happiness, favor,
anger, etc. towards us); we are not speaking of His actual essence
itself. This brings his position closer to the normative one.)

I'm not sure if Rav Berkovits however counts as a "hashkafah that
[has] survived to this day". ;-D


> Michael Makovi wrote:
What, no R'?

> > Nevertheless, when He actually interacts with the world, > > He *must* interact with that particular slice of time and
> > place. When He talks to a prophet, for example, He is
> > talking to the prophet at that moment; not an hour before
> > and not an hour later, and not a mile in front and not a
> > mile in back.

> I disagree. Hashem is one, He performed one act. With no > space or time, what separates His actions into multiplicity? > We call that act Maaseh Bereishis. What we feel over time > are different effects of that one act. HQBH didn't start a
> movie, He created a 4D sculpture. (As
> discussed in the aforementioned blog entry
>http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/divine-timelessness.shtml.)

The 4D sculpture idea is a very interesting suggestion; I'll have to
ponder that.

In any case, however, I'll insist again on what I said. If I
oversimplify what you said, you seem to be saying that Hashem did one
act (4D sculpture) and sits back now and does nothing, as the
repercussions of His initial act play out through time. If this is
what you meant, I don't need to put out the theological problem.

In your blog, you yourself say this is not the case, for it is not
that He is now resting and letting His work carry on; He created the
entire 4D sculpture at once, and it is only our perception of time
that makes it seem as if time is passing. But still, I'd say, the
result is about the same, viz. He created the sculpture and now the
sculpture does whatever it does, without input.

Regarding the Avot that the miracles were created in twilight: I
haven't seen Rambam on it, but I am highly pleased with Rav Hertz on
it (he says the same comment in the Hertz Chumash on Bilaam's talking
donkey): he says that miracles are not violations of nature, for
Hashem provided for miracles within the laws of nature, during
creation. So Hashem created tthe laws of nature and lets them act as
they do, and when He needs a miracle, the laws of nature provide for
the ability for Him to inject himself into the world and perform some
action, without upsetting the laws of nature. For example, the
splitting of the sea was via a strong natural wind.

(I personally think that even though He knows the future (because He
can see all time at one glance), nevertheless our actions have
repercussions. For example, if we hadn't done the golden calf, there'd
be no second set of tablets. It's simply that He already knows
beforehand that we will do it. But His knowledge does not affect what
we do, and hypothetically, had we not done it...)

So, instead, I would say, He Himself is outside time, but when He
interacts with the world, He perforce does so within the limits of
time and place; not that He is within time and place, but His act
itself is. It's like if I interact with a software program. I myself
am not within the limits of the software, but my act itself is.

This answers the following objection you made:

> When we change some stretch of space-time, the
> consequences of Maaseh Bereishis will change. But HQBH > Himself can not. It's meaningless to speak of change of the > Creator of Time.

He didn't change; His act did. Nevertheless, your objection (paragraph
just above, continued)

>Or even multiple acts.

remains. This I simply disagree with, as above.

Mikha'el Makovi