Torah Genius, Infallibility and Augmented Intelligence
by Avinoam Fraenkel
For details of Avinoam Fraenkel’s new book, Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, and his previous two-volume Nefesh HaTzimtzum, see here.
To view his series of short Shomer Emunim Kabbalah explainers, that introduce the basic concepts of Arizal’s Kabbalah in the context of contemporary science and technology, see here.
This essay explores the nature of Torah genius, and how it can be dramatically enhanced by embracing technology. It investigates why, notwithstanding the remarkable awe-inspiring stature of true Torah geniuses, they must never be thought of as being beyond genuine human error. It also provides some insights on how the accelerating technological changes we are all witnessing around us, may shape the abilities of the Torah genius of the future.
With its central focus on Torah study, Jewish society has always prized scholastic excellence. Throughout the ages, the pursuit of excellence has been used as the primary tool to motivate Torah students. The Talmud therefore queries which of two types of Torah genius is optimal.[1] Would it be the “Sinai,” the person whose predominant skill is the instant recall and mastery over the breadth of scholarly sources, as fresh as if just heard at Mount Sinai? Or could it be the “Oker Harim/uprooter of mountains,” one who primarily has penetratingly deep analytical skills enabling the logical clarification of issues from first principles, even if unaware of all the sources? The Talmud states that the optimal quality is that of the wide erudition of the “Sinai.”
Some argue that the leaning towards being a “Sinai” was only applicable in Talmudic times due to the scarcity of written resources, and that with the proliferation of books in the age of printing, the primary skill that should now be encouraged is the “Oker Harim.” However, it appears that in the main, rabbinic consensus sides with the Talmud, in that while the intellect of the “Oker Harim” is certainly valued, the sheer scope of knowledge of the “Sinai” is deemed advantageous.[2] Jewish literature frequently records instances of great rabbis who were seen to have developed a balanced hybrid of both these areas of genius, referring to them with the ultimate accolade of “Sinai and Oker Harim.”
Nevertheless, it is also clear that gifted genius can sometimes not only be less than optimal in achieving correct Torah understandings but can even be an impediment. R. Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz, the Chazon Ish, beautifully expressed this paradox. Sometimes with great people who are geniuses and are lightning-fast at grasping concepts, it can be that their very genius puts them at risk of simply missing the point, especially with complex, deep topics expressed in difficult language. The Chazon Ish wrote a response challenging the Halachic legal ruling made by R. Yechiel Meir Tukachinsky about the nature of the International Date Line. R. Tukachinsky was known to be a genius not only in Halachic law but also in mathematics, which he used in arriving at this ruling. The Chazon Ish’s Halachic critique of R. Tukachinsky was published in Kuntres Shmoneh Esreh Shaot, where he includes the following statement:
It is human nature to read the contents of a book superficially and quickly, like when reading a letter. One of the attributes of acquiring wisdom is to become accustomed to being precise with the language of the Sages as their words were written with analytical precision. Reading quickly and reading analytically are generally opposites with divergent outcomes. Because of the human tendency to be hasty, which is especially so with those who grasp concepts quickly [with geniuses], it happens that Sages read books and attribute things to them that were not thought of [by their authors] and are indefensible, or that they don’t relate to their subtlety. This is particularly so with matters that are truly deep [expressed] with difficult text that emphasizes their depth.[3]
This same sentiment is also succinctly expressed more than once by the Talmud describing a sage who:
… because of his sharp intellect, he did not [properly] investigate it.[4]
This can be understood to be a possible flaw in the ability of an “Oker Harim,” who is potentially at risk of skimming over material and missing highly relevant information needed to reach a sound conclusion.
It can also be argued that there is a potential risk that can sometimes compromise the ability of a “Sinai” to reach correct conclusions, distorting this kind of sage’s understanding in his Torah study. This potential impediment comes from a combination of two primary factors.
The first factor is the essential nature of what Torah study has become over the millennia of exile. While the Jewish People are living in exile before the final redemption there is a lack of clarity of Torah, which is also in exile. This lack of clarity generates differences in opinion, a position that will remain until the onset of a final process of clarification with the final redemption. Consequently, it has unfortunately become second nature for us to accept differences and even great differences in all areas of potential Torah discussion. These differences deeply impact all the finer points of such discussion, ranging from the Halachic to the philosophical, and include approaches to serving God. This has cultivated a historical Torah study culture of primarily focusing on highlighting differences between views, instead of investing the lion’s share of our study effort on how to reconcile and unify these differences. Acceptance of difference is expressed by our Talmudic Sages with the principle of “both these and these are words of the Living God.”[5] This principle is used when we reach a stalemate in our understanding of a topic and cannot see any possibility of consensus, by allowing us to accept the current status quo and the acceptance of difference. It biases us to primarily focus on highlighting difference and to potentially miss opportunities for seeing unity.[6]
The second factor relates to those gifted with exceptional memories, who seldom forget anything, a key skill of a “Sinai.” The Talmud highlights that there are times when “Shikcha/forgetfulness” can be considered a blessing. In particular, in relation to the passing of beloved ones where the pain of their passing can be so great that if we were not able to forget them, our daily lives would be adversely impacted and, in some cases, we would cease to be properly functional.[7]
The dysfunctional impact of persistent memory was clearly illustrated with the case of Solomon Shereshevsky, a mnemonist, who was studied over a 30 year period starting from the 1920s, by the Russian neuropsychologist, Prof. Alexander Luria.[8] Shereshevsky’s remarkable memory was such that he retained everything he read, saw or heard, including lengthy sequences of random words and numbers, with his memory persisting with instant recall over many years. In later years, this caused Shereshevsky to have great social difficulties. He had total recall of the finest detail of every face he saw and the context in which he saw it. However, over time, a person’s face naturally changes. Most people, with regular memory ability, remember the general appearance of a person’s face without paying much attention to the finer details, and as a result, can recognize them. This is because the general appearance remains static and recognizable over time even if many finer points of detail in a person’s face change. Shereshevsky’s memory however, was so acute and precise that his memory stored the finest details of every face he saw, every time he saw it. His memory bank of faces was so vast that even the subtlest differences over time between faces of the same person were differentiated in his memory. Even differences in mood of a single person would be reflected in a different facial expression, which was enough to distinguish the face seen in one mood state from the face seen in another mood state. The result was Shereshevsky’s inability to recognize that it was the same person. While skilled in the most incredible way with the ability to identify difference, this prevented him from relating to the larger unified picture, to the extent that he became severely disabled in his ability to recognize people.
Although Shereshevsky’s case was extreme, his case helps us to understand the potential risk of error that a “Sinai” can make. Even someone with a lesser memory than Shereshevsky, but still with a significant power of instant recall of textual sources, is at risk of only seeing the difference in detail between them and of missing the bigger picture that may connect them. Such a person is in danger of sometimes not seeing the forest for the trees. This risk is significantly amplified when taking the first factor into account, where our current Torah study culture generally disposes us to focus on differences in the first place.
In sum, every person, no matter how great and how endowed with genius they may be, is therefore potentially at risk of human error.
To put the concept of potential human error on the part of our great leaders into perspective, there is no sage or leader greater than Moshe Our Teacher. Moshe was the primary lawgiver and the direct conduit through which the Jewish People received the details of most of its laws from God. Any possibility of even the slightest error on Moshe’s part would therefore risk provoking people to question the legitimacy of all the information he directly transmitted from God. In stark contrast, every other leader in Jewish History would only base their decisions on details derived from the laws received from Moshe and not directly on the word of God. The gravity of a potential error on their part would therefore be of far less consequence in comparison to an error on Moshe’s part. It would therefore be of paramount importance for Moshe to ensure that there would be no doubt cast over the accuracy of his transmission from God.
Nevertheless, Moshe considered that even with the gravity of this point, it was outweighed by the sheer magnitude of imparting a moral message to the future generations. A message that all Torah sages, no matter how distinguished, brilliant, or Divinely inspired they may be, are at risk of human error. Our Sages candidly explain an error that Moshe made in his statement of the law in an instance where his brother Aharon corrected him. Their comment in the Midrash states the following:
[The verse states] “And Moshe heard and it was good in his eyes,” [upon which the Midrash comments:] he [Moshe] made a public announcement saying, “I erred and my brother Aharon taught me.”[9]
R. Naftali Tzvi Berlin, the Netziv, highlights the significance of Moshe’s message, in his commentary on the Torah:
Moshe made a public announcement that he erred as per [Vayikra] Rabba [above]. The reason for this announcement was to teach the sages of the generation and of the future generations that a great person should neither be embarrassed nor flinch over an error in teaching, as Moshe Our Teacher also erred![10]
Therefore, no matter how great Torah leaders may be, to the extent that our Sages teach us to even accord them with an almost Divine reverence[11] and to carefully study their small talk,[12] no Torah sage is above the potential for human error and there is absolutely no concept of rabbinic infallibility in Judaism.[13]
Moreover, the possibility of potential leadership infallibility is categorically dismissed by the Torah when it explicitly provides instruction for how a Jewish High Court or leader should potentially atone, should it cause or act on an inadvertent error.[14] In Judaism the open acceptance of the possibility of unintentional human error of a leader and the forthright admission of such an error should it happen, does not compromise the preeminence of such a leader. In fact, it is the very mark of true human greatness.
On a deeper level it can be understood that it is the very nature of learning itself that requires errors to be made as part of the process of successful study. The inherent nature of analytical study is the breakdown of a concept into its component parts which are then reconstructed into a refined idea. This process is intrinsically prone to potential error as it is not straightforward to produce a refined idea from a place of conceptual breakdown. It is as the Talmud unequivocally states:
No person establishes [a proper understanding of] words of Torah unless he has first stumbled over [his interpretation of] them.[15]
R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, the Ramchal, amplifies this sentiment:
There is no sage that will not err and will not need to learn from his colleagues, and in many instances even from his students.[16]
R. Yosef Ergas highlights that this is even true for the most accomplished Torah scholar who regularly studies the deepest parts of the Torah, the Acts of Merkava and Creation:
It is impossible for even one who regularly studies the Acts of Merkava and Creation, not to be caused to stumble over them with some incorrect analogy and the like, to the extent that he needs the rebuke of admonition to cleanse him.[17]
Notwithstanding the sheer awe required to be accorded to one’s Torah teacher and ultimately to the Torah Sages, it does not mean there is no latitude for independent thought on the part of the student. On the contrary, the essential nature of true Torah study is such that all Torah students are actively encouraged to intellectually engage with the teachings handed down to them, independently debating and analyzing them within the framework of Torah. It was no less than R. Chaim Volozhin, a Torah sage of immense stature who deeply venerated his teachers,[18] who explains that it is the process of studious debate with one’s teacher which refines and expands a person’s understanding of Torah. He refers to it as “the war of Torah”[19] and that in the context of this war, even a father and son and a teacher and student are respectfully pitched as enemies in debate against each other[20] and that “it is forbidden for a student to accept his teacher’s words when he has serious questions about them and that sometimes the truth is with the student.”[21] It is significant that R. Chaim’s position of a student requiring independent thought was encouraged by no less than his own primary teacher, the Vilna Gaon.[22]
While it is rare for a Torah genius to err in his studies, should such an error genuinely be found, it in no way compromises the stature of that Torah sage, and that sage’s general teachings are all very much worthy of deep and close study.[23] Nevertheless, as has already been highlighted, it is the very nature of genius itself that can cause a true Torah sage to be disposed to occasional error. See examples of such occasional error in the note.[24]
As technology progresses in our current age of the “Digital Transformation,” Torah accessibility has and is being transformed in ways previously unimaginable even just a few decades ago. The widespread immediacy of textual and analytic access to huge libraries of Torah sources, has already fundamentally revolutionized the ways in which we can learn Torah. Therefore, it is now highly relevant to ask if the skills required to optimize Torah study excellence have changed in any way. More specifically, what skills should we reasonably expect the “Sinai” or a “Oker Harim” to have to acquire in our Information Age? Furthermore, is there scope to seriously reconsider which of the “Sinai” or the “Oker Harim” may now be thought of as being optimal?
Before presenting an approach to this, it is relevant to appreciate the nature of this revolutionary advancement and exactly why a change in skillset may be needed. This understanding delves deeply into the very essence of how humanity is being transformed by the Digital Transformation. Physical human beings are far from what most people conceive. We are not independent beings, separated from other life forms and materials in our world environment. Rather, we are a symbiotic composite of all those life forms and our lives are entirely dependent on them.
This is captured by an ancient understanding that there are 4 very general levels of created physical existence. These 4 levels are integrated in that they hierarchically build upon each other. First there is the inanimate, the basic minerals and materials from which everything is constructed. Then there is plant life. This is followed by animal life. The fourth and highest level is human life, a level characterized by speech, our ability to communicate in a sophisticated way. The key point here is that each higher level is a composite of all the lower levels. A human being is therefore a symbiosis of the mineral, plant and animal levels, with additional intellectual and communication dimensions that makes a person uniquely human. Surprisingly to many, the majority of the cells within a human body do not have human DNA and cannot be considered human. Nevertheless, without them a human cannot live. One example is the microbiota cells in the gut that form an essential part of digestive process. Another is the need for bacteria to stimulate the postnatal development of the brain. A human is nothing less than a symbiosis of all these levels, a remarkable ecosystem where these levels are integrated through a mind bogglingly complex set of interacting processes that are totally dependent on the wider environment.[25]
With the Digital Transformation, the ecosystem of mankind’s wider environment is fundamentally changing. It is now possible for a person to supplement and augment his intellectual abilities with computer resources. This is such that each component, the human brain (an analog processor) and the computer (a digital processor), combine their unique abilities to optimize problem solving and intellectual processes.
A striking example of this was demonstrated in the world of chess. Over an extended period, computers had been entered into chess tournaments pitted against the chess grandmasters. For many years the grandmasters always won these competitions. However, with the accelerating improvements in computing power, the inevitable happened in 1997. IBM’s Deep Blue supercomputer beat the reigning world champion, Gary Kasparov. In the face of the subsequent prospect of computers always defeating humans, a new type of chess tournament was invented. “Freestyle” tournaments were introduced where teams of human chess players and/or computers would play against each other. The shock came in 2005, when two amateur chess players with strong chess programming skills using ordinary computers, won the tournament, beating several teams of grandmasters who were supported by well-known advanced chess computers. The secret of this success is that certain human skills are unmatched by even the most powerful digital computers such that when humans and computers team up with optimum balance, the refined combination of their complementary skills gives such a team an unprecedented advantage. This resulted in an optimized inexpert human and ordinary computing hybrid that surpassed both grandmaster and supercomputer excellence.
With this in mind, we can now consider how the skills of a “Sinai” and “Oker Harim” may need to be enhanced. Traditionally, the primary skill of a “Sinai” would be to accurately amass Torah information. However, with the technological resources available today, everyone has immediate access to extensive databases and search capabilities of Jewish resources, such as the Bar-Ilan Responsa project, D.B.S., Sefaria, Hebrewbooks, Otzar HaChochma and many other internet resources. The sheer amount of information available at everyone’s fingertips far eclipses the amassed knowledge and the accurate immediacy of access to it of almost every historic “Sinai.” The skillset required to command this incredible body of knowledge is no longer the ability to amass it in the first place. Rather it is the ability to learn how to quickly identify what may be relevant out of this huge amount of information when pursuing a specific inquiry.
This is significantly assisted by mastering the use of sophisticated search tools. To do this efficiently, in addition to some computing skills needed to understand data and how to maximize use of search technology, new Torah study skills are required. To optimize searching, a deep understanding is needed of the expected similarities and differences in word usage, expression deployment and conceptual coded nuance, together with word and expression spelling differences, across the vast history of Jewish scholarship. The more effective this combined understanding, the more focused the search query and the smaller the search results. The search results can still often be large and will then require expert perusal to quickly identify which sources found are most likely to be relevant to probe further, to shed light on the inquiry being investigated. So, it seems that the key skill of a modern day “Sinai” is already fundamentally transformed and is now more about harvesting relevant information rather than having to acquire it all in the first place.
On the other hand, the primary skill of the “Oker Harim” has traditionally been one of deep analysis driven by the ability to ask penetrating questions. Perhaps the effectiveness of this skill is captured by the well-known adage “a Torah scholar’s question is already half the answer.”[26] Advanced computer searches now make it possible to ask a whole different genre of insightful questions, that were not previously possible. It is now relatively easy to investigate the development of concepts aided by the original context, usage and development of words, expressions and concepts, and to trace their historical usage over time. The greater the insight in framing the search question, the more refined the search result, enhancing the ability to harvest focused sources from which meaningful answers can be constructed. Therefore, while the adoption of technology augments the “Oker Harim’s” toolkit and dramatically extends his skillset, it has not yet fundamentally replaced it.
However, it could be strongly argued that with the currently available technology the excellence of the transformed “Sinai” is no longer the preserve of the rare genius and now has a lower entry bar accessible to a wider group of people. On the other hand, the qualities of an “Oker Harim” are thus far not yet transformed, but with the augmented ability of using technology to extend the depth of analysis, there is now an enhanced ability for the “Oker Harim” to widen the excellence gap. Moreover, it is now more than ever within the reach of an “Oker Harim” to also garner most of the skill of a current day “Sinai.” There is therefore scope to now consider that the optimum skill for scholastic excellence in Torah may indeed be that of the “Oker Harim.”[27]
Nevertheless, we are only at the beginning of the Digital Transformation. Attempting to predict what a future technology augmented “Sinai” or “Oker Harim” may be capable of, is near impossible. Technology industry experts already openly admit that with the incredible accelerating pace of technological change they can no longer predict what the technological landscape will look like in even as early as 5 years’ time. Technologies in areas such as cloud computing, big data, predictive analysis, artificial intelligence, swarm intelligence, augmented intelligence, brain research and biotechnology are rapidly developing and integrating together in truly unpredictable ways.
Although there is no clear visibility of how all this will be manifest, perhaps the most significant expected transformative change is the physical integration of humans with technology. Currently, this is at an embryonic stage, however it does already exist. Brain integrated technology already enables paraplegics to walk. Monkeys can already interact with computers through wireless brain implanted computer chips.[28] It is therefore only a matter of time before the human mind will become directly connected to an implanted computer and there will ultimately be a true symbiosis of humans with technology, literally taking mankind to a new level of existence. In this context it is impossible to predict what future transformations of the “Sinai” and “Oker Harim” will look like. One can however safely conclude that the future landscape for Torah study excellence will be unimaginably transformed and future Torah students will be motivated by the emergence of a new breed of technologically augmented Torah genius.[29]
[1] Berachot 64a; Horiot 14a.
[2] A good summary of the various views and sources is provided by R. Yisrael Eisenstein in his Amudei Eish, Siman 15, Sect. 4 (brought on p. 76a of the first edition, published in Lemberg, 1880).
[3] Kuntres Shmoneh Esreh Shaot, Chorev, Jerusalem, 1943, at the beginning of Ot 14.
[4] Eruvin 90a; Bava Batra 116b.
[5] Eruvin 13b; Gittin 6b.
[6] For in-depth discussion about the concept of “Torah in Exile” and how, in Messianic Times, there will be a “New Torah” (as per the expression in, e.g., Vayikra Rabba Shemini 13:3), that is new to us in the very specific sense that all perceived differences will be reconciled, clarified and unified, see Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, pp. 923-924; Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 119-124; 126-127.
Specific examples reconciling famous differences of rabbinic opinion are presented in Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, pp. 324-328. Another specific example is given in the early Chassidic work, Meor Einayim, Shemot, which prefaces it with the general statement: “We have a Torah wide principle that both these and these are words of the Living God. It is just that we won’t understand how this is so until the arrival of our Messiah, speedily in our days.” R. Shlomo Elyashiv similarly generally comments in his Leshem Shevo VeAchlama, Sefer HaDe’ah, Vol. 1, Maamar Kelali Al Yesod HaSefer, Ot 5, p. 4a, col. 1: “The concept of how the practice of Torah and Mitzvot is subject to conflicting opinions in the words of our Sages will be clarified in the times of the Messiah, how it is that both these and these are truly the words of the Living God.” Notwithstanding isolated examples of reconciliation, before the arrival of the Messiah, we are obliged to generally accept and focus on difference.
[7] Pesachim 54b, lists 3 things that were factored into the Creation to enable it to function properly, with one of them being about “the dead, that they should be forgotten from the heart/mind.” Also see Berachot 58b and Moed Katan 8b, which state different time periods after which the dead are forgotten.
[8] Prof. Luria’s The Mind of a Mnemonist (first published in 1968), recorded his research on Solomon Shereshevsky.
[9] Vayikra Rabba Shmini 13:1 quoting Vayikra 10:20. Also see Yalkut Shimoni, Shmini, Remez 533; Targum Yonatan on Vayikra 10:20.
[10] Harchev Davar commentary on Vayikra 10:20. Also see the Netziv’s Meishiv Davar 2:9.
[11] Mishna Avot 4:12, which states “the awe of your teacher should be like the awe of Heaven.”
[12] Sukkah 21b; Avodah Zarah 19b, as there is much to learn even from their incidental small talk.
[13] The Talmudic Sages are frequently recorded to have issued statements of error and retraction. E.g., “The statements I told you were my error,” in Shabbat 63b; Eruvin 16b/104a; Chulin 56a; Niddah 68a. E.g.2, “What I said was incorrect,” in Rosh Hashana 13a; Yevamot 20b; Ketuvot 33a; Gittin 23a; Bava Metzia 6b; Bava Batra 131a; Sanhedrin 61a; Makot 8a/8b; Zevachim 94a; Menachot 12b.
[14] Vayikra 4:13-26.
[15] Gittin 43a. Also see Shabbat 119b and Chagiga 14a. In Kabbalistic terminology, the concept of breakdown is known as “Shevira” and reconstruction is known as “Tikun.” The process of the creation or advancement of anything and everything in this world, whether it is the development of Torah ideas or the production of an item, goes through a process of Shevira/breakdown followed by Tikun/reconstruction/rectification. This is captured in Mishna Avot 5:23 that “according to the pain is the reward,” (or as commonly stated in contemporary language “more pain, more gain”). It is also captured by the expression commonly used in Chassidic literature of “Yerida LeTzorech Aliyah,” i.e., that a relative descent from a current level is a necessary step in order to ascend to anything higher than the current level. The concept of Shevira and Tikun and the sheer extent of its impact on our world is explained in detail in Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, Kabbalah Overview, Chaps. 3-4.
[16] Mesilat Yesharim, Chap. 22.
[17] Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, p. 368-369, where R. Ergas makes this comment based on a quotation he provides from Sefer HaBahir 150 immediately preceding it.
[18] R. Chaim Volozhin was the primary student of the R. Eliyahu, the Vilna Gaon. The awe and respect he had for his teacher are captured in the largest repository of student published anecdotes of the Vilna Gaon, that R. Chaim presented in his introduction to the Vilna Gaon’s commentary on Sifra DeTzniyuta (which is fully translated and commented on in Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 469-517). R. Chaim’s son, R. Yitzchak, in his introduction to his father’s work, Nefesh HaChaim, describes that the extent of his father’s veneration of the Vilna Gaon was even manifest physically in that, “When he would talk in learning and mention the name of his teacher [the Vilna Gaon], his whole body would tremble and his appearance changed.”
[19] Sanhedrin 111b.
[20] Kiddushin 30b.
[21] R. Chaim Volozhin’s Ruach Chaim commentary on Mishna Avot 1:4.
[22] See R. Chaim’s ninth responsum recorded in Chut HaMeshulash. Towards the end of this responsum he states, “… and my teacher, the holy one of Israel, our great master, the prodigy, the pious one, our Rabbi, Eliyahu of Vilna has already warned me not to be influenced by others in rendering Halachic decisions.”
[23] In addition, where an error was made, there is much to be positively learned from closely studying the circumstances and thought processes giving rise to that error.
[24] Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah includes several footnotes that provide detailed examples in the wider context of the main themes presented, of occasional factual errors made by various genuinely great Torah scholars, renowned for their outstanding and remarkable genius. These include:
- An error apparently made by R. Shlomo Elyashiv, the Leshem, in his understanding of the position of R. Naftali Hertz Videnbaum HaLevi on the concept of Tzimtzum, on p. 780, fn. 358.
- An error by the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, in stating that the Baal Shem Tov initiated a new understanding of Divine Providence where, in fact, the Baal Shem Tov’s position is unsurprisingly identical to that of the Arizal, on p. 859, fn. 452.
- An error apparently made by R. Tzadok HaCohen, R. Baruch of Kosov, R. Pinchas Eliyahu Horowitz of Vilna, R. Yaakov Emden, in their understanding that Yosher Levav physicalized God, on p. 865, fn. 464.
- A second error by R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson in how he related to those expressing a position of what is known as “Tzimtzum Kipshuto” and his understanding of the Vilna Gaon’s position on Tzimtzum, on p. 903, fn. 537 (also see Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 106-117).
[25] The Rambam mentions these 4 levels in Moreh HaNevuchim 1:72. It is beyond any question that these 4 general levels were expressed in terms of the scientific understanding of the Rambam’s day, deeply rooted in Greek philosophy. E.g., Aristotle’s De Anima/On the Soul discusses these 4 categories referring to the inanimate, the plant soul, the animal soul, and then to humans as having an intellectual soul. They are also mentioned in the introduction to the Ramban’s Commentary on the Torah. In R. Bachye’s Commentary on the Torah, these 4 levels are clearly framed in the context of the Creation Narrative at the beginning of the Torah, in the introduction to the portion of Vayakhel, Shemot 35:1, which states:
It is known that there are 4 categories of the lowly creations with one above the other. They are the inanimate, plant life, animal life, and the one who speaks [humans]. The inanimate are the mountains and the hills. This category does not have a soul at all, not a plant [soul], not a soul that animates [an animal soul] and not an intellectual soul [a human soul]. Above it there is plant life. It has an additional property over and above the inanimate in that it has a plant soul within it. Above the plant life are the other life forms, [animal life,] that have [both] an animate soul and a plant soul. Above animal life, which does not speak, there is man, who incorporates all of them with the plant soul and animate soul within him. He has the additional property over all of them with the intellectual soul. You will similarly find this sequence of coming into existence in the Creation Narrative. The inanimate, as written [on the third day of creation], “and let the dry land appear” [Bereishit 1:9]. Plant life, as written after this [on the third day of creation], “let the earth sprout [vegetation]” [Bereishit 1:11]. Animal life, as written on the fifth [day of Creation], “let the waters swarm with swarming living creatures” [Bereishit 1:20]. The one who speaks [human life], as written on the sixth [day of Creation], “let us make man in our image” [Bereishit 1:26]. With the lowly creations you will find that the later they are in the sequence [of creation] the better they are. This is the opposite of the supernal creations where the earlier they are in the sequence [of creation] the better they are. [I.e.,] the light on the first day [of creation]. On the second day, the firmament which is on a lower level than the light. On the fourth day [of creation], the luminaries which are on a lower level than the firmament.
This is reflected by R. Yitzchak ben Moshe Aramah in his Akeidat Yitzchak, Parshat Bereishit, Gate 3 (towards the end of the Gate):
This is the compelling reason why man was not created first. For if the one with the speaking soul [man] would have been created before the inanimate, the plant life and the rest of the animals, it would have opposed the natural order …. Therefore, the natural sequence is necessitated, and this is the reason that man was necessitated to be the last of all of them.
The concept of the advancement of the creation through the 4 levels of life is also reflected in the Arizal’s teachings in Etz Chaim 50:10, where each higher level is described as being given additional structure and organization, over and above each lower level. This piece from Etz Chaim is elaborated on in detail, within the context of a contemporary scientific framework of understanding called “Emergence,” in Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, pp. 794-797.
[26] This maxim seems to have been first stated in the 14th century by R. Shem Tov ben R. Avraham ibn Gaon, in his Migdal Oz commentary on the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuva, Chap. 5.
[27] See R. Nachman of Breslov’s Likutei Moharan, Part 1, Sect. 15, which links the domain of the “Sinai” to a level of revealed knowledge and that of the “Oker Harim” to a higher level of currently concealed knowledge. He comments that while the Talmud identifies the “Sinai” as being optimal, that is in pre-messianic times. However, he highlights that in the future messianic times, the higher level of “Oker Harim” will be merited, together with an associated incomparably higher dimension of Torah knowledge.
[28] See an excellent example here, and independent in-depth analysis and validation of this example here.
[29] The concept of “Emergence” and how it leads to greater intellectual insight and ultimately to an explanation of the Messiah’s identity, is explained at length and in context in Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah.