6

Is the Jewish view that everything in creation is a hidden manifestation of God, i.e. that God is enclothed so to speak, in every element of creation, similar to Panentheism.

Or is God "outside" of His creations, so to speak, guiding them from His "place".

Or perhaps a third possibility?

Lee
  • 7,462
  • 1
  • 25
  • 57
ray
  • 21,206
  • 2
  • 45
  • 103
  • 3
    Your wikipdeia article says traditional Judaism is not panentheistic, but Hasidic and Reconstructionist Judaism have become so. – Double AA Nov 09 '13 at 23:33
  • 4
    Bereshit Rabbah 68:9 - http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/raba1/68.htm - ר' הונא בשם ר' אמי אמר: מפני מה מכנין שמו של הקב"ה וקוראין אותו מקום? שהוא מקומו של עולם, ואין עולמו מקומו, מן מה דכתיב (שמות לג): הנה מקום אתי, הוי, הקדוש ברוך הוא מקומו של עולם, ואין עולמו מקומו. – Menachem Nov 10 '13 at 05:47
  • 1
    Since when does "Judaism" believe anything!?? Is theology so long dead in this religion that we can actually speak of what it, itself, "believes"? There are Jews who adopt panentheistic views, there are Jews who do not and there are Jews who expressly reject them. This question strikes me as absurd. You could just as easily ask whether "Judaism" believes in commemorating Yom Yerushalayim, or eating qitniyot on Pesach. – Shimon bM Nov 10 '13 at 07:12
  • @ShimonbM ok, I'll rephrase it. according to torah sources is this view correct? – ray Nov 10 '13 at 07:20
  • 1
    This article may be relevant to the Chabad view: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/361884/jewish/Tzimtzum.htm – Avrohom Yitzchok Nov 10 '13 at 16:58
  • 1
    It would help if you could explain the Jewish view you speak of, and perhaps source it. As it stands, it is hard to know the Jewish view you're referencing. – Charles Koppelman Nov 10 '13 at 17:24
  • 1
    Wikipedia's definition basically regards Kabbalah as taught by the Arizal as Panentheism, especially the opinion (held most notibly by R. Chaim Vital) that Tzimtzum is not literal. If you put a word on it, then there you go. But I don't find the word to have objective meaning that says anything. It is elastic enough as it can encompass a lot of things that don't have anything to do with Judaism as well, so what is the point of the categorization? – Yishai Nov 11 '13 at 03:55
  • Edit has been rolled back as it invalidates existing answers. – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 06:51
  • i think it clarifies the question and addresses all the comments above by charles and yishai – ray Nov 11 '13 at 06:59
  • 1
    @Yishai The categorization (like all abstractions) shows something in common among its members. That's not valuable enough? If you believe Tzimtzum is not literal and that that opinion is panentheistic, then just say so. If you think it's right then it isn't anything to be ashamed of. – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 07:17
  • @DoubleAA, I'm not ashamed of anything, but a category that is so wide ranging it doesn't seem valuable. A category is most important in what it excludes, but I really don't get what boundary this category gives. It can cover monotheism, polytheism, deism, and a whole host of things. So what is non-panentheism? How separate does G-d have to be? This was my issue with Maimonist's answer. G-d's unchanging association with the world could be inherently panentheistic, as could the Medrash Menachem quotes. It is too vague a term to have value, absent a clearer definition. – Yishai Nov 11 '13 at 11:59
  • @Yishai Your comment made me chuckle. Panentheism is a technical term with encyclopedia articles written defining it. It is abundantly more clear to me what it means than terms like "withdrawn" "interacted" "standing on its own" "essence" "manifestation" "clothed in" "upholding" and other non-technical terms which some of you have been bantering about. I have absolutely no idea what those mean, because no one has defined them. – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 17:28
  • @DoubleAA There are works of Kabbalah which provide formal definitions for such terms as well, but everyone isn't speaking with that vocabulary, which was my point in that other comment. – Yishai Nov 11 '13 at 17:45
  • 1
    @Yishai Any vocabulary which is the basis of joint discussion should be that which is defined openly for everyone to use. You can't complain that someone isn't using your secret vocabulary to discuss something in the open, especially when the OP used the public schemata; certainly it is not a good justification to downvote. (Besides, those are all English terms. Most Kabbalah works AFAIK are written in Hebrew.) – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 17:50
  • @DoubleAA, I didn't down vote (although I considered it for a different reason), and I didn't complain that someone wasn't using a set of vocabulary. I was saying that they aren't defining their terms, and it would take too much effort to get on a common page of vocabulary until we could have a productive discussion. – Yishai Nov 11 '13 at 17:59
  • @CharlesKoppelman by Jewish view, i meant the sheeta of the baal hatanya regarding tzimtzum. tried to edit in the answer but doubleaa rolled it back – ray Nov 12 '13 at 05:54
  • 1
    @ray, the consensus on the chat was that you should just ask that as a separate question, and it would not be a duplicate. Feel free to do so. – Yishai Nov 12 '13 at 14:07
  • @ShimonbM That doesn't seem like a valid argument. Judaism undoubtedly has beliefs, most notably, monotheism. And even though like many areas of Jewish belief, there were those who reinterpreted them, (in this case Christians and kabbalists, for example), the idea that Judaism itself, not just Jews are monotheistic, remains true. (Even though not all Jews subscribe to that Jewish belief). It is similarly legitimate to ask whether or not Judaism itself, not just an individual Jew, is panentheistic. – mevaqesh Feb 05 '17 at 08:37

4 Answers4

6

The third principle of Jewish Faith as codified by the Ramba"m states explicitly that the Creator "has no physical body and is not a force which resides within a physical body" (אינו גוף ולא כח בגוף). This statement precludes the basic tenet of Panentheism, i.e. that God resides actually within everything that exists.

Additionally, the Rasa"g (Rav Sa'adya Gaon) in his well-known work Emunoth Wa-Dhe`oth discusses ideas of how God created the universe as postulated by the various religions and philosophical schools. One of the twelve theories of creation discussed is Emanationism (i.e. the idea that God emanated his own essence into the lower forms of the creation).

The third theory is that of him that asserts that the Creator of physical bodies has created them out of His own essence... (Ma'amar Rishon, III)

He then goes on to refute this theory with 13 refutations. Emanationism requires a belief in Panentheism.

Judaism has always championed the belief in creatio ex nihilo (Creation from nothing) by a completely transcendent and non-physical God whom is completely removed from His creation.

Panentheism, although championed by many as the true view of the Torah, is certainly a mistake and an aberration.

There is much more which could be said on this subject, but this should be sufficient to answer your basic question.

Kol tuv.

  • i dont see how this answers anything. on the contrary, if God created everything, than everything depends on Him. If he were to withdraw, so to speak, it would cease to exist. therefore, perhaps He does exist behind the scenes inside every element of creation to some extent. – ray Nov 10 '13 at 07:21
  • 1
    You are making a logical error and an unnecessary equivocation. The logical error is that God upholds the creation in some physical way, like the legs of a table holding up the table itself. This is not the case. The equivocation is much the same, i.e. that God upholding the existence of the creation is the equivalent to somehow filling it with His essence. But aside from the fact that He does not require a physical/spacial relationship with the created universe in order to uphold it, He is not a "koah ba-guf" (a force which inhabits physicality). I answered your question in the negative. –  Nov 10 '13 at 15:12
  • 2
    הוא היודע, והוא הידוע, והוא הדעה עצמה--הכול אחד – Yishai Nov 10 '13 at 15:30
  • Not that it changes my point, but that was a straight copy paste from the Rambam online. I'm not saying something is or isn't panentheistic, as I don't know exactly what it means and doesn't mean. I'm challenging your statement that the world stands on its own, independant from G-d after creation. – Yishai Nov 10 '13 at 21:16
  • 1
    @Yishai I made no such statement that the universe stands alone without God after its creation, rather I am asserting that He does not need a physical/spacial mechanism in order to accomplish that. If you look into the context of Hilkhoth Yesodhei HaTorah 2:10 (which you quoted above), you will see that this is exactly what the Ramba"m also affirms. It is misleading to quote out of context, as if "ha-kol ehadh" means "the universe and God are all one" when its true intention is to communicate that God has no external attributes as physical beings do. See also MN 1:68. Kol tuv. –  Nov 10 '13 at 22:01
  • 1
    The problem is we lack a common vocabulary here to make communication possible. "He does not need a physical/spacial mechanism in order to accomplish that." That certainly isn't transcendent, and wikipedia defines that as a characteristic of Panentheism, at least as far as its claim that it has anything to do with Judaism. I'm also not aware of anyone who says what you said at all. So way too many assumptions and lack of common terminology. – Yishai Nov 11 '13 at 03:50
  • i think my real question is whether the sheeta of the baal hatanya regarding tzimtzum is a form of panentheism. – ray Nov 11 '13 at 06:36
  • 1
    Why the downvotes? Also, @ray, I don't understand your first comment: you asked and he provided sources. – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 06:53
  • just because God does not have a body, does not mean He cannot reside inside the physical. He can be simultaneously inside every element of creation and this does not contradict His infinite essence since infinity + infinity is still infinity. – ray Nov 11 '13 at 06:56
  • 1
    @ray Who are you arguing at? The Rambam? – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 07:28
  • How does tzimtzum figure into this? –  Jun 29 '14 at 04:04
  • Of course, I suppose a better question is: did the Rambam believe in tzimtzum? –  Jun 29 '14 at 04:05
6

It depends on how you define Panentheism. You can take the word at face value, and then put anything into it that can fit that definition. That is what Wikipedia does, and it strikes me as very suspect. Certainly the inventor of the word didn't mean it that way - he meant to strike out a different religious philosophy different from Pantheism.

If you take the word at face value, it means:

  • Pan - all
  • En - in
  • Theism - G-d.

This is distinct from Pantheism where All is G-d - in other words G-d is the sum of the universe and nothing else, which is more reminiscent of those that worship the dust of their feet that Rashi speaks about.

That idea of Panentheism (that it means what the word roots say) maps with the Medrash that Yahu explores here, using that expanded definition (as defined by Wikipedia).

However, that isn't what Panentheism really means. Panentheism, as Miriam-Webster so succinctly defines means:

  • the doctrine that God includes the world as a part though not the whole of his being

That violates many doctrines of Judaism, including non-corporeality, G-d's Oneness, creation ex-nilo, etc.

However, to discuss the larger Wikipedia definition of Panentheism in a Jewish context, you could say that everyone that says the Tzimtzum is not literal (which emphatically includes the Ba'al HaTanya, but others as well - in fact some deny the Gr"a ever held differently, so they clearly don't hold that way, whatever the Gr"a held), which means that G-d transcends the world, and there is no place in the world where He is not present.

If you want to call that Panentheism, I guess you can, but it really bears no relationship to the philosophical/religious ideas that actively identify themselves with the word. Those ideas, from what I read (and see the links in this post) seem to all be about how the world is part of G-d, G-d is changed by the creation of the world, so in some way (apparently much like the Rambam describes the evolution of Avodah Zarah, each one comes along with a new twist) the world is part of an interactive system within G-d.

In the Tanya, the whole argument that G-d transcends the world is that G-d is unchanging and unchanged:

ועל כרחך אין ידיעתו אותם מוסיפה בו ריבוי וחידוש, מפני שיודע הכל בידיעת עצמו

and perforce His knowledge of them does not add plurality and innovation to Him, for He knows all by knowing Himself.

Were G‑d’s knowledge of created beings not to come from knowing Himself then it would be correct to say that this knowledge adds plurality and innovation to Him; previously He did not know them and now he does. However, since plurality and innovation cannot possibly apply to G‑d, He must perforce know them through His knowledge of Himself.

הרי כביכול מהותו ועצמותו ודעתו הכל אחד

Thus, as it were, His Essence and Being and His Knowledge of created beings are all one.

Since G‑d’s knowledge and Providence extend to this world, and since His knowledge is one with Him, it follows that G‑d Himself is to be found within this physical world. Unlike the king who sits in his palace and gazes beyond its walls, the King Himself is to be found wherever His Providence and knowledge are found.

True enough, it is only through divine service that this world may be transformed into a place in which G‑d is revealed. Nonetheless, G‑d is present in this lowly corporeal world, which feels itself to exist independently of Him, to the same degree as He is present within the higher spiritual worlds.

Community
  • 1
Yishai
  • 31,937
  • 1
  • 62
  • 130
  • Can you clarify what "the philosophical/religious ideas that actively identify themselves with the word" are and how they differ from the Baal Hatanya's theology? – Double AA Nov 14 '13 at 00:22
  • Do you feel the OP was unclear about the meaning he was looking for, given his link and his elaboration in the body of the post? – Double AA Nov 14 '13 at 00:58
  • @Double AA, I don't think it is inherently clear, and any answer has to very clearly lay out the terms. "enclothed" "manifestation" can mean different things depending on how you are defining Panentheism. – Yishai Nov 14 '13 at 01:25
  • 2
    @Yishai If "there is no place where God is not," then why did Onkelos in his Targum work so hard to always use the kinui that "the Word [i.e. created expression] of HaShem was [in such-and-such a place]" and not simply "HaShem was [in such-and-such a place]"? Was it not always to remove the Transcendent Cause from identifications within space and time? If Onkelos was a Panentheist (as I assume you would maintain), then why did he not just simply leave the text to read as it does? It seems to me that you are playing word games, instead of taking your ideas to logical conclusions. Kol tuv. –  Nov 14 '13 at 01:51
  • 1
    Also, God does not have parts. This is also the exact language of the 1st four principles of Jewish Faith. There is no such thing as "a part of His Being." The problem is that the early authorities strove to define the spirituality of man's soul and left God to be explained through mashal/hida and negative attributes. Later Qabbalah tried instead to define - as it were - God. And in doing so, they created nothing but error. And grave error at that. Anyone familiar with the hashqafic history of Jewish literature understands this - i.e. mi she-mevin yavin. Kol tuv. –  Nov 14 '13 at 01:55
  • @Maimonist, Because the texts are speaking about Hashem's interaction with the world. His transcendental presence is unchanged and unchanging. That is the whole thesis of why it is so - it never changes, so He never went away. That isn't the case with the methods that Hashem uses to be revealed or experienced in the world. So if a Posuk is speaking about Hashem being revealed in a specific place, that is not Hashem directly, rather as Onkelos translates it. Himself is beyond revelation or concealment. ולא מכל אלין מדות כלל – Yishai Nov 14 '13 at 04:21
  • @Maimonist, regarding G-d does not have parts. 100%, that is what I was saying with it contradicting G-d's Oneness. I don't think any Kabbalists say what you accuse them of saying, but in any event I know that the Ba'al HaTanya emphatically doesn't. פשוט בתכלית הפשיטות is the technical term in Chassidus for G-d having absolutely no division, parts, level, etc. – Yishai Nov 14 '13 at 04:26
  • 3
    @Yishai Need we go any futher than the Tanya's statement of "Chelek Elokai Mi-Maal Mamash"? Chassidus DOES believe that God has parts. They function in their practical philosophy as though they fully believe this. I have heard it with my own ears and read it with my own eyes. Making verbal statements to the contrary does not change anything. It is like Christians promoting a very clear form of polytheism with the Trinity but then making a verbal statement that they really do only believe in "one god." This is mere lip service, as are the words of Chassidus. –  Nov 14 '13 at 12:05
  • 1
    @Maimonist, do you not know that חלק אלה ממעל is a posuk in Iyov? Anyway the concept is an Mashal, as explain in the source where Tanya gets it from (including the word ממש). The soul is G-dly, and has no nature in it other than a G-dly one, just like a part of something has nothing different in it than the thing itself. I suspect you don't understand the distinction between G-dly (אלוקות) and G-d, and read the latter into references to the former. – Yishai Nov 14 '13 at 14:45
  • 1
    @Yishai In the pasuk it is coupled with נחלה. It's meaning is closer to an "apportion" not "a portion". Plus, the fact that the quote is an allusion to something doesn't make it equally valid. Why did you bother stating it is pasuk, as if that was relevant? – Double AA Nov 14 '13 at 17:45
  • 1
    @DoubleAA, yes, that is the פשט meaning, as with חלק ה' עמו (see the linked source), that is why the word ממש is added, like מלכים ממש in Rashi. I think ultimately a simplistic claim that חלק ה' ממעל means G-d has parts falls apart when you understand the reasons for the word choice. The first reason (as in the reason of the source) is to use the words of a pasuk. – Yishai Nov 14 '13 at 19:00
  • @Yishai The pasuq is taken out of context. And to say that our soul is a "chelek" means a piece! And if we all have one, then God - by this reasoning - has pieces/parts! This is not difficult to understand. I am fully conversant in the Tanya and have the book on my shelf. I am fairly fluid in the concepts of Chabad Chassidus as well - I can tell you that these are nothing other than word games. What you are saying is יש לו גוף, הוא כח בגוף, and יש לו חלקים. Your statements mean what they mean regardless of your denials of this fact. And you are confusing - as many adherents to mysticism do –  Nov 15 '13 at 04:24
  • the peshat and derash/sod. Assuming that the pasuq in Iyov truly has the mystical meaning on some level that you are attributing to it (and I do not believe this to be so), this does not make it simply another peshat. I.e. the peshat is always true while the derash and/or sod levels remain subject to dispute and are not necessarily "true." It is an error to simply equate "derash" with a "[mystical] peshat." And when Rashi said "malakhim mamash" he meant it. Mamash meant "literally" and was not a reference to some immaterial being - otherwise his comment has no meaning. I feel this to be an
    • –  Nov 15 '13 at 04:28
  • INTENSELY important topic and absolutely foundational to Judaism, but a dialogue cannot take place with those who will not admit to meaning of their own words. Kol tuv. –  Nov 15 '13 at 04:30
  • 1
    @Maimonist, you completely misconstrue everything (that you address of what) I said. Your claim is not different that saying the Rambam says הוא הידוע which means G-d is creation with all its multitude of parts (that is the meaning of ידוע in the sentence), and all the other statements about אין לו גוף are all word games. The Rambam isn't just panentheist, he is pantheist. Tanya in particular and Chassidus are filled with אין לו גוף ודמות הגוף, and go at great lengths to explain how עצמות is unaffected by everything else, and isn't anything else. – Yishai Nov 15 '13 at 14:27
  • If you want to understand more, check out Mitzvas HeManas HaElokus in Derech Mitzvosecha from the Tzemach Tzedek. It is very long, but you get the point in the first few paragraph chapters. – Yishai Nov 15 '13 at 14:34
  • 1
    @Yishai The Rambam is pantheist?! You are making wild claims now. NO ONE in the entire Jewish world would uphold such a statement. And your understanding of "ha-yadua`" meaning "the [physical] object which is known" is simply INCORRECT. The Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim explains what he means by this, and he does not purport your own [or Chabad's] conclusions. The Rambam also says that our own intellects can fit this description as well, with the exception that knowledge for us is something added to us from outside. I do not need to read Chabad literature, you need to properly learn the Rambam. –  Nov 17 '13 at 00:25
  • @Maimonist, reread what I said. I never claimed the Rambam was a Pantheist. I said your claims about chassidic philosophy are as absurd and ill-informed as saying that he was. – Yishai Nov 17 '13 at 00:49