[Avodah] An old Pshat and a Question About Milchig on Shavuos

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 02:40:51AM -0400, Samuel Svarc wrote:
: R' Micha then kindly sent me the OS. After learning it, it is clear to me
: that my formulation for a malach's bechira is from the OS...

I agree to that. I believe, though, that the Rambam's definition of
mal'ach, that it is the koach by which Ratzon haBorei becomes bepo'al,
eliminates even the possibility of bechirah.

Refa'el isn't a mal'akh who has the job of healing. Refael is the
intellect, the channel, by which Rason haBorei becmes physical action.

To recap a bit of Aristo's physics (quoting myself from v12n82):
> Perhaps I should step back and give an "Aristotilian Physics
> in a Nutshell". Terms in parenthasis is the word rishonim usually
> use. Aristotle had no concept of conservation of momentum or energy. And
> in the real world you never actually see such things conserved, because
> of friction.

> Every causal chain starts with an intellect.

> The intellect (seichel) imparts impetus to an object, and this causes
> the object to move/change until that impetus runs out.

> Impetus turns potential (koach) into actual (po'al).

> It is this notion that impetus can run out that forced the Rambam to
> conclude that the celestial spheres must have intellects. Since they
> keep on spinning, something is imparting new impetus to them. It was
> this reasoning, plus the definition of the word, that lead the Rambam
> to identify the spheres with the ofanim.

> It also means that in the Rambam's worldview, as I said before, some
> intellect has to impart the impetus by which grass grows. Which is how
> Chazal tells us there is a mal'ach standing over each blade.

> In the Rambam's formulation of mal'achim, every mal'ach has one tafqid
> is a consequence of the definition of mal'ach.

As the Rambam himself says (Moreh II:6):
> We have already stated above that the angels are incorporeal. This
> agrees with the opinion of Aristotle: there is only this difference in
> the names employed--he uses the term "Intelligences," and we say instead
> "angels." His theory is that the Intelligences are intermediate beings
> between the Prime Cause and existing things, and that they effect the
> motion of the spheres, on which motion the existence of all things
> depends. This is also the view we meet with in all parts of Scripture:
> every act of God is described as being performed by angels. But "angel"
> means "messenger"; hence every one that is intrusted with a certain
> mission is an angel. Even the movements of the brute creation are
> sometimes due to the action of an angel, when such movements serve the
> purpose of the Creator, who endowed it with the power of performing that
> movement; e.g., "God hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths
> that they have not hurt me" (Dan. vi. 22). Another instance may be seen
> in the movements of Balaam's ass, described as caused by an angel. The
> elements are also called angels. Comp. "Who maketh winds His angels,
> flaming fire His ministers" (Ps. civ. 4). There is no doubt that the word
> "angel" is used of a messenger sent by man; e.g., "And Jacob sent angels"
> (Gen. xxxii. 4); of a prophet, e.g., "And an angel of the Lord came up
> from Gilgal to Bochim" (Judges ii. 1); "And He sent an angel, and hath
> brought us forth out of Egypt" (Num. xx. 16). It is also used of ideals,
> perceived by prophets in prophetic visions, and of man's animal powers,
> as will be explained in another place.

> When we assert that Scripture teaches that God rules this world through
> angels, we mean such angels as are identical with the Intelligences. ...
> In other passages our Sages expressed it more decidedly: "God does
> nothing without consulting the host above" (the word familia, used in
> the original, is a Greek noun, and signifies "host"). ... How could
> the Creator be assisted by those whom He created! They only show that
> all parts of the Universe, even the limbs of animals in their actual
> form, are produced through angels: for natural forces and angels are
> identical. How bad and injurious is the blindness of ignorance! Say to
> a person who is believed to belong to the wise men of Israel that the
> Almighty sends His angel to enter the womb of a woman and to form there
> the f.tus, he will be satisfied with the account; he will believe it,
> and even find in it a description of the greatness of God's might and
> wisdom; although he believes that the angel consists of burning fire, and
> is as big as a third part of the Universe, yet he considers it possible
> as a divine miracle. But tell him that God gave the seed a formative
> power which produces and shapes the limbs, and that this power is called
> "angel," or that all forms are the result of the influence of the Active
> Intellect, and that the latter is the angel, the Prince of the world,
> frequently mentioned by our Sages, and he will turn away; because he
> cannot comprehend the true greatness and power of creating forces that
> act in a body without being perceived by our senses. Our Sages have
> already stated--for him who has understanding--that all forces that
> reside in a body are angels, much more the forces that are active in
> the Universe. The theory that each force acts only in one particular
> way, is expressed in Bereshit Rabba (chap. 1.) as follows: "One angel
> does not perform two things, and two angels do not perform one thing";
> this is exactly the property of all forces. We may find a confirmation
> of the opinion that the natural and psychical forces of an individual
> are called angels in a statement of our Sages which is frequently quoted,
> and occurs originally in Bereshit Rabba (chap. lxxviii.): "Every day God
> creates a legion of angels; they sing before Him, and disappear." When,
> in opposition to this statement, other statements were quoted to the
> effect that angels are eternal--and, in fact, it has repeatedly been
> shown that they live permanently--the reply has been given that some
> angels live permanently, others perish; and this is really the case;
> for individual forces are transient, whilst the genera are permanent
> and imperishable. ...

This is also why the Rambam asserted that anything capable of
initializing motion, the mal'akhim, the galgalim, us, chayos and
tzomechos, had seichel.

:                                                        As well, a careful
: reading of the Rambam Hilchos Yesodie Hatorah Perek 2 Halacha 9 (8) is
: certainly mashma that a malach is only different in terms of knowledge.

That is saying that a mal'ach knows, according to its station. And is in
fact its station and the actual means of existence. For that matter, this
isn't just mal'akhim -- even "yitoch qatan sheyihyeh betabur ha'aretz. I
see no mention of how that would impact free wiil. And in fact, since
people are in that chain, it can not imply a lack of bechirah.

Aside from what I thinkis consistent with the Rambam, much rides on the
Moreh II:6-7, and how they are translated. E.g. Friedlander has "The
spheres and the Intelligences are conscious of their actions, and select
by their own free will the objects of their influence, although not in
the same manner as we exercise free will and rule over other things,
which only concern temporary beings."

Free will that is different in kind than our free will. Is that what we
think of as bechirah chafshi or not?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
micha at aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rabbi Israel Salanter