מה שכתב המורה שלנמנע טבע קיים קיום עומד. המצרף דבריו בכמה מקומות יראה שאין בהם נפתל, שכל זה הוא מצד ידיעתנו, אבל מצדו ית' אין שום הכרח וטבע קיים אף לנמנע.
Maimonides on the Impossible The author offers further examples of how the Rambam can be read as a mystic; though it requires, at times, a complex, inter-textual reading.
2
ואף במה שכתב (בחמשה עשר משלישי) שלנמנע טבע קיים קיום עומד אינו מפעולת פועל אי אפשר השתנות כלל, ומפני זה לא יתואר השם ביכולת עליו. ואשר מזה הוציא הר' אבונוט אברהם באגרתו הנדפס בשו"ת הרשב"א (סימן תי"ח) אשר עתידים אנו לברר סתירת דעה זאת שהיא לא כדעת חז"ל, אכן אלו הדברים מכשילים את האוחז בגולמם, אבל האוחז בצורתם יראה כי כבר רמז עליהם הרמב"ם ז"ל כדרכו, וכמו שכתב לתלמידו שחילק דברים במקומות שונים, וכל הלומד המקום אחד יקשה עליו. אך להזוכר דבריו שמרמז עליהם במקום אחר ומצרפם, יראה כי אין בהם נפתל ועקש, וכמו שכתב הרמב"ם ז"ל בפתיחה להמורה ובמכתביו. וגם על דבריו אלו רמז עליהם באיזה מקומות אם יחפרו אוכל משם יראו עומק כוונתו, שאף שלנמנע טבע קיים קיום עומד. אכן בפרק כ"ז משני כתב שכל סדר הטבע הוא נברא, ובפרק כ"ח משני כתב שכן הוא הרצון בהטבע שלא תשתנה ורק מצד הנהגה נסית כמו שמפרש שם בפרק כ"ט משני. ובפרק עשרים משלישי שם גילה מצפוני לבו בכל ענין הזה, שכל מה שכתב בהפרקים הנ"ל הוא רק לפי ידיעתנו היינו ידיעת הנבראים, אבל ידיעת הבורא אינה בגדר ידיעתנו כלל וכמ"ש (בעשרים משלישי) שהש"י עצמו מדעו ומדעו עצמו וכו' ואין שיתוף בין ידיעתנו וידיעתו, כמו שאין שיתוף בין עצמנו ועצמו. וממילא מוכח שכל מה שכתב הוא רק כפי ידיעתנו, אבל מצד ידיעת הש"י אין שום דבר שהוא בידיעתנו טבע קיים, בהכרח שגם אצלו יתברך תהיה הכרחי, שאצלו ית' אין שום הכרח ואין שום טבע קיים, אף לנמנעות:
The Rambam makes the following claim in the Guide, “The impossible has a stable nature, one whose stability is constant and not made by a maker; it is impossible to change in any way. Hence the power over the maker of the impossible is not attributed to the Deity.”119Maimonides offers several examples of impossibilities that God Himself can not change. In the field of geometric impossibilities, for instance, he mentions the impossibility of a square having a diagonal that is equal to the length of one of its sides, or an triangle that contains three right angles. In the realm of theology, he mentions limitations on God’s power of creation, namely that God cannot create a being equal to Himself, or annihilate Himself, or become a body. There are different opinions among philosophers as to whether God can create an accident which exists alone. Concerning this statement, Rav Abonnot Avraham responded in his letter printed in the responsa of the RaShb”A (418) that in the future it will be clear that this view of the Rambam’s is not consistent with the view of the sages. Indeed, these kinds of statements are misleading for those who seize them in their outer form. Yet for one who looks into their inner meaning will see that the Rambam in his inimitable style has already hinted at this idea a number of times. Remember that he wrote in a letter to his student that his complete view is found in several different places, and the reader cannot understand his view from reading just one place. The careful student of the Rambam who remembers where he previously hinted at this idea and joins it to the above statement will see that there is nothing corrupt or faulty in his view. The introduction to the Guide also mentions that his view is only understood from a complete reading. When the Rambam says, “the impossible has a stable nature, one whose stability is constant,” he also hints in these words that there are other places where one has to dig for its meaning, as he found it necessary there not to reveal it outright. In chapter 27 of the second section he writes that the entire order of nature was created. In chapter 28 he writes that it is God’s will that nature should not change, save for the occurrence of miracles. In chapter 29 he explains that our sages viewed miracles as something built into nature at the time of creation, and waiting to occur at the proper time. In this way, a miracle is not really a change in nature. Then in chapter 20 of the third section the Rambam really shows his hand on the whole matter. There he says that all that was written in the above mentioned chapters is only true according to human knowledge, or from the perspective of created beings. However, the Creator’s knowledge cannot be compared whatsoever to man’s knowledge. There he writes that “God’s knowledge is His essence, and His essence is His knowledge … for the selfsame incapacity that prevents our intellects from apprehending His essence also prevents us from apprehending His knowledge of things as they are. For this knowledge is not of the same species as ours so that we can draw an analogy with regard to it, but rather a totally different thing.” It follows from this that all he had written with regarding to how the Deity had no power over the impossible is true only according within the limitations of human knowledge. God, however, from His perspective, is not obliged by the human intellects definitions of the possible and the impossible. This is further explained in the Beit Yaakov itself.120Beit Yaakov (HaKollel), Parshat Vayeira, section 57.
מה שכתב המורה שלנמנע טבע קיים קיום עומד. המצרף דבריו בכמה מקומות יראה שאין בהם נפתל, שכל זה הוא מצד ידיעתנו, אבל מצדו ית' אין שום הכרח וטבע קיים אף לנמנע.
Maimonides on the Impossible
The author offers further examples of how the Rambam can be read as a mystic; though it requires, at times, a complex, inter-textual reading.
ואף במה שכתב (בחמשה עשר משלישי) שלנמנע טבע קיים קיום עומד אינו מפעולת פועל אי אפשר השתנות כלל, ומפני זה לא יתואר השם ביכולת עליו. ואשר מזה הוציא הר' אבונוט אברהם באגרתו הנדפס בשו"ת הרשב"א (סימן תי"ח) אשר עתידים אנו לברר סתירת דעה זאת שהיא לא כדעת חז"ל, אכן אלו הדברים מכשילים את האוחז בגולמם, אבל האוחז בצורתם יראה כי כבר רמז עליהם הרמב"ם ז"ל כדרכו, וכמו שכתב לתלמידו שחילק דברים במקומות שונים, וכל הלומד המקום אחד יקשה עליו. אך להזוכר דבריו שמרמז עליהם במקום אחר ומצרפם, יראה כי אין בהם נפתל ועקש, וכמו שכתב הרמב"ם ז"ל בפתיחה להמורה ובמכתביו. וגם על דבריו אלו רמז עליהם באיזה מקומות אם יחפרו אוכל משם יראו עומק כוונתו, שאף שלנמנע טבע קיים קיום עומד. אכן בפרק כ"ז משני כתב שכל סדר הטבע הוא נברא, ובפרק כ"ח משני כתב שכן הוא הרצון בהטבע שלא תשתנה ורק מצד הנהגה נסית כמו שמפרש שם בפרק כ"ט משני. ובפרק עשרים משלישי שם גילה מצפוני לבו בכל ענין הזה, שכל מה שכתב בהפרקים הנ"ל הוא רק לפי ידיעתנו היינו ידיעת הנבראים, אבל ידיעת הבורא אינה בגדר ידיעתנו כלל וכמ"ש (בעשרים משלישי) שהש"י עצמו מדעו ומדעו עצמו וכו' ואין שיתוף בין ידיעתנו וידיעתו, כמו שאין שיתוף בין עצמנו ועצמו. וממילא מוכח שכל מה שכתב הוא רק כפי ידיעתנו, אבל מצד ידיעת הש"י אין שום דבר שהוא בידיעתנו טבע קיים, בהכרח שגם אצלו יתברך תהיה הכרחי, שאצלו ית' אין שום הכרח ואין שום טבע קיים, אף לנמנעות:
The Rambam makes the following claim in the Guide, “The impossible has a stable nature, one whose stability is constant and not made by a maker; it is impossible to change in any way. Hence the power over the maker of the impossible is not attributed to the Deity.”119Maimonides offers several examples of impossibilities that God Himself can not change. In the field of geometric impossibilities, for instance, he mentions the impossibility of a square having a diagonal that is equal to the length of one of its sides, or an triangle that contains three right angles. In the realm of theology, he mentions limitations on God’s power of creation, namely that God cannot create a being equal to Himself, or annihilate Himself, or become a body. There are different opinions among philosophers as to whether God can create an accident which exists alone. Concerning this statement, Rav Abonnot Avraham responded in his letter printed in the responsa of the RaShb”A (418) that in the future it will be clear that this view of the Rambam’s is not consistent with the view of the sages. Indeed, these kinds of statements are misleading for those who seize them in their outer form. Yet for one who looks into their inner meaning will see that the Rambam in his inimitable style has already hinted at this idea a number of times. Remember that he wrote in a letter to his student that his complete view is found in several different places, and the reader cannot understand his view from reading just one place. The careful student of the Rambam who remembers where he previously hinted at this idea and joins it to the above statement will see that there is nothing corrupt or faulty in his view. The introduction to the Guide also mentions that his view is only understood from a complete reading. When the Rambam says, “the impossible has a stable nature, one whose stability is constant,” he also hints in these words that there are other places where one has to dig for its meaning, as he found it necessary there not to reveal it outright. In chapter 27 of the second section he writes that the entire order of nature was created. In chapter 28 he writes that it is God’s will that nature should not change, save for the occurrence of miracles. In chapter 29 he explains that our sages viewed miracles as something built into nature at the time of creation, and waiting to occur at the proper time. In this way, a miracle is not really a change in nature. Then in chapter 20 of the third section the Rambam really shows his hand on the whole matter. There he says that all that was written in the above mentioned chapters is only true according to human knowledge, or from the perspective of created beings. However, the Creator’s knowledge cannot be compared whatsoever to man’s knowledge. There he writes that “God’s knowledge is His essence, and His essence is His knowledge … for the selfsame incapacity that prevents our intellects from apprehending His essence also prevents us from apprehending His knowledge of things as they are. For this knowledge is not of the same species as ours so that we can draw an analogy with regard to it, but rather a totally different thing.” It follows from this that all he had written with regarding to how the Deity had no power over the impossible is true only according within the limitations of human knowledge. God, however, from His perspective, is not obliged by the human intellects definitions of the possible and the impossible. This is further explained in the Beit Yaakov itself.120Beit Yaakov (HaKollel), Parshat Vayeira, section 57.