2

Did God acquire or improve His good "qualities" (ex. wisdom, kindness, righteousness) or were they always a part of Him?

(we can see for example, that God possesses the characteristics of wisdom and also power, as evidenced by His works such as the electron, the cell, the human brain, the laws of physics, etc.)

if the latter, would it be some kind of extra aspect in man that he is able to acquire these things on his own? (since earning righteousness of your own free will is in a sense superior than having it innately)

(or perhaps we should not be talking about these things for they are beyond our grasp)

ray
  • 21,206
  • 2
  • 45
  • 103
  • 1
    Malachi 3:6 6.For I, the Lord, have not changed – rosends Jun 19 '15 at 11:42
  • @Danno maybe this refers to our perspective of change not His – ray Jun 19 '15 at 11:50
  • 1
    maybe http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/29116/1362 – rosends Jun 19 '15 at 12:05
  • 1
    The notion of HaShem acquiring qualities is anachronistic, as is even the notion of Him possessing independent qualities (despite the necessary anthropopathisms in Tanach). See the relevant discussion, for example, in חובות הלבבות (Sha'ar HaYichud, ch. 8-10, but especially ch. 10), in addition to the relevant passages from the Ramchal cited in yEz's answer below). – Fred Jun 19 '15 at 20:06
  • 1
    And see Da'as Tevunos Siman 46 for more on that. cc @Fred – Y     e     z Jun 19 '15 at 20:15
  • 1
    This is really a game of semantics, rather than philosophy. Perfection cannot be improved. God is perfect and therefore cannot be improved. Man is imperfect and therefore can always improve. This only seems like an advantage of Man, since as humans we associate the potential for growth as an advantage. However, we only make this association because our baseline is imperfection. However, there is no intrinsic downside in not being able to improve, if one's starting point is perfection. – mevaqesh Jun 19 '15 at 21:11
  • 1
    God is perfect, and cannot be improved. Thinking that this is a problem is like saying that God's inability to not do something is a limitation; ultimately this is a mere word game using a double negative, rather than a philosophic problem. – mevaqesh Jun 19 '15 at 21:11
  • @Fred curious what your thoughts are on http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/60484/4794 – Y     e     z Jun 22 '15 at 02:41
  • @mevaqesh i hear what you mean. but isnt it in a sense greater to build yourself rather than to be built. this is the advantage of man over the angels, right? – ray Jun 22 '15 at 21:12
  • @ray without knowing much about angels, I would assume that unlike God, hey are imperfect. Men too are imperfect. Thus, perhaps it would be correct to say that the greatness that men have over angels, is their ability to grow. However, this greatness isnt the "objective greatness", however that would be defined) but rather the subjective greatness. (the angels objective advantages are quite likely superior to that of Man). God is objectively perfect, and thus objectively superior to all. God cant win the "Most Improved" trophy, since he already has the "Best Player" award. – mevaqesh Jun 22 '15 at 22:18
  • One can only have one of these and the "Objectively perfect Player" beats "Most Improved" – mevaqesh Jun 22 '15 at 22:20

4 Answers4

2

I believe the answer to the question as phrased is "neither."

Hashem's "good qualities" are not a part of Him - they are something with which He chooses to act, but they are not part of Who He is.

The Ramchal in Da'as Tevunos Siman 80 makes this point very clearly:

ואמנם אנחנו משיגים בכבודו ית' מדות פרטיות, כגון, הרחמנות, הממשלה, הכח, המשפט, החמלה, הכעס, התוקף, וכיוצא בזה, כל המדות שאנחנו משיגים בו - מצד פעולותיו הם, אותם המדות שהנביאים משיגים בו מן הקודם אל המאוחר, לפי שהוא ית' נותן להם השגה זאת. ולפי ההשגה הזאת שהשגנו בכבודו, אנו מכנים אותו ית' בכינויים האלה, רחמן, מושל, אמיץ, שופט, וכיוצא...לא מפני זה נאמר שהוא ית' לפי שלמותו יש בו כחות אלה בשיעורים אלה, אלא כל זה תלוי ברצונו ית', וכמו שבארנו, שהוא אדון לשנות כל זה; ואדרבה, בשלמותו אין לנו לשער שום שיעור כלל. אמנם לפי שהוא רוצה לתפוס באלה המדות, ולפעול בדרך זה, על כן ניחס אליו כינויים אלה. ולא נבין באמרנו שהקב"ה רחמן, לומר שעצמותו ית' לפי עצמו הוא כן, כמו שהיינו אומרים על אדם שיש תכונה זו בנפשו להיות רחמן - שכך מוטבע במזגו, שיהיה מושג ונתפס ממנו ענינו אפילו באיזה צד ח"ו, כי זה אין לנו לחשוב כלל, כי אי אפשר לדעת מענינו ית' מה שהוא לפי עצמו באמת כלל ועיקר. אבל כשנקראהו רחמן, נבין שהוא רוצה במדה אחת, שהיא מדת רחמנות, מדה שאינה לפי עצמו, אבל היא לפי ערך הנבראים, ומשוערת בשיעורם.

We grasp Hashem's presence through specific attributes, such as mercy, rulership, strength, justice... all of the attributes that we grasp of Him - we grasp from the perspective of His actions, those attributes that the Prophets grasp of Him, as He gives them this perception. And it is according to this perception that we refer to Him with these terms, Merciful, Ruler, Strong, Judge, etc... and we do not say that because of this He in His perfection has these attributes in these particularly measurements, but rather it is all according to His will, and He can change it at will. And on the contrary, according to His perfect completeness we cannot give any measure at all. However, since he has chosen to use these attributes, and to act through them, therefore we use these terms. And we are not to understand when we say that He is merciful, that He in His essence is so, like we would say about a person who has this character trait in him to be merciful, that such is ingrained in his nature... as we are not to think such a thing at all, as it is impossible to know about Him that which He is in His essence. But when we call Him merciful, we are meant to understand that He wants to act with a certain attribute which is mercy, which is not according to His essence, but is in accordance with the state of the created existence... (translation mine)

So Hashem neither acquired nor started with His qualities - He, in His essence, has no qualities that we can discuss.

In response to the second point, Ramchal in Derech Hashem 1:2:2 seems to imply the reverse - that which is given to a person may be lower than that which he achieves on his own, but that which is innate and inherent to something is the highest level:

כי הנה הוא יתברך שמו שלם בעצמו, ולא במקרה, אלא מצד אמיתת עניינו מוכרח בו השלימות, ומשוללים ממנו החסרונות בהכרח. ואולם זה אי אפשר שיימצא בזולתו, שיהיה אמיתתו מכרחת לו השלימות ומעדרת ממנו החסרונות. אך להתדמות לזה במקצת, צריך שלפחות יהיה הוא הקונה השלימות שאין אמיתת עניינו מכריח לו, ויהיה הוא מעדיר מעצמו החסרונות שהיו אפשריים בו

He is perfect in essence, and not incidentally, but inherent in the G-d concept is that perfection is by definition, and all deficiencies are absent by definition. However, this is impossible to exist by anything other than Him, that perfection should be by definition. However, to be a little bit like Him, it is necessary to at least acquire the perfection which is not by definition, and be the one who prevents the possible deficiencies from himself...

The Ramchal sets up Hashem's innate perfection as the pedestal that we try to come close to in some small way by achieving our own perfection.

Community
  • 1
Y     e     z
  • 58,536
  • 3
  • 109
  • 249
  • can you say that God is good in the sense that He is not the opposite? just like the chovos halevavos says that it is more accurate to say that He is not plural rather than that He is one – ray Jun 20 '15 at 19:13
  • @ray See Moreh Nevochim 1:58 - you can describe Hashem as lacking any deficiency, but that is only because it is definition by negation. – Y     e     z Jun 21 '15 at 03:07
  • anyone care to explain the downvote? – Y     e     z Jun 21 '15 at 03:12
  • http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/60073/1856 – user813801 Jun 21 '15 at 12:13
  • @user813801 I don't know if that is meant to explain either of the downvotes, but that is an unfortunate gross misunderstanding of that line. R' Chaim Friedlander and R' Yaakov Weinberg both bemoaned the heresy that resulted from people lacking the necessary background to understand that statement in context. R' Tzadok in Resisei Laila explicitly makes the point that that does not mean to say that Hashem is in His essence good, and the Ramchal himself in Pischei Chochma V'Da'as Klal Rishon says that Hashem's desire to do good, and מחק הטוב להטיב, is itself a creation of Hashem. – Y     e     z Jun 21 '15 at 17:42
  • 1
    The question was about "good" but you addressed "good qualities". – HaLeiVi Jun 21 '15 at 19:31
  • @HaLeiVi this is a direct quote from the question, tell me what you think about it "Did God acquire or improve His *good qualities*" – Y     e     z Jun 21 '15 at 20:14
  • @HaLeiVi just in case someone would be confused about those words and think he meant "good" instead of "good qualities", the OP was kind enough to give some examples of good qualitites. You could see them at the top of this page. – Y     e     z Jun 21 '15 at 20:15
  • @HaLeiVi he also put it in the title, in case that's all someone would read. – Y     e     z Jun 21 '15 at 20:22
  • OK, I guess he did. BTW, I wasn't trying to explain any downvotes. I don't know why anyone downvoted your answer. If not for my upvote you'd be left in the negative. I believe your answer is helpful but just that it addresses a certain aspect, of specific Midos, and not -- as I understand the main question here -- about His greatness. – HaLeiVi Jun 21 '15 at 23:19
  • would you agree that it is more correct to say that God is good rather than that He is evil. technically you're right, we cant describe Him but we have to use human terms. – ray Jun 22 '15 at 04:57
  • or that He is wise based on the wisdom manifested in nature – ray Jun 22 '15 at 16:34
  • @ray It is "more" correct to say that He has any positive trait over any negative, just as it would be "more" correct to say He is merciful, but that is exactly what one must know - when you describe Him as 'merciful' you are saying that you experience Him as merciful, but not that He is merciful. And so with all such attributes. – Y     e     z Jun 22 '15 at 19:09
  • but He is merciful. granted we cant really attach a label to Him. but it is a part of His essence to tend towards being merciful, no? – ray Jun 22 '15 at 20:12
  • @ray no, that is what the Ramchal is making sure you understand. That is a critical mistake. First off, His essence has no "parts." But worse than that, if you assign "tendancies" to Hashem, then you give Him attributes which cause Him to act in certain ways. The Ramchal's entire argument is that Hashem does not act merciful because that's just Who He is and it would go against His nature to act differently. He absolutely chooses how He wants to act, without any personality traits that would influence Him to act one way over another. – Y     e     z Jun 22 '15 at 20:16
  • @ray to put it in other words, if there is some "value" called "mercy" which exists as "part" of Hashem's essence, meaning prior to Hashem's creating anything, who created that value? If Hashem created it, then it isn't part of His essence. If something else created it, then Hashem is limited by values imposed from something else, which is obviously untenable. That is really the point of the letter from R' Alcastille which I quoted here – Y     e     z Jun 22 '15 at 20:23
  • then what, He is not more good than He is evil? are you saying He is no more one way than the other? – ray Jun 22 '15 at 21:08
  • @ray This is why the first thing the Ramchal tells you in Derech Hashem is that you cannot understand His essence. In His essence, He has no attributes. – Y     e     z Jun 22 '15 at 21:30
  • yes. of course. but at His level He is good. perhaps we can say the ultimate good. the most real good. despite having total free will and all. – ray Jun 22 '15 at 21:38
  • @ray if that's what makes you happy. Perhaps at His level He is also the ultimate yellow. – Y     e     z Jun 22 '15 at 21:38
1

Saying G-d is good or bad is an anthropomorphism. G-d created what we call good and bad, and it is thus within G-d. Thus we equate holiness and G-dliness with good, because based on the mitzvot following in the ways of holiness is "good".

So G-d has not acquired good...good was created.

Jamezrp
  • 139
  • 3
  • so why would He care whether we choose good or bad. neither are absolutes – ray Jun 23 '15 at 20:30
  • By the contrary, both are absolutes to us. Our perspective is the one that matters since we can't understand the oneness of existence like G-d sees it. All we can do is follow the guidance given in the Torah to determine what is good and what isn't. Because ultimately what is good is what G-d wants. – Jamezrp Jun 23 '15 at 20:53
  • Are you saying that being more G-dly is a created goodness and not inherently so? – HaLeiVi Jun 24 '15 at 04:07
  • Yes. Everything was created, including goodness and holiness. Think of it as connection versus disconnection instead of good versus evil. Goodness or holiness builds up your connection. Actions that build up the connection are good, holy. Actions that degrade that connection are bad, unholy. – Jamezrp Jun 24 '15 at 23:36
-3

Hashem is Goodness itself. The point of Bechira is to bring out the potential goodness you have. Whether or not you will triumph over your evil desires depends on how good you really are. The merit of tested goodness over untested is merely that it was shown to be deeply good. Hashem is the source of all good.

In fact, the power a person has to overcome his desires is all from Hashem. The question during a Nesayon is how much Godliness you have. God is God.

Nevertheless, as it turns out, the Ramchal explains that the purpose of creation was in fact to create a scenario in which the good will overcome the evil. Hashem did in fact set up an existence in which there is apparently evil in operation, just so that there will be a triumph of the good.

So, the answer is: both.

HaLeiVi
  • 4,993
  • 16
  • 27
  • Ramchal explains at great length in Da'as Tevunos siman 38-40 that the purpose of creation was to show the depth of His oneness, and good and evil were just the vehicle for doing so, but the triumph of good over evil is just a means, not a purpose in itself. – Y     e     z Jun 21 '15 at 03:11
  • @yEz He describes החזרת הרע למוטב as the idea which shows his oneness, and the idea upon which everything is based. This is the point in our triumph over desire as well. What I am showing in my answer is that Hashem has both מעלות, innately good and triumphs over all evil. – HaLeiVi Jun 21 '15 at 04:41
  • the statement "the purpose of creation was in fact..." is what I was responding to - that is inaccurate. And I think calling Hashem innately good is actually a violation of one of the 13 principles of faith and tantamount to heresy according to several Rishonim – Y     e     z Jun 21 '15 at 17:32
  • @yEz I think you are making a mistake. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14193&pgnum=232 – HaLeiVi Jun 21 '15 at 19:29
  • I'm not sure what part I was mistaken about, the Rambam and Chovos HaLevavos make this point, as well as רוב מנין ובנין of the chochmei Kabbalah. And you are still inaccurate about your depiction of the Ramchal's position. – Y     e     z Jun 21 '15 at 20:24
  • What exactly is inaccurate? He says very plainly that the whole function of everything is והוא עשהו, ועוד בטלו, ונראה יחודו בשלמות. And have a look at https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%A1_%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%93_%D7%99 for a good understanding of the תוארים before they were defined. – HaLeiVi Jun 21 '15 at 22:47
  • I don't want to repeat myself. Ramchal says fairly clearly that גילוי יחוד is the תכלית and ביטול הרע is the means to that end, not a means unto itself. You could take a look at p. כג of the Friedlander printing of Da'as Tevunos, and particularly footnote 43 there in case the text itself isn't explicit enough about it. – Y     e     z Jun 22 '15 at 02:21
  • They are the same. Gilui Yichud through Bittul Hara. I wrote this after explaining that even for a human, winning over your desire during a Nesayon is secondary to what it brings out. I went on to say that HKBH is doing the same by using conquering the רע to show what was always there. – HaLeiVi Jun 22 '15 at 02:42
  • Yes but what was always there is not טוב, but שליטה and שלילת כל זולתו. – Y     e     z Jun 22 '15 at 02:44
  • He actually writes that Ra was only there in the negative form, of what Hashem isn't. If by Tov you mean the good that you know of, then obviously it wasn't around, it formed. However, I explained that Tov is general goodness, positive, existence. When we say אור אין סוף, it is exactly what we mean, endless undefined greatness, which is obviously all only good. – HaLeiVi Jun 22 '15 at 03:04
-5

It says that at first Hashem was בונה עולמות ומחריבן - creating worlds and destroying them . It seems to be saying that for the animal world, Hashem played around until He got it right, or perhaps until He became perfect, but with us humans, we have our 6000 years to 'get it right' to achieve perfection. It doesn't matter it this 'experimentation' actually occurred or not, its more of Hashem telling us we will have to get our act done and reach perfection, just like He 'had' to.

Aryeh Beitz
  • 173
  • 1
  • 7
  • 1
    I'd prefer the OP's parenthetical last paragraph over this. Please, be careful about such statements. – HaLeiVi Jun 21 '15 at 05:18
  • Maybe you could explain. What is OP, and why is my carefully worded answer more heretical than the original question? – Aryeh Beitz Jun 22 '15 at 00:18
  • User3548935 in the future, you should use the "@" ping to make sure someone gets your response to them. OP stands for Original Poster, the one who posted the question. cc@HaLeiVi – Y     e     z Jun 22 '15 at 02:45