Kaisipang Hudyo sa Mga Awit 139:6: Akeidat Yitzchak

Just as there are times when our imagination has to discount or even ignore its own figments, such as when the latter cannot be reconciled with reality, so our mind and our logic sometimes have to ignore their own conclusions when confronted with the more absolute truths that G-d reveals to His chosen from time to time, and such as the entire Jewish people experienced at Mount Sinai. Were it not a demonstrable fact, we could never imagine that the antipodes do not fall off the face of the earth, since our imagination is limited to matters our senses have experienced. This is so in spite of the fact that we can combine in our imagination things that could never be combined in real life. We can draw a horse with wings, because we know what a horse is and we know what wings are. We cannot, however, imagine the power of gravity, it being something that cannot be demonstrated in our world in a manner recognizable by our senses.

Man is not only a creature who combines opposite extremes of creation in a state of fusion, but his powers of perception also are twofold, consisting of cognitive processes by his senses as well as cognitive processes based on his intellect. Yediah, knowledge, is what we perceive by means of our intellect. This is the result of using the upper extremes of our powers of perception. Hakkarah, on the other hand, is perception by means of feeling, sensual perception, the lower end of our range of perceptual tools. The two processes work in different ways from one another, and what is perceived intellectually is not comprehended by the senses nor is what is sensually perceived understood intellectually. Intellectual perception extends to the general, whereas sensual perception extends to the particular. Intellectually, one can perceive the nature of the earth, but not all the innumerable details in it; sensually one can feel all these infinite little details without thereby arriving at any conclusions concerning their overall nature and purpose. Children proceed empirically when learning to distinguish between sensations and between different phenomena. Only much later do they become able to form overall concepts. Intellectual beings devoid of bodies proceed in the opposite manner. Our sages view man as enveloped in darkness, but able to recognize phenomena bathed in light. Angels, on the other hand, are situated within an ocean of light, unable to recognize what is immersed in darkness. The Almighty, of course, possesses the ability to perceive both what is bathed in light and what is surrounded by darkness. In this allegory, intellect is equated with "light." Man's advantage over the angels is, that in addition to intellect, he also possesses senses, enabling him to perceive the particular as well as the general by means of these senses. This is why Adam could distinguish correctly between animals, recognizing their individual characteristics. To return to the parable of light and darkness. If matter is perceived as an impediment to pure light (matter being opaque), then angels being unencumbered by matter due to their being purely spiritual beings have difficulty distinguishing different shades of matter, i.e. darkness. It is not unlike the difficulty experienced by a white man when trying to distinguish the features of, say, the Chinese. The Almighty, having created both light and matter, is thoroughly familiar with His creation. His powers of perception are entirely different from those of either man or angels. Adam had demonstrated his superior conceptual powers by naming both himself, the animals and his Creator. Since the terms "good," i.e. proper, or "gratifying," apply to both general concepts of knowledge as well as to particular objects of one's perception, the same needs to hold true for "bad," i.e. improper and "unpleasant," if we are to give meaning to the term "knowledge." Interestingly, the tree of knowledge is called the tree of knowledge of "good" and "evil," not the tree of knowledge of what is "true" and what is "false." The serpent refers to G-d as being able to distinguish between "good" and "evil." In Samuel II 14,17, we read of angels being defined as knowing "good and evil." Why then do our sages seem to deny that angels possess the power to distinguish between good and evil? Maimonides claims that man was unique in creation because he was the only creature to possess this ability. He claims that angels recognize only objective values such as truth and falsehood, not relative values such as "good" and "evil." If Adam called himself "Adam," this was because since the raw material that he himself was made of was "adamah," earth, i.e. davar murkav, matter composed of several elements. Hence, he was able to correctly identify other creatures composed of similar raw materials. He could also perceive in which way each differed from another. When the Midrash describes man's knowledge as merubah, this does not mean "greater," but "more variegated." A scholar who is an expert farmer at the same time, possesses a wider range of knowledge than his counterpart who is merely a theoretician. However, this advantage is merely quantitative, not qualitative. It does not mean that man's wisdom is superior to that of the angels. Since the terms "good,” “beautiful,” “dignified” etc. are intrinsically intellectual definitions, angels naturally must know them also as well as their opposites, although they need not be capable of possessing these characteristics. Since this is so, there is no good reason not to understand "and you will be like G-d knowing good and evil," as referring to the angels' ability in this regard (Genesis 3,5). In Samuel II 14,17, the wise woman from Tekoah also uses the term "elokim" for angels, just as G-d seems to do in our Parshah. The author rejects all those commentaries which avoid the peshat in the verses under discussion. He devotes many pages to disprove other commentators' opinions about the angels' powers of perception.

It is clear then that the conclusions arrived at by a human mind need confirmation of its findings by G-d before they can be considered reliable. Our sages tell us that when Yitro advised his son-in-law Moses about the kind of judiciary system Moses was to introduce, he told him to consult with G-d in order to obtain confirmation. "If the Lord will so command you, you will be able to endure" (Exodus 18,23). If the unreliability of our mind is a fact concerning matters that the mind has been specifically equipped to deal with, how much more is this true when the mind is confronted by heavenly visions, to understand which it even lacks basic yardsticks? Moses asked G-d to provide him with such yardsticks, but was told that the human intellect must subordinate itself to heavenly instructions to the point where we apply the words of Isaiah 55,8, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are My ways your ways." Quite frequently this may result in objective truth being the very reverse of what we think it is. Sometimes, the very willingness to subordinate one's mind makes that mind receptive to matters undreamed of. Jacob is an example of such an attitude. After his dream, he was able to exclaim, "Indeed the Lord is in this place, although such a thought had been furthest from my mind" (Genesis 28,16 approx). This newfound insight had been contradicted by Jacob's thought processes on several accounts. A) The assumption that G-d is subject to physical dimensions as we humans use the term had been quite alien to Jacob. He was amazed to learn that G-d has a permanent residence on earth. B) The idea that G-d moves from place to place accompanying people, would never have occurred to him, had this fact not been revealed to him. C) The thought that G-d’s movements, as it were, could be brought about by outside influences, i.e. were not completely self-induced, had likewise been beyond Jacob's wildest imagination. In theology, the points just mentioned were thought completely impossible; Jacob would not have dared think of the Creator in those terms. G-d did not mean to demolish the theories Jacob had believed in; He wanted merely to broaden Jacob's spiritual horizons. The concept of hashgachah peratit, personal Providence by G-d, was the idea conveyed to Jacob in his dream. Philosophy, though it succeeds in arriving at many valid conclusions about G-d, about His uniqueness, His existence etc., nevertheless misses a great deal, as discussed in Chapter seven and forty-eight. Isaiah Chapter 66 verse 1 summarizes the lesson Jacob was taught in his dream in the following words, "Thus says the Lord; the heavens are My throne and the earth is My footstool." On the one hand, the infinite dimensions of G-d are described in a manner that precludes us from imagining G-d as bound by space, since anyone who can consider the whole earth as His footstool can hardly be contained by man-made structures such as the temple. On the other hand, if such a Being exceeds the whole earth in size, how can such a Being move from place to place since it already occupies more than all the space available? Also, how could such a Being be in need of anything, seeing it has proclaimed, "Mine is the universe and all that is therein" (Psalms 50,12)? Therefore, G-d asks, "What kind of house can you possibly build for Me?" G-d asks rhetorically, "Why did I command building a temple to dwell therein? Surely not for My need, but for your sake!" Man's logic would not have dared presume all this, had it not been revealed to him. When a king moves his residence away from the capital to one of the country's rural centers, he does so for the benefit of his subjects in that region who will reap economic and cultural advantages by harboring royalty in their midst. However, it is important that his subjects realize what is being done for them, and that they be made aware of their former inferior status. This is the reason G-d says, "I will look towards the poor and low-spirited who relate to My word with a feeling of awe," (Isaiah 66,3) "the ones who are aware of their limitations and wish to uplift themselves, deserve My special attention." Only when we realize the limitations of our powers of perception, grieve over it, and long to expand our spiritual horizons, will G-d grant us greater insights. How does all this relate to Jacob's dream? Over a period of time, Jacob had acquired concepts of the grandeur of G-d, His uniqueness, His power, His being the prime mover of history, to the extent that an unassisted human intellect is able to perceive all this. At the end of Parshat Toldot, we have already read that Jacob went to Padan Aram. We hear now that he first went to Beer Sheva, to inform us, as our sages relate, that he spent fourteen years studying, preparing himself to the extent that such preparation is possible without Divine inspiration.